Ron Paul…Constitutionalist or Just Another Christian Fundamentalist Nut?

ph2006070801123.jpg

I do not support Ron Paul. In my eyes he is akin to so many other, few-sandwiches-short-of-a-picnic social conservatives that seem to travel through life wearing horse blinders while they’re busy thimping a bible. All the symptoms are there. He talks of crazy conspiracy theories, thinks theocracy can work in America, and prides himself on being a Constitutional expert. So, I checked some of his writings, only because his name has popped up a bit more than usual this past week due to his increase in fundraising.  

How well does he know the Constitution you ask? He wrote this:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

“Replete with references to God?” That seemed odd to me, so I checked it out. By the way, replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So…how many times is God mentioned in the Constitution? Roughly about zero. I confirmed that fact by visiting Ron Paul’s own congressional website where he has posted a copy of the text. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, just do a page search for “God” and you will be bombarded with all zero results that are returned. 

Jefferson himself was lukewarm on the teachings of Christians and had little compassion for priests. Jefferson believed he was a Christian only in one sense, that he thought the moral teaching of Jesus made sense. I tend to agree with him. He did not believe in prayer, divine revelation, the trinity or the resurrection..and all this is documented in case Mr. Paul wants to check it out. However, right wing lunatic Christian fundamentalists are busy pushing their their view of American history in order to fit their theocratic brainwashing agenda. To this end, as his writings suggest, Ron Paul is willing to contribute. 

I must assume Ron Paul has read the constitution. Why lie? He brags about his in depth study of the Constitution. He has the Constitution on his website. So why claim that it is filled with references to God when there is not a single mention of God anywhere in the document? The answer, concentration of political power around the Chritian right with an eye on imposing their theocratic agenda on this country…no matter what it takes – lying included. 

The problem with Ron and all the other Christian fundamentalists who yearn to control government is that their views are rigid and their agenda reactionary. They simply do not critically analyze things and think through the consequences of their actions to the logical conclusions. A few examples…

If Roe v. Wade was overturned, as Ron Paul and other Christians would like to see, what would happen to all those seeking abortions? Answer – they would still get them…1920’s style – in some store front backdoor clinic or by some quack in their own bedrooms. Of course death rates among these women would skyrocket, but hey, all is good in the name of Christ. How about a return to strict constitutionalism? Well, I guess that means we bring back slavery. Ron Paul is so in tune with the founding fathers, then he must know most owned slaves. You can also kiss the U.S. Federal Reserve System goodbye, all social safety nets enacted during the New Deal, the U.S. Tax Code and everything it funds, the U.S. Highway System…I could go on but why waste any more time. The mere thought of all this is shear lunacy.  

It is well know by the liberal bloggers that Ron Paul’s cult (and that is exactly what they are) spreads vicious rumors around the Internet with the goal of boosting him and his Christian revisionist lies, while ambushing anyone who disagrees with him, labeling those people socialists and liberal conspiratists. He is also up in the fundraising race because other like minded Christian-Jesus-Freaks are fueling his hateful and deceptive message, much the way they fueled another liar…George Bush. If America has an ounce of brainpower, they will avoid Paul and the like during this and every other election cycle. I’ll stick with candidates that actually think before they speak…thanks.

Too bad we couldn’t reincarnate Jefferson.

Advertisements

Posted on October 9, 2007, in 2008 Presidential Election, Law, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. Actually, of Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would not make abortion illegal. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the debate over abortion would shift from the Federal level to the State level. With the debate on the State level, even if a few states chose to outlaw abortion, residents of that state would be able to drive a couple hours and get an abortion. This would be bad, but it’s better than nationalizing the issue, and opening the possibility that Kansas and Utah will impose their views on all of us.


    How about a return to strict constitutionalism?
    Well, I guess that means we bring back slavery.

    Actually, even for a state to allow slavery would be unconstitutional, since the 13th Amendment forbids the practice, and state laws passed to allow slaver (which requires positive governmental support) would not be constitutional.


    You can also kiss the U.S. Federal Reserve System goodbye,

    I hope so! The Federal Reserve System is the greatest scheme in history to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.

    You’d have to understand economics to understand why. I suggest “Economics for Real People”.

  2. Correct on Roe v. Wade and at no point did I write in my post that overturning tht case would make abortion illegal. I simply painted a picture of what would happen if conservative states cited that precedent to outlaw the practice. You need to connect the dots a bit and I know conservatives have trouble with that.

