Big Day for Ron Paul in FL - Debate Wrapup (see comments)

Dear Everyone, Please make sure you send in a donation to the campaign before the September 30 third quarter deadline!

From the Free Market News:

Ron Paul, riding a surge of momentum, will be in Florida on Monday, September 17 for three events. First is a VIP Reception at the Ft. Lauderdale River House. Second is the Values Voters’ Presidential Debate sponsored by the American Family Association and moderated by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily;

The debate will be broadcast live on Sky Angel, and rebroadcast on the Inspiration (INSP) Network, the DayStar Television Network, God TV and TBN Nejat TV, which covers the entire Middle East and Europe. It will also be streamed live on pro-family websites including ValuesVoterDebate.com and AFA.net, and heard live on the VCY and AFA radio networks. (thanks jdmack2000 for the info)

Third is a rally at the Las Olas Riverwalk in Ft. Lauderdale sponsored by Miami-Dade Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.

The Values Debate will include six Republican candidates: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and John H. Cox. Refusing their invitation are Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. A Values Voters' Presidential Debate for Democrat Presidential candidates was planned for September 24, 2007 and all Democrat Presidential candidates refused to attend.

Las Olas Riverfront is just two blocks from the Broward Performing Arts Center where the debate will be simulcast from 7:45pm - 9:00pm. Metro Café provide a big screen TV and patch the debate through the sound system. Ron Paul will make an appearance after the debate.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pandering to Religious Nuts

Pandering to right-wing religious nuts who claim to believe in Jesus but do just the opposite is a bad move for Ron Paul's campaign.

His campaign would be better off sticking to legitimate debates about government rather than circle-jerk litmus tests over morality (which most Republicans lack these days anyway).

Let's keep the religion out of politics, thanks.

Sounded like a lot of booing...

for Ron Paul when he was giving his last remark. Why would so called "Christians" boo a man like RON PAUL?!?!?!?! That is ass backwards if you ask me. Someone should ask them (along with Huckabee), "WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?"

Prince of Peace

Huckabee is a war-mongering neoconservative, which means he is not a conservative at all. Please don't plead the "baptist" case for Huckabee, he is for more illegal preemptive war. The great thing about Paul is that he is not using his personal belief as a reason for people to vote for him, rather he is using his integrity and his positions on foreign policy and monetary policy which are consistent with the Bible. Huckabee is doing exactly the opposite, he is using his former title as a reason to vote for him, yet his positions on foreign and monetary policy are difficult to reconcile with his religion. As Paul said, Christ is the Prince of Peace. Does that make Paul a pacifist? No, Jesus was not a Pacifist, but He was a peacemaker. Remember, "blessed are the peacemakers," it is hard to see how we are being peacemakers by FORCEFULLY imposing a democratic government at GUNPOINT. How are we to be peacemakers with Iran? Well, I'm not sure, but I'm rather positive that bombing them with our shock and awe campaign is not the way to go. Huckabee, don't show me your titles, or your grandiose illustrations about honor and buying things that we've broken, show me a truly humble peacemaking foreign policy. If not, please don't play the religion card. This is the great thing about Paul, he wouldn't have mentioned his faith unless they asked him, because he is more interested in showing us his faith. I though he nailed everyone else to the wall last night with his answer on that question.

Baptists For Huckabee

Former Governor Michael D. "Mike" Huckabee
(Republican - Arkansas)

BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS:

POLITICAL: GOP nominee for US Senate, 1992. Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, 1993-96 (elected 1993 Special Election; re-elected 1994). Governor of Arkansas, 1996-2007 (elected 1998, re-elected 2002). Chair, National Governors Association, 2005-06.

PROFESSIONAL: Baptist Minister. President, Beech Street Communications (parent company of the UHF TV station owned by the Beech Street Baptist Church), 1986-92. President, Arkansas Baptist State Convention, 1989-91. Author.

EDUCATION: B.S. magna cum laude (Religion), Ouachita Baptist University, 1975. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, attended 1975-76.

