Skip to comments.Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator
Posted on 06/05/2011 6:54:55 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
At the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, presidential candidate Ron Paul used the Bible to show evangelicals why big government is bad and how their fight to protect faith and family are all rooted in liberty.
Paul roused the conservative Christian crowd on Friday as he recounted the story of the Israelites and their pleas for an earthly king. He used that story, found in 1 Samuel chapter eight, to explain to the faith conference why big government is morally wrong for America.
He told the crowd that the Israelites had a perfectly good family system prior to their first king and did not need a governing authority to care for them.
In the Bible, the prophet Samuel advised against a king, enumerating the problems that arise if the Israelites did so. Paul loosely paraphrased those problems to illustrate the dilemmas that exist when you have a government that is taking power from the people.
"He says the king will take your young men and the young women to be used in the government. They're going to tax you. They're going to over burden you and you're going to have to work so much time, like 25, 35 45 percent of the time, for the king."
Samuel's thinking, he noted, was astute advice for then and now. Paul maintained that by demanding the American government to provide assistance for broken families, job creation and more, its citizens have essentially appointed a king over themselves.
"We have, as a people, lost our confidence and our understanding of what true liberty is all about and where it comes from," he summed. "It doesn't come from the government. Our liberties come from our Creator."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
I like Congressman Ted Poe. And most of the time I like my own Congressman, John Culberson.
They're true conservatives.
I'm doing great, by the way. Thanks for asking. I hope all is well with you?
The yellow goat I ate.
Good choices. I must brag about my congressman, Scott Garrett(R-NJ) who is a true conservative voice in an otherwise hopeless state.
I'm doing great, by the way. Thanks for asking. I hope all is well with you?
No complaints. Life's been keeping me busy and away from FR as I used to be, but it's always good to see your screen name pop up. Always friendly opposition for us Paultards. :-)
"Borrow and spend" (the deferred version of "tax and spend" - something the Democrats like to do) will most certainly ensure a terrorist victory when the U.S. enters bankruptcy.
It's actually quite simple to cut off the Islamists at the knees: stop importing their oil. Stop sending them foreign aid (welfare checks). Stop intervening on their behalf (like in Kosovo). Stop allowing them to recruit and fundraise and proselytize here in the United States - under the cover of "diversity," of course.
Of course, that will never happen, as the "war on terror" has proved useful as cover for the establishment's real goal of "spreading democracy" at gunpoint - by the way, that was what Wilson, a full-on progressive, believed the U.S. military should be used for - or, in other words, opening up the markets of Islamic countries to Western corporate interests.
If we’re going in to clean out a rats nest, I don’t mind.
If we’re going in to help the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda I’ve got a few bones to pick with the CIC.
I agree that we should be eliminating our dependence on foreign oil ASAP.
This is going to sound simplistic, but there must be a way to power things that isn’t going to cause us to have to play patti-cake patti-cake with nations that would love to see us toes up.
We had our first oil shortages in the 1970s. Almost forty years later, and we’re right where we started. I don’t think I’m being too impatient when we’re talking about forty years.
That's a slippery slope right there.
I think the United States would be better served by going right back to being that "shining city on a hill" Reagan talked about in his farewell address - the best place in the world to live, work, and play, hands down.
Don’t worry Lurker, Sarah Palin is going to save us all and return order to the Universe.
“Conservatives believe in defending America. Libertarians do not.”
That’s not true. Yes, for the Reason Foundation (which I like), Ron Paul, et. al. sure, that’s a true statement. That is *not* true for all libertarians and would venture a guess that this is a minority (but well-funded) group within libertarianism. I’m a libertarian with the good understanding that:
1. Protecting personal liberties is the primary duty of the federal government. Not banking, not the environment, not education, not employment, and not stopping personal decisions that harm the individual, no matter how galactically stupid. When the feds dig their hands into these areas, they inevitably invade on our personal, God given liberties.
2. The only way the government can ensure our liberties is by actively fighting all enemies, foreign and domestic.
3. Supporting other nations with free markets and free peoples strengthens our freedoms. Israel rocks and they have my support; not because they are Jews or they are Israel or they are “God’s people,” but because they are the only nation in the Middle East that understands the basic concepts of freedom. The rest of the loons over there want to (and have) come here and take away the very freedoms the government should protect. Oh yeah, and the Israelis kick a$$.
There are plenty of libertarians out there who would take all the money going to Departments of Education and other useless bureaucrats and get it to defense. You can’t have personal liberty without a strong defense. Unfortunately, scumbag bureaucrats dole out wasteful contracts to their friends, which doesn’t help defense, but gives it a bad name.
Now you may continue your bashing of Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions without saying he speaks for all libertarians.
Well I give you credit for trying, but that’s not support for ethanol subsidies. If that’s the best you have, I would love to see what your preferred candidate likes. Regardless, kudos to you, sir or madam. I appreciate your response.
Since the creation of modern libertarianism in America back in 1971, Ron Paul has been the most high profile Libertarian/libertarian of the last 40 years. And Reason magazine is the major mouthpiece of libertarianism as disseminated by the Libertarian Party.
The Godfather of modern libertarianism is Murray Rothbard. He would disagree on your #2 and would call you more a neoconservative, not a true libertarian.
I see you as a neo-libertarian -— a factional thinker and hopelessly confused!
How do you figure that? A subsidy is a subsidy....we pay for it. Ron Paul is trying to parse words in an effort to support ethanol...and add this to his $400 million in earmarks, and we are beginning to see a trend. His statements make no sense.
I don’t disagree with that at all. I still don’t think you can take a hit like 09/11, and not send a clear message to the terrorists and their organization that they will cease to exist if they do that sort of thing.
We didn’t take much action after our embassies and the Cole were attacked. Did that buy us any safety, less hatred overseas?
We weren’t occupying any nations in the Middle-East as of 09/11/01.
The price of freedom is spilling some blood from time to time, and preferably our enemy’s, and as many of them as possible.
Of course not - but you know the fix is in when the mission is renamed from "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom."
Nah. Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist. He coined the phrase to describe himself. The Libertarian Party is most certainly an offshoot of these nuts. Ayn Rand is another devotee of this sort of anarchism.
I’m no more confused than Bill Buckley was (until he decided it was a good idea to ban tobacco). I would argue that what we call “libertarianism” is no more than a recovery of the 18th century idea of liberalism. Whether that be termed “minarchist” or some other nonsensical and hyper-modern label, the concept has been unchanged since before the American Revolution and most definitely before 1971.
If you don't want to be linked with the likes of the Paul's, Rothbard, Rockwell, DiLorenzo and others. I suggest you find a label that better suits your politics. Btw, classic liberal is not it.