Ron Paul for President ? [Archive] - Page 2

Centurion

9th July 2007, 03:24

>>> "And Paul seems to think that 'a state' can legalize or not legalize abortion."

I suggest that's an unfair presumption without clear basis.

Paul's proposed Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 declares legal personhood at conception and nullifies legal meddling by SCOTUS. Because all states have homicide and manslaughter codes, one should surmise that Paul would expect state-level prosecution for infanticide/murder within or outside the womb.

Why not?

Again, parsing every Paul soundbite may be a worthwhile sport for some, but it seems conterproductive, considering the current mix of alternative candidates who don't come close on this isssue or any other. And, by the way, I write as one who preferred Duncan Hunter's bill to Paul's, but at this point, I am grateful for Ron Paul's candidacy -- plus the 4,000 babies he's delivered, many for free, and never killed one.

Maybe he could use a better media coach; but I suggest that his heart and mind are acceptable to God in these perilous times. I hope the church can accept him, but maybe he is below our standards and I'm just deluded.

There are so many others of higher caliber waiting in the wings!

Joe_Liberty

9th July 2007, 11:17

If I were in a debate and candidates were asked to raise their hands if they do not believe in evolution, I don't think I would hesitate to do so. I doubt very much whether Michael Peroutka would hesitate to do so. Likewise, I heard Michael Peroutka be told many times by interviewers that he had no chance to win, but never once did I hear him ask his interlocuters "do you want to bet everything in your wallet that I won't?" I can't imagine Michael saying such a thing.

I don't see anything ignorant or devious about the question. It was a perfectly reasonable question and Ron Paul answered it. Voters can consider it along with all the other questions asked of him and all the other candidates. I don't think it is a matter of getting a better media coach. The whole purpose of the campaign is allow voters to get to know as much as they can about the candidates. I have had several opportunities this year to ask Ron Paul various questions. I never asked him about evolution, but the next time I talk to him I will try and remember to ask him to expand more upon his views on evolution.

Spurgeon Baptist

9th July 2007, 11:22

Maybe he could use a better media coach; but I suggest that his heart and mind are acceptable to God in these perilous times. I hope the church can accept him, but maybe he is below our standards and I'm just deluded.

I agree with Centurion (how scary is that?)

Jaime

9th July 2007, 12:09

How many Republicans have voted for Republicans where the question of evolution was not raised? Why do you think it was raised this time in the debate? Why is the evolution question not raised at the Democrat's debate?

Of all incredibly important issues of governance out there, like proper jurisdiction of the Federal government, so many people are now being hung-up on raising or not raising of hand at a tossed in statement, phrased as a question, "to show how ignoramus the Republicans really are."

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh

Jaime

9th July 2007, 12:16

How many creationists are fascists (economics speaking) and warmongers?

Centurion

9th July 2007, 04:33

Joe, one more time: Do you believe in micro-evolution?

As a doctor, Paul is a quasi-scientist. The question was not precise, not just absurd Chritsian-baiting. Moreover, scientists don't speak with their hands on fundamental questions. Politicians, lawyers and school children might. Smart-ass TV "debate" moderators know that.

Why do we fall for such theatrical drivel?

Spurgeon Baptist

9th July 2007, 04:53

Why do we fall for such theatrical drivel?

This reminds me of when evangelicals gushed all over Bush in 1999 when he stated that his favorite "philosopher" was Christ.

Talk about drivel.

Joe_Liberty

9th July 2007, 05:31

Frank,

I answered your question. If asked to raise my hand if I don't believe in evolution, I would raise my hand. Was it drivel when John Lofton criticized Milton Friedman for being an evolutionist (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=736)? Mere theatrics? Or is it an important insight into a person's worldview? I don't think that evolution is the only important question that should be considered, but neither do I think it is unimportant drivel.

The last time I voted for a Republican I was not a Christian. Democrat candidates have been asked whether they believe in evolution. (See
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070605/27801_CNN_Questions_Democrats_on_Evolution,_Gay_'M arriage'_and_Abortion.htm (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070605/27801_CNN_Questions_Democrats_on_Evolution,_Gay_'M arriage'_and_Abortion.htm) )
As I see it, we will not be accountable for voting for an evolutionist if we don't know they are an evolutionist. Had I not seen the debate in which he answered otherwise, I probably would have assumed that Ron doesn't believe in evolution, but having been informed otherwise it would be wrong to just ignore it. Like I said, I will throw it in with all the other answers provided by Ron Paul and all the other candidates, including Ron's challenge to George to bet that he will win the election. Ideally don't we want a president who is anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-gambling, and creationist? (Like Peroutka?) There is still plenty of time before the election for Ron Paul to admit his mistake, and admit he was wrong when he said he believed in evolution. I for one plan to encourage him to do so.

Centurion

10th July 2007, 12:41

Joe, thanks for clarifying that you don't believe in micro-evolution. The rest of your response seems irrelevant to the question of why Dr. Paul didn't raise his hand. He obviously does believe in micro and also probably thought the question was inane or a semantical trap. I repeat: It was both. I was pleased to read that you're planning to challenge the good doctor, who has referred more than once to our Creator.

More on micro:

Odd, Joe, that when I grew up in your state of New York we had different variations of dog, feline, horse, fish, bird species, etc.

What happened after I left NY in 1948 to persuade you that God isn't as creative as we thought he was -- all for His glory and our enjoyment?

Did all those variations merge into one of a kind vs. "according to its kind." (Gen. 2)

Again, it may be that Paul is too sharp and discerning for 21st-century Christians. Wait until he goes off on Social Security, and see the anti-biblical, evangelical AARPies go crazy!

For a primer on micro, see www.answersingenesis.org and "speciation."

Also:http://www.exchangedlife.com/macro-evol.shtml -- click index

and: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm.

Ed Hanks

10th July 2007, 01:02

Most everybody takes the term "Evolution" to mean macro-evolution in a public, non-scientific forum.

When debating these issues in such an environment, macro-evolution is almost always referred to as "evolution", whereas micro-evolution is often or generally referred to as "natural selection".

Yes, it probably was a trick by the moderators, and a gimmick. And it would naturally have been dangerous for ANY of the candidates to respond, but certain candidates chose to answer as I think most of us would -- by raising their hands to indicate a disbelief in evolution.

Besides, if Paul's campaign later confirmed he did not raise his hand, without further explanation, and without saying "hey, I need to check on what he believes" that rings hollow to me. The campaign should know where he stands, especially after such a controversial question is raised.

Centurion

10th July 2007, 01:16

Most everybody takes the term "Evolution" to mean macro-evolution in a public, non-scientific forum.

And, "most everybody" (educated by government-stooge Darwinists), including me, either doesn't know or doesn't care about how sloppy we can be as thinking believers, as communicators for the King.

Enough; pick another candidate. There are so many from which to choose.

How about the entry from the American Heritage Party? He would have to be flawless.

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 02:41

I don't see how my answer is irrelevant. In his piece about Milton Friedman, John wrote "'evolution' is one of the biggest lies around today."" Do you agree with that? If so, wouldn't you agree that a candidate believing in a lie should at least give us pause? If I was asked if I believe in one of the biggest lies around today, I certainly hope that I would answer in the negative. If I gave an answer that indicated that I did believe in one of the biggest lies around today, I hope that I would soon repent

As I pointed out before, other evolutionist candidates have also expressed belief in a creator, including John Edwards and John McCain, and I am not about to vote for either of them. As John Lofton explained "all men know God" but evolutionists "worship and serve the creature more than the Creator."

I may well ultimately decide to vote for another candidate, but if so it will not be in a fruitless search for a flawless candidate. When I voted for Michael Peroutka it was not because I thought he was flawless. What I am looking for is the best candidate who meets the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates. You say that there are plenty of other presidential candidates to choose from. That is certainly true, but are there any qualified candidates to choose from? Isn't challenging unqualified candidates to become qualified within the purview of our stated mission? We may or may not be productive, but I certainly don't think the effort will be counter-productive.

There are many things I like and agree with Ron Paul about. He could persuade me to make him the first Republican in many years that I have voted for. But that doesn't make him immune for criticism. I like the ovewhelming majority of votes he has cast in Congress, but not every single vote.

You offered his interview on ABC television as an example of a "Christian statesman, a constitutionalist whose biblical view on the role of the civil magistrate is exclusive among current candidates." I thought that description was a bit exaggerated. I find some of his comments to be inconsistent with those of a Christian statesman with a mature biblical worldview. I think Michael Peroutka provided a good model for Ron to follow when told his winning "isn't going to happen." I liked most of the interview, but my immediate reaction when Ron challenged the interviewer to "bet every penny" was that that kind of remark is a sinful embarrassment that could lead to the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed.

Centurion

10th July 2007, 09:21

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 10:25

When John wrote " "'evolution' is one of the biggest lies around today,"" he did not distinguish between macro and micro evolution. If it is reasonable to assume that he was referring to Darwin's theory of evolution is using the word "evolution," then it is reasonable to assume that is what Christ Matthews was referring to, and that Ron Paul does indeed reject the Genesis account of Creation. I think those who insist otherwise are projecting on to Ron what they wish he believed and not what he has actually indicated he believes.

I too live in the real world and don't consider myself exceptionally pious. I know I say plenty of dumb things, some of which undoubtedly grieve the heart of God. But even I know better than to say "do you want to bet every penny in your pocket . . ?" When I hear someone running for president exhibit less spiritual maturity than I myself possess, it raises a warning flag in my mind. My hope is not that Dr. Paul learns to guard his tongue so as better to appeal to Christians. My prayer is that he grows in spiritual maturity such that such thoughts are foreign to him. His "elocution" will follow. It is precisely because of his relatively large audience that this is even more important. This is also, btw, my prayer for Rudolph Giuliani, Barack Obama and the rest of them.

Jaxon

10th July 2007, 10:54

Isn't challenging unqualified candidates to become qualified within the purview of our stated mission? We may or may not be productive, but I certainly don't think the effort will be counter-productive.

I liked most of the interview, but my immediate reaction when Ron challenged the interviewer to "bet every penny" was that that kind of remark is a sinful embarrassment that could lead to the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed.

Did you see how badly Dr. Paul was caught off guard by the question he was asked? This comment was a nervous attempt to lighten things up after being blindsided by the fool Stephanopoulos. (sp?)

We all make silly comments when there is an awkward moment.

James Niemela

10th July 2007, 10:54

"How about the entry from the American Heritage Party? He would have to be flawless." [Centurion]

Dear Centurion,

Does the American Heritage Party have a candidate for president? If so, who? I was not aware that they are running a candidate, but then again, I am not a member of the AHP, so maybe I missed it if they are. I would like to know more about their presidential candidate, assuming there is one.

Thank you!

James Niemela

James Niemela

10th July 2007, 11:03

I think answered my own question (by checking on their website) re: a presidential candidate of the AHP. In the candidates section, there is listed a (Washington state )State Rep candidate in 2000, and a Columbia County (Washington state) Commissioner in 2002. It is hard for organizations to keep websites updated, however; so if anyone knows differently, and they are running a candidate for president in '08, I would like to find out more about him. Thanks!

James Niemela

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 11:21

Jaxon,

Like I said, I definitely say lots of silly things. At one time I used the expression "I'll bet you . . ." But I think it has been a couple of years at least since I've matured beyond it. At this point, Dr. Paul should not be blindsided by "you can't win." A better way to respond to such a comment would be something like "Respectfully, you don't know who will win. It is my duty to plow my row. God will take care of the results of the election." That is the kind of answer I heard Michael Perouka give countless times. Never once did I hear him challenge someone to a bet. One thing I do agree with Centurion about is that Stephanopolous did not act the fool in that interview. I am glad that he gave Ron Paul an opportunity and I thought his interview was generally well done, though I think his "you can't win" comment was ill-advised. This morning I think Joe Scarborough characterized that comment of Stephanopolous's as "snarky" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=q_y79uDkcPI ).

James, during a TAV interview Dan Eby said "The structure of the “CP” was — in essence what we discovered was to run a presidential candidate every four years.And we began to see that there wasn’t a focus on building locally.And our concern was to build from the bottom up and to equip families to run for an office locally" so I would not expect AHP to run a presidential candidate for the forseeable future. Certainly not in 2008.

Jaime

10th July 2007, 11:25

James Niemela

10th July 2007, 11:33

Thank you, Brother Joe.

James

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 01:07

On the bet I would have replied: Would you bet everything you own?

If George S. replied yes, then, after a short pause, I would ask him to give the odds and placed a bet to be given to a charity (mutually agreeable).

I believe such a response and arrangement would dishonor God as much or more than Ron's actual response.

Centurion

10th July 2007, 06:29

On the bet I would have replied: Would you bet everything you own?

Or how about: "Would you bet your life, George? Would your father approve?" I recall that George's dad is or was a Greek Orthodox priest.

Sacreligious show stopper?

We are far too conditioned to idolize smooth political hucksters -- conservative, of course -- and not a few TV or courtroom-primed lawyers.

When the real deal shows up, an OB/GYN Christian constitutionalist, a grandfather-statesman who never learned how to pander -- likely doesn't know its meaning -- here come the Christian sanitizers, ready to sideswipe him off the platform because his vocabulary isn't suitable for a Reformed pulpit.

Not enough religious, rhetorical slick.

Back to the OR, you boob, to celebrate more new lives for Christ, where it's bloody, noisy and stinks -- and not everyone talks "Godspeak."

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 07:38

Or how about: "Would you bet your life, George? Would your father approve?" I recall that George's dad is or was a Greek Orthodox priest.

Sacreligious show stopper?[/B]

I like it, but keep in mind that it was not George that brought up the subject of betting, it was Ron. Not only was his language in this case not appropriate for a civil magistrate, it was ineffective. What was George's response? "Yes, Ron I would indeed bet every penny in my pocket that you won't win." Now what? It put Ron in a corner with no where to go but to commercial.

Jaxon

10th July 2007, 07:51

So then write him off, brother Joe_Liberty. It's your perogative. Would it take a public apology from Dr. Paul for alluding to gambling in a moment of awkward live recording for you to reinstate him as a possible candidate?

Joe_Liberty

10th July 2007, 08:33

I have not written him off. I have personally contributed to Ron Paul's presidential campaign. My state party endorsed him for President on my motion to do so. I greeted him at Comedy Central studios when he appeared on the Daily Show. I purchased a copy of his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom in an effort to move it onto the bestseller's list and to send to one of our congressional candidates who I think could learn from it. I've spent hours voting for him in polls, digging his articles, and rating his You Tube videos. I plan to make phone calls to Iowa to help him to win the Iowa Staw poll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVuxA0UtzZg On Monday I am planning to attend our local Ron Paul meet-up wearing my "aaargh man" t-shirt (if it arrives on time.) That doesn't mean that I will, with absolute certainty, vote for him. The way I usually explain it to people is by saying "Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate I would even consider voting for." Like I said, we are months away from the elections and I will continue to evaluate all of the candidates up to election.

My purpose was not to "write off" anyone. Consistent I believe with the purpose of this forum, my intent was to point out that

1. Ron Paul has publicly denied the Genesis account of Creation. Rather than pretending he hasn't, or dismissing it as mere theatrical drivel, maybe we should try to correct him.

2. It is not pandering, self-righteous, nor "rhetorical slick" to expect candidates won't challenge people to bet, something that my seven year old daughter knows better than to do.

I humbly submit that for Ron and George to bet all they own on the outcome of an election and donate the winnings to charity would not be an improvement.

MAC

11th July 2007, 01:58

Maybe it wasn't necessarily appropriate to ask about 'betting' but maybe Dr Paul meant it simply as a rhetorical question as an example that most people would understand his point. In other words, just trying to point out the arrogance, misleading and absurdity of GS's statement.

Jaime

11th July 2007, 11:04

It was definitely a rhetorical device to point out George's arrogance.

There are many other ways in which we place bets. Or put in another way, play the odds. Don't get so upity (re: allegedly dishonoring God) with such devices.

Jesus used the parable of the pearl of great price as a rehtorical device: an unscrupulous person knows that something that belongs to another lies hidden, unknown to the owner, and that person buys the land without disclosing the treasure.

I think that the upping of the ante would have deflated George. I wonder if George would have remained poised, with a poker face or would have he blinked. Any ways, it would have made patently clear Geroge's dishonest injection of himself into the debate.

Spurgeon Baptist

13th July 2007, 06:06

Joe_Liberty

13th July 2007, 06:19

Ron Paul has appeared often as a guest on Alex's show, so he can't distance himself. Besides, conspiracy theorists vote too. And our own Michael Peroutka has expressed doubts about the official 911 story. I think the response Ron has given when asked about it is fine: He doesn't agree with every conspiracy theory out there, but he finds many deficiencies in the official report and would support a new investigation (my paraphrase).

JLofton

13th July 2007, 07:09

We're running into roadblocks with the good doctor. The 9/11 Nutball Conspiracy Brigade is hijacking the campaign, at least locally.

Is this nutball reference re: Jones & Co. or our government's official explanation?

Traitor2Tyranny

13th July 2007, 07:42

We're running into roadblocks with the good doctor. The 9/11 Nutball Conspiracy Brigade is hijacking the campaign, at least locally.

My contention is that unless Ron Paul distances himself from Alex Jones and starts communicating to the Christian community, the entire effort is futile. The evangelical voting block, while completely clueless, is extremely powerful in primary elections.

Where are you referring to as locally? What are the "nutball" people doing that causes you put them in that classification? What should he be communicating to the clueless Christian socialists?

Spurgeon Baptist

13th July 2007, 08:25

Where are you referring to as locally? What are the "nutball" people doing that causes you put them in that classification? What should he be communicating to the clueless Christian socialists?

Locally meaning central Ohio. Nutball meaning anyone who believes 100% of what Alex Jones says without question. Communication to the conservative base should be pro-life, pro-gun, pro-liberty, small government, anti-tax. The evangelicals must be wooed away from Thompson to Paul. That's how you win GOP primaries.

JL: In this particular case, Alex Jones disciples.

If anyone on this forum believes that Alex Jones supporters can deliver a Ron Paul victory, please come back to earth.

Traitor2Tyranny

13th July 2007, 08:50

If anyone on this forum believes that Alex Jones supporters can deliver a Ron Paul victory, please come back to earth.

What do you mean by victory?

Mr. Peroutka had a victory party (http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=541#) on election night 2004.

Mr. Bush (http://www.prolibertate.us/index.php?blog=7&title=the_bush_crime_wave_july_13_2007&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) also had a victory party.

angelawittman

13th July 2007, 09:54

I have written Ron Paul off, and it has nothing to do with Alex Jones. It has to do with his lack of proclamation for the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

I am going to write-in a name for president... Unless a radical Christian Statesman tosses his hat into the ring and achieves ballot status in Illinois.

Also, it is to my detriment that I do not listen to Alex Jones. I see this as a weakness on my part; I am not nearly as informed as I should be.

angelawittman

13th July 2007, 10:00

Dear Spurgeon,

Who do I contact about joining the 911 Nutball Conspiracy Brigade? And I am not joking.

Spurgeon Baptist

13th July 2007, 10:11

Dear Spurgeon,

Who do I contact about joining the 911 Nutball Conspiracy Brigade? And I am not joking.

www.infowars.com

You needn't worry about the Kingship of Christ there - Jones will take anybody and everybody. Anarchist, libertarian, new age, leftist, whatever.

The more of Alex's stuff you buy the more he'll like you :)

Jaxon

13th July 2007, 10:40

www.infowars.com

You needn't worry about the Kingship of Christ there - Jones will take anybody and everybody. Anarchist, libertarian, new age, leftist, whatever.

The more of Alex's stuff you buy the more he'll like you :)

I think you are being a bit sarcastic, so let me be careful here. I agree with the former part of your statement, that Alex is seriously deluded in his acceptance of any type of belief system having a part in restoring America, and peace around the world...

Although he has numerous times proclaimed that "all the glory goes to Jesus Christ" in reference to any victory that occurs for justice on earth.

And for the latter characterization of Alex as a money grubber, it is false, and borderline slander, if indeed you know about him like you seem to. Alex is going broke making films and selling them for almost no profit in order to inform people of what is going on in the world.

And another thing: Alex Jones is a Christ proclaimer, who tells people to stop believing in a secret rapture because the battle is now, and that the pre-trib rapture is an invention of false Christians who are in league with Zionist interests... also, Alex is not afraid to constantly denounce the State of Israel as terrorist and corrupt, as a matter of fact, Alex seems to be on the same page as many of you guys on this bb in regards to eschatology, Lordship of Christ, and some other stuff I can't reference because it's all from the audio of his radio show.

Alex has done much work to denouce abortion, consumerism as idolatry, unjust war, paganism, and I could go on...

And all you have for him is mean little mischaracterizations because he espouses an anti-official 9/11 story?

shame.

Dr. Paul is NOT AFRAID, obviously, of whatever truth there is in the 9/11 "nutball brigade," seeing that he has been a personal friend of Alex Jones for years now. They are both libertarian Christians, although maybe not Christian enough in how they apply their principals, I admit. My contention: stop bashing Alex Jones when in truth he is fighting for so much of what is good and wholesome, promoting repentance towards the Lord in Jesus Christ, restoring family, the republic, and world peace. He fights against paganism, satanism, yet sadly he lacks discernment to fight every type of evil out there, so I suppose in reality he is impotent in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ?

Spurgeon Baptist

13th July 2007, 10:58

Dr. Paul is NOT AFRAID, obviously, of whatever truth there is in the 9/11 "nutball brigade," seeing that he has been a personal friend of Alex Jones for years now.

Mark my words: Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will send his campaign into the black hole of oblivion.

I'm Sorry Justin, but how can you look at these prices and tell me that Alex Jones is "going broke" selling videos? American Destroyed by Design ($19.95) was made eight years ago and looks like it was fimed with a home video camera!

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/alexjonesdvds.html

Jaxon

13th July 2007, 11:55

Mark my words: Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will send his campaign into the black hole of oblivion.

I'm Sorry Justin, but how can you look at these prices and tell me that Alex Jones is "going broke" selling videos? American Destroyed by Design ($19.95) was made eight years ago and looks like it was fimed with a home video camera!

http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/alexjonesdvds.html

Bro James,

How many things sent Michael Peroutka's campaign "into the black hole of oblivion"? Each thing that made brother Peroutka less electable was a stance for righteousness, truth, and most of all, the Lord Jesus. Is not the mantra of this bb community the rejection of pragmatism? If Ron Paul is unafraid to have association with "nutballs," is this not a testament to his faith in the Lord to have His will be done with the campaign? or maybe, Dr. Paul is simply stupid, are you contending? I doubt that, he's quite an experienced politician...

You do know he appeared in Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism," right? Ron Paul has beliefs that he is willing to be identified with, and seeing that as of this late date he is still interviewing with Alex Jones regularly, I would have to assume they are in agreement with a multiplicity of issues.

Oh, and again with Alex being a money grubber... He employs 4 or 5 people full time, and so how would you propose he pays them?

Yes, and I recall he has a wife and two children in addition... Seems like a smaller $19.95 now, doesn't it? And another thought... just how many people do you think are buying "America Destroyed by Design" anymore? 2 a day, maybe? Do that math, he ain't rich.

Even his brandest brand new movies he puts out for free on Google Video. How much money does he lose when he authorizes anyone to copy as many of his videos as they want at any time?

He ain't a money grubber. Other things, he may be, but you are wrong in your characterization of him as a charlatan of some type.

Check that.

Spurgeon Baptist

14th July 2007, 12:25

Each thing that made brother Peroutka less electable was a stance for righteousness, truth, and most of all, the Lord Jesus.

I don't see the comparison. Unlike Michael, Alex Jones does not have a biblical worldview. The idea that an all-powerful evil cabal is controlling God's world is diametrically opposed Reformed teachings. Please consult Psalm 2.

Ron Paul has beliefs that he is willing to be identified with, and seeing that as of this late date he is still interviewing with Alex Jones regularly, I would have to assume they are in agreement with a multiplicity of issues.

I'm sure they are - Alex is right on several things. It doesn't change the fact that the association is an albatross around the campaign's neck.

He ain't a money grubber. Other things, he may be, but you are wrong in your characterization of him as a charlatan of some type.

We'll see. Between his products and advertising revenue, I don't think he's on food stamps. Of course some of his stuff is "on sale", so maybe you're right.

angelawittman

14th July 2007, 12:58

Dear friends,

I am going to say something a bit off topic:

I have been reading and watching videos posted by Beit Shalom Ministries, and I want to encourage others to check them out. I believe they have been guests of Alex Jones, and they seem to promote Ron Paul.

Now for my interest in them: They are boldly walking from Denver to DC proclaiming repentance and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I think they are WONDERFUL! And if anyone has a harmful word to say about them, don't say it here or you will have to contend with me.

Here's a link: www.beitshalomministries.org

NealStanley

14th July 2007, 01:42

Traitor2Tyranny

14th July 2007, 01:46

don't say it here or you will have to contend with me.
Here's a link: www.beitshalomministries.org

I have written Ron Paul off, and it has nothing to do with Alex Jones. It has to do with his lack of proclamation for the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

they seem to promote Ron Paul.

Here's a link: www.beitshalomministries.org

Angela, Would this qualify as a harmful word?

They support Ron Paul in spite of his "lack of proclamation for the Kingship of Jesus Christ."

J. Glenn Ferrell

14th July 2007, 01:51

I have written Ron Paul off, and it has nothing to do with Alex Jones. It has to do with his lack of proclamation for the Kingship of Jesus Christ.
Angela: It may be many years before Covenanters like us have a candidate we may vote for without reservations. However, in the interim, I'm glad Dr. Paul is raising the issues he does.

MAC

14th July 2007, 04:15

You know... 'Principle over politics' was the foundational motto of the CP national but they sold out to "politics over principle". Can anyone here tell me where Ron Paul has NOT held consistently to principles? Has he been a "sell out" to "politics over principle"? Does he back-pedal, wet his finger and hold it up to the wind, or other such disgusting nonsense?

Beyond the CP's lack of principle on "Pro Life", there is the issue of "principle" in and of itself: the integrity of upholding "principle" itself. As I see it, Ron Paul holds up "principle" consistently.

Ron Paul may not be THE brand of denominational beliefs on this forum but I certainly do believe that the Lord can use him to begin the turn ...back to the path we have gotten off of ...if He so chooses! The Lord has used people of other denominations to do great things down the path of history. He even used a braying ass. I think He is quite capable of using Ron Paul to do good things in America. That isn't to put Dr Paul down, comparing him to an ass. Instead, it was lifting him or comparing him well above a braying animal [of which there seems to be a number of those running for president on stage with Dr Paul]. If he only accomplished 'good things' in the office of President that would be far and again better than what we have been getting for the past 146 years!

Just because he may not be shouting his religious beliefs and singing the name of God from the mountaintop doesn't mean the Saviour isn't in the picture of his life! Jesus did say to judge by their fruits. Looking at his 'fruit' I think it is pretty plain to see that it is good. Quite frankly, if all Ron Paul does is cause grid-lock or causing Congress constantly overriding his vetoes, he will be able to speak straight to the American people that HE, as their elected President, has acted on behalf of those who elected him, we the people, and call on the people to confront Congress for denying the will of the people.

I believe God has sent us a blessing in Ron Paul. Please! Let us thank God for Ron Paul and for His blessing of a candidate that we can get behind, support financially as well as actions, and vote FOR ...and who knows, maybe, just maybe God will grant us the blessing of a constitutional president that not only understands it, but is consistent and willing to carry it out!

There is less than 7 months left before the presidential primary. That is a short time to get Ron Paul's "Liberty and Freedom" message out to a LOT of people!

Weigh those reservations with your heart's cry for a candidate of Ron Paul's stature. Are the reservations really so bad that they are worse than a President Ron Paul over a Hillary Clinton? or a Rudy Giuliani? [though I believe Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can beat Hillary --for a number of reasons!]

There is only One who walked perfect. Even your brand isn't going to be perfect.

Joe_Liberty

14th July 2007, 02:20

While I am not comfortable with any candidate Ron Paul is the best hope I have seen so far. I wonder if he would accept a third party run again if the neo cons are successful in boxing him out of the primaries.

I have had the opportunity to talk to Ron several times in the last few months. In the first of those conversations, shortly after announcing he was running, I asked him about whether he would consider running as a third party candidates. His answer was a resounding "no." If he loses the Republican primary, his campaign is over.

Joe_Liberty

14th July 2007, 02:30

Can anyone here tell me where Ron Paul has NOT held consistently to principles? Has he been a "sell out" to "politics over principle"?

I believe you can find some examples of what you are looking for here:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

angelawittman

14th July 2007, 03:09

Dear T2T,

I read Raymond Schwab's and Elliott Nesch's testimony as well as their reports while walking from Denver to DC, and I believe they are true Christian men serving the LORD in the power of the Holy Spirit. I have no problem with them supporting Ron Paul. All I am saying is that with the "light" the LORD has given me, I cannot in good conscience support any man who does not put the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ first. For example, we had a good Christian Constitutionalist running for Governor of IL in 2006 - Randy Stufflebeam of the Constitution Party of IL. I did not support Randy, and it was not due to personal differences as he told others. It was due to his lack of knowledge of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the nations (and their respective states).

You all should serve the LORD as He leads you with the understanding of Scripture He has given you. All I ask is for you to allow me the same grace to serve Him as He leads me with the understanding of Scripture He has given me. For the record, I SUPPORTED and CAMPAIGNED for the Libertarian candidate for IL in 2002 - Cal Skinner - a Christian Constitutionalist. From the knowledge I had at the time, he was the best choice for governor and I saw no need to explicitly press the Crown Rights of Christ. I did not know too much about covenanting at that time. Was I an unsaved heretic? NO. I was a sincere Christian woman who was pragmatic.

Thank you and I hope this answers your question.

angelawittman

14th July 2007, 03:23

Dear Joe,

In order for a man to be elected and retain his seat, he has to please his support base. If the people are coveting tax dollars for their pet projects, then it only makes practical pragmatic sense that the elected official is going to bring home the "bacon."

We had better be doing some serious prayer and fasting as this pluralist nation appears to be getting exactly what she deserves from the hand of God.

Jaime

14th July 2007, 07:17

I believe you can find some examples of what you are looking for here:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/all...tx.14.paul.pdf

That's it? This is the smoking gun that proves Dr. Paul's inconsistency?

Dr. Paul has stated that at the request of a constituent he will write a letter for mark-up. But that he always votes against it.

Notice the Congressional District that Dr. Paul represents. Lots of fishing.

The FDA's address is the relevant division.

If y'all are looking for so many excuses not to vote for Dr. Paul, just stop the charade, and do not vote for Dr. Paul.

The more perfect candidate will show in 2012.

Traitor2Tyranny

14th July 2007, 08:56

The link won't work for me.

NealStanley

14th July 2007, 09:07

I have had the opportunity to talk to Ron several times in the last few months. In the first of those conversations, shortly after announcing he was running, I asked him about whether he would consider running as a third party candidates. His answer was a resounding "no." If he loses the Republican primary, his campaign is over.

Thanks Joe, I sorta figured that would be his answer. :(

loupoumakis

14th July 2007, 10:00

You all should serve the LORD as He leads you with the understanding of Scripture He has given you. All I ask is for you to allow me the same grace to serve Him as He leads me with the understanding of Scripture He has given me.

Angela,

I would like to point out, with all due respect, that you are asking for much more than you state here. In these posts you are not merely doing your own thing, you are influencing others to follow your example. In doing so, you open yourself to criticism and need to either answer your critics from a biblical perspective or remain silent.

You make the declarative statement, "I cannot in good conscience support any man who does not put the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ first." How do you know this for a fact? Has Ron Paul stated that he does not? Does his voting record show that he does not? The fact that he hasn't said so in so many words does not mean that he doesn't put Christ first. He has made a public declaration of faith as a Christian. What is there in his statements, his actions, his voting record that justifies your positive assertion to the contrary?

It seems to me that just about everything Ron Paul has proven he stands for is consistent with biblical principles and therefore, he does assert the crown rights of Jesus Christ. He does so, not in his words but in his deeds; and didn't Jesus teach us to judge by fruits and not words?

But I would go further. Even if his Christian faith turns out to be flawed in many respects, it seems to me that what he proposes to do as President is fully in line with furthering the crown rights of Jesus Christ. More importantly, I think his record proves that he will do as he says. Would we be better off with someone (whomever that might be) that said the right words but didn't act accordingly?

I can appreciate that you've been burned in the past but I submit that perhaps you're over-reacting and should reconsider your rather dogmatic position. This country is in deep trouble and the only light on the governmental horizon today is Ron Paul. If we can get the sleeping Christians behind him, he has a chance and maybe, just maybe, we can buy some time, time to wake people up and make a real change in our culture.

For the King,

Lou

J. Glenn Ferrell

14th July 2007, 10:25

But I would go further. Even if his Christian faith turns out to be flawed in many respects, it seems to me that what he proposes to do as President is fully in line with furthering the crown rights of Jesus Christ. More importantly, I think his record proves that he will do as he says. Would we be better off with someone (whomever that might be) that said the right words but didn't act accordingly?

.....This country is in deep trouble and the only light on the governmental horizon today is Ron Paul. God will use Ron Paul to accomplish his purposes, as he will also use Hilary Clinton and Mit Romney. I want Paul to make a good showing and may contribute to his campaign.

However, Ron Paul is not the only light on the governmental horizon. Jesus Christ has all authority in his hands and will dispose of governments and politicians as he will. Ron Paul is no more a messiah or our only hope than George Bush.

angelawittman

14th July 2007, 11:15

angelawittman

14th July 2007, 11:27

Dear Lou, this is not a good way to begin a dialog with me. Would you like to reword this?

In doing so, you open yourself to criticism and need to either answer your critics from a biblical perspective or remain silent.

For example, I do not "need" to do anything. I do not "need" to answer my critics from any type of perspective, and I most certainly do not "need" to remain silent.

Before I became a Christian, I was silent when I should have spoken. I have repented of being silent and I pray to still be speaking even from the grave. :)

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 12:23

Dear Lou,

Before I retire for the night, I also want to ask you to clarify what you mean by "I can appreciate that you've been burned in the past."

The only time I have been burned is when I have flirted with sin, gotten too close to escape, and as a consequence was burned. I have no cause to be bitter about anything... The LORD is the Author and the Finisher of my faith; He is trustworthy and He will complete the work He has begun. I praise the LORD for everything in my life, the good and the bad. I would much rather go through some hard times with the LORD than go through only good times alone. :)

SUBJECT RON PAUL: Now, I know some people are discreet about their faith, but I have never been this way. So it is hard for me to comprehend why a born again believer is not proclaiming the Gospel every opportunity given. What I mean by not "pressing the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ' is I have not heard Ron Paul rebuke the sin of our national leaders nor have I heard of him explaining to them what God's Word says and how they are in error. I do not see him proclaiming the Lordship of Christ as Mr. Lofton does. To be quite honest, I just may write in "John Lofton" on my ballot for President in 2008.

Jaime

15th July 2007, 10:26

Ron Paul is no more a messiah or our only hope than George Bush.

I agree but that is not what I think Dr. Paul is. Dr. Paul is simply the best human in a very long time to reflect a truer understanding of what the Constitution established. Heck, Dr. Paul may be the only person vying for the office of POTUS who has read the Constitution and, perhaps, who even read books of substance.

Jaime

15th July 2007, 11:51

HoustonChronicle.com
June 30, 2007, 1:46PM
Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 earmarks
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4934728.html

For some reason I can no longer open PDFs.

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 04:15

Dear Jaime,

I went to the link for the Ron Paul "earmarks" and the point was raised in the comment section that since Ron Paul votes against the bills with the earmarks, what's the big deal? (Angela paraphrase) Well, the trouble is others are voting to approve the earmarked bills, and Mr. Paul is complicit in their passage/approval even though he is voting against the bill.

Jaime

15th July 2007, 04:22

Search the internet for earmarks and how they work. Some earmarks do indeed add more costs but, let me know if you find out differently, Dr. Paul has explained that many earmarks, like his, all they do is to reallocate monies already allocated in a given bill and do not involve added costs.

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 04:26

Dear Jaime,

The principled thing to do in my opinion, is to refuse to take part in the earmarks and explain to fellow legislators why they shouldn't either.

loupoumakis

15th July 2007, 05:14

Dear Lou,

You and I may need to discuss this in another format other than a public forum...

I think I need to begin with an understanding of your religious beliefs, and what is your background? Where do you go to Church and is your pastor a theonomist? How much have you studied the history of the Scottish Covenanters? Are you familiar with the National Reform Association, and what do you think about a Constitutional amendment acknowledging Christ Jesus as LORD? Have you been to the website of Dennis Woods "Ismellarat.com"? What do you think of it? What do you think of a theocracy; are you for or against it?

If you want me to toss out some Scriptures, I will begin with Psalm 2. How do you interpret this? Do you believe Christ is King now or that He will be king in the future?

I will check back later for your answers, and we can go from there.

Dear Angela,

I don't know which forum to go to but since you ask your questions here, I'll respond here:

My background is Reformed Presbyterian, ordained elder in the PCA and later presbyter in the FORC. I am a theonomist and postmillennialist subscribing to R. J. Rushdoony's teaching in these areas. I am familiar with the NRA and would be overjoyed to see an amendment declaring Christ as Lord become law. I hadn't seen the Dennis Woods website before but I believe it is substantially correct. Several years ago I concluded that Patrick Henry was right in smelling a rat. The constitutional convention should have declared Christ as King and their failure is something we have to live with today. Psalm 2 clearly declares the kingship of Christ on earth then and now.

So you see, I'm really not your enemy. I think we both want to bring about the same end. We want to see Christ's kingdom come and all His enemies made a footstool for his feet. Our differences lie in the methodology we would employ. Yes, I'd be quite ready to support a true theonomist candidate, one we could agree with at every point, but I don't think we should hold out until we find such a person. We might have a very long wait and, while we're waiting, the national scene will continue to decline further and further into godlessness. The longer we wait, the more entrenched the enemy will be and the more difficult it will be to pick up the pieces.

I don’t think any real change will come about until the hearts of the American people, especially Christians, begin to submit to God’s law. That’s where the fundamental battle lies and it can’t be won through politics. Good civil government can only follow the good self-government of a godly population. But that said, we are charged by the Lord to be salt and light and, as salt, we need to do what we can to preserve the meat, to keep the culture from utter corruption. And, it seems to me that getting a Ron Paul elected would go a long way in that direction. It would be a major step toward freedom of speech in our pulpits and everywhere else. It could set the Devil’s work back several decades. Until Ron Paul came along, I didn’t see anyone in politics worth working for. Whether he is a Christian or not is a secondary consideration, secondary in that what is important is what is accomplished toward that end. To be the salt Christ commands us to be, we need to focus on results, not shibboleths. We should be ready to use whatever resources are available to us, including unbelievers, to increase the talents He gave us. What we must not do is fall prey to lying lips and false pretenders, most of whom will do the Devil’s work if elected to office (e.g. the “wonderful Christian man” George Bush who is doing all he can to subvert America). I believe Ron Paul is a Christian but even if he were not, he would still be a positive asset rather than the liability I see in every other choice before us in this coming election.

For Christ, the rightful governor of the nations of the earth,

Lou P.

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 05:50

Dear Lou,

Thank you very much for the background information... It seems we are on the same page in most areas. Our difference may lie in a more fundamental area of how to achieve our goals or how to resist/hold back the wicked. My thought is we vote for Christian Statesmen and put pressure on the LORD to bring about change in America.

I have never said nor do I want to imply that Ron Paul is not a Christian. I think he does a fine job in Congress. I am only saying that I do not plan to vote for him for president, and I have given my reasons why. Please do not forget my severe allergic reaction to anything republican. If I were to go into the voting booth on Primary Day in Illinois as a republican, it may cause such a severe shock to my system that I may never recover.:)

loupoumakis

15th July 2007, 06:04

Dear Lou, this is not a good way to begin a dialog with me. Would you like to reword this?

For example, I do not "need" to do anything. I do not "need" to answer my critics from any type of perspective, and I most certainly do not "need" to remain silent.

Before I became a Christian, I was silent when I should have spoken. I have repented of being silent and I pray to still be speaking even from the grave. :)

Dear Angela,

This appears to be a misunderstanding. I was only saying that when one posts something on this forum, he should be prepared to defend what he says from a biblical perspective. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that you were trying to avoid doing so. If I was wrong, please accept my apology.

Lou

loupoumakis

15th July 2007, 06:24

Joe_Liberty

15th July 2007, 07:48

Dr. Paul has stated that at the request of a constituent he will write a letter for mark-up.

In other words, sometimes Ron puts politics above principle. That is the question Mary Ann asked. She seems determined to vote for him, as do you.

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 08:40

Dear Lou,

Please accept my apology for misunderstanding your remarks. Yes, I should be prepared to defend my beliefs and opinions, and pray to do so. This is why I wanted to see where you were coming from, so to speak. If you were new to the idea of Jesus Christ as Lord of the nations, then I would try to build an understanding of that with you before I were to argue/defend why I am not going to vote for Ron Paul as president in the republican primary.

As we are both of the same mind, (except you may be quite a bit farther along in your understanding than I) we can build from the point of is he a man who will acknowledge Jesus Christ as LORD of America if elected. I happen to think America needs to repent of her pluralism and acknowledge the One True God. If we both agree in a Constitutional Amendment acknowledging Christ as LORD of America, is Ron Paul the man to move the ball forward on this or does he lean too far toward libertarian views about "freedom of religion"? I sincerely ask this, and most of you may know the answer, but I do not. My impression so far is he would continue the pluralism.

Ron Paul cannot save America, nor can he prevent God's judgment upon us. We need to get in line with God by repenting of our denial of Jesus Christ and correct what was made wrong at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

I advise you to order Dennis Woods book "Discipling the Nations." It is excellent!

Jaxon

15th July 2007, 08:43

My question is sincere: By the uS gov't amending the Constitution to declare Jesus Christ as King, would this be like the uS gov't saying they are the arbiters of Kingship to Christ? I'm wondering in regards to comments I've seen in this forum where people argue that a federal amendment for hetero marriage would be like saying the federal gov't is "creating" the definition of marriage when it is already set in stone...

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 08:48

Re Write-in vote for Mr. Lofton:

Dear Lou,
Mr. Lofton has proven his understanding of civil government from a Biblical worldview. Mr. Paul has only proven that he more than likely understands civil government from a Constitutional worldview. The two are not the same.

I stand by my previous remark of writing in Mr. Lofton.

angelawittman

15th July 2007, 08:52

By the uS gov't amending the Constitution to declare Jesus Christ as King, would this be like the uS gov't saying they are the arbiters of Kingship to Christ?

No. It would be man acknowledging Christ as Lord, and that our rights come from Him. It would also produce humility in the hearts of the civil magistrates, which they are sorely lacking as a whole. Instead we acknowledge "We the people" as sovereign, and then we wonder why we are marching toward tyranny in America.

Jaxon

15th July 2007, 10:31

No. It would be man acknowledging Christ as Lord, and that our rights come from Him. It would also produce humility in the hearts of the civil magistrates, which they are sorely lacking as a whole. Instead we acknowledge "We the people" as sovereign, and then we wonder why we are marching toward tyranny in America.

Dear sister,

Thanks for your answer, that helps.

-Justin

Jaime

15th July 2007, 11:26

So, in response to a constituent Dr. Paul earmarks a bill to redirect monies already allocated with zero additional costs.

Unprincipled? I don't think so. His constituents already know that Dr. Paulwill vote against it.

Dr. Paul in my opinion is more principled than the rascals, including George Washington, who violated their charter and created a new Constitution.

Any change of the Federal government towards a closer reading of the Constitution, at least, will be better.

Dr. Paul as POTUS will be a real change for the better.

Traitor2Tyranny

16th July 2007, 08:54

Here is a video of Ron Paul debating like John Lofton. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo). :p

J. Glenn Ferrell

16th July 2007, 10:33

By the uS gov't amending the Constitution to declare Jesus Christ as King, would this be like the uS gov't saying they are the arbiters of Kingship to Christ? ...
It's a matter of Ps. 2:12:

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

Traitor2Tyranny

16th July 2007, 10:59

Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE)

Jaxon

16th July 2007, 11:29

It's a matter of Ps. 2:12:

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

Would it not be equally if not more important then, to push for each and every village, town, city, and State to make official declarations of Jesus' Kingship over the local government?

angelawittman

16th July 2007, 12:06

Would it not be equally if not more important then, to push for each and every village, town, city, and State to make official declarations of Jesus' Kingship over the local government?

Dear Jaxon,

I have often wondered the same thing, and perhaps this is where we can start... To be quite honest, I have seen the Christian community grow in Monroe County, IL within the last 15 years... For example, we have more churches, we have more Christians running for local office and we now have 3 born-again (2 evangelical and 1 reformed covenanting) Christian women writing weekly/bi-weekly columns for our local paper.

Jaime

16th July 2007, 05:25

Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup

Now Google SAVAK and pay attention for how many years those Boy Scouts were in business. And the nature and methods of their business.

J. Glenn Ferrell

16th July 2007, 07:34

Would it not be equally if not more important then, to push for each and every village, town, city, and State to make official declarations of Jesus' Kingship over the local government? And, family head and individual...

It is called covenanting.

For example, Joshua 24:15-25

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed: And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the LORD, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses. Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel. And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.

Check out historical examples in

The Mayflower Compact (1620)

http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Mayflower.html

The National Covenant of Scotland (1638)

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/nationalcovenant.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant (1643)

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/solemnleague.htm

Jaime

22nd July 2007, 10:07

Statement of Faith
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

(snip)

------------------
The only disagreement, at the end, when he refers to "our divinely inspired Constitution."

angelawittman

22nd July 2007, 10:25

Re: Concern for "our divinely inspired Constitution" remark:

Please read this excerpt from "The History of the Reformed Presbyterian Chruch in North America from 1528 to 2004" by Bill Edgar, Reformed Presbyterian International Conference, Calvin College, July, 2004:

The American Revolution, which was also a civil war, began. The segment of Americans who truly supported the war included all of the Society People, all Seceders, indeed all Presbyterians. Americans of Scottish descent loved this war against England. They remembered the years of oppression and persecution at English hands. An Episcopalian from Philadelphia said, "A Presbyterian loyalist was a thing unheard of." A representative of Lord Dartmouth wrote from New York in November 1776: "Presbyterianism is really at the bottom of this whole Conspiracy, has supplied it with Vigour, and will never rest, till something is decided upon it." A Hessian captain wrote in 1778, "Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian rebellion." King George III himself was reported to have called the war a Presbyterian War.

With French help, the Americans won. A new nation emerged. Reformed Presbyterians no longer needed to dissent from an ecclesiastical and political establishment that denied the covenants. Then the states ratified a new constitution, written in secret in Philadelphia in 1787. The Covenanters were aghast at its secularism. Governments of Christian lands had acknowledged Christ's reign since Roman times, but the United States Constitution conspicuously omitted any reference to God or Christ. In Scotland the main issue had been the independence of the Christian Church from a professedly Christian King. In America, the issue was the government's wholesale denial of Christ's authority over the nations.

James McKinney arrived in 1793 from Ireland to escape arrest as a suspected supporter of Irish independence. He articulated the Covenanters' reasons for dissent from the constitution. It did not recognize the mediatorial Ruler of the universe, the Lord Jesus Christ. It granted equal protection to any and all religions, allowing even atheists to hold office. It even protected the outrageously sinful institution of slavery! In 1803, Samuel Wylie published Two Sons of Oil explaining the Reformed Presbyterian dissent from the Constitution. He did not mention the covenants nor the issue of bishops. An immigrant church had become an American church, dealing with American issues from the standpoint of the faith of Christendom as known through the experience of the Scottish Covenanters. However, the practical applications of dissent were like those in the old country: no office holding, no voting in elections, no swearing an oath of allegiance to an ungodly constitution, no joining the army. Beyond that, Covenanters lived as peaceable members of society.

http://www.christchurchreformed.com/Whoweare/History%20RPCNA%201528%20to%202004.htm

johnwk

24th July 2007, 08:48

So when is Ron Paul going to base his campaign theme on, It’s time to close down Congress’s political plum job Empire which has made the America Taxpayer, Mary and Joe Sixpack, its tax slave?

He could give a perfect example of how Congress’s Empire works to enslave Mary and Joe by pointing to the federal Department of Education.

Question is, why would the Congress of the united States decide to meddle in a state constitutionally authorized function, such as State public schools, which Mary and Joe Sixpack living in Michigan are taxed to finance by their State Legislature and can barely meet their own economic needs? Surprise, surprise! This trespass into a state function has allowed Congress to create, thus far, approximately 5,000 federal political plum jobs with very generous salaries, top of the shelf medical insurance plans, and, outrageous retirement pension programs, which Mary and Joe, who run a small lawn care maintenance business can only dream of having.

And what do Congress’s political plum job holders do? They redistribute money from the federal treasury for a function not authorized by our written federal Constitution. In return, these political plum job holders turn out to be Congress’s personal foot soldiers during federal election time and double a campaign workers to prop up the Washington Establishment’s Empire.

Ron Paul could then point out by closing down the Federal Department of Education and returning its budget [$ 67 BILLION, which was approximately the entire federal budget in 1952] to the various states by the rule of apportionment, Michigan would receive a very generous $26 MILLION which I‘m sure would help to reduce the taxes Mary and Joe Sixpack now pay for a state constitutionally authorized function.

Seems to me the only problem Ron Paul would have with this campaign theme is, it threatens the iron fist of the federal government which would be weakened and Congress would loose 5,000 loyal foot soldiers who would have to find real jobs, perhaps picking lettuce, and would learn what it means to earn an honest day’s pay.

Ron Paul could further point out that the simple truth is, those receiving federal revenue, whether it’s a monthly family assistance check, a corporate welfare check, or a federal pay check and lavish benefits for administering corporate welfare and family assistance checks, are not going to vote to end their own feeding at the federal trough, and, in the process, the Washington Establishment’s Empire lives on and flourishes while Congress keeps Mary and Joe Sixpack as federal tax slaves to fund the Empire which is nothing more than a modern day plantation!

We have a parasitic infestation in Washington which ignores the delegated powers grant by our federal Constitution:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

This parasitic infestation is the main cause of our misery and must be dealt with just as any other pest infestation is dealt with … its time to apply TERMINIX, our founding father’s original tax plan which would go a long way to choke the life out of the parasitic infestation in Washington which now causes our misery!

See Republicans miss boat on health care! (http://hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263135) for a different twist. The template works for all those functions reserved to the states which the people in the states are already taxed for, but which Congress now meddles in to create political plum jobs [Congress’s foot soldiers] and a dependent voting constituency!

Regards,

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

MAC

25th July 2007, 03:44

Just a little side note here on "Republicans miss boat on health care!"

No, they have played a part in the health care debaucle: We have semi-socialised health care in these united States and at age 65, unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford to pay the outrageous and ungodly prices of medical care out of pocket, you are then on complete socialised medicine! Congress settled that some time in years past making it impossible to continue your prior insurance policy or to purchase a complete private health insurance policy.

I recent 3-day stay at the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital for my 89 year old father was a grand total of $14,839.38 --that included ER, EKG/ECG, MRI, Lab, Med/Surg supplies, Pharmacy, Radiology diagnostic, Respiratory services, Physical therapy, Pulmonary function, and his room [and a catherter on wrong that sent him back to ER for another bill after getting discharged]. This doesn't count the AirVac LifeLift helicopter ride --haven't gotten the bill for that yet. Then in less than 2 days he was back in the local hospital with pneumonia for a week and then a 3 week stay at the nursing home for rehab --he isn't strong enough yet to take care of himself so he will start footing his own bill @ $124 a day till he is strong enough to be on his own [he lives alone].

Because of his over-all health problems, short of a quick merciful death he will eventually find the nursing home his homestead, suffering a horrible death of suffication from COPD ...and all of his life's toil [his modest home, car and small savings] will go to pay for the nursing home. When the 'cash cow' runs out then Medicare will take back over the payments to the nursing home ...if he is still alive.

Oh, and prior to the 3-day visit at UAB hospital will be the bill for the ER at the local hospital that deemed it necessary for him to be Air Lifted --and in my book, it was all a 'cover our behind' from a lawsuit ...or, it was medical incompetence.

I just sat in a "family meeting" with one of my brothers and the nursing home's staff regarding the future of our father, etc. and I politely said that if the government, doctors and pharmaceutical hadn't all got their hands in the health care business my father would be able to afford paying the nursing home, etc. and keep his home, etc. instead of going under from the ungodly and outrageous medical expenses. They every one said I was right, they understood, and agreed wholeheardedly with what I said.

Even with insurance, a major emergency problem such as a heart attack, the co-pay alone will put one under or paying it off for the rest of their life.

Tell me we don't have socialised medicine? Humph!

Camp Director

25th July 2007, 09:58

Tell me we don't have socialized medicine? Humph!Socialized medicine has existed here since the 1940's when "health insurance" (really just a co-operative pool of money administered by a third-party) was used to lure workers to big manufacturing during labor shortages. The argument has not been over whether or not we will have socialized medicine, but who will be in control of it. The National Socialist Republicans want third-party pay in the hands of private companies with federal direction. The Social Democrats want it in the hands of the federal government with no business or public input. Which is worse? Probably the latter, but only because there's at least the illusion of "competition" under the former.

How about the churches get back into their hospital ministries. You know, just like back when hospitals worked! Before they were all sold to profit-making corporations who make their profits not by free-enterprise but by being the best at working the unworkable system for government payouts and insurance company graft, kind of like how Donald Trump became a success in NYC real estate.

The system's busted, just like other socialized three-star messes like education. The government can't fix it. Especially the federal government. Only we can at the state, local and individual levels.

James Niemela

26th July 2007, 01:51

Congressman Paul addressing the "National Right to Life" Convention on June 15, 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

James Niemela

loupoumakis

31st July 2007, 09:19

I don't know if this has been posted here before or not but there has been some question as to Ron Paul's faith so here it is. I received this in an E-mail from Mark Elam, his campaign manager for Texas.

Statement of Faith

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

angelawittman

8th August 2007, 04:34

...Dr. Paul is speaking out on subjects better left to the far right talk jocks like Aaron Russo, Alex Jones and Michael Savage. The Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1988, Ron Paul sounds more like a fringe candidate in an aluminum foil cap than a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas. -- http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon184.htm - Republicans Not Pleased With Their Options by Jon Christian Ryter

Well, dear friends, if the NWO Bushbots continue at this pace, I just may have to join the Ron Paul Revolution. :)

Joe_Liberty

8th August 2007, 07:57

I am sending the following to Jon BAFFauthor@aol.com :

I am at a loss to figure out what you are talking about. What subjects is Ron Paul speaking out on that make him sound like a fringe candidate and why should any subjects be left exclusively to radio hosts? And what debates and polls has he been excluded from? I watched the ABC debate that included him and have voted for him in several mainstream media polls that he has won easily. I would not be pleased with the Republican presidential candidates were it not for Ron Paul.

angelawittman

8th August 2007, 08:45

I sent him a copy of Steve Lefemine's most recent email: Fred Thompson NOT Pro-Life, June 5, 2007, on FOX News with Sean Hannity which I plan to have posted at LefemineforLife.net this evening. :)

Traitor2Tyranny

11th August 2007, 09:48

August 11, 2007

Ron Paul Iowa Straw Poll Speech, Pt 1 - Video (http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/bnews2.cfm?rank_cho=4494)

August 11, 2007

Ron Paul Iowa Straw Poll Speech, Pt 2 - Video (http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/bnews2.cfm?rank_cho=4495)

Traitor2Tyranny

12th August 2007, 12:25

Here is Ron Paul being interviewed by Mickelson (http://cache.libsyn.com/mickelson/mickelson-2007-08-09.mp3)

James Niemela

12th August 2007, 02:58

And here is a statement from the Ron Paul campaign on the good showing in the Iowa Straw Poll.

"August 12, 2007

On behalf of Dr. Ron Paul and his wife Carol, and the Ron Paul 2008
campaign staff, I thank our supporters and volunteers in Iowa and
throughout the country for the strong showing in the Iowa straw poll. We are
pleased and encouraged by the results.

We have the three ingredients for success:
1. The message: freedom, peace and prosperity.
2. The man: Ron Paul.
3. You.

Our campaign has begun.

Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008
http://www.ronpaul2008.com"

angelawittman

12th August 2007, 03:08

I do like Kent Snyder... And I am taking a serious look at Mr. Paul's candidacy. For those who visit the website ChristianLibertyParty.com, do you think we should take a position on Mr. Paul's candidacy? Perhaps Keith should take a poll?

TimV

12th August 2007, 04:58

It's the lowest common denominator again. Is there anything that would exclude any of the others? Yes, things like legal abortions, supported the unjust war in Iraq, etc..

Is there anything that would disqualify Paul? Not stuff like tertiary disagreements, but things that would disqualify him?

Traitor2Tyranny

13th August 2007, 02:02

I wonder if Wikipedia has it right when they say that Michael Peroutka endorsed Dr. Paul. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008)

angelawittman

17th August 2007, 12:20

Dear Friends,

This is a bit off topic, but still relevant to this thread. If you all remember, I had previously mentioned my disaffiliation with the republican party in this thread. I now must prepare you all for a surprise...

The LORD has given me the honor of helping a Christian Statesman, Larry Kilgore, with his campaign for the US Senate in Texas. In fact, I will be his media coordinator. Here is his campaign website: www.larrykilgore.com (http://www.larrykilgore.com).

Mr. Kilgore is part of the Ron Paul Revolution and supports his candidacy for President.

Here is the surprise: Mr. Kilgore is running as a Republican. I suppose this means that even if I think I have blown up a bridge, the LORD will reconstruct it, if it pleases Him to do so.

Please know I am still a supporter of the American Heritage Party.

If you have any questions, please email me at: info@larrykilgore.com

Thank you. :)

PS
RE: Wikipedia... I am going to write an article about Mr. Kilgore for it. I will share the link when I am finished.

rcdavis

17th August 2007, 07:45

I wonder if Wikipedia has it right when they say that Michael Peroutka endorsed Dr. Paul. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008)

Here's the relevant quote from the story the Wiki references:

"Peroutka believes the only candidate who comes close to having an "American biblical" view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who holds many libertarian views.

Methinks the relevant words are "comes close". This does not equate to an endorsement in my reading.

-Ricardo

rcdavis

17th August 2007, 08:05

angelawittman

17th August 2007, 08:45

Dear Ricardo,

I tend to agree with you, and I know that we independent voters are the ones who will get out there and work with all our might to get a good man elected... I prefer independent candidates.

Angela's view only: I hate to see good men beaten and abused by the republican party machine. The republican party is not worthy of God's men who run for office. In fact, gentlemen, if you get a man of God who also serves as a street preacher to run for office, I promise to work almost non-stop for that candidate.

Praise the LORD! I believe I am working for at least 2 right now, and I need to get back to work. :) Thank you, dear LORD Jesus.

Joe_Liberty

18th August 2007, 04:12

Now for a moment of reflective commentary...

Ron Paul's (RP's) candidacy faces some significant challenges. I've attended a few RP events last month. My opinion, looking at the performance leading up to the Iowa straw poll, is that the campaign has not done a good job delivering a convincing message to the target audience -- Republican party activists and GOP primary election voters. Think about who are the most ardent, enthusiastic folks at RP campaign events: the Libertarians, some independents, the voter who has lost confidence and who strongly resonates with one or two key RP issues, and the constitutionalists. Most of these will deliver their vote in the general election, but this audience will not deliver a win at the Republican National Convention, period. Given that RP is on the record that he would not pursue the presidency as an independent in 2008 should he not have the delegates needed by February means winning GOP primaries and getting committed delegates at the county and state level is the goal. If his campaign keeps communicating an essentially libertarian message then I think his campaign will continue to get second-tier candidate results.

Of course, I reserve the right to be proven wrong. I would love to see RP continue to slice and dice Guiliani in debates.

-Ricardo

My take is that right now the Republican nomination is wide open and Ron Paul has as good an opportunity as any of the candidates and better than some. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but the amount of money he has and his fifth place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll and third place finish in the Illinois straw poll should help.

I have attended some local Ron Paul events and found many of his supporters are registered Republicans. Most of the rest - independents, and Libertarian and Constitution Party members - told me they were planning to register as Republicans for the purpose of being able to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. That is required in my state, but some states have open primaries. I have heard a lot of criticism directed at Ron Paul by libertarians who are not planning to vote for Ron Paul over what they describe as his departure from libertarian orthodoxy on right to life, trade, and other issues.

I certainly don't think his campaign is perfect, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how well as he has done so far. I would place him firmly in the top tier in terms of money on hand, straw poll results, and media attention. I can hardly turn on the television or radio, or open a newspaper these days, without seeing or hearing Ron Paul.

Wraith

20th August 2007, 10:27

I think if he focuses on the no inflation issue he will get a whole heck of a lot more votes. When I talk to people about him and his views they don't show much interest till I bring up what he said at the first debate where he said he would end the inflation tax then they show a whole lot of interest. Its amazing how many people do not like inflation.

Spurgeon Baptist

20th August 2007, 11:20

Now for a moment of reflective commentary...

If his campaign keeps communicating an essentially libertarian message then I think his campaign will continue to get second-tier candidate results.

You're right on, Ricardo. This is what I have been preaching since June! Most of the RP supporters I've seen are "9/11 Truthers" who scare away most GOP loyalists.

Jaime

21st August 2007, 11:30

I left the GOP and have voted for the Constitution Party, even having to write-in.

I have attended one Meetup for Ron Paul and the only one of the 15 or so people who had a history of voting and of voting in GOP primaries was me. My wife and I have been delegates to the GOP State Convention once. In Texas, open primary, there will be big surprises to some.

rcdavis, you will proven wrong.

If his campaign keeps communicating an essentially libertarian message then I think his campaign will continue to get second-tier candidate results.

Do you understand that what is viewed as libertarian today was standard conservatism in 40's and 50's ? What is now termed paleo-conservatism is is a constitutionalist. A constitutionalist is one who reads the Constitution and interprets it according to what is containted in the text, which means a libertarian view of the Federal government. This is the only sense in how Ron Dr. Paul accepts the moniker of libertarian.

But Dr. Paul is not a libertarian anymore than I am.

And Dr. Paul will continue to remind the GOP activists what the GOP was saying about the Federal govermnment as recently as Ronald Reagan. And if Dr. Paul does not get the nomination it will mean that the GOP is finally dead. And, that it has completely departed from the concept of a constitutionally limited form of Federalism and that it has totally been sold on the Natinal Greatness - Manifest Destiny Imperialism.

In other words, Dr. Paul is the political defibrillator of the Republic. It will not bring the body back to complete health but it will give it a chance to live.

TimV

21st August 2007, 12:01

MAC

22nd August 2007, 03:25

Got a Ron Paul bumper sticker on the other day, and saw another one yesterday. A twenty something skin head type with muscles and fancy teeth bling. I stopped to talk to him, and he seemed much more mature than I'd stereotype him. Interesting also how the neos are going out of their way to trash him so much.

As it has been said time and again: if you cannot beat the message, trash the messenger!

TimV, that is all they have is 'trash the messenger'! His message is right and they know it! They also know that his message is the message Americans have been calling for for eons, and, in which the Republicans have ignored for eons! It is coming back to haunt them! ;) YES! May it haunt them terribly!

angelawittman

22nd August 2007, 10:18

Dear Jaime,

In your previous post, you quote Ricardo and say this:

rcdavis, you will proven wrong.

Quote:
If his campaign keeps communicating an essentially libertarian message then I think his campaign will continue to get second-tier candidate results.

Please do not misunderstand my view, which is any candidate who takes a stand for liberty from the leviathan we call the united States will "get second-tier candidate results" which is not due to any fault of the candidate, but is the result of having a two-headed one party system in America.

If a candidate is NOT the favorite of the GOP, he has my interest, and if they try to distance themselves from that candidate, he just may get my support. I think it is GOOD that the established GOP elites do not support his candidacy. This should give Ron Paul more credibility with the grass root citizens, in my opinion.

I do not trust the nanny state and I highly resent it's intrusion into Americans lives. I am not a GOP Loyalist and I do want the truth about 9-11 made known. If this makes me a conspiracy theorist, then so be it. I will wear my tin hat proudly.

I look forward to the American View's Ron Paul interview (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1903), and hope it will help me to come to a decision about whether or not to support his campaign.

angelawittman

27th August 2007, 03:41

Triton

27th August 2007, 08:31

Dear Friends,

I just spoke with Larry Kilgore, candidate for US Senate in Texas, and after listening to the John Lofton/Ron Paul interview, Mr. Kilgore has this response:

Mr. Kilgore agrees with Dr. Paul on many issues; but he is disheartened by Dr. Paul's response on homosexuality and abortifacients such as the MAP. Mr. Kilgore believes abortion is murder and homosexuality is sin as plainly stated in God's Word.

Thank you,
Angela Wittman
Media Coordinator
Larry Kilgore for US Senate
www.LarryKilgore.com (http://www.LarryKilgore.com)

Email: info@LarryKilgore.comYour point is? The Constitution mentions neither. Those battles are best fought (and won) on a state-by-state level. Give a government a tool which is not intended to have, and it will turn that tool into a weapon.

Traitor2Tyranny

3rd January 2008, 03:58

Concluding that Ron Paul is a Darwinist -- does not believe the Genesis account of Creation -- based on the inane hand-raising display -- is a stretch that surpasses credulity.

I hope that you will not sit on my jury, friend.

That is why I suggested that all else regarding the TV topics in question is irrelevant, including the "betting" banter with George S. on ABC. Paul lives in the real world, beyond the sanitized, religious lingo of the self-righteous. If that comment is offensive, consider it a general observation about extreme piety in the political jargon of some Christian activists, of which I may be as guilty as my well-intentioned brethren. At least Paul has a vastly larger audience. Within reasonable time, therefore, I suspect he will sharpen his elocution.

Then again, maybe not; but he surely will have been picked clean by the vultures.

Cheers.

Ron Paul rejects evolutionary theory in this video. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zz94-OrnXzE) He says he believes in creation.

Why would he reject the theory of evolution and claim that we are created?