PERSONAL: Born August 24, 1955, in Hope, Arkansas. Married to Janet McCain Huckabee. Southern Baptist.

i'm a baptist

I'm a baptist and I'm not for HUCKABEE!! when a "Christian" Pastor can get up in front of thousands of people and say its ok to go to war , after he admits its a mistake on national tv, and say you should stay in it even tho it was a mistake, is JUST WRONG! so Huckabee in his exchange with Ron Paul says it was wrong to go to war in Iraq.. but its ok to stay there and let another 5000 Americans and more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis Die because were in it?? Mr. Huckabee needs to revisite Vietnam! 50,000 men dead so that we can be trading partners with them 33 years later?. sorry Mr. Huckabee that is not true Christianity! War should be avoided at all costs! the time we as the American people go to war is when Army's are in landing craft storming our beeches! THEN EVERYONE GOES! and we wonder why we are so hated in the world.. we wonder why the terrorist organizations are growing. They have many more recruits because of our foriegn policy! its so simple folks all you have to do is think for yourselves.. don't let others do the thinking for you!

Baptists For Ron Paul:

Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Pastor John Killian
Vox Day
Revilre
Revilre's Dad :)

And of course: Ron Paul himself (according to USA Today, member of First Baptist Church, Lakewood TX).

So don't worry about the Baptists, they are going to come around for Ron Paul in due time. They just need to be reminded of a few things. But we're working on bringing them back around to their old principles of self determination (critical for Biblical salvation.)

Why this was a successful debate...

Ron Paul getting 2nd place is great!! Huckabee took 1st place because from what I read, he was a former preacher and from the same area. So, it was almost definite that he would win this debate. Again, none of their answers are backed with any logic, history or facts on sound principles.

In any case, we all know that Huckabee is not going to be a top tier contender. I think most people believe that the nomination will dwindle down to 3 candidates: Thompson, Guiliani and Ron Paul. This means that the Values Voter who were looking to vote for Huckabee will see Ron Paul as a better choice out of the three.

If the Value Voters are as influential toward nomination as they say they are...then I say, this is a great deal towards Ron Paul's nomination!!

RON PAUL WILL BE PRESIDENT.

Jack
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/724/

Jack Z.

"Let it not be said that we did nothing." -- Ron Paul

Re: 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, a post-Civil War bill, was conceived to strip the States' rights away from the States (in the guise of helping the people) and give the power to the Federal Government.

It was passed in D.C. with almost all of the Southern State representatives and Senators absent due to the war, and now forces Federal jurisdiction upon the States. Prior to this amendment, States were sovereign in their own rights, having their own Constitutions and laws outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

The purpose was to not allow dissent between the Fed and the States to get to the point of Civil War anymore. It was also put in place to not allow States to refuse citizenship to slaves, thus the US Citizen clause for persons born within the borders.

Instead, we now have D.C. legislating everything, from immunizations and prescription drugs to abortion and eminent domain property rights. And now you get legal battles on ridiculous issues, like medical marijuana (the Federal law vs. California law)...

I'd look to overturn or modify this amendment immediately if I were RP. I don't need to be a US Citizen and I don't need what it now deems "equal protection"- I can be a citizen of the sovereign State of Florida and protect myself with the 2nd amendment just fine, thank you.

These debates are a little silly....

I'm having a hard time watching these "so called" debates. They're not debates at all. They are baited invitations to answer pointed questions. If some of the so called, top tier, candidates are choosing to pass on these minor debates, I'm not so sure Ron Paul would be well advised to follow suit. Ron Paul's messege is factual, simple, and easy to understand, IF he is given the opportunity to articulate it, which he isn't. The campaign managers need to get him in quiet, educated discussions, and let his "statesmanship" shine. Leave these shrek formats behind. Unless, of course, Ron Paul enjoys these dog and pony shows. It's pretty obvious that the media is trying to portray Ron as an "outcast". Don't stand for it......go above their heads, and "create" your own media events - use the University Forums - College kids are a great source of energy (and votes).

