My take on Allen Keyes

[windcatcher]

The year was 2000 and the primaries were being held. Studiously, or so I thought, I studied the campaigns and in the Republican Primary voted for Allen Keyes, being one of three votes cast for him in my precinct. Since that time have continued to be impressed on his stand for Constitutional Government and was glad to see he had entered the race again.......

UNTIL

Last Monday, December 17, 2007, on radio talk show.... The Power Hour, he gave an interview and answered questions. Unfortunately I don't have transcripts of the program.... but essentially he was questioned on certain specifics which aren't usually the subject of the dumbing down of political debate as presented and supported by the media at large:

He was asked several questions regarding his support of President Bush, justification of war in Iraq, an American soldiers right to refuse to wear the UN uniform..... instead wearing the American soldier's uniform, the Iran-Contra Affair during the Reagon administration, our involvement with the UN, pre-emptive war and our past history and policies of supporting subversives to undermine other government's when their policies pointed them in the direction of their own sovereign interest...economically or politically- and independant of collaborating into a dependancy on the power of the US.

I was disappointed when in his answers there was no need to justify war when it serves our interest to maintain our strength: collaborating with terrorist and revolutionary groups and drug cartels is an acceptible though dirty part of doing business to serve our interest: a soldier's duty is to obey the orders of the commander in cheif..... although he allowed there is some room for discretion and disobedience at the risk that a court or jury may find that the soldier's disobediance to follow orders is more a threat to the constitutional than the obediant discharge of orders; the sovereignty of our country and the government under its Constitution can be superceded by treaties with other countries and or international groups.

He had no real solutions nor voiced concerns over the Federal Reserve Bank..... nor the North American Corridor which is planned to connect trade through Mexico into Canada. ....... Many who cruise this board may not be aware of this plan....and anyone who has succeeded in publically questioning President Bush regarding meetings in Canada etc... get the response of ridicule as though they don't know what they're talking about, instead of straight answers. Yet Governor Huckabee was collaborating with the Mexican government for an embassy in his own state to be funded by our tax dollars and 'rented' to the Mexican government at the pricey fee of $1.oo /yr........ Can one wonder if he (Huckabee) is 'soft' on imigration when the word 'illegal' preceeds their entrance? So Keyes does not oppose the processes which have brought us to the problems in our national and international affairs either! Keyes was presented with the setting up of the Vietnam war, and our involvement with the setting up and pulling down of other governments including our own aggressions, which he acknowledge or failed to deny.....but still he did not see the need to question any more the 911 conclusions, the use of depleted uranium and chemicals or bacterial during the Gulf war, or the experimental exposure of our soldiers to unproven vacinations and possibly other experiments without their knowledge or right to consent or object.

===================
My own conclusion: I'm dismayed with Keyes response and believe he was caught on issues more candid than the general media is willing to present to any of the candidates....Republican and Democrat.....and I believe his candidacy is as a spoiler to the other candidate who is outspoken on his principals based upon return to constitutional government. To me Christian values and principals include not making pacts with the devil because the enemy of my enemy is not my friend: There is something wrong among the media popular Republican candidates when Guillani's firm is involved in providing contacts between government officials and MATRIX which provides programming for spying on American citizens..... and his reward is in the millions of dollars in kickbacks or 'bonuses' for the government contract which they got. Something is wrong when Mitt Romney's business association is involved in a media buy-out into the BILLIONS of dollars: Something is wrong when 'stalwart' 'Christian' leaders like Pat Roberson endorse a crossdressing, fornicating, liar like Gulliani. Something is wrong when Mike Huckabee is asked about the bookcase ......which looks like a cross in the background .....responds,even if kidding "Paul is dead' ...... and later that appears in an underscript in an interview with Ron Paul. Something is wrong when the polls show a definite decline in McCain, and the media starts endorsing his projection. Something is wrong when the hard questions are not being asked of any candidate....Republican or Democrat and focuses get shifted to the dumbing down of the American politic by the media to such trivial silliness as Hillary's cleavage and Obama's wearing of the flag. I still want to know the real answer to Whitewater, and the financing of campaigns during the 90's and since....and the strange disappearance of papers during the 911 investigation, and the FBI reports held and 'lost' during the Clinton administration and later 'found' and returned..... Ruby Ridge and Waco, et al.... and the desensitizing of us to government intrusion and aggression. I want to know if Obama really attended an Islamic school and if so.... why does the media excuse it as being 'secular' when there is no such thing as a 'secular' religiously dominated and indoctrinated school.

