Ron Pauls Secret Weapon

If this falls under Sovereign God then Paul will be elected. However I don't think God is interested at this point. The first thing that needs to happen is the church to return to the One it calls Lord then God might take notice.

 

The Church has never left. Now, there are a lot of buildings in America, that are full of a lot of people calling themselves Christian...but the true Church is following its Lord just as it always has.

 

Not according to scripture. Takea look into the Revelation and the seven churches. Only two are commended yet all are called churches.

 

Salty my answer is no I would not join that party or any party for that matter. I affiliate myself with no party. I am independent. Not an independent but independent. I seek to vote how I feel agrees with the Lord's position on issues even if those issues go against my personal desires.

 

Yes I agree with their platform, as given, as I understand it.

 

Well, technically it would, since only the powers not enumerated in the constitution are granted to the states. Regardless, this is a non-issue, since Paul wants to get to the heart of the matter. His platform:

" 1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."

Yeah, the party might have been around, but THIS platform was adopted in September 2011. And Paul would still agree with MOST of what it says..

Traditional conservatives believe in small federal government. They affirm states rights, on those things not enumerated in the constitution. The problem is that THIS platform, is not consistent with what conservatives have traditionally held. We are NOT progressives; we do NOT believe in an "evolving" constitution!!! What a reprehensible idea! I guess, under that belief, it could eventually "evolve" support for homosexual marriage at the federal level.

Every conservative, that I have ever talked to, has explicitly denied that the constitution is an "evolving" document, and instead, have asserted that it is a stable document that is to be interpreted according to the original intent of the authors. The Federal government is NOT enumerated power to engage in a multi-billion dollar drug war. Thus, it is a state issue.

My question is, why would ANY conservative, want to keep spending billions of dollars to enforce drug laws, keep up the mindless prohibition that does not but spawn thousands of violent gangs, and turns pot smoking hippies into hardened, often violent criminals? It is absolutely INSANE, that we force people in pain to buy hundred dollar per pill painkillers, while arresting the person down the street and imprisoning them for buying the same substance.

That position is not the conservative position... it is the pro Pharmeceutical lobbyist position.

 

Ah yes, the new and improved Paul platform. Great stuff.

But when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988, he said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.”, and he advocated the elimination of the Border Patrol.

Paul has voted against using the military on the border many times (H.R. 1815, H.R. 4200,H.R. 1588, H.R. 4546..etc).

Paul voted against H.R. 418 that would require completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence.

When he was interviewed on 20/20 January 3, 2008 and said he finds a border fence “rather offensive.”.

But sure, this brand new platform sounds just terrific. What makes you think it means anything based on his long record of opposition to border enforcement?

 

Not at all. As commander in chief of the armed forces, and the director of the law enforcement branches of the Federal government, directing the enforcement of immigration laws falls to the president. The proper response, when he does not do so, is to impeach him, and put someone in power who will follow the law...not abdicate federal power to the state.

Actually, it is progressive in areas.

Their desire to abdicate state power to the Feds, and their desire to abdicate authority over Church ordinances to the Feds.

The amendment process was never meant to "evolve" the constitution. The amendment process is lengthy and difficult for a reason.

No, they shouldn't. They have no power delegated to them to do so. They are engaging in an illegal activity.

Besides that, even in your scenario, homegrown drugs would not be subject to federal jurisdiction.

 

If the government forced you to choose between two churches? Not at all.

As long as we have a state sponsored two-party system, it is not dishonest to vote in whichever primary has a candidate that you can support. If we eliminate the two-party system (which should be done!), then I might agree with you.

 

The mass corporate media is doing it's utmost to make people believe Ron Paul has no chance. I believe the only folks left that actually believe that still are here on BB.

 

From the liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune:

 

? There is nothing here.

 

It is the unrestricted choice thing, huh? :laugh:

 

I can see it in my post and in your quote of my post. Maybe a setting on your browser is preventing you from seeing it?

Here's a link:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/128533813.html

 

LOL> Now I see it.

 

Ron Paul does not want to be President. He wants to increase circulation of his next newsletter. Every time he runs he increases circulation. Last time around he reaped about a million dollars a year profit. This time he will reap a couple of million dollars profit.

And, the reason people are ignoring him is not some media bias (though that is certainly there). It is the plain fact that he is a liberal flake masquerading as a conservative Republican. Other than his stance on the Constitution (which he sees through a very libertarian lens) he is more liberal than Obama on many of his other platform stances, from foreign policy to drugs.