Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul has asked Sarah Palin to campaign for him
Texas for Sarah Palin ^ | Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 1:35 PM | Josh Painter

Posted on 11/15/2009 11:45:32 AM PST by Josh Painter

Rand Paul, a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky revealed in an interview Thursday for the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog that his campaign has asked 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to campaign for him:

Washington Wire: Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?
Paul: We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her.
But the son of Texas congressman Ron Paul did not seem too excited about two other potential Republican presidential candidates:
Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?
Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.
Read the full Rand Paul interview here.

- JP


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 911truth; alexjones; flipflop; gopprimary; kentucky; ky2010; randpaul; sarahpalin; ussentate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 11/15/2009 11:45:33 AM PST by Josh Painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

interesting, very interesting..meanwhile, poor ol Mitt is thinking “Hey over here, its me Mitt, remember me”


2 posted on 11/15/2009 11:49:44 AM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

I thought I liked Rand Paul, and now I know I do!! Mitt Romney, the Ken doll, needs to find something else to do other than run for President.


3 posted on 11/15/2009 11:58:46 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Ahhhh...Sarah, don’t do it.


4 posted on 11/15/2009 12:01:52 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Rand, Son of Ron Paul?


5 posted on 11/15/2009 12:03:11 PM PST by SolidWood (Sarah Palin: "Only dead fish go with the flow!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

I anticipate hearing a lot more about requests for Sarah over the others. The Sarah 2012 stickers are showing up now. Romney is an old school slickster politician, I can’t get excited over him.


6 posted on 11/15/2009 12:03:24 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft (No 3rd Parties, the real winner will be the loser. A 3 party election needs a run off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norge

Ahhh...gotta clean my glasses. Thought it was Dad who was asking.

Strike post 4.


7 posted on 11/15/2009 12:03:51 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norge

Yeah for a second I thought it said RON Paul too, then had a double take. Rand Paul seems like a good guy. I hope she endorses him. Poor Mittens, Poor Huck, Poor Pawlenty, no one wants their endorsement, but they want Sarah’s. WOW for someone who is so darn irrelevant she sure gets a lot of requests doesn’t she. Can I be irrelevant too :-)


8 posted on 11/15/2009 12:14:21 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

“Rand, Son of Ron Paul?”

Yea, a fruitcake also. Bummer. From his own campaign website: “Were Dr. Rand Paul in charge of the budget, he would first demand that it be balanced. And second, he would make defense spending a top priority.”

His priorities are backwards (and he’s a grown man). If FDR had that attitude during WW2, we would be speaking German.

Stay clear, Sarah, please.


9 posted on 11/15/2009 12:17:08 PM PST by BobL (Real Men don't use Tag Lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Rand is Ron Paul’s son.


10 posted on 11/15/2009 12:21:16 PM PST by SolidWood (Sarah Palin: "Only dead fish go with the flow!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BobL

If FDR had had Paul’s honesty there never would have been a Pearl Harbor.

How can anyone use FDR as an example of anything right? Well, I guess a leftist collectivist could.

Hank


11 posted on 11/15/2009 12:45:29 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Sarah, I’ll tell you how irrelevant she is...AP put 11 fact checkers on her book.

For somebody irrelevant that sure seems like a lot of man-hours.


12 posted on 11/15/2009 1:05:43 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BobL
If FDR had that attitude during WW2, we would be speaking German.

We would? I don't think Germany ever considered an invasion of America.

13 posted on 11/15/2009 1:06:14 PM PST by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Sarah, I’ll tell you how irrelevant she is...AP put 11 fact checkers on her book.

For somebody irrelevant that sure seems like a lot of man-hours.


14 posted on 11/15/2009 1:06:15 PM PST by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Rand Paul...honestly where do they get these names?


15 posted on 11/15/2009 1:23:46 PM PST by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

Randal


16 posted on 11/15/2009 1:27:27 PM PST by curth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

I’m guessing it’s a hat tip to Ayn Rand, but I could be wrong


17 posted on 11/15/2009 1:27:30 PM PST by henry_reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Very interesting indeed.


