Ron Paul on Evolution

Great. Another "its just a theory" response to the question of evolution. Jesus! This guy is an MD, you would think he understood that theory, as used by science, is a very precise definition. Fuck! This guy wants to be President?

Beyond Words Indeed

This Ron Paul snippet of policy tells you exactly what his idea of freedom, liberty and life would be as President:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

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.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Although Paul does not here engage in some of the most extreme rhetoric employed by some in the anti-abortion cross, he does refer to the fetus as the "unborn". Again he does not use the word "murder" in this policy statement, he does say "that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected." In his statement he imputes Rights upon the fetus, although no mention of Fetal Rights are found in the Constitution. Paul generally takes a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but in this case seems to bend the Constitution for his own personal distaste for abortion. He is adamantly anti-abortion. Just in case you think his followers don't know this bit of truth about Ron Paul I found this online.

But wait, wait, don't tell me! Here is a document that shows us that Paul does indeed use the word "murder" when referring to abortion. Here are his written thoughts on abortion:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

What would the appropriate punishment for someone guilty of this "crime against humanity?"

The Strange World of Ardent Paul Supporters (SWAPS), Ctd

For all you left of center Ron Paul supporters, take a look at his Congressional Record before you decide he really is worthy of your vote. The list of legislation he introduced or co-sponsored should be enough for most people on the left to end their support for him. Just because he's against the war does not mean he will make a good President.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald refutes much the argument made in the linked post above.

Ron Paul--the Real Deal (Good for Him!)

Glenn Greenwald wrote this excellent analysis of the Ron Paul candidacy. Its a good sign for America that insurgent candidates can still have a voice in American politics. Paul's substantial grassroots support should give all of us hope that the Inside the Beltway brokers are calling all the shots. I can't say I agree with Paul on much but he certainly makes his points without fearmongering. What a concept.

Daddy or Nanny: Two sides of the same coin.

A substantial portion of the American people fluctuate between a desire for a sweet Nanny or a strong Daddy. The temptation to go with the team that you perceive as benefiting you and your loved ones the most, is a very compelling attraction. An opiate for masses, as it were. Fear and paranoia work to inhibit ones ability to think outside the box, or for that matter, inhibit the willingness to live in a state of unhindered liberty. We Americans like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, but this individualism is a fabrication. Thus the rise of the Daddy/Nanny state. We wish to see ourselves as we believe we are. The loss of community, e.g. most suburbs, and the lifestyle created by these sterile neighborhoods, with little contact and interaction with the people we live near, creates this isolation and fear of failure.

Why do we fear freedom? More later. I will research for citations to substantiate some of my claims above.

Ron Paul

Does Ron Paul really have a chance to take the Republican nomination? It would make for an interesting 2008 Presidential election.

The Strange World of Ardent Paul Supporters (SWAPS)

The entire Ron Paul movement, and yes I did call it a movement, is an unusual coalition of True Believers. Red State blaming the ban on "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans" is pure partisan horse shit. An Inconvenient Truthiness, as it were, But, the fact remains that many of his supporters are hijacking threads throughout the blogoshpere and it's enough to piss off the Good Humour Man, much less, an ill tempered old prick like me. Anonymous Liberal, among others, are subbing for Glenn Greenwald this week, and in his very fine post about the looming Iran War it was infiltrated almost immediately by a Paulite, extolling the virtues of the Good Doctor. Comment #4 and a Ron Paul supporter shows up with an off topic comment! The irony being that this commenter is ripping Democrats. Lovely! I'd hate for Liberals to feel left out of the mindless chatter from the "In Crowd." It makes me wonder if Paul supporters were with Dennis Kucinich when he had his close encounter. Well, even serious Paul supporters find themselves aghast at their Fellow Travelers. The more ardent Paul supporters seem to be a self-defeating gaggle of hippies, isolationists and militia flunkies; all of whom have one thing in common--too much time on their hands.