alan laney

VOTE HERE

This was a Huckabee "We

This was a Huckabee "We Broke, We Bought it" crowd. I had already given Huckabee the win so to me 2nd place shows well with this crowd. Good things were said about Dr. Paul after the debate, so I would think Dr. Paul will get a lot of these votes later on down the line.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

RP should have taken a different approach

I watched the debate, and found it mostly painful to watch, mainly because of the format (red-green?) and the leading nature of a lot of the questions. Anyone versed in information theory out there should have noticed that the red-green responses had nearly ZERO information content, because with the exception of RP, they did nothing to differentiate the participants since they all gave the same answers.

Aside from that, I thought RP was good but not at his best tonight. I really wish RP had taken a very different approach with this debate and offered more of the libertarian position on why religion should stay far away from government. Many of the issues brought up --predictably-- came back to the root idea that government needs to take a stronger role in advocating religious goals. RP should have laid a better foundation of his perspective of the relationship between religion and government, so people wouldn't be left wondering "why does he want to starve Terry Shaivo to death?".

The position would not be difficult for RP to explain quickly. There are plenty of religious scholars who have argued to keep religion separate from government. There are very sound logical arguments. And history, particularly European history, is rife with very bad examples of what happens when religion and government get too inter-twined. Europe has become overwhelmingly secular in the last 50 years because of that history, and today, religion (Christianity at least) is much less influential there as compared to the US.

I'm not saying he should have swayed from his core message...come back to Iraq and blowback, etc, but when you're talking to a room full of devout Christians, give them the strongest message your principals make regarding their interests. I love how RP uses history in many of his arguments, I wish he had done more of that tonight.

Despite these thoughts, RP is an amazing man who did an admirable job tonight.

I agree too

Ron Paul made some great points but I think he could have made stronger appeals to religious voters if he had been strong on his pro-life stance, religious freedoms, 2nd amendment, and states rights. He could have talked about reducing gov't size and taxes.

He did really great on the question about being a Libertarian-Republican and thoughtfully explaining that Libertarian means believing in liberty.

wolfe's picture

I agree.

I saw it as well. And I came away feeling the same thing. This was the first time that I had ever felt that way after an RP debate (though I hadn't seen any of the others live).

The questions were so leading and so involved on many occasions that a single disagreement might throw out a positive vote. Many of these red/green questions had 5 or more elements.

In addition, this was a tough crowd because... They want their free speech and rights protected while also demanding that others have theirs restricted. So RP voted the way that they wanted on all of the freedom questions in regards to the freedoms that they wanted but then upset them when he voted and answered in ways that OTHER people with OTHER belief systems should have freedom as well.

Their God gave them freewill, is a government wiser or more inspired than God. Should it reserve the right to remove free will, even when God himself said he would not do so.

Nevertheless, painful to watch at many times.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

ANTI-WAR & THE CONSTITUTION DEBATE ????

Now that Dr. Paul has went to everybody elses home turf how about the ant-war movemnent get a debate going and lets see how many of these fine Christian men attend.

I hope somebody will pick-up on this one !!!!

RON PAUL WILL WIN !!!!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

It is frustrating to me to

It is frustrating to me to see Ron Paul wasting his valuable time and energy courting these Christian pro-war bigots who will never vote for him anyway. I would like to see his appearances aimed at the 18-25 year old crowd. He should speak on college campuses at anti-war rallies and, whenever possible, should bring Cindy Sheehan along to help draw a large crowd.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

HA!

that's just silly!

No one will come and no one will expect them to come.

I'd rather see him debate Kucinich one on one, almost as silly but we can get away from the war issue and show the anti-war liberals that there are better domestic policies than socialism and entitlements and big government, and maybe some MORE liberals that feel disenchanted with the Democratic establishment will come around and support the R or IND Ron Paul instead of Hillary.

They would surely trust him to do what he says and bring the troops home!

