Posted on 11/05/2009 8:44:38 PM PST by GoldStandard
Josh Kraushaar catches a surprising poll in the 2010 primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. In the GOP race, Rand Paul, the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a first-time candidate, has jumped out to a small lead over Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The trends:
Rand Paul – 35 (+9)
Trey Grayson – 32 (-4)
Paul has an eight-point lead among “conservative” voters who make up about 70 percent of the GOP primary electorate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
I sure hope he’s not a fruit-cake, like his dad. If he’s a true conservative, then more power to him.
ping
Ron Paul is not a fruitcake
Look at these 2 interviews http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#27738
He is one of the best defenders of the Constitution we have in Congress. He is pro 2nd Amendment, Pro Life, for a strong dollar, wants the Federal Reserve to be transparent, wants to shrink the size of government, is against cap and tax, against government run health care, bailouts, wants to get the US out of the UN, WTO, and other international organizations, opposes Cap and Tax calls global warming/climate change the greatest hoax being perpetrated on American people in a long time.
Other than some foreign policy issues he agrees with Free Republic posters including yourself 80% of the time. So you are calling yourself a fruitcake.
From his website: “Were Dr. Rand Paul in charge of the budget, he would first demand that it be balanced. And second, he would make defense spending a top priority.”
Yep, an airhead like dad. Maybe someone should explain to him what Reagan understood...a balanced budget doesn’t do any good for an undefended nation. You take care of your defense needs first, THEN, and ONLY then, do you worry about balancing the budget.
Oh well, I was hoping that it didn’t run in the family.
Thanks for the link
He’s a pro-choice for states, isolationist, libertarian, just like his father.
Fuhgetaboutit.
“Other than some foreign policy issues he agrees with Free Republic posters including yourself 80% of the time. So you are calling yourself a fruitcake.”
I always draw the line at national defense...if they don’t understand that concept, they are a fruitcake, even if they agree with me on everything else (see my prior posting).
The personhood pro-life, peace through strength, constitutionalist, moral conservative Reaganite in this race:
Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on America. I don’t give a damn what his economic beliefs are, that in and of itself makes him a complete whack job!!
This is good news, I think.
Which is to say, he favors overturning Roe vs. Wade. I guess you prefer abortion legal in all fifty states?
isolationist
Bull. He supports the Afghanistan war and free trade.
libertarian
Not sure how he is a libertarian when he has zero connections to it....but I guess if your father (Ron) is a member of the party (libertarian) for one year over twenty years ago (1988), that automatically makes you one as well! Guess I'm a democrat now since my father is one.
Fuhgetaboutit.
That seems to be the Kentucky republicans' reaction to Bill Johnson's candidacy actually.
Good idea, let’s go further into debt slavery to spend money we don’t have on a military that can’t even protect our borders or our land (9/11) but is busy bombing countries that have no capability to attack us.
What are our defense “needs” that the current $600+ billion budget doesn’t take care of?
In any case, even if you put a priority on burning money on the military, Ron Paul is *still* the best option, because most Republicans want to drastically expand the rest of the government as Bush did.
I guess you’re a defense analyst, since you can look at a DOD budget number and attack it as being way too high.
You also worry me in that you sound a lot like Barbara Boxer who spends her life attacking military spending while not caring at all about the other 80% of the budget.
If you had your priorities right, you would see that we could even spend well over $1T per year on the military...if the rest of our spending was limited to the Constitution, but since your first target is our military, you don’t seem much different than the fruitcake Paul family.
Here is a nice video comparing Ron and Rand on earmarks:
Remember the polls giving Doug Hoffman a big lead.
Remember the polls giving Bob McDonnell a big lead.
That's a logical fallacy.
And reality.
No it isn’t. It’s a logical fallacy.
It isn’t? I don’t know what world you’re residing in, but from where I am sitting; abortion is currently legal in all fifty states, overturning Roe vs. Wade would change that and be an improvement and the prospects for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion everywhere are deader than Elvis.
the prospects for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion everywhere are deader than Elvis
My ideological beliefs aren't dependant on opinion polls.
Ping
Well at least under those circumstances, you can expect 5-10 states to all but ban abortion. The never-going-to-happen full federal ban only ensures that abortion will continue in those states where it'd otherwise be illegal. The unappeaseables, the no-compromise crowd, likes to scream about people outside their group having "blood on their hands", and yet their position directly continues to allow what they supposedly dispise so much. Makes me wonder if those stringent pro-life groups are more concerned about keeping the money machine churning than ending abortion.
My ideological beliefs aren't dependant on opinion polls.
This isn't opinion polls we're talking about; it's congress. There isn't anywhere near a majority, much less the required two-thirds majority, needed in BOTH chambers to pass a constitutional amendment. And there almost certainly never will be.
I stand by my comments. Anyone who mentions overall spending and the military, in my book, doesn’t understand the PRIMARY ROLE of the federal government.
Anyone who throws out a number $600B in this case, without context, to use to attack the military, is not different than Barbara Boxer. If you used context, you’d note that military spending, as both percent of the economy and percent of government spending is at record lows since WW2, and half of what it was for decades after WW2...but then that takes looking at the numbers and backing away from the inflammatory rhetoric.
No, like his father, he thinks that if states want to allow child-killing they should be able to.
Which guts the main principles this country and our liberty are premised upon.
The other stuff the Paul family owns too, and everybody knows it.
You could get the same majority to outlaw abortion after the point at which the infant has brain wave activity clearly distinct from the mother's (which is my definition of when life begins).
Alternatively, one can stand on a soapbox and demand a national prohibition of abortion starting with the nanosecond after the sperm hits the egg. That soapbox will give the viewer a nice podium from which to view the millions of babies that will continue to be killed while he drones on in futility.
You either have a country premised on the protection of the unalienable rights of all or you don’t.
There is no middle ground when it comes to life and death. Either you’re alive or you’re dead.
And if we alienate the God-given rights of the individual, the God-given rights of all are gone.
Maybe you’ll change your mind if you read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944714/posts
I’m sure the 98 percent of babies who might have lived under a state-by-state solution greatly appreciate your concern for the other two percent.
You’re oblivious to the fact that if you give up the principle that protects ALL human lives, you make certain that all that are dying will continue to die.
Is the babe in the womb a person?
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.
A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.
Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the “right” of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul are pro-choice for states.
They believe that states' rights trump the unalienable right to life. They pretend that the Preamble, which is really the Constitution's statement of purpose, and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, don't exist.
This egregious position is the destruction of the basis for our form of government and of our liberty.
Ron Paul has submitted Bills like this since he has been in Congress...And where have the so called pro life forces been? Trashing Paul because of his stance on the War on Drugs that's where. More important to the RR that no one smokes a joint then it is that they have a State sanctioned abortion. What a bunch of hypocrites they are.
2007-2008 Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
HR 2597 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2597
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 6, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress—
(1) the Congress declares that—
(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.
Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
(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.'.
"Has the authority." Not the sworn obligation. Pro-choice for states.
So, besides the supreme God-given and therefore unalienable right to life, which other unalienable rights are you willing to “let the states decide”?
Ron Paul’s pro-life record is unmatched
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, issued the following statement in support of state efforts to pass “Right to Life” amendments:
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
“Under our Constitution, the states have the duty to protect citizens against murder, and protecting the unborn from having their right to life violated is no exception.
“I find it unconscionable that the Supreme Court overrules states when they pass pro-life legislation. As president, I will fight to end this judicial tyranny.
“Many talk about being pro-life. In Congress, I am the lead sponsor of HR 2597 the ‘Sanctity of Life Act’ and a similar bill, HR 300 the ‘We the People Act.’ Both bills would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation that protects life. My bills could pass by a simple majority vote and allow states such as Michigan and South Carolina to end abortion immediately.
“I challenge every candidate who claims to be pro life to support these bills to get the Supreme Court out of the life issue so states can quickly and constitutionally protect the unborn.”
Someone in Congress proposing something,...anything to move the ball forward on this issue? Name them to me and show me their proposed Bill.
Way to stay on-topic.
I’ll be voting for Rand Paul and attending his meet-up December 10, 2009 6:30 PM, at:
Rookie’s
117 2nd St
Henderson, KY 42420
Judge Blackmun, the author of Roe, in the majority decision, admitted that if the child is a PERSON, they “of course” would be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And so, Blackmun and his cohorts did the only thing they could do to maintain any appearance of rationality or logic: they dehumanized the child.
The Pauls, and those like them, are worse than Blackmun. They admit that the child is a person, and then say that states can allow their killing if they so desire.
They pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t even exist.
Again, this bill was a deceptive scam. It is intrinsically pro-choice for states.
It is also illogical, unconstitutional, and immoral.
"To secure the Blessings of Liberty TO POSTERITY."
So can we assume you're not a pro-lifer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.