Somebody is AFRAID that Ron Paul may garner enough support to get the Republican nomination..... and therefore are trying to keep as many spoilers vieing at the entrance gate with confusing polls ------perhaps in a plan to break down the will of the American people to consider what both conservative and liberal are after.... a government run once more like we are a part of it and less intrusive to us and more responsive to us..... with the burden and responsibility for lawfullness returned to the people.
===============
An interesting quote..... hopefully NOT prophetic:
Henry Kissinger, May 21, 1992, Evian, France:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order, tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
======================
As Christians, we KNOW a world government is coming...... just as sure as the Word of God says it is...... but we also can/should know...we are to occupy until Jesus comes and to resist the falling away into the cares of this world, the false doctrines, and the willingness to subborndinate our liberty, granted by God, to the dictates of government and the security it may seem to promise in default of our faith and actions.

Our recent history of wars has served as a national distraction of the American people while those of political influence gained greater affluence at the expense of our values and rights: There may be no conspiracy behind 9-11 but http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9081183141197207653 demonstrates some open questions which have not been answered by our current administration. Also, the B-52 bomber run with atomic bombs on board.... how can it be an accident..... or is it an accident that we found out about it? Is the current crises in our solvency or the immanence of a war with Iran, or the sudden awareness of MERSA (which has been on the scene since more than a decade) or the likelihood of other 'plagues', or energy crisis, or reduction in food supply, or inflation, or terrorism, or civil or criminal unrest within going to distract us from the preservation of liberties in our savior which our God has endowed to us
and through which he has blessed others who are not of like faith but companions in acquaintance as countrymen or shall we take the path of denial of rights, faith, and heritage for the comforts of identifying and compromising with this secular world? Will our pulpits become strong once more... leading forth to the glory of God in Christ Jesus and pointing out our responsibility to be(come) a people suborndinate only to God through which his righteous law governs our spirit against the unlawful discharge of our liberties against our fellow kindred? Can our pulpits resist the financial 'perks' so called 'granted' to them by government laws and regulation to reclaim the liberty of the shepherds voice in the pulpit to speak the truth.... to sinner and saint alike, to the rulers and the 'rulled' without succumbing to the fear of displeasing the Herod's of our day? While it may not be the pastor's calling to dictate the vote of the congregation, it is within their duties to preach the gospel, call sinners to repentance, and to charge the flock to proper conscience and action for the sake of the kingdom and to season this world with the salt of our righteous walk---to include the responsible exercise of our citizenship.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Since ronnie is willing to allow states to abort children He has no credibility. Since he speaks out against earmarks and excessive government spending but works to obtain earmarks himself he has no credibility. Since he voted no against stopping the trafficing of chldren to abortion clinics whos parents are unaware that there is even a pregnancy he has no credibility. RP supporters are inflitrating forums all over the internet because they "think" they are getting his message out. But it is a false message with a fallacious front riddled with hypocracy. He is a man without honor or credibilty.

 

[KenH]

My friend who hosts the local radio talk show read this over the air this week.


What Does Freedom Really Mean?

by Ron Paul, February 7, 2005

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language, 1946.

- www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

 

[KenH]

He is a man without honor or credibilty.

Congressman Ron Paul is the best hope currently to return the advocacy of limited, constitutional government to the executive branch of the federal government.

The limited, constitutional credentials of anyone who mindlessly bashes Ron Paul must be questioned.

 

[EdSutton]

What did I miss, here??

The year was 2000 and the primaries were being held. Studiously, or so I thought, I studied the campaigns and in the Republican Primary voted for Allen Keyes, being one of three votes cast for him in my precinct. Since that time have continued to be impressed on his stand for Constitutional Government and was glad to see he had entered the race again.......

UNTIL

Last Monday, December 17, 2007, on radio talk show.... The Power Hour, he gave an interview and answered questions. Unfortunately I don't have transcripts of the program.... but essentially he was questioned on certain specifics which aren't usually the subject of the dumbing down of political debate as presented and supported by the media at large:

He was asked several questions regarding his support of President Bush, justification of war in Iraq, an American soldiers right to refuse to wear the UN uniform..... instead wearing the American soldier's uniform, the Iran-Contra Affair during the Reagon administration, our involvement with the UN, pre-emptive war and our past history and policies of supporting subversives to undermine other government's when their policies pointed them in the direction of their own sovereign interest...economically or politically- and independant of collaborating into a dependancy on the power of the US.

I was disappointed when in his answers there was no need to justify war when it serves our interest to maintain our strength: collaborating with terrorist and revolutionary groups and drug cartels is an acceptible though dirty part of doing business to serve our interest: a soldier's duty is to obey the orders of the commander in cheif..... although he allowed there is some room for discretion and disobedience at the risk that a court or jury may find that the soldier's disobediance to follow orders is more a threat to the constitutional than the obediant discharge of orders; the sovereignty of our country and the government under its Constitution can be superceded by treaties with other countries and or international groups.

He had no real solutions nor voiced concerns over the Federal Reserve Bank..... nor the North American Corridor which is planned to connect trade through Mexico into Canada. ....... Many who cruise this board may not be aware of this plan....and anyone who has succeeded in publically questioning President Bush regarding meetings in Canada etc... get the response of ridicule as though they don't know what they're talking about, instead of straight answers. Yet Governor Huckabee was collaborating with the Mexican government for an embassy in his own state to be funded by our tax dollars and 'rented' to the Mexican government at the pricey fee of $1.oo /yr........ Can one wonder if he (Huckabee) is 'soft' on imigration when the word 'illegal' preceeds their entrance? So Keyes does not oppose the processes which have brought us to the problems in our national and international affairs either! Keyes was presented with the setting up of the Vietnam war, and our involvement with the setting up and pulling down of other governments including our own aggressions, which he acknowledge or failed to deny.....but still he did not see the need to question any more the 911 conclusions, the use of depleted uranium and chemicals or bacterial during the Gulf war, or the experimental exposure of our soldiers to unproven vacinations and possibly other experiments without their knowledge or right to consent or object.

===================
My own conclusion: I'm dismayed with Keyes response and believe he was caught on issues more candid than the general media is willing to present to any of the candidates....Republican and Democrat.....and I believe his candidacy is as a spoiler to the other candidate who is outspoken on his principals based upon return to constitutional government. To me Christian values and principals include not making pacts with the devil because the enemy of my enemy is not my friend: There is something wrong among the media popular Republican candidates when Guillani's firm is involved in providing contacts between government officials and MATRIX which provides programming for spying on American citizens..... and his reward is in the millions of dollars in kickbacks or 'bonuses' for the government contract which they got. Something is wrong when Mitt Romney's business association is involved in a media buy-out into the BILLIONS of dollars: Something is wrong when 'stalwart' 'Christian' leaders like Pat Roberson endorse a crossdressing, fornicating, liar like Gulliani. Something is wrong when Mike Huckabee is asked about the bookcase ......which looks like a cross in the background .....responds,even if kidding "Paul is dead' ...... and later that appears in an underscript in an interview with Ron Paul. Something is wrong when the polls show a definite decline in McCain, and the media starts endorsing his projection. Something is wrong when the hard questions are not being asked of any candidate....Republican or Democrat and focuses get shifted to the dumbing down of the American politic by the media to such trivial silliness as Hillary's cleavage and Obama's wearing of the flag. I still want to know the real answer to Whitewater, and the financing of campaigns during the 90's and since....and the strange disappearance of papers during the 911 investigation, and the FBI reports held and 'lost' during the Clinton administration and later 'found' and returned..... Ruby Ridge and Waco, et al.... and the desensitizing of us to government intrusion and aggression. I want to know if Obama really attended an Islamic school and if so.... why does the media excuse it as being 'secular' when there is no such thing as a 'secular' religiously dominated and indoctrinated school.