18 posted on 11/15/2009 1:28:38 PM PST by rintense (You do not advance conservatism by becoming more liberal. ~ rintense, 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: henry_reardon

Is that like a shout out?


19 posted on 11/15/2009 1:34:56 PM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Palin would draw huge crowds in KY. Weren’t we been told just a month or so ago that no one wanted Palin to endorse them or help them in any way? Guess the MSM got that wrong. I suspect we will see Palin endorsing and campaigning for a lot of conservatives next year, including during primaries where conservatives challenge seats held by RINO’s, and conservatives taking on Blue Dogs.


20 posted on 11/15/2009 1:50:01 PM PST by euram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

probably so it’s an acknowledgment, I’m not really fluent in “hip hop”.


21 posted on 11/15/2009 2:03:24 PM PST by henry_reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

“We would? I don’t think Germany ever considered an invasion of America.”

Maybe I got something wrong, but I thought Germany wanted to WIN World War 2, and I really doubt that they could have kept their conquest intact without subduing us...whether that was in their immediate plans or not.


22 posted on 11/15/2009 2:11:06 PM PST by BobL (Real Men don't use Tag Lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

“Well, I guess a leftist collectivist could.”

Thanks for addressing my problem with Mr. Paul.


23 posted on 11/15/2009 2:11:48 PM PST by BobL (Real Men don't use Tag Lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Many apples don’t fall far from the tree.

Rand Paul landed right next to the trunk.


24 posted on 11/15/2009 2:14:18 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father.

Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.


25 posted on 11/15/2009 2:16:31 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
US Senate candidate Bill Johnson responds to the WSJ and Rand Paul

Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate

November 13, 2009

Bill Johnson campaign comments about the WSJ Washington Wire blog interview of Rand Paul:

Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues?

Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree. One is on taking the pledge not to put earmarks in bills. He’s probably the most fiscally conservative member of the House, but he’s just taken the position that when his constituents ask for a particular road or museum, he puts them through. I think the whole system is broken down, and it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t put earmarks on bills.

Bill Johnson: I disagree with the Pauls on many issues.  First, I do not agree with their pro-choice for states abortion position outlined in the ‘Sanctity of Life act’.  Establishing personhood for the unborn and then denying them federal protection is even worse than Judge Blackmun's (the author of Roe vs. Wade).  Second, I do not support the Paul's position in support of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and bringing the prisoners to the U.S. for trial.

Washington Wire: So do you think drugs should be legalized?

Paul: It’s a state issue. All issues of crime are better addressed at the state level.

Bill Johnson:   On the one side, you have the liberal statists who pretend the Federal Government has authority over every aspect of our lives.  With the Paul’s Libertarian views, you have an equally unbalanced and destructive view that the federal government has no power to regulate anything.  I side with common sense conservative thinking and the Founding Fathers who had no intention that liberty included dependence on mind-altering drugs.

Washington Wire: Your father opposed the war in Iraq.

Paul: I would have voted no on the Iraq war and yes to Afghanistan. The main thing I say on war is that we need to obey the law and formally declare war.

Bill Johnson: The Constitution is clear that the Congress has the responsibility to provide for (fund) the common defense.  Mr. Paul is ignoring the fact that Congress approved and funded both actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has authority over the USE of the military.  Acting on a clear and present danger is the responsibility of our President as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the actions of Congress.  If Congress disagrees with the actions of the President, they can choose to not provide the funding.

Washington Wire: What should happen in Afghanistan?

Paul: I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky.

Bill Johnson: We need to provide the troops needed to win against the terrorists and stabilize the region.  The fact that we don’t have a war declaration does not remove the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief to protect our nation.

Washington Wire: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Paul: I call myself a constitutional conservative. I see myself as sort of, part of this insurgency that’s out there, the way [former Florida state legislator Marco] Rubio is a conservative and fighting against an established moderate like [Gov. Charlie] Crist. Our race in Kentucky is going to shape up to be very similar.

