Skip to comments.Ron Paul's Statement of Faith
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. Im 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.
He’s a MOONBAT
I have been as harsh a critic of Ron Paul as anyone here on FR, but I have to say that based upon this statement alone, I am impressed with what he is saying.
Congressman Duncan Hunter is still my preferred candidate and will remain so, but I won’t be engaging in any more Paul-bashing.
Whether or not Paul is a viable candidate for President isn’t the issue. The principles and beliefs that he has proclaimed as his own in this statement are more than sufficient for me to take a ‘wait and see’ approach and I have to reverse myself and say that I think he should be included in every future presidential debate, and his ideas should be discussed.
And yes, I am sober.
Obviously prolife, I have nothing but complete agreement with him on that.
On the war, I do think we need to engage radical Islam very aggressively and decisively (which, by the way, the current crop of idiots aren’t doing). As for Paul and his stance on Iraq, I don’t completely agree, but I can respect his explanations. I’m still a Hunter supporter, but he makes a lot of sense.
heh you beat me by a minute!
I can't disagree, 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 against.
The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left. His motives are entirely different, and are defensible in principal, but the result is the same.
I agree and think we make a grave mistake if we just shun this guy - I too am inspired by many of his ideas and convictions. Would that any of the other politicians had is spine. At least with Paul, you know where he stands and with the exception of his position on the WOT, I find it hard to disagree with him on many things related to smaller government. I just wish it was someone else making the case.
Having said that, I too am Hunter supporter and continue to believe he has the right message for the time.
Bump for Dr. Paul
Goodness is irrelevant. He's still a back-bencher. And now he has to make room on the bench for John McLame.
“I can think of far worse things than a Hunter/Paul ticket, or even a Paul/Hunter ticket.”
I can, a Hillary/Obama ticket and they would win over your team by 20 points minimum. Get real.
In that case, you’re on the wrong website.
We are past the point where isolationism will work. We need to be a player in the world because our economy depends on it. From that point we need to protect our interest politically and militarily. We can’t pull up tent stakes and come home, nor should we. There are too few of us in the US to support our economy, and if we withdraw as a player the rest of the world will move on without us. Then we are in a world of hurt, being vastly outnumbered and yet still in possession of a lot of “cool stuff” in resources, intellectual property and products.
The only way to keep that from happening is stay the major player and eliminate those that threaten us. Globalism and the like is a reality mainly due to our ever growing technology. It will not go away no matter how much one wishes it would. the masses like their stuff. Now it is up to us to determine how "USA" that globalism looks in form and nature, that's going to be the problem. Right now we a not doing too good at that.
And why is that?
yep, it’s about globalism in the final analysis. The reason I don’t support Thompson is his lack of copnviction regarding an ever closer union with Canada and Mexico- even if it only consists of trade agreements- for right now, of course. (The EU started the same way.)
Paul and Hunter both are not globalists in any measure of the word.
I was waiting for the "rightful and appropriate focus....bring to justice to the jihadists" answer in his letter
What is Ron Paul answer to "rightful and appropriate focus....???
We are sick of RINOs. No more. Not even at the expense of a Democrat being elected.
We’re all getting a very harsh lesson right now on where this thinking has led us. No more. Include me out.
Although I do not think Paul is a viable candidate at this point, I wish every rhino and democrat would feel this way on this issue.
I believe that would be the Afghanistan campaign, taken into context.
I disagree with Paul on this, I think it’s nutcase Islam in general. The whole thing. Of course, declarign war on an entire religion, well... can we do that? I’d be up for it!
Ditto. I’m not sure who I’m for at this point, and haven’t supported Ron Paul because I’m not sure I agree with him on some issues. However, I like many of his ideas, and don’t like to see him belittled, as often happens on these threads.
I haven’t committed to supporting Thompson, because I’m afraid he’s just more of the same.
..no Dr., only the Bible has that distinction--otherwise an impressive statement...
Does this mean any old socialist will do as POTUS, so long as they have an “R” beside their name?
