Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul's False Claims on Abortion Don't Match His Previous Statements [KY US Senate]
AIPNews.com ^ | Feb. 24, 2010 | Johnson and Grayson campaigns

Posted on 02/24/2010 4:23:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance

Friends of Trey Grayson / Johnson Senate Committee

Joint Press Release

For Immediate Release:                                                            
Wednesday, February 24, 2010                                                            

Contact:  Nate Hodson (Friends of Trey Grayson)
(859) 757-4349 / nate@treygrayson.com            
 
Contact: Jennifer Walker (Johnson Senate Committee)
(270) 604-1164 / press@kentuckybill.com

Florence, Kentucky

           Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Businessman Bill Johnson, both Republican candidates for U.S. Senate issued the following response today to the claims contained in Rand Paul’s radio ad on the topic of abortion:
 
            “There’s no ‘probably’ when it comes to the issue of partial birth abortion among Kentucky pro-life activists,” said Grayson.  “Whether it’s Bill Johnson or myself, Kentuckians deserve to know who can be counted on to protect life and stand up for our conservative values in the race for U.S. Senate.”
 
            “Rand Paul denies it now, but I’ve heard him say that he supports allowing individual states to decide the issue of abortion. He describes himself as a Constitutional conservative, but he ignores the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees our rights to life, liberty and property.  Life should be protected at all levels of Government, including the Federal level,” said Bill Johnson.
 
While Rand Paul claims to be pro-life, he has in the past voiced support for allowing states to decide the issue and has opposed federal regulation of abortion.  Rand Paul in his own words:
 
“But he [Paul] was more evasive when it came to some social issues like abortion and gay marriage. He said he believes marriage is between a man and woman but wouldn’t say how he’d vote on such issues in the Senate, instead saying such matters should be left up to states.” (Ronnie Ellis, “Paul Touts Fundraising Success, Stakes Positions On Federal Issues,” The McCreary County [KY] Record, 10/20/09)

And on abortion, Paul expressed discomfort with federal laws but said he “probably” would have voted for a federal ban on a procedure that has been called partial-birth abortion by its opponents.”  (Joe Gerth, “Can Paul win Kentucky Senate Race?”, <http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:FaEE6gBusf0J:www.courier-journal.com/article/20091019/COLUMNISTS21/910190324/1071/NEWS0106+Can+Paul+win+Kentucky+Senate+race%3F&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari>  The Courier-Journal, 10/19/2009)
            
I think we should make Roe v. Wade part of our philosophy as far as states’ rights - in believing that states should have the prerogative over this.”  (Rand Paul Speaking in Jessamine County <http://kywordsmith.com/#/johnsonvspaul/4535452248> , 9/3/2009)

"I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states."  (Rand Paul Speaking in Paducah <http://kywordsmith.com/#/rand-paul-issues/4533680792> , 5/9/2009)
 
"Libertarian would be a good description," Rand Paul told CNN, "because libertarians believe in freedom in all aspects of your life – your economic life as well as your social life as well as your personal life."  (CNN’s Political Ticker, 5/4/2009)
 
“Paul’s father, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is a strong states’ rights advocate who wants the federal government out of people’s lives. He opposes federal drug laws and says the U.S. government should not outlaw gay marriage because only churches should be in the marriage business. During a conference call Friday, Rand Paul, a Bowling Green ophthalmologist, talked around some of those questions and others, perhaps signaling that he knows his positions on such issues might be a tough sell to Kentucky Republicans. He prefers to talk about fiscal issues, allowing him to ride a populist wave that erupted after the nation’s economy went bust, prompting federal bailouts.” (Joseph Gerth, Op-Ed, “Can Paul Win Kentucky Senate Race?” The [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal, 10/19/09)


“[T]he Paul campaign issued the following response: . . . . ‘Reconciling Rand’s positions with Kentucky voters is easy. Kentucky is a socially conservative state which mostly upholds Christian values. If we protect states’ rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then we protect Kentucky values from Californians or Vermonters or out-of-control Congressional Democrats and [Alleged] President Obama. Kentucky voters want and deserve to have their rights protected by Rand Paul’s strict constructionist understanding of the United States Constitution.’ David Adams, campaign manager.” (Joe Arnold, ABC Affiliate WHAS’s Political Blog, www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger <http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2009/10/speaking-of-the-social-conserv.html> , Posted 10/20/09)