Bill Johnson: Rand Paul claims to be a Constitutional Conservative.  He is not.  He is a Libertarian.  An honest assessment of his statements and actions during the past two decades bears this out.  The most obvious example is that he denies equal protection to all unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

Washington Wire: How much of your campaign is built on the Ron Paul base?

Paul: Probably 75% of people at the “tea parties” I go to didn’t support Ron Paul. It opened the door [for my candidacy] that 25% who did were big supporters of mine and my dad.

Bill Johnson: Rand Paul’s campaign is based entirely on his father's fame and notoriety.  My campaign is based on the support of grassroots citizens of Kentucky.

Washington Wire: How do you talk about the economy on the campaign trail?

Paul: I see us in the latter stages of the Roman empire, when you have bread and circuses to placate the mob. But in our current society, we have Cash for Clunkers and the stimulus package. And the mantra we get from Washington is this soothing George Carlin voice that says, ‘You just need to go to the mall and spend your checks.’ But nobody believes that.

Washington Wire: I see.

Paul: I think there’s a danger that we could destroy our currency and be like 1923 in Germany, with the Weimar currency, with money in wheelbarrows. Germany was a civilized country in Europe, and they destroyed their currency and then elected Hitler, so things have happened before and they could happen again.

Bill Johnson:  Our country is in debt to the tune of $13 trillion dollars and rising.  We are funding this debt through selling our country to other governments, the printing of money, and increased taxation.  All of these actions are leading to high unemployment, devaluation of our dollar, and the loss of national sovereignty.

Washington Wire: Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?

Paul: We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her.

Bill Johnson: Her help in this campaign would be appreciated.

Washington Wire: What about Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney?

Paul: I don’t know much about Tim Pawlenty. Romney, there’s a mixture of beliefs there.

Bill Johnson:  I am happy with the support of true Reagan Conservatives like Dr. Alan Keyes.

26 posted on 11/15/2009 2:23:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father.

Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.

Boy, you sure can pull complete BS out of thin air pretty well.

Now let's clear your cloud of crap with some actual facts:

Neither Rand nor Ron Paul are isolationist - they are both "America First" proponents who call for the outdated and expensive overseas military presense to be reduced in line with budgetary and military prudence, not Cold War nostalgia or planet-wide "peace keeping" excuses.

Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be. Ron Paul is an obstitrician who has personally delivered over 4,000 babes.

Libertarian - small 'l', there's a difference. Learn it.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

27 posted on 11/15/2009 3:12:56 PM PST by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be.

No, they're not. They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

28 posted on 11/15/2009 3:16:59 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian; EternalVigilance; Bokababe; bamahead; djsherin
planet-wide "peace keeping" excuses

Y'know, the irony here is that the U.S. borrows from foreign powers and then turns around and spends the borrowed funds to defend those very same foreign powers, the blood of U.S. citizens spilled in the process notwithstanding. At the same time, the U.S. slits its own economic wrists by refusing to make use of its own natural resources and by hobbling its own economy with excessive and improper taxes and regulations.

Both Rand and Ron are as pro-life as you can be.

Ron Paul delivered babies, and Rand Paul is so pro-life that he's to the right of me! (He has gone on the record as supporting an end to all abortions, with no exceptions made for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.) It seems, though, that EV's point of contention is that Rand Paul is unwilling to end abortions at the Federal level but would prefer that the matter be handled at the state level, in keeping with the Constitution and the sovereignty of the various States.

29 posted on 11/15/2009 3:32:03 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; The Comedian
They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

So if, as you implicitly claim, "pro-life" means that one must support an end to abortion at the Federal level, wouldn't that also mean that "pro-life" also means that one must support an expansion in Federal power, authority, and jurisdiction? Or do the ends justify the means in this one case?

30 posted on 11/15/2009 3:34:10 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Yeah, I am sure he wants Palawnty and Mitt to campaign for him, he needs to know how to lose an election.