    Ron Paul sells himself as a strict constitutionalist and often cites the founding fathers, their writings, and their practical intent as the basis for his political platform. If he thinks Jefferson really wanted theocracy, then I don’t think it’s much of a leap to conclude that he would also endorse slavery – although the point is subject to debate I guess.

    On the economy – I wish to inform you that I understand economics perfectly well thank you, as I hold a Master’s Degree in Social Policy with concentrations in Economics and Labor Policy.

    Redistribution from the poor to the rich?

    Have you any clue as to why the Federal Reserve System was created in the first place – or do you simply vomit up the official, yet mindless and unfounded talking points spoon fed to you by the Paul campaign? Maybe you missed that lecture in history class? I suggest you do some light research before you make foolish statements on this blog because we come armed with the facts here, not conspiratorial rants.

  3. Matthew:
    Thanks for visiting my Blog and leaving that positive comment. I’ll add this website to my Blogroll as you can do the same with mine.

    Thought Merchant
    http://www.thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com
    Politics and Commentary for the Thinking Person of Color

  4. Wilder K. Wight

    I’m with you on this one. I’ve been trying to battle back the Ron Paul cult, and keep Democrats from switching party affiliation to vote for Mr. Paul. It seems the Ron Paul camp is making some headway getting liberals– honest-to-goodness liberals with the wool pulled over their eyes– to switch party affiliation so they can support this “good man” who wants to pull us out of Iraq and eliminate the IRS and central banking system.

    He’s saying just what they want to hear– Enough to entice them to drop their party affiliation– and then what happens when the GOP nominate the usual neo-con fascist instead of Ron Paul? There’s a whole bunch of former Democrats– now Republicans– who will be disenfranchised by some electronic voting systems that insist you vote straight ticket along party lines.

    I don’t KNOW that this is the case, but then, I didn’t KNOW that the election was rigged the last two times either, but it sure as hell looks that way.

    Yes, the idea of a central banking system was always a lousy one, and feeds the goals of some fairly sinister people in our world– But electing an isolationist, anti-semitic, racist, bigoted, fundamentalist Christian gun nut to the Presidency is NOT the answer!!!

    The Ron Paul cult needs to be stopped.

  5. Wilder,

    Thanks for the comment on liberals switching affiliation angle. That rarely gets any traction on the blogs but I’ll keep an eye on it. Paul must be stopped.

  6. You do not understand, but you are full of your own understanding. How arrogant of you to say you completely understand economics. People who study economics for their entire life still say that they have barely scratched the surface. When you really learn about it, you realize that you have really learned nothing.

    Who cares if the candidate is hindu, muslim or christian? If the candidate is for getting the government out of our lives, then that is the major issue. Stop being so afraid of every conservative christian. It shows your weakness.

    The federal reserve board is not inherently bad, but central banks have historically been a point of contention — a topic of conversation that is completely absent in today’s society. Look into the debates of the 1st and 2nd central banks of the US. Why were there people so vehemently against it? Because, it can be used by the powerful to shape policy. This is not some “Ron Paul mantra” that is being regurgitated. Nothing is as simple as you think it is. This is actual discussion that is deeply rooted in our nation’s history.

    I think it was a Rothschild that said “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” There is an issue here that will not go away just because you belittle people. There is a revolution and you have yet to figure it out. This revolution is bigger than some stupid political party. Democrats and Republicans with moral views completely different are coming together over an even bigger issue — government is for the people, by the people.

    Matthew Boyd

  7. Matthew,

    First of all I was responding to an arrogant an insulting comment directed at me. I never said I understand all there is to know about economics. I couldn’t agree with you more about the complexity of the American economy and all of the dynamic forces that drive it. You completely took me out of context.

    Secondly, I am at odds with Ron Paul and his Christian fundamentalist ideals because I believe he would lead us to Christian theocracy, and that is inherently dangerous. The founding fathers were very clear on this point, in particular Jefferson. I tend to agree with Jefferson and his reasoning.

    Lastly, I disagree with you that people are coming together around Ron Paul. I think his candidacy is a fringe movement at best and all this talk of revolution and conspiracy is just silly. Corporations own us my friend, but Ron Paul will not be the force to change that. Only massive economic and social chaos will do that and I believe we will live to see it.

    A return to Constitutional constructionalism is not the answer.