Somebody is AFRAID that Ron Paul may garner enough support to get the Republican nomination..... and therefore are trying to keep as many spoilers vieing at the entrance gate with confusing polls ------perhaps in a plan to break down the will of the American people to consider what both conservative and liberal are after.... a government run once more like we are a part of it and less intrusive to us and more responsive to us..... with the burden and responsibility for lawfullness returned to the people.
===============
An interesting quote..... hopefully NOT prophetic:
Henry Kissinger, May 21, 1992, Evian, France:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order, tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
======================
As Christians, we KNOW a world government is coming...... just as sure as the Word of God says it is...... but we also can/should know...we are to occupy until Jesus comes and to resist the falling away into the cares of this world, the false doctrines, and the willingness to subborndinate our liberty, granted by God, to the dictates of government and the security it may seem to promise in default of our faith and actions.

Our recent history of wars has served as a national distraction of the American people while those of political influence gained greater affluence at the expense of our values and rights: There may be no conspiracy behind 9-11 but http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9081183141197207653 demonstrates some open questions which have not been answered by our current administration. Also, the B-52 bomber run with atomic bombs on board.... how can it be an accident..... or is it an accident that we found out about it? Is the current crises in our solvency or the immanence of a war with Iran, or the sudden awareness of MERSA (which has been on the scene since more than a decade) or the likelihood of other 'plagues', or energy crisis, or reduction in food supply, or inflation, or terrorism, or civil or criminal unrest within going to distract us from the preservation of liberties in our savior which our God has endowed to us
and through which he has blessed others who are not of like faith but companions in acquaintance as countrymen or shall we take the path of denial of rights, faith, and heritage for the comforts of identifying ...

[Above post 'snipped' for length, in order to print!]

Most of the above "what's wrong" spiel has exactly what to do with Ambassador Alan Keyes??

[Edited to add] In my own precinct in the 2000 primary, Dr. Alan Keyes received exactly one vote - mine. I am undecided, as of now, as to whom I shall support in this primary, as some candidates may not still be candidates, by that time. But as a registered Republican, in this state, I can only vote for a candidate on the Republican ballot, unlike in some other states.

AND the only election I have not participated in, in my voting life, was the KY primary earlier this year, when I was not released from the hospital in time to vote, although I was discharged that day, but could not get to the polls before closing time. So I will vote for whomever I think is the best candidate.

Ed

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Since ronnie [SNIP]

This isn't a complaint, just a question. Why "ronnie"?

If you're tyring to be insulting that's fine by me (really, Heaven knows I can be insulting). I'm just tyring to figure out if that's supposed to be insulting.

 

[Martin]

Since ronnie is willing to allow states to abort children He has no credibility.

==First, as Christians we are to give everyone the respect they are due. Therefore you should call Ron Paul by his name, Mr. Paul, or Dr. Paul. Calling him, or anyone else in his position, by his first name (lower case) is rude unless you are on first name terms with him. I cite Romans 13:7 as a basis for my exhortation.

Second, since you are a pastor I would like to see you be a bit more truthful about Ron Paul's abortion position as well as your own. Ron Paul, like myself, believe that abortion should be and can be outlawed at the state level. Your position, that it should be outlawed at the federal level, is a position taken by the mainstream pro-life movement. That movement, btw, has failed to achieve any major results. I believe attempting to end abortion at the federal level is a waste of time and energy. Therefore I believe the position of the mainstream pro-life movement, and your position, allows for millions of abortions while it waits to get enough support to slowly start ending abortions. Over turning Roe v. Wade and putting abortion at the state level, will have the affect of ending many aboritions sooner rather than later.

Therefore, when you claim that Ron Paul is not pro-life you are not telling the truth. Christians, mainly pastors, should be very careful to always tell the truth. Again, since you are a Christian and a pastor, I call on you to be more careful in your postings.

Since he speaks out against earmarks and excessive government spending but works to obtain earmarks himself he has no credibility.

==Those earmarks were not for him, but for the people he represents. As long as the system is the way it is, people like Ron Paul have no choice but to play by the current system. If people like Ron Paul did not play by the current system, they would be pushed out by the same Republican and Democrat dishonesty that they are trying to defeat. Sometimes, in politics, one has to do what one has to do in order to to play in the current system and represent one's district.

Since he voted no against stopping the trafficing of chldren to abortion clinics whos parents are unaware that there is even a pregnancy he has no credibility.

==Please cite the bill that he voted against. That way we can examine the bill to see the context (etc). It may very well be that Ron Paul voted against the bill because it contained language or provisions that were unconstitutional. Or it could have been tagged on to another bill. So we need some context here.

RP supporters are inflitrating forums all over the internet because they "think" they are getting his message out. But it is a false message with a fallacious front riddled with hypocracy. He is a man without honor or credibilty.

==I have to question your whole approach and attitude on this matter.

 

[KenH]

Your position, that it should be outlawed at the federal level, is a position taken by the mainstream pro-life movement.

And the main pro-life lobbying group endorsed Fred Thompson who has the identical position as Ron Paul on the abortion issue.

Maybe Timmy thinks that the main pro-life lobbying group has no credibility.

 

[Martin]

Alan Keyes is a great man and a wonderful Presidential candidate. However, I think his time has passed. I would love to throw my support behind his current run, but I believe that Mr. Keyes' thunder has been stolen by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I love to hear Mr. Keyes speak on the constitution and life.

 

[Martin]

And the main pro-life lobbying group endorsed Fred Thompson who has the identical position as Ron Paul on the abortion issue.

==The mainstream pro-life movement has good intentions. However I think their main problem is that they can't see the forest for the trees. They have put all of their chips in the federal basket and are waiting on it to work. I say, let's be realistic about this. The federal way has not worked, and the way things are going it probably never will. If we can get Roe v. Wade overturned, and abortion given to the states, we can start ending abortion that day. I think the state approach is much more realistic and much more effective than the federal approach. But again, the mainstream pro-life folks have put all their eggs in one basket. Even worse they stubbornly refuse to admit that their approach has failed and continues to fail. Meanwhile, millions of innocent babies are being murdered.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

==First, as Christians we are to give everyone the respect they are due. Therefore you should call Ron Paul by his name, Mr. Paul, or Dr. Paul. Calling him, or anyone else in his position, by his first name (lower case) is rude unless you are on first name terms with him. I cite Romans 13:7 as a basis for my exhortation.

Someone who supports the slaughter of unborn children at any level should not hold office and deserves no repsect. Since ronnie opposes a constitutional amendment to end all abortion the result would be that it allows some states to slaughter children. There are consistent mirepresentations of my position on this that gets made. I have stated on numerous occasions that R v. W should and will most likely be overturned. It is bad law based on a lie. But that is a seperate issue of a constitutional amemdment. I have never once suggested that we should look past r v. w and go straight to some federal law. But no state in these United States should be allowed to slaughter children. it is a sin against God and a crime against humanity.

Second, since you are a pastor I would like to see you be a bit more truthful about Ron Paul's abortion position as well as your own. Ron Paul, like myself, believe that abortion should be and can be outlawed at the state level. Your position, that it should be outlawed at the federal level, is a position taken by the mainstream pro-life movement. That movement, btw, has failed to achieve any major results. I believe attempting to end abortion at the federal level is a waste of time and energy. Therefore I believe the position of the mainstream pro-life movement, and your position, allows for millions of abortions while it waits to get enough support to slowly start ending abortions. Over turning Roe v. Wade and putting abortion at the state level, will have the affect of ending many aboritions sooner rather than later.

I have never once misrepresented ronnies postion on anything. It is a fact that he would rather states choose for themselves to legalize abortion or not to. Knowing the end result will be that some will. Knowing that those who want abortions and live in states that have outlawed it will travel to states that legalize it. Knowing it will not deter abortion.

Therefore, when you claim that Ron Paul is not pro-life you are not telling the truth. Christians, mainly pastors, should be very careful to always tell the truth. Again, since you are a Christian and a pastor, I call on you to be more careful in your postings.