Middlesboro Daily News: What about instances of rape or incest or where the outcome may not be death, but severe medical problems for the mother or child. Do you think that in these cases the decision should be left to the government rather than the families?  Paul: In cases of rape, trying to prevent pregnancies is obviously the best thing. The morning-after pill works successfully most of the time. Ultimately we do better if we do have better education about family planning.   With partial-birth abortion, there were five women who testified that it threatened their life. It wasn’t completely true in all cases. They were non-viable babies. They were babies with awful genetic mutations that were not going to survive, and I tend to think we let nature take its course. (Lorie Settles, “US Senate Hopeful Rand Paul Visits Middlesboro <http://www.middlesborodailynews.com/view/full_story/5661743/article-US-Senate-hopeful-Rand-Paul-visits-Middlesboro?instance=home_news_lead> ,” The Middlesboro Daily News, 1/26/10)
 

###
 

 

Additional press release from the Johnson campaign:

BILL JOHNSON FOR U.S. SENATE

February 24, 2010
 
Contact:
Bill Johnson
270-847-6511/ bill@kentuckybill.com
 
JOHNSON COMMENTS ON JOINT PRESS RELEASE

ELKTON — Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Bill Johnson today issued the following statement about the joint Friends of Trey Grayson/Johnson Senate Committee press release:

“I will remain my own candidate in this Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate. Dr. Paul agrees with my positions on fiscal issues and Mr. Grayson agrees with my positions on social/moral issues.  However, I stand alone on matters of energy independence and the defense of our nation; both critical to voters of Kentucky

“As a veteran and business leader experienced in the field of energy and national defense, I have the background necessary to lead in the U.S Senate.  As a Friend of Coal, I will work to eliminate the Federal Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and return those responsibilities to the states.  We need to mine for coal, drill for oil, and build power plants right here in Kentucky.  Voters can trust that as a veteran who defended our nation in the first gulf war, I will always stand strong on national defense and border protection.

“The May 18th Primary is critical to our future.  We need a U.S. Senator who is correct on all the issues important to Kentucky.”
 
##30##

Best Regards,

 

Bill Johnson


TOPICS: Announcements; Politics/Elections; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; grayson; johnson; ky2010; paul; prolifevote; randpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2010 4:23:02 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It’s all Greek to me.


2 posted on 02/24/2010 4:23:56 PM PST by hockeyfan (Keep the Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hockeyfan

Rand Paul doesn’t think the national government has the imperative duty to protect the unalienable rights of all. Just like his dad. States’ rights trumps all.


3 posted on 02/24/2010 4:26:57 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hockeyfan

Long story short: Rand Paul couldn’t figure out for sure whether he’d vote for the Partial Birth Abortion ban.


4 posted on 02/24/2010 4:27:38 PM PST by Crichton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crichton

Looks like he also has no problem with the “morning after” pill, which is an abortifacient. In other words, it kills babies.


5 posted on 02/24/2010 4:30:20 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Lesforlife; 8mmMauser; Gelato; Steve Schulin; Delphinium; MountainFlower; BykrBayb; ...

Personhood ping...


6 posted on 02/24/2010 4:32:47 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I wonder what Sarah Palin’s position is on the “morning after” pill.


7 posted on 02/24/2010 4:41:56 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Rand Paul doesn’t think the national government has the imperative duty to protect the unalienable rights of all. Just like his dad. States’ rights trumps all.

The way the Pauls see it an individual state would be perfectly within their "rights" if the abolished laws against murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping.

8 posted on 02/24/2010 4:42:06 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Murder is prosecuted as a state crime. It’s a almost always a state issue. I agree that under the Constitution, a fetus should be protected the same as any other citizen, however the murder of other citizens is a state crime not a federal crime.


9 posted on 02/24/2010 4:46:44 PM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“The way the Pauls see it an individual state would be perfectly within their “rights” if the abolished laws against murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping.’

Actually they do to an extent. For example, killing someone that breaks into your house is treated differently in Texas as opposed to New York. In one case it’s murder, the other it is not.


10 posted on 02/24/2010 4:50:36 PM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: babygene
The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to protect all innocent persons, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws for all persons. The Pauls like to ignore that, but it's as clear as it could possibly be. Even Judge Blackmun acknowledged this fact in the Roe decision. If the fetus is a person, they are "of course" protected, he said.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

11 posted on 02/24/2010 4:51:15 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Funny. Trey( I voted as a RAT delegate for BJ Clinton and my Daddy is a white trash NKY bankster) Grayson has bought this Johnson guy and they are now running as a team?


12 posted on 02/24/2010 4:55:28 PM PST by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Can you make a case that the original intent of the authors of that amendment was to provide for a federal ban on abortion?


