Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[miguel]

Scott, this is a pretty big accusation against Republicans and it deserves to be backed up. I’m also not saying you’re wrong (about Republicans intentions), but I want to see support for the assertion. I just went through the relevant parts of Roe and I can’t anything even close to what you’re suggesting. If you’re wrong on the legal nature of the situation, then your assertion about Republican intentions needs to be supported by some other argument or evidence, lest it fall apart.

The human tendency is to assign blame. But human judgement is more often than not flawed. Prolifers of good will have varying strategies of how best to address this issue. Some think voting GOP no matter what and incremental victories along the way (e.g., no tax dollars to pay for abortions) will ultimately lead to justice being restored. I feel this is a valid approach. It was my approach for many years. And the GOP obviously prefers prolifers to take this approach. But the problem with it is it takes political pressure off the GOP. If they think they can take our vote for granted, they will. Politicians don’t like hot button issues. They take a position on one side, and they turn off millions of voters on the other. If they’re forced to take a side, they will. It’s a calculation to maximize the number of voters. This is politics. Other prolifers of good will think the above strategy isn’t working or isn’t working fast enough.

Some suggestions for fellow prolifers:

1. Pray every day (mea culpa). Don’t forget the devil is behind much of this. God wants to heal this beautiful country.
2. Be clear (mea culpa) about why abortion is wrong not only morally, but constitutionally (the denial of personhood). If we don’t know why it’s wrong, we’ll never know how to fix it…or how to help God fix it.
3. Be respectful (mea culpa).
   2a. To other prolifers. We all want to see justice restored.
   2b. To opponents. Judging their motivations as evil is not our place. It’s God’s place.
   2c. It starts on these forums and in our families.

The court based this conclusion on the other uses of the word “person” in the Constitution, precedent (citing 7 prior cases), and the fact that all existing state abortion statutes included exception language:

Originally Posted by Roe v. Wade footnote 54
“When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”

Yes, exceptions are out of line with the Amendment’s command. The irony is this footnote pointed to flaws in then current state laws that ultimately needed to be rectified either by state legislatures or legitimate constitutional challenge in federal court. Instead, these existing flaws were made much worse not only in Texas, but the whole country. Robert Bork referred to Roe as a case that has had enormous impact but not one whit of legal reasoning in it.

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic: You make some good points on Just War. Would you then say that Nation Building is trying to increase the sphere of influence? When it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq and after Saddam was captured, wouldn’t it then have been correct for the US to leave, according to the Just War Doctrine?

I’m not sure what you mean by “nation building.”

 

[Tigg]

Ron Paul made some interesting comments yesterday that appeared to be off the cuff regarding detention camps within the USA. In an answer to a question whether H.R. 645 (The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act) could lead to Americans being incarcerated in detention camps during a time of martial law. Paul quickly responded by saying that Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,"

I look at that and say, this is not a teenage blogger who’s read a few books posting his thoughts online, but rather a highly respected long time congressman, presidential candidate and constitutional authority.

He also said “I’d like to encourage you all to look into this “Act” & to read through H.R. 645 then judge for yourselves what implementations or abuses could become of the existence of the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.”

The fact is, we are seeing more and more violence in the world today - look at London’s recent riots - and even the union hate rally in Wisconsin that included death threats.

 

[MMolloy]

Very weird statement by Paul

It only seems weird to people who have some mythology about governments being inherently Good.

 

[gilliam]

It only seems weird to people who have some mythology about governments being inherently Good.

So you believe the US government is activity acquiring land and assets to imprison the citizens of the US so the government can turn over control to the Bilderberg Group?

 

[kubark]

Ron Paul made some interesting comments yesterday that appeared to be off the cuff regarding detention camps within the USA. In an answer to a question whether H.R. 645 (The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act) could lead to Americans being incarcerated in detention camps during a time of martial law. Paul quickly responded by saying that Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,"

                             I  look at that and say, this is not a teenage blogger  who's read a few books  posting his thoughts online, but rather a highly respected long time congressman, presidential candidate and constitutional authority.

