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
In defending our interest over seas I see no real offense against the Constitution and the way our country has evolved, tough some arguments can be made. However I think the founders would have no issue with protecting our international interests. The Barbary Pirates come to mind.
Now as to a debate on whether what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, a debate on having our military overseas protecting our allies and interests, that is all good and well, and we can pull out the Constitution and both sides can make their points, but in the end reality has to come into play. It is a much different world both inside and outside our boarders. 30 Wooden Ships are not going to pull up in Boston harbor as an act of war, a single nuke on a missile will. One man with one bomb can do more harm in a millisecond than the sum total of all the continental armies of the 18th century combined could do in their wildest dreams. I would rather have eyes and ears out there watching and feet on the ground protecting our interest.
Last time I checked Iraq was a country. Call it a police action or whatever, but my buddies at the fire bases and other places may argue the point.
Let them do their damn jobs, smash the opposition and start over. Worked in Germany and Japan (OK so we nuked them, you win...)
Thank you! bttt for later
But I understand completely, with these serious and scary times, RP and Alex Jones do provide a comfortable and surreal sanctuary from the Islamic Cults.
To be on offense against.....well....the “PolicestateMartiallawGlobalistsIlluminateGulagsPatriotActBohemianGroveSkullandBonesEmbeddedmicrochipsNEOCONS".....and so on, these conspiracies are much more lucrative and fun and easy to battle.
Unlike the headchoppers.
but he's a pre-9/11 man. He wants us to "define the enemy", and yet the current enemy succeeds (when it does) by being undefined, by lurking in the shadows and striking out at innocents. The enemy is defined by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic ideology and (to be redundant) a hatred of all things foreign to that ideology, but that's not definite enough for the Ron Pauls of the world to stand up againstThis is the best -- the absolute best -- description of Ron Paul's Terrorism Problem that I have read yet here on FR. You deserve high-praise and wide recognition for so succinctly summing up the deep inner weakness that makes Ron Paul absolutely unacceptable -- in fact, unthinkable -- as a CIC in time of war, particularly this war. Thank you.
I guess I know what you think your point is, but as I pointed out, those charges have been rebutted. Since you now know (and I'm guessing, already knew) that they have been rebutted, yet refuse to accept that fact, it's time for you to go away so that the grownups can continue our discussion.
While I agree with most of Dr. Paul's positions, on spending, he and Hunter are diametrically opposed. Paul has voted no on virtually every spending bill, opposed every item of pork and opposed increasing both the size and influence of the federal government. Hunter on the other hand has been in the pocket of the big spenders in the RNC, voted for every pork project, and has taken every opportunity to support Pres. Bush's expansion of the federal bureaucracy. If past voting records are an indicator of what a candidate believes, Paul believes in limited government, while Hunter believes in big spending, increasing government power, and snuggling up to the K-street lobbyists.
You “grownups” (like Alex Jones), can discuss all you like.
Glad to be of service, Sam.
And my fan club now has a member! ;-)
keep up the good work
Here's a news flash for you, Sparky. Ron Paul is about the only Republican running who wouldn't get beat by Hillary and by that margin. All the other pubbies are just cheap imitations of The Beast, why would the voters not want the real thing?
Keep drinking Steve.
bttt!
Oh! SOLD!
Ron, pray to God that you get a brain.
Good post. Paul’s moral stance on both abortion and war make him the preferred candidate over most, if not a ll of his opponents. Thanks for posting this. I now have a way to lean.
Good message!
Completely.
LOL. That video was an inside job.
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.