13 posted on 02/24/2010 4:55:48 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Rand Paul doesn’t think the national government has the imperative duty to protect the unalienable rights of all. Just like his dad. States’ rights trumps all.

Looks like he is as goofy as his dad. I wonder if he will be able to rack up the earmarks like his dad, if he does get elected.
14 posted on 02/24/2010 5:00:06 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The Fourteenth Amendment could make it a civil rights violation. Murder is a state crime not a federal crime. We really don’t want to make it a federal crime.

If a state law is unconstitutional because of the 14th, then take that to court. The federal government has no authority under the constitution to prosecute such crimes.


15 posted on 02/24/2010 5:00:32 PM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid

I think the people that have an ax to grind with Sarah will turn a blind eye to that fact.


16 posted on 02/24/2010 5:03:43 PM PST by ABQHispConservative (A good Blue Dog is an unelected Blue Dog. Ditto Rino's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Can you make the case that the child is not a person?


17 posted on 02/24/2010 5:03:49 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: babygene

What other of our unalienable rights do you believe this about other than the right to life?


18 posted on 02/24/2010 5:04:43 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid

Wow. What a complete misrepresentation that is.


19 posted on 02/24/2010 5:05:29 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Can you make the case that the child is not a person?

Why do I need to? I just want to know if what you're proposing is based on an objectively defensible original intent interpretation of the Constitution, or if we're dealing in "penumbras and emanations".

A simple question, and one that needs to be asked.

20 posted on 02/24/2010 5:08:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Crichton

Rand Paul knows what he believes.

He just doesn’t want to come out and tell the rest of us.


21 posted on 02/24/2010 5:08:34 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Egon
Rand Paul doesn’t think the national government has the imperative duty to protect the unalienable rights of all. Just like his dad. States’ rights trumps all.

Constitutionally, he is correct. It's easy to demonize the position of a Constitutional Conservative because the massive encroachments that the Federal Government has made into the venue of the sovereign rights of the States and the individual have become the entrenched position. The only way to get the Federal Government out of all these un-mandated areas is for We The People to wrest these areas away and return them to the states. The only way to do this (in a Democratic Republic) is to elect Constitutionalists who understand, and will legislate within, the constitutional limits.

22 posted on 02/24/2010 5:08:49 PM PST by RhoTheta (Wipe out capitalism, no more money. You following me camera guy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

If the child is a person, the requirements of the Constitution are obvious. Even Blackmun admitted this.


23 posted on 02/24/2010 5:17:47 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RhoTheta

Really? The protection of what other unalienable rights do you think should be left up to the states to decide?


24 posted on 02/24/2010 5:18:52 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Why is it that Johnson is always bitching about just Paul and never comes out against Grayson’s positions?


25 posted on 02/24/2010 5:20:01 PM PST by Rodebrecht (No army can stop an idea whose time has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

A democrat turned republican polling at 22% and a republican polling at maybe 5% going up against a republican polling at 44% on one issue. Interesting.

So looks like the republican with 5% should step out of the race and let his 5 supporters join with the democrat turned republican to defeat the republican.
Now that is speculating the 5 supporters would actually support the democrat turned republican.

When the republican trounces them both in the primary, will the democrat and republican support the republican to defeat the liberal?

Interesting that the democrat turned republican is backed by the national GOP while the guy in the lead is supported by Palin.

At least the other republican has his wife supporting him and some freeper from Iowa who may or may not be able to vote for him.


26 posted on 02/24/2010 5:21:18 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If the child is a person, the requirements of the Constitution are obvious. Even Blackmun admitted this.

An original intent interpretaion is based on the intent of those who wrote and ratified the amendment, not what a USSC justice has to say about it later. If that were the case, the New Deal would be Constitutionally sound.

Can you make a case, based on the available historical evidence, that what you are proposing is within the originally intended purpose of that amendment?

27 posted on 02/24/2010 5:22:30 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rodebrecht

Great point.

Even when the Paul guy wasn’t leading, he still attacked him.

Hey go after the democrat running as a republican too.


28 posted on 02/24/2010 5:25:24 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The way the Pauls see it an individual state would be perfectly within their "rights" if the abolished laws against murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping.

No state has abolished laws against murder, but there are killings that are legal self-defense in one state that would be first-degree murder in another. No one has ever suggested that states can't efine murder for themselves.

29 posted on 02/24/2010 5:28:32 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VicVega

Typical Paul tactics. Touting fake poll numbers to lay a false premise.