  8. i don’t think Paul has a theocracy in mind. His personal beliefs are his own and understands the ideas of a tolerant society towards belief. his main focus is about the rule of law, primarily the ‘supreme law of the land’, the constitution. if you want to change the constitution then just say so.

    the major issues confronting the nation today are economy and war. i don’t see any other candidate addressing these issues as candidly and directly as Paul does. The basic fundamental laws established really do contain tools that we as citizens can use to scale back the powerful interests that are dominating the socio-political arena today.

    secrecy, lobbyists, federal reserve, taxes,

    decentralize and repeal

    if you think government ended slavery, think again.
    people and their ideas should be given that credit.
    law is merely the tool we need to use to uphold ‘individual rights’
    minimize tyranny and maximize liberty.
    if you can’t trust the people… who can u trust?

  9. A Reformed Federalist

    If you not only study the constitution, but also the actual men and their writings including the federalists and anti-federalists papers you will comprehend much more than those that have posted some of the anti Ron Paul garbage on here. The forefathers DID in fact believe in seperation of church and state, however, they also believed that for a nation of individuals to succeed as a republic, they would in fact have to have a set of morals to follow or would be doomed to perversion of the constitutional laws set forth. Which we in fact actually already have. Also note that the very constitution was almost not accepted by the anti-federalists because it threatened the very existence of slavery in the south because of the fact is it was being developed as a document of liberty for ALL which included abolishing slavery. There were concesions made to settle the dispute in order to get the south to join onboard. However, the plan of the federalists were that with this constitution, it was only a matter of time that slavery would in fact be abolished. The tensions were always high between the north and the south regarding this issue and is clearly evident in George Washigton’s presidentional farewell speech stressing that trade needed to remain strong between the north and the south for the survival of the nation as a whole. And what’s even more amazing about the Federalists is even though they were defamed and run out of all offices by 1820, their policies and construction of the constitution still resulted in the abolition of slavery in this country! The federalists were, I would consider, geniuses when it comes to government. Their downfall was they were too honest and virtuous and the anti-federalists, who were against the constitution from the outset were more willing to use slander and negative propaganda in order to get the people to side with them. What’s really an eye opener when you actually study all this is that the Anti-Federalists were also known as the Democrat-Republicans which later split over differences and are the same two parties we have today. One for Corporate Fascism(Republicans) and the other for National Socialism(Democrates) and neither care so much about the constitution, individual liberties or justic for all. If you don’t believe me, do the research… it’s amazing to know that our country has been on a road to tyranny against individuals since the signing of the constitution and we are just innocent civilians caught in the middle of a war between these two groups, both actualy for some form of power to the state over the people. I have a group called the Reformed Federalists to help eductae others about these historical findings and understandings and that is how I actually found Ron Paul to begin with. In fact I couldn’t believe that anyone in this government could even exsist fighting for the constitution. That document has been endangered since the last Federalist stepped out of the supreme court system. It’s funny too that even till this day the very words Federalist strikes a negative cord in the back of peoples mind, and that is all because of 200 years of negative propaganda against those that sought out true liberty and freedom. My own personal opinion is that even if Ron Paul does become president it will take 100-200 years to really get back to a country that was supposed to be here on this land. I mean, just think of all the atrocities this country has committed against not only blacks, but native americans, jews and the rest of the world as a whole. There has always been that anti-Constitution element in this country from the beginning to rise the few over the many, to force people into state controlled government. The subcounsious mind feels it’s presence but the consious mind cannot comprehend it…. it’s no wonder we have films like the matrix, because we feel how we are nothing but a commodity to something alien. Like the forefathers said, liberty once lost can never be regained. Scary but true. We had but a glimour of true power of the constitution but but maybe 50 years at best in this country and that is it. We can’t even comprehend what the constitution means and so it is easier for people to call a constitutionalists a crazy person then to remove yourself from the machine and really open your eyes to truth that we have never lived in a free society and neither have our grandfathers. So, I will be voting for Ron Paul because I’m an optimists, but I have taken the rose colored glasses off and sometimes I wish I could just put them back on somehow. I think the term ignorance is bliss truely applies to the world we have lived in all of our lives. I’m sad to say, but the civil war is not the last time Americans will be killing Americans. Thank you all for reading this.

  10. A Reformed Federalist,

    A well thought out answer. I have posted similar ideas on this blog. You are correct in your arguments except for one minor thing. I’m not sure that the anti-federalists were less virtuous or of lower moral fiber.

    The fact is that the anti-federalists were ‘anti-constitution’ mainly because it lacked a ‘Bill of Rights’, one point you failed to mention. Anti-Federalists were also very worried about an executive branch that would become too powerful. I think the Bush presidency is a relevent example of this.

    The Federalists tended to argue that one could not possibly list all the rights people were entitled to, so why have a BIll of Rights at all? That seems a bit dangerous to me. You must ask yourself…If the Federalists won the day, what kind of shape would your civil liberties be in right now?

    Fact is, Ron Paul is a federalist as well as a social conservative, and has simply cherry picked a few ideas that are appealing to liberals. Rep. Paul is not a liberal protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home and withdraw from global trade. In today’s globalized world, this simply will not work. As you mention, we are too intertwined with world affairs and it would indeed take 200 years to reverse this trend. We can’t afford to wait that long. Our economy will collapse long before that, as I believe it may anyway.

    Paul also supports returning the nation to a gold standard. This is really just a silly idea. It would reduce our nations money supply to the point that other nations would have no choice but to use the Euro as the world standard, which would further reduce the value of the dollar. Yes, the dollar would be stable, but it would be almost worthless. Is this sound fiscal policy?

    Ron Paul and his crowd have a lot to learn.

  11. A Reformed Federalist

    “I’m not sure that the anti-federalists were less virtuous or of lower moral fiber.” by Matthew

    For the anti-federalists, slavery was an important issue and something they believed was necessary. Most anti-federalists or states’ rights advocates, were small yeoman farmers or big plantation owners, like Thomas Jefferson, who needed many slaves to work on their land. ” And it is now clear that slavery was of central importance to both the southern and national economies and thus to the viability of the American System.” The anti-federalists believed strongly in slavery and thought it was the only way there was. Where else would you find cheap labor like slaves? Also it was a state’s right to choose slavery and ignore the rights of individuals. The three-fifths compromise in the Constitution that the Anti-Fedralists fought for in the constitution convention stated that each slave would be counted as three fifths of a person for the purposes of determining a state’s level of taxation and representation in Congress. Another political issue of the anti-federalists was strict interpretation of the Constitution as it was written, ignoring the fundamental part about equality of all mankind. Slaves were seen as property with no rights or freedoms and this angered many federalists. Federalists believed all men were created equal but anti-federalists did not see slaves as people but as property, so they did not feel they were going against the Constitution. They also felt contempt for the northern federalists, who preached about slavery being wrong, while they were making money off of the institution by transporting slaves in Yankee ships,in New England. A lot of the cotton being produced in the south, and being picked by slaves, was sent over to Europe on northern ships as well. In a sense some northerners were biting their tongues, but they stood firm on their anti-slavery stance. So there you see the Anti-Federalists supported slavery while some Federalists benefited indirectly. However, by saying the Federalists were for slavery just as much as the Anti-Federalists, would insinuate that we support communism and abuse of workers rights and abuse of children in sweat factories because we as Americans today purchase and transport Chinese goods. So the real problem lies in the very people directly benefiting from the slave labor. And thus proves that the Anti-Federalists were pro-slavery and could not be moral or virtiuos. The Federalists had no real choice in avoiding benefits from slavery just as we today don’t have much choice in benefiting from Chinese goods, regardless of their immoral labor practices since majority of the goods we are offered are from China. The real blame lies in politicians who have created an unfair level of competition in the world through our world trade agreements.

    “You must ask yourself…If the Federalists won the day, what kind of shape would youe civil liberties be in right now?” by Matthew