31 posted on 11/15/2009 3:34:18 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

It probably matters not what some others think about Paul so much as it matters as to what the people of Kentucky think of him and the other opponents. The following would indicate it’s a two man race with the others down at the wannabe level.

http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Exclusive-WHAS11Survey-USA-poll—Rand-Paul-surges-for-GOP-Mongiardo-maintains-lead-in-Democratic-race-68970162.html
Updated Tuesday, Nov 3 at 6:38 PM
The Republican party in Kentucky has never seen anything like it.
Bowling Green eye doctor Rand Paul has no political experience, but with the support of the same people who backed his Dad, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, when he ran for president. Rand Paul has now at least pulled even with Secretary of State Trey Grayon in the GOP U.S. Senate primary.

32% Grayson
35% Paul
2% Johnson
1% Oerther
3% Thoney
10% Other
18% Undecided


32 posted on 11/15/2009 3:36:00 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Yeah, Germany wanted to win. But they were trying to defeat America via a defensive war; like the Confederacy during the War Between the States. Meaning winning a war without taking over so much as one inch of your opponents land.

I’m pretty sure they knew they wouldn’t be able to actually invade this country.


33 posted on 11/15/2009 3:38:21 PM PST by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The securing of the Blessings of Liberty to posterity is the sworn duty of all in American government, in every branch and at every level.

The Founders said that the protection of God-given rights is the very purpose of human government.


34 posted on 11/15/2009 3:40:32 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
in keeping with the Constitution and the sovereignty of the various States.

Hogwash. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to provide for the equal protection of the laws. Like the Fifth Amendment, it says that no person shall be deprived of life without a fair trial.

35 posted on 11/15/2009 3:43:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The Founders said that the protection of God-given rights is the very purpose of human government.

True, but that doesn't mean that one must default to using the Federal apparatus to achieve goals. Our government has many layers; what we are disagreeing upon here is not the outcome (i.e., an end to abortions) but the means of accomplishing the outcome (i.e., at the Federal level vs. the state level).

36 posted on 11/15/2009 3:47:59 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Try a little exercise: instead of the right to life, insert any other unalienable right into the Paul family’s formulation and see how well it works out for you, logically.

Do you think North Dakota, under our Constitution, could outlaw guns, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury, or parental rights?

Let me remind you, the right to life is the supreme unalienable right; the one right without which you can never again hope to ever enjoy all the rest.


37 posted on 11/15/2009 3:51:13 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

We’re talking about the supreme obligation of all.


38 posted on 11/15/2009 3:52:02 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Like the Fifth Amendment, it says that no person shall be deprived of life without a fair trial.

Which can only be applied to "fetuses" (unborn human individuals) if the legal concept of "personhood" is redefined. Now, while we would probably agree that the unborn are worthy of some legal protection, I would rather that "personhood" not be redefined from a legal perspective because doing so opens up a whole new can of worms with potential implications for citizenship (e.g., birth date vs. conception date, would an individual gain nationality status based on where they were conceived rather than born), and for legal rights (e.g., if the courts determined that a mother was not adequately protecting the legal rights of her unborn child, could they regulate her life in order to ensure that the child's legal rights are protected) in general.

39 posted on 11/15/2009 3:58:32 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

“I’m pretty sure they knew they wouldn’t be able to actually invade this country.”

Sorry, but you’re clueless as to interdependence. Between Japan and Germany, they would have simply choked us until we invited them in (due to starvation). You are right, they would not have had to invade use, rather they would have strangled us.

Unfortunately this is a VERY difficult concept for Libertarians to understand.


40 posted on 11/15/2009 3:58:50 PM PST by BobL (Real Men don't use Tag Lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: henry_reardon
I’m guessing it’s a hat tip to Ayn Rand, but I could be wrong

Rand Paul has said that the "Ayn Rand connection" with his name has always been the number 1 question for reporters so he answered it in a video.

Sorry, Henry, but in this case you are wrong. He was legally named Randall, was called Randy as a kid, and as an adult his wife started calling him "Rand" & it stuck.

41 posted on 11/15/2009 4:02:47 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Do you think North Dakota, under our Constitution, could outlaw guns, or free speech, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury, or parental rights?

No BUT with respect to the citizens of the State of North Dakota and their State government, I don't think it's in MY place, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to decide for them, nor do I think it is in their place to decide for me and for my fellow Citizens of the Commonwealth.