30 posted on 02/24/2010 5:32:35 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; EternalVigilance
No state has abolished laws against murder, but there are killings that are legal self-defense in one state that would be first-degree murder in another. No one has ever suggested that states can't efine murder for themselves.

So, you believe that a state would be within their rights to abolish all laws against murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping?

31 posted on 02/24/2010 5:34:20 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Everyone uses poll numbers so Paul has no control on your so called “tactics”.

Since you call the poll numbers fake, give us your true poll numbers.

Will be waiting just like others on here for your answers to questions they already posted to you.

Sorry dude, your Johnson is running a crappy campaign and it shows. Again he still has his wife and you supporting him.

Can you vote in KY?


32 posted on 02/24/2010 5:39:15 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VicVega
Pollster apologizes for omitting Bill Johnson from poll - admits that results are not accurate [KY]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE         February 24, 2010
INTERVIEWS AND QUESTIONS:  DAVID FLAHERTY 303­-861­-8585
 
MAGELLAN DATA AND MAPPING STRATEGIES APOLOGIZES FOR NOT INCLUDING BILL JOHNSON AND OTHER DECLARED US SENATE CANDIDATES IN KENTUCKY GOP PRIMARY SURVEY
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Louisville, CO – Magellan Strategies CEO David Flaherty today contacted US Senate candidate Bill Johnson and apologized to him personally for not including his name in Magellan’s February 18th survey of likely Republican primary voters.  Magellan CEO David Flaherty stated “It was a gross oversight on our part and we sincerely apologize for any problems this may have caused to the Johnson, Grayson and other Republican US Senate campaigns in Kentucky.”   
 
Flaherty continued, “The US Senate ballot test question from our February 18th survey is not accurate because Bill Johnson and other declared candidates were not included in the question.  Without Bill Johnson and the other primary candidates included in the ballot test question the results are obviously not an accurate reflection of the Republican primary ballot that voters will choose from on May 18th.”

David Flaherty also contacted the Trey Grayson Campaign to apologize for the error. 


FYI, the poll numbers that reflect reality, according to both the Johnson and Grayson campaigns, can be found HERE. They show Rand Paul in third, and the strength of his support to be very weak.

33 posted on 02/24/2010 5:58:34 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If true, what the post claims would be a return to the pre-Roe condition, which btw, I am pretty sure that in 1972, every single state had passed strong restrictions on abortions! These were wiped away in the SCOTUS's ridiculous preemption of state power.
34 posted on 02/24/2010 5:59:06 PM PST by TeachableMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VicVega
Sorry dude, your Johnson is running a crappy campaign and it shows.

That's funny. He's spent a fraction of what Paul or Grayson have spent, and he's moved into a solid second, within easy striking distance of the establishment-backed candidate.

35 posted on 02/24/2010 6:00:46 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TeachableMoment

The right to life is God-given and unalienable, not man-given and therefore alienable. For all innocent persons.

And every officer of government, at all levels, have sworn an oath to defend that life.

It isn’t optional, and it isn’t either/or, it’s imperative and all of the above.


36 posted on 02/24/2010 6:03:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Guy has to apologize for not including someone polling in single digits? Love it.

The poll you are using as Johnson leading is dated the 6th of Feb. Now who is using “poll tactics”? LOL

Sorry the Palin bump kills that poll.

Johnson has never been in the race. It has been between Paul and the democrat Greyson.

If Johnson and Greyson add their numbers together maybe they poll higher than Paul.

Maybe, in their minds, the voters can than choose the both of them against Paul, hope they win, then beat the democrat in the general and they can split duties in Washington. Sorry guys, only one person can win.

Johnson, who I thought was a decent guy, is turning into a joke. A big joke for joining the likes of Greyson.

When do you expect Johnson to wave the white flag? It seems its getting near.


37 posted on 02/24/2010 6:10:44 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You’re basing that on your Feb 6th poll. That must be a EternalVigilance poll tactic?


38 posted on 02/24/2010 6:12:07 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“What other of our unalienable rights do you believe this about other than the right to life?”

Our unalienable rights are civil rights for the most part, to the extent that they are not codified into criminal law. Such codifications are almost always at a state level. And that’s the way it should be...


39 posted on 02/24/2010 6:17:23 PM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Abortion is proper STATE legislation as is criminal legislation of all sorts including murder which is what abortion is. The FedGov can define and prosecute crimes of its legislative choice where it has jurisdiction and states do not.


