Ted Cruz is Rand Paul's most dangerous foreign policy critic

Washington Examiner ^ | MARCH 11, 2014 AT 2:07 PM | Philip Klein

[ansel12]

Is it OK with you if we elect leaders who will ban abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, and who will refuse to recognize state marriages at the federal level if they don’t comply with federal law, and who refuse to recognize state abortion laws on federal land within the states?

[tioga]

I had hoped Rand had more common sense than his father of foreign policy, guess not.

[Georgia Girl 2]

See post 74. He’s outraged that I dragged the GA thread over here. I’m the incredible thread monster. LOL!

[jpsb]

I am a Constitutional Conservative when I first came to this site in 1999, it claimed to support the Constitution. Life is the most important right any being has. Without the right to life one has no rights. I don’t know why you’re going after me, I have consistently been a Constitutional Conservative. Please let me know if Constitutional Conservatives are no longer welcome here.

[Jim Robinson]

I was pinged to this discussion, presumably, for my opinion. I stated it.

[jpsb]

Ok, sorry. There is a serious effort underway to divide Tea Party conservatives. Our enemies (Rats, GOPe) are going all out to divide us. I am not going to fall into their trap, Paul has warts and so does Cruz but either is vastly better then anything the GOPe or the Rats have to offer. I see Cruz, Paul, Lee and Sarah as almost identical twins politically and I will support any of the above and will attack none of the above.

[Finny]

With respect, jpsb, I didn't get the impression that Jim was "going after" either one of us in his post #78.

I think more that he's doing the best he can to be a good shepherd in trying to find words that will help unite people that he recognizes, as do you and I, are basically on the same page. We all want the same Right-Moral outcome -- we just disagree in how to go about getting it.

Clearly he welcomes Constitutional Conservatives -- the challenge is that obviously, the limited government small-l-libertarian Constitutional Conservative's idea of how to go about being pro-life and defending our God-Given unalienable rights, is a different animal than the all-small-l-libertarians-are-abortion-loving-drug-pushing-gay-marriage-supporting-liberals-whether-they-admit-it-or-not Constitutional Conservative.

I figure that Jim has to walk a fine line, and I can respect that. On the other hand, I have contempt for so-called "conservatives" who call for the Right's version more and bigger government to counteract the Left's more and bigger government and accuse those on the Right who instead advocate to SHRINK government to achieve the same outcome, of "siding with the left," an exact quote from one of them.

It could be that Jim is between a rock and a hard spot.

[ansel12]

As you try to alter our preference in what kind of candidates we will vote for, and try to influence us to rewrite the GOP party platform, what about the candidates described in post 81?

Is it OK with you if we elect leaders who will ban abortion and gay marriage for the federal level, and who will refuse to recognize state marriages at the federal level if they don’t comply with that federal law, and will refuse to recognize state abortion laws on federal land within the states?

[jpsb]

Our declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life was declared an unalienable right in our founding documents, no Constitutional conservative could ever hold the opinion that abortion was not denying the unborn their right to life. If you are not pro life you are not a conservative of any flavor.

[Finny]

Agreed. But how do you define "pro life"? Some people define it as advocating for the overthrow Roe v Wade and then working in your own state to see abortion made illegal and persecuted.

Other people define "pro life" as advocating for a change in the Constitution that would provide for Federal law specifically addressing abortion.

The problem isn't lack of pro-life, anti-abortion folks.

The PROBLEM is with pro-lifers who will only settle for a new Constitutional edict specifically listing abortion and consider as enemies fellow pro-lifers who instead advocate for the overthrow of Roe v Wade. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE -- The PROBLEM is also with pro-lifers who balk at the idea of a change in the Constitution and consider as anti-Constitutional statist enemies those who ask for new Constitutional specifications addressing abortion (a form of murder that existed at the time the Constitution was written).

Me, I consider anyone who understands that abortion is murder and an abomination to God and decency, Pro Life.

It isn't that there aren't enough pro-life folks. It's that the two approaches weaken their total rightness and strength by wrongly considering each other enemies.

What is "pro life" in your definition? Me, I would like to start with overthrowing Roe v Wade because that's the most faithful to the Constitution. Am I pro life -- or not?

[ansel12]

I asked you about abortion in post 88, you didn’t want to address abortion on federal land and from federal doctors and hospitals.

[ansel12]

The fact is that libertarians and libertarianism are pro-choice, do some not agree with that portion of their political agenda, sure, but that is merely their personal preference and where they stray from perfect alignment. Variations and dissent are within every political philosophy, but it doesn’t change the philosophy or political movement.

Libertarianism is pro-choice.

[ansel12]

I see pro-life politics as at the minimum, wanting to outlaw it, you don’t.

You appear to want Federal abortion policy and federal gay marriage policy to remain as it is, with conservatives not resisting or opposing them through legislation.

The feds have been performing abortions since at least 1973, and recognizing gay marriage for the military, and federal employees, and in immigration, for at least months.

I want to support candidates who will fix that, and change law to end it and prevent it.

After looking through your posting history on abortion I can see that you are pretty indifferent to abortion, you just don’t want taxes paying for it, your typical argument against pro-lifers is that laws can’t prevent abortion anyway, it is between the woman, her conscious, and of course the abortionist.

Abortions for the military are also paid for with taxes.

“”Abortion is not a legal issue. The right to bear arms IS. There is no comparison between the two, and the Second Amendment question is the important thing Republicans AND conservatives (whoever’s going to vote to keep the Democrat out of the White House) should weigh.””

Yes, abortion is a legal issue that we can fight through law and politics, and elections.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”too bad you wouldn’t address me directly as freepublic tries to insist posters do.”

BLA-BLA-BLA

[sickoflibs]

:)

[jpsb]

Without life there is no liberty. Those that value liberty must by definition value life. You keep projecting the values of the Libertarian Party (big L) on to those of us that are conservative but lean libertarian (little l). Personally I think the LP is full BS. I consider most of it members nothing but kooks and weirdos.

I am curious, why do you continue to attempt to divide conservatives? The time will come to pick a candidate for 2016 right now we should be focused on holding the House and winning the Senate, not bashing one another over minor flaws.

[ansel12]

I’m just pointing out that libertarians and libertarianism is pro-abortion.

I didn’t mention the party, as you strive to fight conservatism here, I understand that you say you differ from libertarianism on abortion, fine, that doesn’t alter libertarianism, the political philosophy that you embrace instead of conservatism.

I would think the person trying to divide conservatives would be the one who devotes himself to defeating conservatism here and tries to always bump it over just a touch to the left, not those of us who are the conservatives you are always arguing with.

[jpsb]

Well I think that abortion should be outlawed at the federal level. I would make an exception for the life of the mother. This would not require a change to our Constitution. Congress could simply declare that an unborn child is a person and has a right to life second only to the mothers right to life.

[Finny]

Personally I think the LP is full BS. I consider most of it members nothing but kooks and weirdos.

For the record -- 100 percent DITTOS.

Maybe even 200 percent.

[jpsb]

The reason I argue with you is I consider myself a conservative, since you don't like the term classical liberal I'd say that in modern terms I am a paleoconservative.

Paleoconservative is a term that describes an academic or scholarly conservative who emphasizes religious heritage, national and Western identity, tradition, civil society and classical federalism, the importance of demographics, and an anti-interventionist policy of Robert Taft. Paleoconservatives oppose immigration, communism, authoritarianism, social democracy and entitlement programs.

Many paleoconservatives identify themselves as "classical conservatives" and trace their philosophy to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period, which helped keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations, reduce immigration with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and oppose Franklin Roosevelt.