Posted on 07/22/2007 5:09:49 AM PDT by lfrancis
Statement of Faith By Rep. Ron Paul, MD. The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Is that your solemn oath to post in all of them? If so, I'll sound such an alert henceforth.
Point?
Fixed it for you, no extra charge. Now go back to the body of the first post and READ the statement of Dr. Paul. Then tell the class what it is in that statement that you disagree with. Quietly. Without name-calling. With reason, logic and footnotes. If you can't do that much, then just sit down and have a nice cup of STFU. This particular thread has been quietly civil, even in disagreement, until you show up, you and lormand. Try civil discourse for a change. Stop being this jerk. You can do it. I have full faith and confidence in you.
Unfortunately in a sound bite world, that all disappears.
Exactly! We have a responsibility (an assignment from God, I believe) to affect the world for freedom an prosperity.
Meanwhile, the bulk of the GOP’s official membership are buying into this Globalist approach. They really are after a North American Union, and it’s not like adding two states, Mexico and Canada- it’s creating an entity that’s above the soverignty of the US.
This is the real reason behind the amnesty push, and why I like Hunter, Paul and Tancredo. (Thompson, I suspect, is just another trojan horse. He’s talked all around this issue, while plainly addressing almost everything else.)
We’ll see whch of the three gets the most mileage. Honestly, I think Paul has the big momentum right now.
But I agree, the Fairtax guys need to more clearly explain the international implications of their plan.
Ron Paul bump
(excellent read!)
Agreed!
That one statement told me all I need to know about Ron Paul - yup, he has always been my first choice as candidate, more now than ever.
And, he has a military record, another plus - whats not to like?
Paul and Hunter both are not globalists in any measure of the word.
Exactly. And I want absolutely NOTHING to do with becoming even more dependent upon GLOBALIST IDEALS.....save for Paul and Hunter, I don't see any other candidate keeping us safe from a North American Union. NAFTA has already proven to be a failure, yet it continues to enlarge.
The NAU, part and parcel of the globalist's goal, is NOT in the best interest of a healthy, sovereign America.
There’s also Tancredo. Hey, check your mail! I sent you a present.
No we can’t. Nobody is going to nuke the entire middle east...
We are not at war with any country.
That was new information to me, as well. Some may say that Bush claimed the same, or something similar. However, in the case of Ron Paul, his past actions are consistent with his current profession, and I do believe in his sincerity of belief. Very good to know that he is guided by Christ.
I need to better understand his foreign policy stance. Even though he explained himself in this Statement of Faith, I want to know his thoughts in more explicit language.
Oh yes, Tancredo too, of course. : )
checking now.
The thing that fascinates me about that statement is that the gungrabbers used the same argument in the mid '90's -- I actually had a gun grabber tell me "I have no problem with you guys keeping and bearing all the muskets you want, but Thomas Jefferson never imagined AK - 47's."
A rapidly emerging litmus test for me is that if some one needs to trot out a moonbat argument to explain why a particular candidate or policy position is a "bad thing", that probably means that there is some merit to it...
Thank you for confirming my support for Paul.
well expressed message of commitment to life and liberty.
Not much to disagree with here at all. I support Ron Paul 100%. No bashing of other candidates necessary, but it is obvious to me Ron Paul is by far the best choice.
We need better human intelligence as well as more dead jihadists. We can't fight the whole world and can't make a free country 100% impermeable to possible threats (though truth be told, we could just enforce our border laws and make a heck of a dent). We need a scalpel, not a sledge hammer, approach.
If GWB weren't such a multi-nationalist, we would have tightened the borders and leaned a lot harder on Congress to let us drill at home, in the oceans, and in the Arctic by now. It stinks having to be bedfellows with countries that hate our guts (China and of course the ME included). We are a nation blessed with wealth.
No ME ally we've ever had has been our ally once the last dollar or weapon left our hands; this war won't be different. They all tend to hate us once we're gone and resent our "globalism." This leaves two solutions: one - never leave, and two leave become more independent. I favor 2, but as I've said elsewhere, we can't "gut and run" on Iraq (gut their infrratructure and then leave). We need them to stand on their feet and be quick about it, but we can't leave their largely innocent population to the wolves we unleashed.
This is all pre-coffee, so apologies if it veered into a mish-mash. There's more thought a brewing but I decided to just stop...
One of the best examples that sets most people off, and for good reason as it is being discussed right now, is the “Trans American” highway. I think an express route between Canada, us and Mexico is not a bad idea per se. Now I put some strong limits on that, such as incredibly strong but swift boarder control, making sure all vehicles that use it conform to strict safety standards and the like. But it will help the markets in the long run.
I don’t know about the bulk of the GOP going for the Globalist approach. I think the problem we are having is the terms getting mixed, which I am guilty of my self. A lot of Republicans represent the interest of business and business wants new markets. hence they push for a better global economy. The challenge and the failure as of now is separating the economic movement from the socio-political one.
Oh and I do like the idea of adding two more states, though Canada and Mexico actually be be several states. That would eliminate the whole boarder issue. Whatever happened to manifest Destiny, and why did it stop California, Alaska and Hawaii ;-)
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.