Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[Vine&FigTree]

Ron Paul is a Godly Man

Ron Paul is a Godly Man

Succint and to the point:

25 Reasons I Support Ron Paul by Don Garlits

The Federal Government of the United States is the most formidable opponent of Christian morality on the planet. It sows the seeds of atheism and pro-death immorality wherever it goes. And it goes everywhere. The Chinese government ruthlessly oppresses its own, inside its borders. But American taxpayers are supporting the machinery of slick atheistic evangelism that imposes secularism and immorality on billions of people around the world, through thousands of government agencies, "NGO's" and the UN.

To use the 14th Amendment to give more governmental authority and power to this entity is a mistake. It sets a bad precedent. It makes local reform of evil more difficult.

America became the most prosperous and most admired nation in history because she understood the concept of personal responsibility and self-government, keeping most civil government local so it could be vigilantly checked. There was a deep distrust of politicians in 1776 that is lost today.

Great Americans of the past were far more moral than today's politicians. The churches they attended had more substance. Most Christians today have no idea why #5 on that list above is a moral issue.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits paper money, or the emitting of "bills of credit." (Art. 1, § 10, ¶ 1) That provision reads:

"No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility." ...

In Federalist Paper No. 44, possibly the most authoritative source for constitutional interpretation, Madison explained the provision:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. ... No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

The reason why today's politicians ignore the issue of the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard is because their political life blood is sucked from the pensions of the elderly and the fixed incomes of the poor. They get their votes by promising morally illiterate voters to print up new money for them, stealing it from others.

I disagree with Alan Keyes' position on the unconstitutional and immoral war in Iraq, and the millions of innocent people who have been murdered by the U.S. federal government since 1990, all in a quest for "geo-political hegemony" and oil. But I'm not going to call Alan Keyes a "godless," "evil," "humanistic," "moral relativist." I just believe that Ron Paul's moral compass is pointing closer to true north than Alan Keyes', despite the fact that Keyes' campaign rhetoric is punchier than Paul's. Ron Paul is a humble man; Alan Keyes is more of a politician.

Anybody who advocates moving political decision-making away from localities and transferring it to an avowedly atheistic federal government using the 14th Amendment has a moral/political blindspot. Having such a blindspot doesn't make one a "godless," "evil," "humanistic," "moral relativist." But Ron Paul's program as a whole has a better chance of leading America away from the evil she's been drawn into in the last century and a half.

It will take moral regeneration and healing, of course, before Americans will support Ron Paul rather than the other politicians.

A MORAL CHECKUP FOR YOUR MOUTH

Keyes' website (which Bob Enyart follows, I guess) puts a bad spin on Ron Paul, which is prohibited by 1 Corinthians 13:3-5. Describing Ron Paul as a "godless," "evil," "humanistic," "moral relativist" (Enyart's words, not Keyes') is a violation of God's Law.

 

[Granite]

What possessed Enyart to sink his teeth into Paul, of all candidates, is beyond me.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Tentacles of Atheism and Immorality

Tentacles of Atheism and Immorality

The Federal Government is a Beast. The desire to use the 14th Amendment to strip authority from local governments and give it to the Federal Government is short-sighted and only works to feed this beast. I think it represents infection with a non-Christian worldview.

When you compare the enumerated powers of the government as it was created by America's Founding Fathers -- men much more Godly than today's politicians -- with the government created by today's politicians, you realize they are worlds apart.

Call me an "alarmist," but I take alarm at Alan Keyes' desire to empower the federal government, even for a good cause like ending abortion. America's Founders would too.

We need to examine our worldview, and see if we're thinking consistently in our political strategies. Using the 14th Amendment to strengthen the Federal Government only strengthens the Tentacles of Atheism and Immorality

 

[Lighthouse]

Have you even read the bill? It does nothing of the kind. It declares that the unborn are "persons" who have a right to life, liberty and property. It removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that after the unborn are declared to be persons, opening up the door to the states to criminalize their murder, the Supreme Court cannot strike down pro-life laws like it did in Roe v. Wade. I'm astonished at how Ron Paul's pro-life proposal can be criticized as a blueprint for "mass murder" by anyone who cares about being accepted by Christ.

Even though the 14th Amendment should be repealed, by criticizing a Presidential candidate for not re-writing state laws on abortion, Bob Enyart doesn't even follow the terms of the Amendment itself. If a state legislature makes a law which deprives someone of “life, liberty, or property,” the 14th Amendment says that the federal legislature should remedy that situation: Most of the problems created by the 14th Amendment have been created by what Harvard Law Professor Raoul Berger called Government by Judiciary, that is, enforcement by the Supreme Court of what the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment requires (even if the Framers of the 14th Amendment never envisioned the amendment to apply to areas that the liberals on the court want to social engineer, e.g., school prayer, abortion, school busing, etc.). Enyart proposes something somewhat more unconstitutional. Instead of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court judging the Constitutionality of state legislation, and then ordering states to write laws conforming to Court dictates, Enyart wants the Executive Branch -- specifically, the President -- to write laws for the states that don't deprive anyone of whatever the President says they have the right to. Which is worse, laws being made by an unelected body of nine Justices, or by one elected individual President? Neither are justified by Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment.

So how should abortion be eliminated, according to a more proper understanding of the 14th Amendment? The Congress, led by Ron Paul, passes the “Sanctity of Life Act,” which affirms that all persons -- including unborn persons -- have rights to life, liberty, and property. The Congress then removes jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over the issue of abortion, preventing it from striking down state laws like it did in Roe v. Wade. The Congress then tells the state legislatures to write appropriate laws “with all deliberate speed,” to use the words of the Court in the famous 14th Amendment case, Brown vs. Board of Education.

Ron Paul is following the 14th Amendment. Bob Enyart is not. The fact that Bob Enyart calls a Godly pro-life Christian Congressman like Ron Paul (who boldly challenges Congress to obey the 14th Amendment and declare that the unborn are “persons” under the law) an “evil,” “godless,” “humanistic” “moral relativist” for not following Enyart's idiosyncratic monarchical interpretation of the 14th Amendment is evidence of an ugly hysteria, not sober legal analysis. And Enyart's slander of Ron Paul is manifestly unChristian.

Yes, I've read it. Multiple times. And you're blind if you can't see it.

 

[kmoney]

What possessed Enyart to sink his teeth into Paul, of all candidates, is beyond me.

Probably just to annoy you. :idunno:

 

[S†ephen]

Federalizing Social Policy

by Ron Paul
​

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

 

[robbierob]

1. :doh: That's some serious conjecture there. Why did Missouri, Kentucky, and (West) Virginia fight for the Union while they still allowed slaves (Virginia being an anomaly)? Maybe it wasn't all about slavery after all......:think: It's really a moot point since we now have the 13th amendment and no state would/could regress back into slave ownership.

Anyway - back on topic; Ron Paul and abortion.

2. Very good, now part 2 - how is Alan Keyes going to stop abortion?

You attacked Paul's plan, now the million dollar question to hypocrites......What is Keyes plan to outlaw abortion? Time for the tables to turn. I hope Bob Enyart pipes in to answer this one.

1. I judge action that is obvious, not motive. 2. I can't tell you what exactly Alan Keyes would do, but here is what I would do if I were Pres., I would immediatly declare martial law and send the National Guard to shut down and guard the abortion clinics and arrest any "Dr." who tried to murder any more babies. Then I would take it from there.

 

[drbrumley]

Martial Law? You and who's army?

 

[Lighthouse]

Martial Law? You and who's army?

It might have more of an impact if he knew the difference between martial and Marshall.

 

[fourcheeze]

Federalizing Social Policy by Ron Paul

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

Surely this guy can't be right wing, he's far too sensible.

For some reason he seems to want to win by the strength of his argument, rather than enforcing his views on the rest of us. He's dangerous because he's the kind of right-wing individual that a lot of us usually-left-wing-with-convictions people might end up voting for.

This makes him your ideal candidate. Go and vote for him, but don't tell anyone I said so

 

[robbierob]

Martial Law? You and who's army?

The question was answered did you overlook it? Would you be one who would bring up arms against the government and declare revolution because the government stopped the murder of babies?

 

[S†ephen]

2. I can't tell you what exactly Alan Keyes would do, but here is what I would do if I were Pres., I would immediatly declare martial law and send the National Guard to shut down and guard the abortion clinics and arrest any "Dr." who tried to murder any more babies. Then I would take it from there.

Dictatorship huh?

your a bad as poor bob.

 

[S†ephen]

Ron Paul: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06

True. Do you deny this?

Paul's Christian supporters are in denial. First, they deny that Paul is against a federal ban on abortion,

False. We do not deny it. He wants the federal government out.

even though he attempts to codify that position in his misnamed "Sanctity of Life" bills.

Quite a bold statement for a man who is not a medical doctor.

And once they concede his godless position of allowing the states to systematically murder the innocent,

Or systematically stop it.

Paul rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn.

That is a lie.

He rejects the personhood of the tiniest humans. He betrays his supposed commitment to the Constitution by refusing to uphold its commitment to our posterity

That is a lie.

Paul sins against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children. And to the extent that Paul knows in his heart that abortion is wrong, to that extent he is also a traitor to his nation, and even its Constitution, lusting after power instead of standing for the right to life of the vulnerable. Ron Paul is not qualified to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a nation.

