Posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:46 PM PDT by tcg
The Major news sources have all called the Republican Primary in Kentucky and Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, has soundly defeated Trey Grayson for the Republic Party nomination for a seat in the US Senate.
By the time the votes are all counted it could be a near landslide for the first time Senatorial candidate. Dr. Paul is a family man who has been married to his wife Kelley for 19 years. They have three sons. He is a doctor, and not a politician. That is part of the appeal he had for the voters of Kentucky.
There will be pundits parsing the meaning of this election all evening. They will discuss the meaning of this strong showing. Rand Paul certainly was not the preferred candidate of the Republican Party establishment. He had the backing of the broad coalition being called the "Tea Party" movement.
He has never run for public office. He all but eschewed the traditional fundraising model, opting instead to utilize the internet in the manner that his father used the internet in his outsider bid for the Presidency.
While the pundit class pontificates, those who recognize that the foundation of all human rights is the fundamental Right to life should take heart from Rand Paul's position in defense of the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.
Here are his own words:
"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Heh...better check with CNN to see if he really won!
Just like his great Dad who delivered 4000 babies as a physician!!
I would like to see Paul go a bit further with this statement. Not only will he vote for legislation to end abortion, he will tirelessly author such legislation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhNrrrCCTdA
Could this be the beginning of the end of this national nightmare we’ve been living?
From your post to God’s ear!!!!
“I would like to see Paul go a bit further with this statement. Not only will he vote for legislation to end abortion, he will tirelessly author such legislation.”
Wow.
Clueless, uber lib Stevie would not be happy with the type of landslide you’re referring to.
Did he get the endorsements of Right to life or the Eagle Forum? We have a guy in my district who gave virtually the same pledge, then blew off the right to life banquet and went to a fundraiser with the pro embryonic stem cell research Main Street Republicans.
Don’t stop thinkin’ `bout tomorrow!
I don’t know his endorsements other than the Tea Party. Maybe the FReepers in Kentucky can give you a clearer picture of who endorsed him.
Can’t fit this in our exchange, but since I’ve slammed her liberal behind, I feel it only fair to give a hat tip to this bit of pop magnificence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L97pXkcMEds
Nothing less than a gift from God, via his talented songbird, Stevie Nicks.
Palin Power!!!!
Congrats to Paul.
Time to remove the “Gobbler” (Mitch McConnell) from his leaderless post.
Then, let the voters of Kentucky remove him from office.
Throw all the bums out.
Rand Paul caught lying about his pro-life survey
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/24/rand-paul-caught-lying-about-pro-life-survey/
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,” The Middlesboro Daily News, 1/26/10)
I think a whole lot of people got snookered tonight.
And to GOP operatives this makes Rand a anti-jewish nazi. I do not undertand their slander of the man or his father.
Dr. Paul, like both of the people he was named for, is a dedicated libertarian. He is therefore incapable of being honest when it comes to abortion. This being America, he is free to claim to believe that life begins at conception, even if he doesn't.
Kentucky Right to Life opposed Dr. Paul in the primary for one reason: He was given a questionaire, which he returned incomplete. Specificially, he refused to answer questions about his position on stem cell research. He then lied to the press and said he was given a "100% Pro-Life" rating (he's making referrence to that in the quote you provided). When KRL called him on this, he went so far as to produce a bugus survey, forcing KRL to make the original he faxed to their office (complete with time stamp) to the press. Even then, Dr. Paul persisted in the lie. He released a statement saying that he opposed federal funding of stem cell research. But this was not the question, and libertarians oppose federal funding of everything anyway. Here's KRL's point: If you can't oppose ALL ebryonic research, you can't oppose abortion on it's only logical ground: That it is always the murder of a human being. Murder of a unique living human inside the womb is also murder outside it. Dr. Paul knows he is not being consistent, so he can't answer the questions. KRL also believes that Dr. Paul supports partial birth abortion, and the "morning after pill," but these questions were not on the survey.
I can't vote in Kentucky, but I will be rooting for Dr. Paul. That being said he takes the libertarian positions in opposing foreign military activity in Iraq and opposing the Patriot Act. He was not the the "Pro Life" candidate in this election, Trey Grayson was. If elected senator, he will undoubtedly follow in his father's footsteps and run for president repeatedly. In some cases as a third party candidate, who takes votes from a more traditionally conservative candidate and leaves us with four (or even eight) years of Democrat presidency.
See post 19
Wrong. He thinks that if states want to allow the killing of children they should be allowed to, just like his father.
Just like his father he destroys the Natural Law, Declaration of Independence principles that form the moral, constitutional, legal and political arguments against abortion.
Just like his father, he pretends that the explicit requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment do not exist.
I can't believe you are still pandering that blatant lie.
It’s no lie. They’ve both said it and never repudiated it. Ever. It’s the core problem with their false ideology.
Show us a “Right to Life Amendment” that the Pauls have ever supported that would actually require the States to protect the unalienable right to life.
And if you can find one, which I seriously doubt, it would fly in the face of their oft-repeated claim that the States should be able to allow abortion if they want.
Yes. It is.
"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
Also...
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.