I look at this and say here is a presidential candidate who knows the history of his own country detaining its own citizens and allowing violence against its own citizens.

 

[kubark]

I’m not sure what you mean by “nation building.”

I think he may be referring to the democratic imperialism and interventionism espoused by neconservatives and enshrined in the Bush Doctrine. According to this Wilsonian doctrine not only was it necessary for Iraq to be torn down and “rebuilt” as a democracy. So, too, must the entire Middle East - as we are now witnessing under Obama. But the neocons forgot that when Jimmy Carter pressured the shah to democratize, the shah was overthrown and Iran fell to the ayatollah. Previous popular revolts in the Arab world gave us and the world Nasser, Khadafi, Assad and Sadaam. The neocons also forgert that interventionism is not the solution to America’s problems in the Middle East. Interventionism is the problem. America’s huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudia Arabia led straight to 9/11. The terrorists were over here because we were over there. Terrorism is the price of empire. If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire. The neocons also like to call their world democratic revolution “Reaganite,” but it was not what Reagan preached or practiced.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder if anyone else quits reading a post the moment they run across the word “neo-con” ?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So you believe the US government is activity acquiring land and assets to imprison the citizens of the US so the government can turn over control to the Bilderberg Group?

You act like this hasn’t happened already.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Please show how Ron Paul’s support of DOMA equals support of homosexual marriage!!! And how that support of marriage gets turned into something “inherently evil”

It isn’t that. I realize Wikipedia isn’t the best source on earth, but here’s from Wiki:

"Paul reaffirmed in a South Carolina Republican Presidential Candidate debate in May 2011 his support for prostitution being made legal, arguing that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do “controversial things” as long as they do not hurt or defame other people. He further believes that it is none of the government’s business what consenting adults do in private. His primary goal in this area is to abolish federal anti-prostitution legislation, leaving it up to the states to decide if they would want to legalize prostitution or not.[citation needed]

Same-sex unions
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to “judicial activism”.[189] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[189][190]

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.”[191] Paul stated, “Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages.”[192] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[193] Paul has also stated he doesn’t want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[194][195] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”[194]

Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn’t “impose” their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations."

So, it seems his position is more anti-federal than it is anti-homosexual marriage. He takes what seems to be a libertarian position on homosexual marriage as such, but just says the federal government isn’t the proper place to impose it.

I didn’t realize, before reading the article, that he supports legalizing prostitution. I can’t agree with him on that.

But, as i have said many times before, if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee in 2012, I will absolutely support him. There is no way I’m going to sit home and pout, failing to oppose Obama, just because there are things I don’t like about him. The prolife candidate gets my vote, no matter who he/she is.

 

[JackQ]

I wonder if anyone else quits reading a post the moment they run across the word “neo-con” ?

The better term is neo-Wilsonian or just Wilsonian, since there’s nothing new or conservative about their program.

 

[Tigg]

I wonder if anyone else quits reading a post the moment they run across the word “neo-con” ?

I don’t like labels - especially those which are open to interpretation and used in a pejorative manner. But what would you like to call the aggressive shift in foreign policy that tries to expand democracy through American force, which, incidentally, is accepted by both parties and bypasses Congress? All in the name of fighting terrorism, of course, as elusive as it sometimes is.

I’m old enough to remember - the “Right” was not always like this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wonder if anyone else quits reading a post the moment they run across the word “neo-con” ?

Yup. It’s the “N-word” of the left.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t like labels - especially those which are open to interpretation and used in a pejorative manner. But what would you like to call the aggressive shift in foreign policy that tries to expand democracy through American force, which, incidentally, is accepted by both parties and bypasses Congress? All in the name of fighting terrorism, of course, as elusive as it sometimes is.

I’m old enough to remember - the “Right” was not always like this.