Do you think that the citizens of one State should be allowed to make decisions for the citizens of another State, as a general rule?

42 posted on 11/15/2009 4:03:34 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"Rand Paul is an isolationist, Libertarian, pro-choice for states, candidate, just like his father. Reagan conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by his slick talk.

If you could say something like that, then you have no idea who Ronald Reagan really was.

43 posted on 11/15/2009 4:04:41 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The Fourteenth Amendment makes a clear and easily understood distinction between citizens and persons. And under its provisions, all persons are to be protected by the states.

Blackmun even admitted in Roe that if the “fetus” is a PERSON, they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do you, like Blackmun, choose to dehumanize the child, or do you think they are a person?

One last note: Politicians like Rand Paul are in fact WORSE than Blackmun. They admit that the child is a person, and then advocate that states can allow their killing if they see fit. They don’t even feel the need for Blackmun’s fig leaf.


44 posted on 11/15/2009 4:07:07 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard; BobL
Shortly after the war started, there was concern that Germany might be planning an invasion of the Southern United States via North Africa. My grandfather's unit was stationed at Camp Blanding, Florida (just outside Jacksonville) in case there was such an invasion.

After the war, it was learned that the Germans had actually considered this, but had rejected the idea in favor of a naval blockade.

45 posted on 11/15/2009 4:15:41 PM PST by Stonewall Jackson (Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry. - Oliver Cromwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson

Let’s be reasonable here...we are talking 1948, at the earliest to invade the US, but the INVASION would have to take place, in order to end the war (for the Axis to be victorious). Does anyone REALLY believe that Germany and Japan would have been happy with just the Eastern Hemisphere?


46 posted on 11/15/2009 4:20:38 PM PST by BobL (Real Men don't use Tag Lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Ronald Reagan was a peace through strength, personhood pro-life, moral conservative.

The Pauls are not. This is abundantly clear.


47 posted on 11/15/2009 4:20:57 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; rabscuttle385; Bokababe; bamahead; djsherin
No, they're not. They hold the position of Gerald R. Ford, not Ronald Reagan. They are pro-choice for states.

Anti-Paul BS anti-serum coming right up:

Ron Paul, 1981:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

Rand Paul, 2009:

I believe life begins at conception. I recognize the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will always vote to protect life.

Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

Pro-choice my a$$.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

48 posted on 11/15/2009 4:38:14 PM PST by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Do you, like Blackmun, choose to dehumanize the child, or do you think they are a person?

Do we have conception certificates and do we celebrate the anniversary of a person's conception with cake and candles and a party?

Of course not.

Each of us has birth certificates and birth days.

So no, a fetus (and this otherwise nebulous term, in the context of my comments, encompasses everything from the fertilized egg to a child about to be born) is not a legal person until it is actually born, as far as I see things.

But is that unborn child capable of becoming a person? Yes--at a future time, i.e., birth, and that's why I wrote at post 39 that

the unborn are worthy of some legal protection

So:

Do I support partial birth abortion? No, it's disgusting and morally repugnant.

Do I support abortion at any time (without appropriate cause) for individuals who voluntarily consented to engage in activities that led to a pregnancy? No.

Do I support bans on condoms, spermicides, and other birth control methods that prevent a pregnancy? No, at least, not at the federal level.

Do I support making lawful contraceptive methods for victims of rape and incest? Yes, if done so within a short period of time (e.g., one week, but this is arbitrary on my part) following the rape or the act of incest. No abortion for a woman who is eight months into a pregnancy caused by rape!

Do I support the Federal government regulating abortion, as a general rule? No, with one exception: regulation of individuals crossing State and Federal boundaries to solicit abortions (i.e., interstate commerce). Otherwise, repeal Roe v. Wade, and return the issue to the various States.

49 posted on 11/15/2009 4:46:03 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
So no, a fetus is not a legal person until it is actually born, as far as I see things.

Well, you agree with the Judge Blackmun, so I have no more time for you. Good night.

50 posted on 11/15/2009 4:55:21 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We're witnessing the slow strangulation death of American republican self-government and liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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