Funny how all the Reps know Hillary is the chosen one (they make remarks about it during the debates), but they don't admit that their party seems to work the same way with Rudy being annointed.

I guess that would kind of spoil the show, and we already have a spoiler at the party - RON PAUL!

Bold references to SPP, NA Union, etc.

I was rather struck by the very pointed questions regarding the SPP Partnership with Canada and Mexico, the North American Union and the "NAFTA Superhighway." (Every candidate there said they were against those initiatives.) I don't recall any mention of these issues in mainstream debates. Many talking heads are still claiming they are conspiracy theories. If nothing else, I'm glad those agendas are coming to the fore because those are issues most can rally behind. Everything else brought up tonight was very divisive.

All panderers except RP

I too was surprised by the attention given to these important issues in the debate. I wasn't surprised though that Ron Paul was not given one iota of the credit due him in bringing attention to and condemning these hideous agendas. And while all the candidates signaled that they were against NAU agendas I predict that all except Ron Paul were pandering to voters and won't hesitate to legislate any number of laws, regulations, treaties and whatever else that would further such intentions.

Ron Paul did GREAT !!!!

This was an extraordinary perfformance against all odds and to get 44 votes and stand strong to your principles is a VICTORY !

Right before this debate even started I was thinking if Ron Paul even came away with 20 votes or more I would be very happy, he came away with 44 on Muke Huckabees home turf ( former preacher ).

I agree with most of the comments written here but Ron Paul exposed the flaws that are being used against our Constitution he stuck by it and knocked a lot of people out of the running mainly Brownback who I thought would finish 2nd or 1st.

Huckabees stance on the flat tax at 26% is a joke it would be still be at a whopping tax cut of 2% which amounts to middle and lower income taxed workers of any purchases being made would have to pay that tax multiple times that would just wipe away all income after state,city,SS/medicare taxes that are still taken from the employees check.
Sample Grocery Bill $ 250.00 x 26% + state tax 7.5% = $83.75 just in taxes alone !!!

As the campaign goes on I see it coming down to Giuliani,Thompson & Ron Paul and the only way Ron Paul can lose is through the fixing of the votes at the ballot boxes.

WAY TO GO RON PAUL YOU DID GREAT !!!!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

37% Go god!

Milk poured the egg is scrambled... Pull thumb out of the dike and...

WHAT!

Ugh.
All the values voters won't even look at other candidates once the value voters have Chooosen.

Rigged! Oh no we where fair the guy uh had the last name Huckabee so we didn't let him do the prayer.

are you in tune with the world around you

Ron did just fine...

and better than 99% of us could have done. Strange twist, a man being thrown to the lions by Christians! They were gunnin' for him (like most events/commentators/politicians have been)! Wished at the time he would have used a minute to address some of his lone votes, but saving the time up for a good ending was wiser! I guess he is used to being a good man in a 'den of thieves'.
Could only get like three sentences from that Shafly gal about his performance before being sent to the endless 'buffering' zone, but she sounded pretty positve. Did she bear the teeth later?

THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

She showed Dr. Paul respect

She said he was a principled man, but because he was libertarian-leaning disagreed with some of his stances - but overall, I felt she would have no problem endorsing him if the Huckster fades away.

The Prince of Peace

comment should resonate with those who are more thoughtful than reactionary, and I'm guessing that she is in the former camp. I assume that she is the matriarch of this group? I'm not familiar with 'christian' organizations, nor 'republican' ones for that matter, because they (both) have always appeared hypocritical to me. It is very refreshing to have old beliefs challenged, and I'm finding out now that only MOST of these groups members are the personification of Keyes(damn, he's scary!). The Good Doctor is correct, freedom does unite! wrk

THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

Phyllis Schlafly

Yes, to some extent you are right. Phyllis Schlafly actually pre-dates the religious right movement, but was an early participant, and heads the Eagle Forum, one of the most prominent women's groups in that movement. However, she is an original Goldwater Republican, and at that time was author of the pivotal book "A Choice, Not An Echo" pointing out that conservatives didn't need to give in to the "Eastern Establishment" Republicans. One of her big issues now is opposition to the NAU. Essentially, she sees Ron Paul as a friend, as well as Tancredo and Hunter (and probably Keyes), and is probably quite skeptical of most of the others to varying degrees. I don't think it's a secret that she is diametrically opposed to Giuliani.

Essentially, I think she's probably our best friend among that constituency, both because of her keen understanding of the issues and her history in the political process. She remembers the days pre-Reagan, when a conservative had to stand up to be heard, and she's not afraid to do that when the time is right. Don't be surprised to see her on our side when the smoke clears.

For such a hostile environment...

Ron Paul did not pander at all to the crowd, and yet he still came in second place in the after-debate straw-poll they conducted!

There's hope for America yet!

Oh, and let me express my dismay in the "yes/no" format... Here's a question for you, yes or no answer only please: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Wow! the post debate commentary seems to be...

Very positive and respectful of Dr. Paul's libertarian views so far.
I think this was overall very good. I think Dr. Paul has shown respect for the evangelicals. I think when Huckabee gets winnowed out, Ron Paul will stand a great chance of getting their support.

Wow, huckabee sweeps (to be expected really in this crowd, him being a man of the cloth) The good Dr. comes in 2nd.

So, we see here that the Dr. finishes strong even outside his core group.
When the fundraising is released, He will be a mainstream candidate.

----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi

Please don't call Huckabee a "man of the cloth"

"man of the cloth" refers to roman catholicism, and despite my differences with Huckabee he is a Baptist - and as a Baptist myself I cringe at the idea of Baptist being rolled in with Catholicism.

Positive commentary

I agree, for the most part (aside from the extraodinarily predictable Huckabee leanings) it proves that this debate attempted to be fair. The commentators gave less-biased responses than expected and it was obvious that Paul is a major contender to people of all interests across the board. Half the people that attended were probably tied in with national or international faith-based programs and thus support their candidates by faith, which I agree to to an extent as a Christian; however my response is God gave us logic so why not vote based on reason and knowledge. Huckabee did a good job, his views on things are turning more and more toward Ron Pauls (like I mentioned earlier he actually proposed to abolish the IRS). I wonder if when Ron Paul mentioned at the Sept. 5 debate that one very famous person told him he was a liberatarian if it wasn't Huckabee. Still though, Ron Paul saved his minutes and gave another awe-inspiring speech. I think in the long run the evangelical voters will chose Ron Paul over any other Republican candidate should Ron Paul win over Huckabee in the primaries.

Huckabee and the IRS

Yes the Huckster said he would abolish the IRS but he will need someone or something to collect his 26% un-fair tax? The question is who?

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

who will collect the taxes?

SAVAK

Excise Tax

I am a Ron Paul Fan and have been for years. But it is amazing to me those who are supposed to be up on the constitution do not understand the principles of taxation. Art 1 Section 8 & 9 deal with taxation. There are 3 classifications of taxes listed. Excises (The Fair tax). An Excise Tax is a choice tax. If you do not wish to pay the tax. Make your own, Grow your own, or do without. Free men choose. After the 16th amendment was ratified, the first supreme court to view it was brushaber v. Pacific Railroad. It was an Excise tax. Not to be a direct tax on the fruits of our labor. It wasn't until FDR brought about new meaning to the 14th amendment and an expansion of the federal zone per the buck act in which Card carrying members of Social Security became artificial Commercial entities. And thus Income Tax was applied toward the fruits of our labor. And Social Secuirty though voluntary, is next to impossible to get out of. The other classes of taxes. Imposts - Taxing Communist China to sale goods in America. Duties - Corporations wishing limited liability of incorporation owe the duty. Sovereign Americans were on the top rung of the ladder. Verses today where communist interest and Coprorate interest ride the top rung when we carry the tax burden on the bottom rung of the ladder. Bottom Line our forefathers quoted Jesus ..... Of whom do the kings of the earth collect tribute. Children or strangers. Peter answered Strangers. Jesus replied .... then are the children free. Our forefathers used this justification when sinking british ships. They set the captives free by burning down their prisons (British Ships). Bottom Line the fair tax would bring trillions back onshore. The rich would not have any advatage in taking their money offshore in tax havens any more. No advantages in trusts, corporate entities etc. No triple taxation on items which would drop the prices. And taxes would drop.