The original definition of neo-con was “Jew” Now it is “any conservative I dislike”

 

[sub_rosa]

The original dcinition of neo-con was “Jew” Now it is “any conservative I dislike”

You have stated that before. Do you have a source to back this up I truly have never heart that before you said it. I’m taking the term neo con literally in that these are the new conservatives who are more conservative than the old ones.

 

[MMolloy]

So you believe the US government is activity acquiring land and assets to imprison the citizens of the US so the government can turn over control to the Bilderberg Group?

??? Do you always extrapolate/mischaracterize what people say? That’s right I forgot, the US government has never locked up it’s own citizens before because of specious reasons… Like what group you belong to… as if INDIVIDUALS can be guilty by belonging to a group.

 

[MMolloy]

It isn’t that. I realize Wikipedia isn’t the best source on earth, but here’s from Wiki:

"Paul reaffirmed in a South Carolina Republican Presidential Candidate debate in May 2011 his support for prostitution being made legal, arguing that the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do “controversial things” as long as they do not hurt or defame other people. He further believes that it is none of the government’s business what consenting adults do in private. His primary goal in this area is to abolish federal anti-prostitution legislation, leaving it up to the states to decide if they would want to legalize prostitution or not.[citation needed]

Same-sex unions
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to “judicial activism”.[189] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[189][190]

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.”[191] Paul stated, “Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages.”[192] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[193] Paul has also stated he doesn’t want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[194][195] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”[194]

Same-sex marriage
In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn’t “impose” their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations."

So, it seems his position is more anti-federal than it is anti-homosexual marriage. He takes what seems to be a libertarian position on homosexual marriage as such, but just says the federal government isn’t the proper place to impose it.

I didn’t realize, before reading the article, that he supports legalizing prostitution. I can’t agree with him on that.

But, as i have said many times before, if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee in 2012, I will absolutely support him. There is no way I’m going to sit home and pout, failing to oppose Obama, just because there are things I don’t like about him. The prolife candidate gets my vote, no matter who he/she is.

Getting the Federal Government out of Prostitution is not legalizing Prostitution. The States when they vested certain powers to the Federal Government did not give them power to prohibit or punish most crimes… this was left to the States and the Local Municipalities. Please study both Federalism and the Principle of Subsidiarity for a better understanding of where power should rest to deal with these matters.

 

[estesbob]

You have stated that before. Do you have a source to back this up I truly have never heart that before you said it. I’m taking the term neo con literally in that these are the new conservatives who are more conservative than the old ones.

Weve had three different defintions of neocon in the last 10 posts alone!

Heres some info on its origins:

amazon.com/Neoconservative-Revolution-Jewish-Intellectuals-Shaping/dp/0521836565

townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/2003/05/27/neocon_slang_for_jew

 

[MMolloy]

The original definition of neo-con was “Jew” Now it is “any conservative I dislike”

Nice try at diversion. Everyone who pays attention knows what Neo-Conservative means and who it’s ‘grandfather’ was: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

 

[kubark]

The original definition of neo-con was “Jew” Now it is “any conservative I dislike”

Wrong, again. The original definition of neo-con was and is “neoconservative.” There is nothing anti-semitic about it. Your fallacious attempt to associate it with anti-semitism would be laughable if it were not so predictable. If you want to know what neoconservatism is the best place to start would be the writings of self-proclaimed neconservatives like Max Boot or the “godfather” of the movement Irving Kristol. Perhaps you should read what these self-proclaimed necons have to say about neconservatism if you wish to seriously educate yourself on the subject, estesbob. Read Max Boot’s Wall Street Journal essay “What the heck is a Neocon?” Or perhaps Irving Kristol’s 2003 essay “The Neoconservative Persuasion” would be of some help to your education, estesbob. Neconservative tutoring of “the Republican Party and American conservatism” is done thru publications they control: the Weekly Standard, Commentary, The New Republic, and National Review for example. Don’t listen to what I have to say about Neconservatism, estesbob. Take it from the mouths of self-proclaimed Neocons.