Not being globalist in any sense of the word on one end and extremely “Internationalist” on the other will not work. We have to deal with the global economy. It will not go a way. Now our job is to define it in terms we can live with. We can’t do that if we are not there to play and play to win. We have to turn their ideas and practices to our advantage and will. That is the challenge for Conservatives in the 21st Century.
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.
Does this mean that Ron Paul only wants the President to go after those that perpetrated 9/11? If so, this is remarkably short-sighted. The terrorists that threaten us today, both at home and abroad, may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11.
Now we just need to find a way to eradicate this scourge on our modern world. Ron Paul thinks privateers and mercenaries are the key to go after non-State actors. While I feel this tool should not be ignored, it shouldn't be the only one we use. Taking out those States who knowingly harbor terror groups should also be a goal. The heck with civilian populations who allow these animals to herd them unchecked.
These groups are attacking us. This cannot go without a swift, violent, and decisive response.
Bush's "Democracy building" exercise has never worked any time it was tried before. Smash them. Destroy them. Then rebuild on the rubble. This ongoing "police action" is lunacy...
The sad thing, smash them, destroy them, rebuild on the rubble worked in WWII. There is a modle in our history just 60 years ago and we can follow it...
But we aren’t. Bush and his “compassionate ‘conservatism’” aren’t doing us any favors in the War on Terrorism.
Every paulette thread should have a buffoon alert
The enemy is the states that sponsor the terrorists.
The terrorists are just a weapon, like a tank or a plane, call them proxy troops if you like.
We are down to Iran, Syria and and to a lesser extent Pakistan
Yes we needed to Declare War on 9-12 and taken on all those countries publically and decisivly.
I am a veteran, I have a son going to Qatar in November, and I stand with Ron Paul.
I agree, and I tend to think that he has given more thought to his ideas than most candidates have, and I tend to think his are based more on principal than on what he thinks people want to hear.
I don’t agree with you either. Now you can talk to me.
I believe his first exectutive order will be to repeal all previous executive orders.
This eliminates many bureaucracies with the stroke of a pen.
A Paul/ ticket would be a much closer race. Paul would siphon lots moonbat support from the RATs.
If it's the 'Bushbots' that are carrying his water, he IS more of the same...
Yeah, I emant it to say can’t follow, so I agree.
Just do it and end it...
I am glad Ron Paul is in the US Congress, and he and his supporters should be heard. I like the fact that he says things that more pr-sensitive types won’t dare to say-you know, like most of the other candidates and maybe-candidates. He is thoughtful, and at leat tries to come up with original solutions.
Yet, I do not want Ron Paul for president. I cannot imagine him being able to lead if he has to constantly measure all the possible outcomes of every action.It’s not possible. Just imagine how past threats like the Nazis or current threats like Imperial China and the coming imposition of Islamic Law on our children would be handled by Paul-not forcefully.
With all the threats there are in the world today, from within and without, this country needs a president who:
has been consistent so we can trust his words,
understands the military and when it should and should not be sent into action,
is not too cozy with the Washington elite,
articulates the dangers we face and what he will do to fight them,
knows how to make decisions,
cares about protecting innocent human life,
and is a person of personal and public integrity.
That person, beyond doubt, is DUNCAN HUNTER.
If you don’t know what he stands for, and if you don’t see him getting free soft pr coverage like some of the other candidates and maybe candidates, you should wonder why.
You are an uninformed jerk.
Didn’t I see you in this vid?
The difference I see is that Paul's is an ideological difference based on his interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution, where as the looney left("living document") is purely political, based on hunger for power(repercussions be damned).
Unfortunately though, 2 sides of the same coin where the WOT is concerned.
I tend to agree, for many years the VP position has been seen as only a US representative to state funerals, etc., low level influence at best. However the last 6 years the MSM, their cohorts(moonbats)and even many of the(wishy washy)swing voters who eventually decide these close elections have seen VP Cheney as the power player and now that position takes on added significance.
Well put IMHO.
That’s not what I said. I fear a completely unelectable ticket with Paul either as the headliner or second place would asure us a Hillary or Obama Presidency.