That is a lie. His position is not apathetic it is Constitutional. You are a traitor to your nation Mr. Enyert. You support a government much more massive than the Constitution ever would have allowed. You sir, should repent.

If you support Ron Paul, you support tolerance of the massacre of innocence, and I call on you to repent.

That is a lie. I call on you to repent Mr. Enyart. You have told a lie and slandered a good mans name. You have been proven wrong repetitively and yet you persist in your evil. You should publicly apologize and I call on YOU to repent.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?

Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?

Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul?
By Chuck Baldwin
January 8, 2008

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080108.html

What is it about Ron Paul that the Establishment finds so disturbing? This is a man who perhaps personifies Christian character and integrity, American patriotism, and family values more than any other public figure. Ron Paul is a committed family man whose marriage to Carol has lasted for more than 50 years. He is a lover of families and children. As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies into this world. His life demonstrates a commitment to life and marriage.

Furthermore, Ron Paul's devotion to Christ is very personal and deep. Unlike many politicians (especially in the Republican Party), Ron Paul does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't need to. Anyone who knows him knows his faith is exhibited on a daily basis. His life and family are testaments to his Christian faith.

Beyond that, Ron Paul's record in Congress is so unblemished, so honest, so full of integrity that it is difficult to describe. This is a man who actually takes his oath to the Constitution (an oath every congressman, senator, and President also takes--but then ignores) seriously. So much so that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a congressional pay raise, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government.

In addition, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Even though he is a 10-term congressman, he is not accepting a government pension. He also returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. No wonder Ron Paul was declared to be the "Taxpayer's Best Friend."

Now, how in the name of common sense can a man such as Ron Paul be hated? Maybe it is because he is a man of integrity and honesty. Remember, our Lord said that men who love darkness hate the light. And if there is a word that describes the Establishment in America today, it is DARKNESS.

Name it: the establishment Democrat and Republican Parties, the establishment media, the establishment financial institutions, and even the establishment churches all seem to be run by people who exude the power of darkness. It should not surprise us, therefore, when a man arises who personifies the light of integrity and honesty, that the powers that be should hate him--and hate Ron Paul they do.

Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats. Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans--maybe more. The media despises him--especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul's name.

Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics. Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I'll tell you why.

The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Jig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.

Another reason the Establishment hates Ron Paul is because he is a true American--and there are not very many true Americans left in Washington, D.C., these days. You see, Ron Paul has read and studied American history. He understands constitutional government. He knows what real money is--and is not. As historian and author Thomas DiLorenzo said, Ron Paul is a modern-day Thomas Jefferson. (See his column at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo137.html )

Unfortunately, most of what we have in Washington, D.C., these days (in both parties) is a bunch of internationalists who cannot see past their own selfish interests. They are consumed with greed and power. They are slaves to Big Business and special interest groups. They are petty, shallow hirelings who care nothing for constitutional government, the principles of liberty, or the American people. To them, Ron Paul represents everything they hate: limited government, freedom, selflessness, humility, and integrity.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is not interested in creating a world empire. Neither is he a warmonger. He would squash the burgeoning New World Order in its tracks--and the globalists ensconced in Washington and New York City know it.

There is only one Presidential candidate who would bring a modern-day revolution to Washington, D.C., and it is not Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. It is Ron Paul. Obama and Huckabee--along with the rest of the Democrat and Republican contenders--are only more of the same. The same Nanny State, the same unconstitutional laws and regulations, the same advances toward global government, the same attacks against individual liberties, the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics.

That the Establishment would hate Ron Paul should not surprise us. It does not even surprise me that many pastors and Christians despise Ron Paul. (After all, many of them still worship at the altar of George W. Bush.) What is yet to be seen is, How will the American people receive him? His strong showing in Iowa surprised most of the "experts." I believe he will do even better in New Hampshire today. How Dr. Paul's campaign fares in future primaries is still to be seen.

Should Ron Paul fail in his bid to become the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, I believe it is critically important that he continue his bid as a Third Party candidate. His campaign is more than a campaign--it is a movement. People by the thousands and money by the millions is pouring in, and it will continue to pour in all the way to the general election. It is essential that Ron Paul stays in the race all the way to November.

Remember, when Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, there were four strong Presidential candidates, and Lincoln won with just 39% of the popular vote. With New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seriously considering an independent bid for the White House, and if Ron Paul, likewise, runs as a Third Party candidate, 2008 could see another race with four strong Presidential contenders. In such a case, anything is possible--including a Ron Paul victory.

The fact is, Ron Paul does not need the support of the Establishment to win. With God's help--and with the help of millions of fed-up and tireless average Joes--anything is possible. Anything.

Here is another thing: the fact that the Establishment hates Ron Paul so much must mean that there is ample reason for ordinary people like you and me to love him!

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, please send your check or Money Order to:

Chuck Baldwin Live
P.O. Box 37070
Pensacola, Florida 32526

(c) Chuck Baldwin

 

[WizardofOz]

S†ephen :up:
Vine & Fig Tree :up:

Very good posts!

Notice the cricket chirping sounds from the naysayers? It's very telling.

 

[Lighthouse]

S†ephen :up:
Vine & Fig Tree :up:

Very good posts!

Notice the cricket chirping sounds from the naysayers? It's very telling.

That's not crickets chirping. That's us yawning.:yawn:

 

[WizardofOz]

That's not crickets chirping. That's us yawning.:yawn:

Yawn away - is there anything that can be disputed?

Lighthouse - is Ron Paul personally pro-choice? Let's see if you'll be intellectually dishonest to stand by Bob or if you have the character to identify Bob's lying for what it is.

I was disgusted to see how intellectually dishonest the OP post was. This is a man of God?

 

[drbrumley]

The question was answered did you overlook it?

Maybe I did. What was the answer?

Would you be one who would bring up arms against the government and declare revolution because the government stopped the murder of babies?

Earth to Robbie, maybe this might come as a shock to you, but we have legalized abortion BECAUSE of the Federal Government. Because the Constitution has been ignored, we have this problem.

 

[kmoney]

Yawn away - is there anything that can be disputed?

Lighthouse - is Ron Paul personally pro-choice? Let's see if you'll be intellectually dishonest to stand by Bob or if you have the character to identify Bob's lying for what it is.

I was disgusted to see how intellectually dishonest the OP post was. This is a man of God?

I don't think Bob Enyart is saying Paul is pro-choice personally. What I do think he's saying is that Paul is pro-choice state by state. What does Paul want to do? Does he want to give the power to the states? The power to choose to have abortion or outlaw it? If so, that's where they get the label pro-choice state by state. Is Paul personally pro-life? Sure. But he would allow states to choose otherwise.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

I don't think Bob Enyart is saying Paul is pro-choice personally. What I do think he's saying is that Paul is pro-choice state by state. What does Paul want to do? Does he want to give the power to the states? The power to choose to have abortion or outlaw it? If so, that's where they get the label pro-choice state by state.

Ron Paul wants to give power to the states, and there is only ONE POSSIBLE THING that they could do with that power: convert from pro-abortion to PRO-LIFE. All states are already pro-CHOICE. Every single one of them. By law.

Is Paul personally pro-life? Sure. But he would allow states to choose otherwise.

He would allow states to choose pro-LIFE, a choice they do not presently have.

It is unChristian, lawless, and unethical for Bob Enyart to say Ron Paul is "pro-CHOICE state-by-state," especially if Enyart admits the obvious and inescapable fact that Ron Paul is personally anti-abortion.

Every state right now is "pro-CHOICE" (pro-ABORTION) by imposition of the US Supreme Court.

Every term in Congress, Ron Paul seeks to CHANGE the status quo, by sponsoring legislation which declares that--

(1) The unborn are persons with a right to life from conception:

(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.​

Finally,

the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review any case arising out of any statute on the grounds that such statute

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

(A) the performance of abortions; or
(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.​

Is this desire to CHANGE the status quo evidence that the legislator is pro-CHOICE (PRO-abortion) or pro-LIFE (ANTI-abortion)?

CLEARLY, and INDISPUTABLY the purpose of this legislation is to CHANGE America by making America pro-LIFE state by state.

What possible, non-insane reason would someone have to say that a Congressman sponsoring this legislation seeks to make America "pro-choice state by state" when EVERY SINGLE STATE IN THE UNION already has "pro-choice" imposed on it by the Supreme Court??

Ron Paul's intention is clearly pro-life; his purpose is to
(1) Lay down the moral foundation for pro-life laws ("person from conception")
(2) Declare that "each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State"
(3) remove the pro-choice stranglehold the US Supreme Court currently has imposed on the states, allowing states to CHANGE in only one possible direction: from pro-abortion to pro-LIFE.

To describe such legislation as "pro-CHOICE" (pro-ABORTION) rather than PRO-LIFE is sick, twisted, and warped. It is evil:

• It defames the good name of a solidly pro-life Christian, in violation of the Ninth Commandment.
• It undercuts support for Ron Paul's pro-life legislation that might insure its passage and save the lives of many unborn persons.
• It causes needless, senseless division among the Body of Christ which dishonors our Savior (John 17:21)

May God grant such slanderers prompt repentance.

http://enyart.KevinCraig.us