Posted on 04/10/2013 8:16:17 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Senator Rand Paul says America needs a, “spiritual cleansing of the people” and explains that “salvation” doesn’t come through elected leaders.
The Brody File spent a couple days with Rand Paul and his family down in Kentucky. Rand Paul’s wife (Kelley Paul) sat for the interview as well at their home in Bowling Green Kentucky.
The national profile on him (including an interview with his wife) will air on The 700 Club Thursday. We are releasing some clips ahead of the interview. We will also release more clips on Thursday. Much of this material is NOT in the final 700 Club piece.
Also, watch our Brody File show this week where we devote the entire thirty minutes to our Rand Paul coverage. Watch here.
Senator Rand Paul: “I think it’s important that people know that for the country to get better it needs more than just politicians. Politicians aren’t enough and it needs resurgence through churches, through revivals through a spiritual cleansing of the people."
Senator Rand Paul: “Changing a particular law is not going to make us a better people but that comes from the people themselves.”
Senator Rand Paul: “I don’t want people to think that salvation comes through elected leaders. It doesn’t.”
Senator Rand Paul: “What’s the number one cause of poverty in America? It’s having kids before you’re married. Can you have a law to prevent that? I don't think any law even if you did have a law couldn't prevent it from happening. We have to convince kids that it's a big huge mistake not only from a religious point of view but from an economic point of view that it's not a good idea to have kids before you're married. The hard part is then people say you’re harsh and you’re against single moms. Well, I’m not against single moms. I just want to talk to them before they become the single mom. I want to talk to them when they’re 17 years old and convince them wait, get married and your life will be better and it’s a better way to do things.”
Senator Rand Paul: "People say you shouldn't talk about moral issues. Well, I think there are moral issues that no law will be able to fix but there's no reason why a political leader can't also have some impact in moral issues that really the law may not be able to fix but maybe by me saying that the marriage unit, the marriage unit, the family unit is an important structure, it's been with us for thousands of years and we shouldn't give up on that."
“That would be JebBushbots?”
Yes. They are here.
You certainly can, that doesn't mean that you should. Enforcing laws involving sexual morality, like much of drug law enforcement, typically involves overstepping Constitutional bounds.
A much better way to create a moral society is to force people to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government didn't subsidize children with welfare checks, more people would avoid teenage/out of wedlock pregnancies. If the government didn't subsidize health care, people would probably take better care of their personal health (meaning that they would avoid gluttony, drunkenness, drug use, and sex with strangers). If there wasn't a vast social "safety net," people would become more thrifty.
The reason for morality is that actions [should] have consequences. A cradle to grave nanny state creates the illusion that actions do not have consequences, or makes those consequences seem minor. Take away the safety nets, and morality will become largely self-enforcing.
You certainly can, that doesn't mean that you should. Enforcing laws involving sexual morality, like much of drug law enforcement, typically involves overstepping Constitutional bounds.
A much better way to create a moral society is to force people to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government didn't subsidize children with welfare checks, more people would avoid teenage/out of wedlock pregnancies. If the government didn't subsidize health care, people would probably take better care of their personal health (meaning that they would avoid gluttony, drunkenness, drug use, and sex with strangers). If there wasn't a vast social "safety net," people would become more thrifty.
The reason for morality is that actions [should] have consequences. A cradle to grave nanny state creates the illusion that actions do not have consequences, or makes those consequences seem minor. Take away the safety nets, and morality will become largely self-enforcing.
There isn’t going to be a “spiritual cleansing” until the great civil war eliminates all the stupid people first. They will NEVER discover the true cause of their problems and will always side with the most vocal liar.
Those are the worst, though it's only a matter of time before we have George P. Bushbots.
DOMA has been in place for over 10 years and gay marriage has proliferated in the states. This is a state issue whether you like it or not. Nothing can be done at the federal level. You are fantasizing about a solution that doesn’t exist.
Exactly.
...and it begins with me.
People on both sides of the political aisle can be very selective in their reading of the 10th amendment. Some of the same people who complain about Federal Government usurping decisions that should be left up to the states (e.g. Roe v. Wade) suddenly want to turn homosexual marriage in to a Federal issue with DOMA.
it’s a strategy argument. An unlikely return to a previous understanding versus adapting to a new reality.
IF you were honest, or not so ignorant, you would note that Rand supported Mitt BEFORE the GOP convention and also in the general election. I think you voted for Mittens, too. You are therefore a big supporter of fag-marriage, amnesty, and obamneycare.
In other words, Republicans should also embrace expansion of Federal power, and embrace big government as long as it’s run by Republican politicians. That seems to be the new political model for the GOP. No thanks.
the last step which will cause another iteration of the cycle
I agree.
>>The reason for morality is that actions [should]
>>have consequences.
What is the natural consequential impact upon the reproductive fitness of a society that popularizes the abomination of nature and thus redirects reproductive resources away from those who know the difference between what grows in a colon Vs what grows in a womb?
bookmark
Almost exactly what I said in this post on the topic: Can Rand Paul Solve The GOP's Minority Voter Problem?
Morality is not government initiated and it isn't ensured by laws.Bottom line is: more laws = more government = more crimes of consequence.The more government we allow, the less people take responsibility for doing right, the more corruption and regulatory capture we endure, the more large scale crime we see. I'm not talking about someone firing up a dubie at home, I'm talking about the global rape and pillaging of the producers.
“You are therefore a big supporter of fag-marriage, amnesty, and obamneycare”
Why in the hell would you think I voted for Romney? I despised the SOB. Not as much as I despised Obama, but I damn sure didn’t vote for Obama-light.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/rand-paul-gop-must-reconnect-with-african-americans/
Rand Paul doing his best democrat impersonation, telling a room full of blacks the GOP must “reconnect” with them.
He makes me sick to my stomach. Rand Paul needs to talk to
Allen West or Tim Scott and tell them the GOP has not done enough for them and wants to “reconnect” them. Allen West would laugh in his face.
I liked Rand Paul until he started to play the "New and Improved, Politically Correct GOP" act by supporting amnesty for illegals. Since he pandered to Mexicans, I'm not surprised to see him pandering to blacks.
Having said that, what's the alternative? Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? They're a thousand times worse. At least Rand Paul is solid on some issues.
First, welcome to FR. We probably agree on more than 90% of issues. I make it a habit of reading comments in context.
Living in the south, I can't understand why blacks aren't supporting conservatives. They vote in a block, brainwashed by community activists against their own core beliefs. The churches I go to are integrated evangelical melting pots and I'd have it no other way. Neither would our Lord Jesus.
But, your comments on Rand Paul are either without merit or out of context within conservative dogma. I have a post here with his plank that is as "conservative" as anyone in either house:
Can Rand Paul Solve The GOP's Minority Voter Problem? #25
So rather than state that Paul "makes me sick to my stomach", how about you back it up with at least one reason or fact if you can...? I'll be the next in line to criticize each position you show he supports that is wrong for America.
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.