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.
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.
I think you’re mistaken. I see Hillary/Obama as being the 21st century equivalent of McGovern/Shriver.
Mark my words.
You don’t believe the Constitution was divinely inspired?
Wow, you’re just outright embracing it!
Okay, nevermind, go enjoy your illegal alien slaves and have a nice weekend.
OMG RON PAUL'S A KOOK I TELL YA! HE BELIEVES THAT JESUS IS HIS SAVIOR! HOW CAN I SPIN THIS? WAIT...AREN'T CHRISTIANS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11? HE'S STILL IN BED WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! HA HA, THAT'S IT! < /Paul bashers strapped down and carried off into padded rooms >
Nice, here we have a candidate who just professed his love for Christ and you have to post the infidel pic, even though Paul does not support Islamic terrorism.
You're nothing more than a bottom-feeder.
Reality check. You are on the World Wide Web right now. Reality Check, your PC, car and basically everything else you use is built by companies that have interest world wide. You think that is going away? If so shut down you PC and mail in your comments.
We have invented or developed basically every advance the world has known. We few people (302 Million of us) constitute the largest single national economy, in large part due to our role as a world player. The economies under us such as Japan are economies we created. Playing in the global economy is different then a one world government. You have to separate global political movements from global economic ones. Which is where the problem lies. Sovereignty yes, isolationism no. The liberal bent for "we are the world, let's hug" is riding the peoples desire for new products and the free markets desire for competitive labor
You want to place blame for why this is not working out currently then blame the unions who price our labor out of sight, blame the bad management who can’t control spending, but that is no reason to call it quits. That would destroy us either directly because our economy would collapse, or in the long run when the Chinese, Russians and EU see us ripe for the pickings because they have had a chance to catch up in technology and build up in strength and we have a lot of resources. I am as patriotic as the next guy but there is no way even if we armed the whole country we could beat that short of a nuclear exchange, then who would give a damn about liberalism, conservatism or any ism since there would be none.
Lock down the boarder, deal with the hand we let the politicians deal us and keep us out there as a global force, albeit in a better manner than we approach it now, so that we set the tone of global affairs as much as possible. Preferable the US government that does that is a conservative but realistic one. This is the 21st Century, not the 19th.
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...
What statements of Ron Paul make you think that this is not his position EXACTLY? He wants to trade with friendly nations (there has never been a war between two nations which are vigorous active trading partners), and brutally/aggressively/decisively go after nations and fringe groups who mean us harm.
However, the REAL problems come when those decerebrates have something to say. And WHAT THEY SAY IS MORE DANGEROUS TO AMERICA THAN ANY FAILURE OF RON PAUL'S FOREIGN POLICY. This is because they are glibly ignorant or dismissive of the foundational tenet of law in this country, and that is that law rules, not men. These boobs may have a social vision for America which approximates that of conservatives, but the mode for achieving it puts them squarely in the camp with the lefto fascist crowd. I say they are liberals in drag who are just too stupid to know it, as they use the same reasoning and the same insistence on power grabbing, law defying, constitution-ignoring in order to "do good." Most of em are Reagan democrats who came in to the party in the 80s but never really got rid of their love for government power. They are fascists at heart, but just believe in the possibility of "good fascists" who will pull the power levers in a right way. They are politically naive fools.
Sometimes Paulietrolls are simply gibbering idiots who think they are being clever by posting pictures of jihadists a.... over and over and over and over.....(thanks for your, by the way. It was cute the first 587 times you put it up.)
Your previous rants on why Ron Paul voted "NO" on the congressional resolution to condemn the Iranian president is an example. Only Ron Paul and Kucinich voted no. I have no idea why Kucinich voted how he did, but Ron Paul did so because IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE CONGRESS TO DO FOREIGN POLICY. As much as Ron Paul may disagree with the job Bush is doing, he is not going to drive a carriage and four thru the Constitution because he doesn't like it.
One more classic example/illustration of this is Ron Paul's vote on foreign aid to Israel. Of course he voted "NO" because he is, in principle, against such aid (it is not the delegated job of the congress to "aid" foreign contries, besides being unwise). Yet the slobbering halfwits come into these threads over and over bellowing about how Ron Paul is "anti Israel." STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID and furthermore, too stupid even to know they are stupid. Worse than that, they are stupid TROLLS.
But yeah, they are "patriots" alright. They will march us straight into fascism with the flag flying and will be SO proud of themselves for doing it.
It gives me great pleasure to admit that I was wrong about the man.
As I already stated, you will see no more Paul-bashing from this Freeper.