Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/25/2014 11:48:21 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: GIdget2004

NO WAY does Rand Paul have enough passion to protect innocent unborn babies.

Jimmy Carter was “personally opposed BUT,” TOO.


2 posted on 04/25/2014 12:05:21 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
The right answer after expressing his personal beliefs against abortion should be that abortion is not a federal issue but a states issue. He knows that because he seems to have a pretty good grasp and allegiance to the Constitution.

Reagan was asked the same thing and as far as I know, basically answered the same way.

Those of us with half a brain need step back and see that abortion would not even be an issue if the federal government had not interfered with abortion which is outside their constitutional power to do so. At this juncture, it looks like states should begin nullifying federal abortion laws until the feds are cut down to size and retreat into their constitutional cage.

In the meantime, Rand, who is one of the most outspoken proponents of small government, will be cornered by issues which, if the unconstitutional portion of government were substantially cut, would be much less problematic. Rand Paul himself, just like Reagan, couldn't really do anything about abortion except use the bully pulpit to influence change. But Reagan was not very successful with that.

The source of our social, political, and economic ills is the $4 TRILLION government. Cutting it is the fist essential step in solving these other issues. In the meantime, let the states nullify the feds forced allowance of this infanticide disaster.

The MSM and others will do anything to pull the focus off of THE #1 political problem: the $4 trillion government. I agree that Rand needs to be very well prepared for these efforts.

4 posted on 04/25/2014 12:11:34 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

I’m a little disconcerted that Rand Paul has been bouncing all over the place lately but in all honesty the President of the United States is not able to overturn Roe v Wade. Paul says he is personally pro-life. I believe him.

To be fair I have not heard Ted Cruz ranting about overturning Roe v Wade either.


14 posted on 04/25/2014 1:15:03 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
maybe it was inarticulate....

Then Rand Paul has been having a whole lot of "inarticulate" moments lately. He's OVER as a serious candidate for constitutional conservatives.

21 posted on 04/25/2014 2:46:47 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Career political dynasts, the Paul’s, sure seem to enjoy toying with the libertarian rubes.


22 posted on 04/25/2014 2:51:17 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (There should be a whole lot more going on than throwing bleach, said one woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

What if the country were evenly divided on assisted suicide? You have got to make decisions according to your conscience and fight all out for them, win, lose, or draw. Cruz strikes me more of the type.


23 posted on 04/25/2014 2:52:38 PM PDT by inpajamas (http://outskirtspress.com/ONE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson