My take on Allen Keyes

Since ronnie is willing to allow states to abort children He has no credibility. Since he speaks out against earmarks and excessive government spending but works to obtain earmarks himself he has no credibility. Since he voted no against stopping the trafficing of chldren to abortion clinics whos parents are unaware that there is even a pregnancy he has no credibility. RP supporters are inflitrating forums all over the internet because they "think" they are getting his message out. But it is a false message with a fallacious front riddled with hypocracy. He is a man without honor or credibilty.

 

My friend who hosts the local radio talk show read this over the air this week.


What Does Freedom Really Mean?

by Ron Paul, February 7, 2005

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language, 1946.

- www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

 

Congressman Ron Paul is the best hope currently to return the advocacy of limited, constitutional government to the executive branch of the federal government.

The limited, constitutional credentials of anyone who mindlessly bashes Ron Paul must be questioned.

 

What did I miss, here??

[Above post 'snipped' for length, in order to print!]

Most of the above "what's wrong" spiel has exactly what to do with Ambassador Alan Keyes??

[Edited to add] In my own precinct in the 2000 primary, Dr. Alan Keyes received exactly one vote - mine. I am undecided, as of now, as to whom I shall support in this primary, as some candidates may not still be candidates, by that time. But as a registered Republican, in this state, I can only vote for a candidate on the Republican ballot, unlike in some other states.

AND the only election I have not participated in, in my voting life, was the KY primary earlier this year, when I was not released from the hospital in time to vote, although I was discharged that day, but could not get to the polls before closing time. So I will vote for whomever I think is the best candidate.

Ed

 

This isn't a complaint, just a question. Why "ronnie"?

If you're tyring to be insulting that's fine by me (really, Heaven knows I can be insulting). I'm just tyring to figure out if that's supposed to be insulting.

 

==First, as Christians we are to give everyone the respect they are due. Therefore you should call Ron Paul by his name, Mr. Paul, or Dr. Paul. Calling him, or anyone else in his position, by his first name (lower case) is rude unless you are on first name terms with him. I cite Romans 13:7 as a basis for my exhortation.

Second, since you are a pastor I would like to see you be a bit more truthful about Ron Paul's abortion position as well as your own. Ron Paul, like myself, believe that abortion should be and can be outlawed at the state level. Your position, that it should be outlawed at the federal level, is a position taken by the mainstream pro-life movement. That movement, btw, has failed to achieve any major results. I believe attempting to end abortion at the federal level is a waste of time and energy. Therefore I believe the position of the mainstream pro-life movement, and your position, allows for millions of abortions while it waits to get enough support to slowly start ending abortions. Over turning Roe v. Wade and putting abortion at the state level, will have the affect of ending many aboritions sooner rather than later.

Therefore, when you claim that Ron Paul is not pro-life you are not telling the truth. Christians, mainly pastors, should be very careful to always tell the truth. Again, since you are a Christian and a pastor, I call on you to be more careful in your postings.

==Those earmarks were not for him, but for the people he represents. As long as the system is the way it is, people like Ron Paul have no choice but to play by the current system. If people like Ron Paul did not play by the current system, they would be pushed out by the same Republican and Democrat dishonesty that they are trying to defeat. Sometimes, in politics, one has to do what one has to do in order to to play in the current system and represent one's district.

==Please cite the bill that he voted against. That way we can examine the bill to see the context (etc). It may very well be that Ron Paul voted against the bill because it contained language or provisions that were unconstitutional. Or it could have been tagged on to another bill. So we need some context here.

==I have to question your whole approach and attitude on this matter.

 

And the main pro-life lobbying group endorsed Fred Thompson who has the identical position as Ron Paul on the abortion issue.

Maybe Timmy thinks that the main pro-life lobbying group has no credibility.

 

Alan Keyes is a great man and a wonderful Presidential candidate. However, I think his time has passed. I would love to throw my support behind his current run, but I believe that Mr. Keyes' thunder has been stolen by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I love to hear Mr. Keyes speak on the constitution and life.

 

==The mainstream pro-life movement has good intentions. However I think their main problem is that they can't see the forest for the trees. They have put all of their chips in the federal basket and are waiting on it to work. I say, let's be realistic about this. The federal way has not worked, and the way things are going it probably never will. If we can get Roe v. Wade overturned, and abortion given to the states, we can start ending abortion that day. I think the state approach is much more realistic and much more effective than the federal approach. But again, the mainstream pro-life folks have put all their eggs in one basket. Even worse they stubbornly refuse to admit that their approach has failed and continues to fail. Meanwhile, millions of innocent babies are being murdered.

 

1) Every person is created in the image of God. Therefore, every person deserves respect. Even you, Timmy.

2) Yet that was the situation in these United States prior to Roe v. Wade, Timmy.

3) Yet that was the pro-life in these United States prior to Roe v. Wade, and you claim to support returning to the days before Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Timmy, by your own admission you are not pro-life in your own eyes.

 

It was pointed out already that this is rude. Why would you continue to call him by that name? It comes off like prideful arrogance to me. You have every right to disagree with Ron Paul, but atleast give him the respect of calling him by his real name.

 

1. I will ignore the fact that your statement above is error.

2. The Scriptures allow for no such justification. Paul says "render to all" (Rom 13:7) and he commands Christians to pray and offer thanksgiving "on behalf of...kings and all who are in authority" (1Tim 2:1-2). Paul also states that Christians should "malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men" (Titus 3:2). Therefore your excuse for your lack of respect holds no water. As a Christian and a man who shepherd's God's flock, you need to realize that your attitude towards Ron Paul (and I suspect others) is not in agreement with Scripture. I am not saying you have to like or agree with Ron Paul, but you are required by Scripture to show him "consideration" and respect. That means, in part, that you don't refer to him in a demeaning way (ie...ronnie).

==Whereas your position allows all states to continue to slaughter unborn children while you continue to wait for an amendment to pass (years, and years, and years). Paul's postion, which is mine, starts putting an end to abortion immediantly.

==I agree, but waiting for a federal amendment to the constitution is going to allow millions of babies to be slaughtered. Overturning Roe v. Wade and giving the states the power to ban abortion will stop many abortions the day the law is passed. Some states will take longer, but if we work hard (evangelism, education) all states will ban abortion. However waiting for a federal amendment to ban abortion, in my opinion, is like waiting for cows to fly. It is just not going to happen.

==Your consistant claim that Ron Paul is not pro-life is false and a massive misrepresentation. The reason you claim he is not pro-life is because he disagrees with the way you would solve the problem. You need to realize that a person can be pro-life and not want to sit around waiting on a constitutional amendment or the federal government. There are other possible ways to solve the problem. When you realize that, you will see how you have been misrepresenting Ron Paul's position.

==This is what I am talking about. Notice the strong bias in your statement. Dr. Paul would seek to have the states "choose for themselves to end abortion". Clearly Ron Paul believes that "the right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty". When you leave out this point, you leave out part of the facts. That is why you are misrepresenting Ron Paul's position on abortion.

==Under your plan, the wait for a federal amendment plan, people can get abortions in any state of the union until a federal amendment is passed. Thus, legal abortions could go on for another twenty years under your plan. The federal plan has not worked and it shows no signs of working. If you wish to continue to put your eggs in that basket, fine. But don't accuse those who are looking for other solutions of not being pro-life. Such accusations are false.

==That is a very weak reply. You are saying, in effect, that Dr. Paul and others should allow themselves to be driven out of office and thus have no power. Why not play by the game while working to change the game? That is what Dr Paul is doing and that is what he should do. Until the game is changed, this is how it is played. Those who wish to stay in power long enough to change it are going to have to play by it. That, my friend, is reality and not hypocrisy.

==I asked for a copy of the bill, not a summary. I guess I will have to look it up on my own.

HR 748 has never gone to the President's desk. Even though it passed the House in '05 during a Republican lead House.

Anyway, I will continue to try to get ALL the facts on this matter.

See next reply below. I did my research and the bill you are saying Paul should have voted for is not pro-life at all. In fact, the bill allows abortions as long as the parents are ok with it. I am glad Dr. Paul did not vote for a bill that would give the green light to abortion.

==The federal approach you are taking does the exact same thing you accuse Dr. Paul of. Sadly, you just don't see that.

 

I Did My Own Research on HR748

HR 748 was NOT the pro-life bill 2Timothy 2:1-4 claims it was!!! I looked up the actual text of the bill and it gives all sorts of exceptions in which abortions would acceptable. The bill would only have required the parents "ok" before an abortion would be performed. The bill actually legalizes abortion as long as the parents are in agreement with.

I don't know why Ron Paul did not vote for the bill, but I certainly would never have voted for such a bill. I suspect Dr. Paul did not vote for it because it claims that it:

"does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

and yet Dr. Ron Paul (OB/GYN) says:

"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."

So Dr. Paul's position is more pro-life and more scientifically accurate than the bill was.

 

While I admire Ken's skill in turning yet another thread into a Paul discussion, I hope we can return to the subject of Keyes. Thanks to the OP for the information, even if second hand, about some of his stands. These positions are worth a deeper look. I agree with another poster that his time has past, or, at least, his time is not now. He does not even seem to be succeeding at his main goal of bringing certain issues to public discussion.

 

Actually, I can't claim the credit for that. If you look at the order of the posts it was my good friend Timmy who introduced Ron Paul into this thread. I simply followed his lead.

 

I stand, or rather sit, corrected.

 

I agree with you. I have asked him to stop many times, and have even reported to to the moderators for them to ask him. But as of now, nethier have responded so I don't expect anything to change.

Status Quo it seems... :tear:

Jamie

 

What I find rather hypocritical is the lack of outrage over the consistent disrespect shown toward the President on this forum. I doubt very seriously anyone who makes the disengenuine appearance of outrage over a lack of respect for those whom they perceive should be shown respect is actually concerned about the respect issue. But simply cannot tolerate opposing views. When you start being consistently offended across the board come back and talk to me. Until then save your psuedo-outrage for someone who buys it.