    I’m glad you brought up the Bill of Rights. To understand why the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights you would first have to understand what the constitution pertained to. In no shape or form did the constitution pertain to the people. It was a document on how the Federal government would operate, what rights were granted to the Federal government, including regulating trade, taxes on those trades and how to act as referee during disputes between states or the people. No where does it specify anything to do with your rights. However it does state that anything and everything not granted by this document for the federal government is passed to the states and the people. The fear was if a Bill of rights was included, then suddenly you now give the federal government permission to regulate rights and the number thereof. Now the Federalists in order to combat this horrible idea of including only a set number of rights reserved for the people, added the 9th amendment that specifies that just because these few rights have been placed in this document, does not mean in any way that the people have any less rights than before since their is an infinite amount of rights reserved to the people by their creator. Reinforcing the claim that the constitution has nothing to do with the people’s rights, but the Federal government’s rights. When you think about it, it’s really a moot point in legal terms cause the bill of rights neither adds any additional rights to the people, nor does it restrict any rights reserved for the federal government. And as the Federalists tried to explain, it would only confuse the people and lead to us being limited to those numeral rights only. I think it’s time we plea the 9th and strip the federal government of it’s fat. It actually pisses me off that it has taken almost 200 years to realize that we don’t even follow the constitution as it was intended, all because of some assholes who were pro-slavery and pro-power of government. I don’t really care about that the Anti-Federlaists claimed to be for personal liberties… if you own slaves your actions spoke for themselves no matter how you justify it. One who considers himself a Master can never be in a mindframe of giving a shit about anyone else’s liberty but their own. That in itself is not virtuous or moral or even christian. I’m an athiest myself, but I get irritated about hearing about these self righteous assholes that think if you believe in god you have morals and are virtuous. I’m sorry, but I don’t need god to know the difference between what’s right and wrong. If I don’t want to be treated a certain way, then I don’t treat others that way. That’s called common sense and I didn’t hear it from god. And if you think Ron Paul is pro christian then you are really missing the point. He even clearly states that he does not want to tell you what to believe in cause he, like everyone else, doesn’t have perfect knowledge. No one on Earth does, which entails that no one therfore can reserve the right to tell me what’s right and wrong so long as I do not kill, steal, enslave, or harm others in some shape or form. I like to call it common sense. Something that the government schools have breeded out of Americans the last 100 years.

    “He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home and withdraw from global trade.” by Matthew

    Another misconception of the public is that by stating you want to not police the world and force democracy and goodwill onto people by force is somehow an isolationist idea. Ron Paul has no intentions on pulling us from the world economy of trade…. in fact he plans on creating a more compassionate and fair trade for the U.S. and the world. The federalists believed in a diverse economy here in the states through industry in order to secure our national security, so that we would not be reliant on other countries for goods and there fore leave ourselves dependant on other countries which in turns gives others power over us. We are to trade with all, but if a country wants to raise tarrifs on our goods then we mirror those tarrifs as well. If you want to destroy your enemies, then make them your friends. If you trade with another country, they start to have a vested interest and the last thing they will want to do is fight with you. Friendship and trade with ALL, entangling aliances with none. You cannot create an alliance with someone without creating enemies to others… simple as that… again common sense. Look at Switzerland, a neutral country that sides with no one but trades with everyone. Why is that so wrong? The one good consequence of trading with China is that there are labor unions starting to develop and a struggle for fair labor laws in that country. That is the only good that trading with them has made, and guess what, we don’t even have to invade their country and kill millions to help them do it. Now we want to invade Iran because they might shoot their neigbor….. but isreal has 100 times the firepower to shoot back? Oh wait, your trying to say that a nuke might get snuck in from Iran by terrorists… but what about a nuke from russia that has hundreds of nukes unaccounted for and our open boarder where anyone could waltz in with a russian stolen nuke. Yea, we won’t see that comming cause the media has us so hyped about Iran who posses no national threat to the USA. We really need to re-evaluate our priorities and get back to the days of the Federlists and the constitution and stop listening to these righteous slave owners that are part of Corporate Fascism and National Socialism.

    So my main point is remember the constitution was not intended to grant us any rights whatsoever, we have always had rights, we just have to choose whether to be slaves or be free. It is our choice.

  12. A Reformed Federalist

    oh yeah and the whole money being backed by gold somehow makes it worthless. I run a small business and when there is less of something, the value automaticly goes up especially if it is the most stable currency on the market. To print money out of thin air only makes more dollars that are worth less in value. Not sure who taught you economics, but I’m sure it wasn’t following the Ludwig Von Mises economics on free trade and supply and demand. Probably our government schools who teach that capitalism is evil and socialism is marketable.

  13. In his issues page Ron Paul says:

    “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.”

    And I say:
    Are you nuts??? For a guy that brags that he is for the constitution so much, have you read it lately? It clearly states the right to birthright citizenship! What is the alternative? Without it we will have a permanent sub-class of people in this country that would be here for generations with acquiring citizenship!! Do you want to deport a person who was born in the US because his/her grandmother made a mistake?? Do you believe in another form of slavery or what? Maybe we should give them 3/5 of a citizenship. Again, are you nuts???

  14. Gustavo Prado,

    I agree with you completely. problem is, I think Ron Paul and his supporters don’t care for non-white folks too much…if you know what I mean.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: