Posted on 08/16/2010 12:09:43 AM PDT by citizenredstater9271
The only thing I like about him is that he is against our being the world policeman.
The Constitution demands that "no person" shall be deprived of life without a fair trial on a capital offense. Ron Paul acts as if that imperative requirement is optional when he says that abortion should be left up to the states.
How can anyone who understands our nation's most important fundamental principles take anyone seriously who claims that somehow Ron Paul is some great "Constitutionalist"?
My statement “Ron Paul believes that States may ban Abortion.”
Is entirely true. Not “balderdash”. He believes that States may ban abortion if they want, or allow abortion if they want.
Right now, SCt puts limits on what a state can do.
Ron Paul’s position is a pro-Life position, but not the only pro-Life position. I could go through his record, point by point, to show that he’s a solid pro-lifer.
Here’s one - sponsor of the sanctity of life act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
It's balderdash because it amounts to lying by omission.
Of course states "can" ban abortion. What he, and seemingly you, leave out is that states "must" ban abortion under the explicit provisions of our Constitution.
And that's exactly what his phony "Sanctity of Life Act" does as well.
The problem with the Free State Project is that it’s in New Hampshire. The problem with New Hampshire is that it’s next to Massachusetts.
For all the liberty minded people moving to NH, there are just as many who are typical folks who are moving to NH and commuting to Boston.
NH just really isn’t that conservative / libertarian. Compared to MA, sure. NH and Maine are the most conservative states in New England. New England is more liberal than the rest of the country.
-- The Fourteenth Amendment
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
-- The Fifth Amendment
To "secure the Blessings of Liberty to...Posterity."
-- The self-stated ultimate purpose of the United States Constitution.
No it isn’t lying by omission.
The way it works now is that states can’t ban abortion.
Ron Paul believe they should be able to. That’s a Pro-Life position.
It’s not the only Pro-Life position. But it’s Pro-Life and not Pro-Choice.
Ron Paul was rated 0% by NARAL.
Here’s another link showing all of the Pro-Life things that Ron Paul has done over the years.
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm
Ron Paul sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act.
Problem is, you’re misstating Mr. Paul’s position. He doesn’t just say that they can ban abortion now, he claims that they can allow abortion into perpetuity according to our Constitution. Which is balderdash. Dangerous balderdash, actually, because that destroys the bedrock principle of our free republic, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government, all government, is to protect the unalienable, God-given rights of the individual. First and foremost the right to life.
The "Sanctity of Life Act" is a bad joke, and deceptively named. It doesn't protect the sanctity of life.
What does that have to do with the Liberty Movement? Maybe New Hampshire is short on jobs?
"...while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." - Ron Paul, January 31, 2006
Point was NH was not the place for the Free State Project.
Ron Paul on Abortion
* Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
* Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
* Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
* Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
* Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
* Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
* Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
* Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
* Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
* No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
* Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
So, sure, the Free State Project hasn't worked. Plus, it's stupid to make conservative or libertarian policies look like something new residents are trying to impose on old timers.
If you want to move to New Hampshire, fine, you can offset the liberals moving up from Massachusetts. But if you announce yourself as an adherent of some out-of-state movement intending to change the states politics, be prepared to have a lot of doors slammed in your face.
*******
A lot of Internet arguments tend to degenerate into "They did it first" and become pointless. But in this case, it's clear that the Mises-Rothbard-Rockwell-Paul guys were arrogant pr*cks first, and at this point anybody who simply dismisses them has more than enough reason to do so.
I have to disagree. NH sounds like the perfect place for a liberty movement to start. NH has no income tax and no sales tax and the taxes are some of the lowest in America. I know its getting more liberal b/c of all the New Yorkers moving to the center of the state and the seacoast but cities like Grafton and Keene in the west and north are full of liberty activists.
When the FSP started, NH was a Boston suburb. That’s the problem. For every liberty minded person that the FSP brings in to NH, there are leftists moving in due to NHs proximity to Boston.
And yet, he continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth and push this insidiously destructive idea that the clear and explicit provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment don’t say what they say.
The Free State Movement isn't just about getting conservatives elected. It's about working bottom up to bring liberty to the state. Yes we want to see more tea party favorites and liberty candidates elected but what do you do between elections? Examples of liberty work by the free state project:
Liberty Sign Wave at Keene High School. Letting kids know they CAN leave government-run education and still go to college and get a real job. Less government public school, more homeschool and less taxes for schools we didn't ask for.
Liberty Homeschoolers mob NH state house
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.