"Fair Tax" is not an excise as authorized in A1S8C1

Constitutional excises are taxes on *certain* commodities, not *all* of them. The beauty of the excise tax is that it's practically self-regulating, since consumers making choices about what to buy will avoid buying items which are -- in the sovereign view of the individual consumer -- too expensive, and a high excise tax will tend to make the taxed item too expensive. Thus, the net revenue goes down automagically when the tax rate goes too high. A tax on every commodity is hardly an avoidable one; who could single-handedly manufacture everything they needed without buying anything?

I also doubt the benefits you claim would materialize, but that's a matter for debate.

=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

I was looking

I could not find anywhere to vote on ANY of their websites like they were saying it was there. Ugh Huckabee, ick.

Huckabee

makes my skin crawl, he is so much like Slick Willie.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe he's sincere, but he just has that Clintonesque phony charm about him.....

Not harsh, but honest

Huckster is in this for his own glory. Unlike our man who wants to use the office of President to restore our Constitution and rights. Huckster will pay lip service to anything or borrow any idea, even RP's if he thinks it will get him closer to the Oval Office. All the contenders on both sides of the aisle, except RP, are collectivists. RP is the only one who stands up for the rights of individuals.

I agree that you're not

I agree that you're not being too harsh. He makes my skin crawl, too. Of course, once you get a taste of honesty and genuine, long-held beliefs.....well, you know.
www.paulforronpaul.com

Arkansas

He's from Arkansas, should be an easy enough explanation.

Huckabee won!!

ugh.

Yay 2nd beats third!

are you in tune with the world around you

Ron Paul comes in second

I guess the straw poll was only for those in attendence.

First: Huckabee 219 votes
Second: Paul 44 votes
Third: Keyes
...
Last: Romney with 0% of the votes

Silly Questions

If the question is silly enough, and completely stripped of context, even the wisest respondent can be made to look awkward when constrained to give a single word answer. Yes or No: is there ever a good answer to bad question?
Viva Agora!
LehrBoy
www.citizenduquesne.org

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

I and the religious right can get things so wrong

There are a large number of voters that subscribe to many of the ideals advocated by these groups (me too) so I am glad Ron Paul has the guts to go in there. I think it is useful that this debate brought up these issues. I think many religious people have an initial response of wanting the government to regulate goodness but with additional consideration see that the stronger the government the wronger the results. Hopefully people seeing or hearing this debate and the responses will discuss these concepts and come to a better understanding of the solution. RON PAUL as President!!!

Regarding the Terry Schiavo question

To the person who doesn't understand why Ron Paul voted NO to this question, while I don't remember the exact context, the gist of it was whether or not the federal government should pass a law that would keep cognitively disabled persons from being starved to death, and whether the candidate would support such a law.

You must understand that no matter how you feel about this -- and there is no question that what happened to Terry Schiavo is a moral outrage -- the question as Paul understood it involves the use of FEDERAL government power to pass a law that is OUTSIDE the powers granted by the constitution. That is, this is not a law that the federal government can pass, because the constitution does not give it the authority to do so. The power to pass such laws remains with the people and the states. That is the whole idea of LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. Ron Paul took an oath to obey the constitution, and that means that he cannot say he supports such a law at the federal government level.

The problem with many people who support Ron Paul is that, even though they support the constitution in theory, they don't really grasp the extremely limited power of the federal government, because they haven't actually learned about it in school, nor in the media, nor have they spent time to study and read it themselves. It is also not surprising that no one understands this, since the executive and legislative branches have spent years and years passing laws that are essentially null and void, that is, OUTSIDE the powers granted them by the constitution, in spite of their oaths to uphold this supreme law. The judicial branch violates this oath also, by upholding these illegal laws passed by congress.

Study the constitution. Understand the NARROW powers it grants to the federal government. Understand that most of the problems and issues in this country are meant and were meant to be dealt with on the STATE, LOCAL, and INDIVIDUAL level. Then you will understand the logic and true loyalty to the Constitution that Ron Paul shows. And why, among them all, he is the ONLY one who is not seditious.

I hope that helps answer your question. Ron Paul is pro-life through and through, but he is also under oath to obey the constitution. Do you see what a man of principle and character he is?

By answering in the principled and only way he can to a loaded comment, Ron Paul does indeed risk "losing" people who only hear the emotional content of the question, without understanding that the constitution would be violated by a yes answer. But I do hope and pray that people like you will dig deeper, and understand more, about these principles, and about how to really safeguard lives like Terry's -- by causing such judges as the one in Terry's case to be impeached, and by voting out all sheriffs in their county who stand by and enforce such judge's immoral and illegal rulings.

But sorry, it's getting to be a bit much. I'll stop.

Wow, well said.

jwalsh, welcome, welcome! I hope you have found a home here, and never apologize for such an articulate, well thought out and intelligent post. Nicely said. DAMN nicely said, and it's NOT a bit much. This is a perfect example of the fact that you really cannot answer complex questions with just a couple of words. I have heard Dr. Paul be accused of many things because of his beliefs. But we have been conditioned to think that a person who holds a Federal office will always vote his beliefs, which he ABSOLUTELY cannot do if he is to adhere to his oath of office. Since Dr. Paul always tells the truth when asked such loaded questions as: "Would you overturn Roe V Wade?" which he would, it's easy to jump to the conclusion (since it's true of EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE) that he would just vote his beliefs without regard to whether or not he is legally allowed to do so under the constitution. It's going to be a difficult battle, but the word needs to get out that questioning Dr. Paul's beliefs on an issue is absolutely IRRELEVANT if he is not allowed to pursue it at the Federal level. This is going to be an ongoing theme, and something that I believe that we need to focus on.
www.paulforronpaul.com

so well articulated..

thanks JWALSH! I sent your comments to some friends via email.

This right belongs to the people

No government has a right to decide life or death for your loved one. Only the people that love you should decide whether you should continue on life support or be left pass.

This sad case was a failure of the family, and that failure led to hordes of profiteers, from Tom Delay and other congressmen, to various doctors, to self righteous dweebs using this poor womans suffering for their personal benefit.

If there was ever a case where the government should have stayed out, it was this one.

Ah yes

Ah yes, but you see, and you saw, he had not a problem answering the other way when he wants the constitution changed. In the case of Abortion....and birth right citizenship.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The 14th amendment

is well intended but flawed, because of the way it was written. When it was written, there was no such thing as "illegal" aliens. Since resources are limited, you can't expect a country to allow unfettered immigration, particularly when there is such a difference in the quality of life between countries. Maybe someday there will be freedom of movement, but not for a long while.

The intent of the 14th amendment was not to provide citizenship to children born to visitors.

As far as abortion, the issue of when life begins is important to answering the question. It certainly begins sometime before birth, when exactly can be argued, It would be reasonable to have an amendment to settle that.

For the record life begins

For the record life begins at conception. When I hear people question this it's mind-boggling. If that "thing" undergoing rapid cell division and growth doesn't have life then what does it have?

What I think people usually mean when they say something like this is they question at what point a fetus is a human-being which is a separate issue.

Fair enough

I do indeed mean when a fetus becomes a human - being. Personally, there is also an issue of sentience too, If someone has no Brain activity, they are declared dead.

Clearly it is a complex issue, and should be decided as local as possible.