Although a majority of Representatives voted to pass the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, it did not achieve the two-thirds vote necessary for passage. Here is the roll call. Most of the Democrats opposed it and most of the Republicans supported it. That's no surprise at all.
What is the surprise - and I hope an eye-opener - is one of the Republicans who opposed PRENDA. That's Ron Paul, alright! I hope this dispels forever the canard that he is 100% pro-life.
The Messiah Most Miserable made very clear his opposition to this bill that would have prevented abortions targeted at a specific race and gender. In doing so, he and his lackeys made plain who is waging the real "war on women".
What is another "non-surprise" is that another Planned Parenthood facility (this one in New York City) was caught by Live Action as facilitating the abortions of baby girls simply because they're girls! Is that the real face of modern feminism? Such seems to be the case. I wonder if PP will try to make a "sacrificial scape-goat" out of this counselor? Click here if you can't see embedded video.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Friday, April 29, 2011
Ron Paul And Libertarianism - Deadly For This Country
About six weeks ago, I posted my opinion that Ron Paul's position on abortion makes him unacceptable as a presidential candidate. I've no doubt that he personally abhors abortion, but he is of the libertarian mindset that the federal government has no say in the matter. In that earlier post, I explained why that mindset doesn't pass the "smell test".
It now turns out that Paul voted to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy. In other words, he would compromise the effectiveness of our military and allow gays in the armed forces.
The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. The two are NOT equivalent by a long shot. The true consersvative recognizes the indispensible role that morality plays in public life and in the government whereas the libertarian will turn a blind eye to all sorts of depravity as long as he/she perceives that his/her parade isn't getting wet.
Some of the Tea Party seem to be of the libertarian mindset. Some have gone so far as to advocate the setting aside of "social issues" in favor of "economic issues". They are dead wrong. As long as we fail to put God and His laws before all else, including our wallets, our nation will continue its slide towards oblivion. The libertarians of the Tea Party - and of anywhere else - had better wake up and do some serious soul-searching. If the Tea Party embraces libertarianism, it will have consigned itself to the dungheap of irrelevancy.
It now turns out that Paul voted to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy. In other words, he would compromise the effectiveness of our military and allow gays in the armed forces.
The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. The two are NOT equivalent by a long shot. The true consersvative recognizes the indispensible role that morality plays in public life and in the government whereas the libertarian will turn a blind eye to all sorts of depravity as long as he/she perceives that his/her parade isn't getting wet.
Some of the Tea Party seem to be of the libertarian mindset. Some have gone so far as to advocate the setting aside of "social issues" in favor of "economic issues". They are dead wrong. As long as we fail to put God and His laws before all else, including our wallets, our nation will continue its slide towards oblivion. The libertarians of the Tea Party - and of anywhere else - had better wake up and do some serious soul-searching. If the Tea Party embraces libertarianism, it will have consigned itself to the dungheap of irrelevancy.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Why Ron Paul Is NOT An Acceptable Presidential Candidate
I thank Mr. Paul for his candor about the role that he feels the Federal government should assume in protecting unborn children. Actually, it would be more accurate to say "should NOT assume". In a nutshell, he believes that abortion is murder, but he also believes that the Federal government has no role in making any decisions regarding the same. It "should be left to the individual states".
He's a big advocate for states' rights over federal obtrusiveness. Generally, I'd agree with him, but not here. There are matters that trump even states' rights - such matters are the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and IN THAT ORDER! One of the prime functions of government is to protect its citizens from unjust aggression - all of its citizens. If abortion is outlawed in one state, but embraced in next state, that means some citizens are imperiled while others are protected. That's not morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination - and perhaps a violation of the 14th Amendment to boot.
Some might say, "hey, if you don't like a state's law, you can move to another", with regard to abortion. Oh really? Let's try a little common sense here. The person who has the most at stake in this question, the unborn child obviously lacks the ability to "just pick up and move". He or she deserves no less protection than does anyone else.
This is one primary reason why I believe this "libertarian" position is immoral and is not compatible with true conservatism nor Christianity.
He's a big advocate for states' rights over federal obtrusiveness. Generally, I'd agree with him, but not here. There are matters that trump even states' rights - such matters are the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and IN THAT ORDER! One of the prime functions of government is to protect its citizens from unjust aggression - all of its citizens. If abortion is outlawed in one state, but embraced in next state, that means some citizens are imperiled while others are protected. That's not morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination - and perhaps a violation of the 14th Amendment to boot.
Some might say, "hey, if you don't like a state's law, you can move to another", with regard to abortion. Oh really? Let's try a little common sense here. The person who has the most at stake in this question, the unborn child obviously lacks the ability to "just pick up and move". He or she deserves no less protection than does anyone else.
This is one primary reason why I believe this "libertarian" position is immoral and is not compatible with true conservatism nor Christianity.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Ron Paul Voted To Repeal DADT????
Apparently so, according to a columnist named Devvy who wrote, "The Queering of Our Military and God's Wrath". I suggest you read it, and please don't wince at the strong language, for it only depicts reality without any "polite" spin. She lays it right on the line, especially as she rebukes our politically-(in)correct, "kinder and gentler" churches so enamored of their 501c3 statuses. God will not be mocked.
Getting back to Ron Paul, the Washington Post interviewed him in May. Here is his statement. Now Paul has run for President from time to time. If anyone needed clear-cut proof that this man is not a conservative, now you have it. Understand that the President of the United States is the Commander-In-Chief of the US military services. Such an ill-begotten "laissez-faire" attitude towards military service and the requirements for an effective fighting force only render him utterly unfit to assume that command.
Getting back to Ron Paul, the Washington Post interviewed him in May. Here is his statement. Now Paul has run for President from time to time. If anyone needed clear-cut proof that this man is not a conservative, now you have it. Understand that the President of the United States is the Commander-In-Chief of the US military services. Such an ill-begotten "laissez-faire" attitude towards military service and the requirements for an effective fighting force only render him utterly unfit to assume that command.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