40 posted on 02/24/2010 6:36:25 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

States must protect innocent human life, and provide for the equal protection of the laws. The Constitution says so. It’s not optional.


41 posted on 02/24/2010 6:42:56 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VicVega

Bill Johnson’s campaign continues to gain strength on the ground. Wherever these three candidates go it is apparent that Bill Johnson walks out the clear winner. After the Paducah debate Johnson’s tables were mobbed while the other two candidate’s tables were ignored. So I have no idea what you’re talking about.


42 posted on 02/24/2010 6:47:00 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

And that is why he is teaming up with one guy to go after another guy on one issue?

Tell me Mr. Johnson, there is plenty to disagree with Greyson on. Would you team up with Paul to attack Greyson? Or is this just attack Paul so that one of you might have the chance to win.

So you write they flock to his table. Current poll numbers prove otherwise. But hey, a few undecided going over to a table sure means a victory to you.

He has some catching up to do and he can, but not by joining Greyson to attack Paul. Voters don’t usually go for that.

So can you vote in KY?


43 posted on 02/24/2010 7:11:28 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: VicVega

Hey, Grayson, to his credit has taken a position on life that lines up with the Reagan platform in recognizing the personhood of the child and their resultant protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Conversely, Rand Paul has taken Gerald R. Ford’s position, that states can alienate what the Founders called unalienable if they want.

So, in this case, there was no principled reason for Bill Johnson not to stand with Grayson.

Of course, Bill will actually lead in the fight to restore respect for the unalienable right to life, as he has throughout the debate which has exposed Paul’s egregious position, and Grayson almost certainly won’t. That’s one of the many reasons I support Bill.


44 posted on 02/24/2010 7:18:45 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yeah, and, what is your point? That only a federal power grab to preempt a previous federal power grab is the only just solution?

This isn’t someone like Bush or Obama suddenly and hypocritically discovering federalism when it suits them. Rand, love him or hate him, wishes to return to the form of government this country was given us in the Constitution, which, some of us believe, God had a hand in.


45 posted on 02/24/2010 7:22:33 PM PST by TeachableMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Rand Paul doesn’t think the national government has the imperative duty to protect the unalienable rights of all. Just like his dad. States’ rights trumps all.

So you think, from now on, the Federal government should prosecute all murders? Quit making cheap shots. Rand Paul is for a Life Amendment. The 14th should suffice but since it hasn't he is for a Life Amendment enforcable upon the states.

46 posted on 02/24/2010 7:25:56 PM PST by Theophilus (Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
Rand Paul is for a Life Amendment.

A phony one that doesn't require the states to protect the life of all innocent persons in their jurisdiction.

The Paul family deception in this matter is poison to the pro-life movement, to our form of government, and to our liberty.

47 posted on 02/24/2010 7:30:23 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
he is for a Life Amendment enforcable upon the states

He'd like you to think he is, but he's not.

48 posted on 02/24/2010 7:31:16 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
States already divide the nonjudicial non accidental killing of human beings into different categories with different or no penalties, from involuntary manslaughter to murder with malice aforethought. Killing a police officer generally carries heavier penalties than killing a tramp. The state legislatures define what constitutes murder and define what constitutes extenuating circumstances. That is not a matter of Federal jurisdiction There is no federal law against murder within the jurisdiction of the states. Are you saying that local crime should be a matter of federal legislation? That is a very leftish viewpoint. Abortion is murder and as such is not the business of the Federal government unless committed within federal jurisdiction, as on an Air Force base. That is part of the Federated nature of the system as it was set up originally. One of the problems we are experiencing with the centralization of power is the insistence that the central government should legislate in every area and should leave no responsibility to the states and individuals because different states might do things differently.

As a matter of practicality it will be easier to get rid of most legal abortion be getting the Feds out of it- by simply reversing RoevWade and leaving it to the states. Then in Tennessee it will be much easier to properly include abortion with other forms of murder than it will be to also have to fight the California and New York voters to accomplish the end of legal abortion in Tennessee. Ending it nationally is not an option without a much more extensive religious revival in the country than has occurred in the past century. If we get that revival then legal abortion will be ended, perhaps in the whole country.

49 posted on 02/24/2010 7:37:52 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Just read Pauls site with regards to abortion. Reads solid.

I see no difference in what he writes vs the Team of G&J.

You should email J and let him know he needs to concentrate on his own campaign.

Only one guy goes to Washington out of this election. Not two Team G&J.

I myself will love it when Greyson fails. The other two are fine with me.


50 posted on 02/24/2010 7:39:03 PM PST by VicVega ( SAINTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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