Yes. I know your tired old idiotic argument based on a "penumbra" of an "emanation". We've gone over why this is no better logic or use of the Constitution than the liberals pushing gun control. You don't have to agree, just stop pretending that you are doing this out of "principle". You have a political axe to grind. Just be honest about it.
I wonder if "Catholic Online" would label a politician "Pro-Religious Liberty" if they said that States could outlaw the Catholic faith if they wanted to, in the name of "States' Rights."
Doing so would make just as much sense as labeling a pro-choice for states politician like Rand Paul "Pro-Life."
Also not what they've said. But why bother stopping you when you've got your foot so badly jammed in your mouth?
Speaking of liars.
Is this a "penumbra" or an "emanation"?
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.
Either of the pieces of legislation put forward by the Pauls, as well as others, would do this.
So yes, you are using "living document" crap to push your agenda instead of doing it the principled way and just Amending the Constitution.
That's exactly what they've said. Rand Paul says that whether or not to allow abortion should be the "prerogative of the State." I'd give you the recording of him saying that, or the text of the article from his father saying exactly the same thing, again, but you would just ignore it and its obvious implications again.
Every honest person already knows exactly when human life begins.
Cherry picking again? You got smacked around on that one last time too.
And those same honest people know that there is a Right way to bring the law into compliance, and then there is the way you and the Democrats do things.
A brazen fabrication on your part.
Why do you continue, like the Pauls, to ignore the clear requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Which other individual God-given unalienable rights would you like to "leave up to the states" other than the supreme right, the right to live?
Well, it sure ain't by claiming that States have a right to alienate God-given unalienable rights.
Seems to me that you and Rand Paul disagree only on the method and not the goal. You want to use the 14 Amendment and he wants to use a new personhood Amendment.
I don’t think disagreement as to the method should necessarily mean that he is insincere about achieving the goal.
You’re completely wrong. Rand Paul wants nothing like what you say. He, like his father, says abortion should be left up to the States.
Look up the legal definition of Person.
Why do you continue, like the Pauls, to ignore the clear requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Because only in your fevered imaginings does it mean what you think it does. Your stance has no more bearing on reality than most tax dodging scams.
We have an Amendment process. Use it. It is the Right thing to do.
Under your logic a Mother spontaneously miscarrying would be guilty of murder. And yes, that statement is no more absurd than any other bit of illogical legal mumbo-jumbo floating around clogging up our Courts, but it WOULD happen.
And you know it.
You have a personal, and political, agenda. Fine. Just be honest about it.
Signing on to legislation like a Right to Life Amendment gives the lie to that little bit of idiocy of yours.
Yes, but only because at this current time the Federal Government is preventing individual states who would ban abortion from doing so. So removing that obstacle would allow at least some states to ban it, to me it seems a viable first step.
Even the abolitionists in the 19th century first tried to prevent slavery in only certain states, even though in principle the would be against it in every state. Sometime you have to achieve the goal on step at a time.
Again, you’re not stating the Paul position accurately. They don’t say that it needs to be done “step by step.” They say that this is the “prerogative of the States.”
Prerogative of the states is the first step.
It’s an improvement from the status quo. Win that first step and then go from there.
Show us a Right to Life Amendment that the Pauls support that asserts the sworn constitutional obligation of the States to protect the life of all innocent persons within their jurisdiction. You keep making the claim. Back it up. Again, I seriously doubt you can do it, but even if you could that would not be reconcilable with their oft-stated belief that whether or not to allow abortion is a state "prerogative."
No it isn't. It is the giving up of the moral, constitutional, legal, and political basis of the pro-life cause.
It’s an improvement from the status quo. Win that first step and then go from there.
The Pauls are hypocrites. They have no intention of doing anything to stop abortion. Those of us who believe in the right to life of all persons under our Constitution believe that it is the imperative duty of ALL officers of government, in ALL branches, and at ALL levels of governance to "secure the blessings of liberty to posterity." We are fighting to restore respect for what the Founders of this free republic called unalienable, and that they stated as the very reason for being of human government. And we're doing it not just at the national level but State by State by State. The Pauls and the others who hold to this immoral, illogical and unconstitutional pro-choice for states position are nowhere to be found on those State battlefields for life. They just plain don't show up.
Why? Because the only basis for the fight at the State level is on the basis of the Personhood of the child. And if they endorse that, it blows the cover off their claim that the whole country doesn't have an obligation to protect life under the Fourteenth Amendment.
One other thing: Even though the Paul position destroys the basis of the arguments against abortion, and therefore makes it impossible to stop it, even if through brute political force they were able to enforce their chosen policy, every single babe in the womb in America would still be in danger of being killed. The only thing standing between them and that fate would be their mother's "choice" and travel time.
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2533/show Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Amendment.
Rand Paul’s copy of the questionnaire he was sent which doesn’t fit with what is being said in your version of things.
http://c0469351.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/KYRTLresponse.pdf
Now go away troll.
It doesn't acknowledge the States' obligations to protect innocent human life.
"The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution." -- Ron Paul
Actually... It does. Read the bill.
This is the part you are twisting to keep up your hatred. Let is go.
I have. Many times. It doesn’t require the states to protect innocent human life.
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.