Allowing states to abort children is not a pro life position.

==Those earmarks were not for him, but for the people he represents. As long as the system is the way it is, people like Ron Paul have no choice but to play by the current system. If people like Ron Paul did not play by the current system, they would be pushed out by the same Republican and Democrat dishonesty that they are trying to defeat. Sometimes, in politics, one has to do what one has to do in order to to play in the current system and represent one's district.

If he is going to speak out agaisnt them then when he takes part in them he is being hypocritical. If he is going to take part in earmarks he should not speak agaisnt them.

==Please cite the bill that he voted against. That way we can examine the bill to see the context (etc). It may very well be that Ron Paul voted against the bill because it contained language or provisions that were unconstitutional. Or it could have been tagged on to another bill. So we need some context here.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3510&can_id=296

==I have to question your whole approach and attitude on this matter.

My approach is calling sin as terrible as the murder of innocent children sin. And being willing to speak against it even when it is not convenient. And to not make attempts to rationalize murder and hypocracy.

 

[KenH]

1) Someone who supports the slaughter of unborn children at any level should not hold office and deserves no repsect.

2) But no state in these United States should be allowed to slaughter children.

3) Allowing states to abort children is not a pro life position.

1) Every person is created in the image of God. Therefore, every person deserves respect. Even you, Timmy.

2) Yet that was the situation in these United States prior to Roe v. Wade, Timmy.

3) Yet that was the pro-life in these United States prior to Roe v. Wade, and you claim to support returning to the days before Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Timmy, by your own admission you are not pro-life in your own eyes.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

ronnie

It was pointed out already that this is rude. Why would you continue to call him by that name? It comes off like prideful arrogance to me. You have every right to disagree with Ron Paul, but atleast give him the respect of calling him by his real name.

 

[Martin]

Someone who supports the slaughter of unborn children at any level should not hold office and deserves no repsect.

1. I will ignore the fact that your statement above is error.

2. The Scriptures allow for no such justification. Paul says "render to all" (Rom 13:7) and he commands Christians to pray and offer thanksgiving "on behalf of...kings and all who are in authority" (1Tim 2:1-2). Paul also states that Christians should "malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men" (Titus 3:2). Therefore your excuse for your lack of respect holds no water. As a Christian and a man who shepherd's God's flock, you need to realize that your attitude towards Ron Paul (and I suspect others) is not in agreement with Scripture. I am not saying you have to like or agree with Ron Paul, but you are required by Scripture to show him "consideration" and respect. That means, in part, that you don't refer to him in a demeaning way (ie...ronnie).

Since ronnie opposes a constitutional amendment to end all abortion the result would be that it allows some states to slaughter children.

==Whereas your position allows all states to continue to slaughter unborn children while you continue to wait for an amendment to pass (years, and years, and years). Paul's postion, which is mine, starts putting an end to abortion immediantly.

I have never once suggested that we should look past r v. w and go straight to some federal law. But no state in these United States should be allowed to slaughter children. it is a sin against God and a crime against humanity.

==I agree, but waiting for a federal amendment to the constitution is going to allow millions of babies to be slaughtered. Overturning Roe v. Wade and giving the states the power to ban abortion will stop many abortions the day the law is passed. Some states will take longer, but if we work hard (evangelism, education) all states will ban abortion. However waiting for a federal amendment to ban abortion, in my opinion, is like waiting for cows to fly. It is just not going to happen.

I have never once misrepresented ronnies postion on anything.

==Your consistant claim that Ron Paul is not pro-life is false and a massive misrepresentation. The reason you claim he is not pro-life is because he disagrees with the way you would solve the problem. You need to realize that a person can be pro-life and not want to sit around waiting on a constitutional amendment or the federal government. There are other possible ways to solve the problem. When you realize that, you will see how you have been misrepresenting Ron Paul's position.

It is a fact that he would rather states choose for themselves to legalize abortion or not to.

==This is what I am talking about. Notice the strong bias in your statement. Dr. Paul would seek to have the states "choose for themselves to end abortion". Clearly Ron Paul believes that "the right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty". When you leave out this point, you leave out part of the facts. That is why you are misrepresenting Ron Paul's position on abortion.

Knowing the end result will be that some will. Knowing that those who want abortions and live in states that have outlawed it will travel to states that legalize it. Knowing it will not deter abortion.

==Under your plan, the wait for a federal amendment plan, people can get abortions in any state of the union until a federal amendment is passed. Thus, legal abortions could go on for another twenty years under your plan. The federal plan has not worked and it shows no signs of working. If you wish to continue to put your eggs in that basket, fine. But don't accuse those who are looking for other solutions of not being pro-life. Such accusations are false.

If he is going to speak out agaisnt them then when he takes part in them he is being hypocritical. If he is going to take part in earmarks he should not speak agaisnt them.

==That is a very weak reply. You are saying, in effect, that Dr. Paul and others should allow themselves to be driven out of office and thus have no power. Why not play by the game while working to change the game? That is what Dr Paul is doing and that is what he should do. Until the game is changed, this is how it is played. Those who wish to stay in power long enough to change it are going to have to play by it. That, my friend, is reality and not hypocrisy.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3510&can_id=296

==I asked for a copy of the bill, not a summary. I guess I will have to look it up on my own.

HR 748 has never gone to the President's desk. Even though it passed the House in '05 during a Republican lead House.

Anyway, I will continue to try to get ALL the facts on this matter.

See next reply below. I did my research and the bill you are saying Paul should have voted for is not pro-life at all. In fact, the bill allows abortions as long as the parents are ok with it. I am glad Dr. Paul did not vote for a bill that would give the green light to abortion.

My approach is calling sin as terrible as the murder of innocent children sin. And being willing to speak against it even when it is not convenient. And to not make attempts to rationalize murder and hypocracy.

==The federal approach you are taking does the exact same thing you accuse Dr. Paul of. Sadly, you just don't see that.

 

[Martin]

I Did My Own Research on HR748

HR 748 was NOT the pro-life bill 2Timothy 2:1-4 claims it was!!! I looked up the actual text of the bill and it gives all sorts of exceptions in which abortions would acceptable. The bill would only have required the parents "ok" before an abortion would be performed. The bill actually legalizes abortion as long as the parents are in agreement with.

I don't know why Ron Paul did not vote for the bill, but I certainly would never have voted for such a bill. I suspect Dr. Paul did not vote for it because it claims that it:

"does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

and yet Dr. Ron Paul (OB/GYN) says:

"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."

So Dr. Paul's position is more pro-life and more scientifically accurate than the bill was.

 

[Chessic]

While I admire Ken's skill in turning yet another thread into a Paul discussion, I hope we can return to the subject of Keyes. Thanks to the OP for the information, even if second hand, about some of his stands. These positions are worth a deeper look. I agree with another poster that his time has past, or, at least, his time is not now. He does not even seem to be succeeding at his main goal of bringing certain issues to public discussion.

 

[KenH]

While I admire Ken's skill in turning yet another thread into a Paul discussion

Actually, I can't claim the credit for that. If you look at the order of the posts it was my good friend Timmy who introduced Ron Paul into this thread. I simply followed his lead.

 

[Chessic]

I stand, or rather sit, corrected.

 

[JamieinNH]

It was pointed out already that this is rude. Why would you continue to call him by that name? It comes off like prideful arrogance to me. You have every right to disagree with Ron Paul, but atleast give him the respect of calling him by his real name.

I agree with you. I have asked him to stop many times, and have even reported to to the moderators for them to ask him. But as of now, nethier have responded so I don't expect anything to change.

Status Quo it seems... :tear:

Jamie

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

What I find rather hypocritical is the lack of outrage over the consistent disrespect shown toward the President on this forum. I doubt very seriously anyone who makes the disengenuine appearance of outrage over a lack of respect for those whom they perceive should be shown respect is actually concerned about the respect issue. But simply cannot tolerate opposing views. When you start being consistently offended across the board come back and talk to me. Until then save your psuedo-outrage for someone who buys it.