SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Dr. Ron Paul, Next Christian President?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Dr. Ron Paul, Next Christian President?

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-
Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul

By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Published: July 22, 2007

Whipping westward across Manhattan in a limousine sent by Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” Ron Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman and long-shot Republican presidential candidate, is being briefed. Paul has only the most tenuous familiarity with Comedy Central. He has never heard of “The Daily Show.” His press secretary, Jesse Benton, is trying to explain who its host, Jon Stewart, is. “He’s an affable gentleman,” Benton says, “and he’s very smart. What I’m getting from the pre-interview is, he’s sympathetic.”

Paul nods.

“GQ wants to profile you on Thursday,” Benton continues. “I think it’s worth doing.”

“GTU?” the candidate replies.

“GQ. It’s a men’s magazine.”

“Don’t know much about that,” Paul says.

Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness, Ron Paul is a 71-year-old great-grandfather, a small-town doctor, a self-educated policy intellectual and a formidable stander on constitutional principle. In normal times, Paul might be — indeed, has been — the kind of person who is summoned onto cable television around April 15 to ventilate about whether the federal income tax violates the Constitution. But Paul has in recent weeks become a sensation in magazines he doesn’t read, on Web sites he has never visited and on television shows he has never watched.

Alone among Republican candidates for the presidency, Paul has always opposed the Iraq war. He blames “a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,” chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: “Just leave.” During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Rudolph Giuliani reacted by demanding a retraction, drawing gales of applause from the audience. But the incident helped Paul too. Overnight, he became the country’s most conspicuous antiwar Republican.

Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq did not come out of nowhere. He was against the first gulf war, the war in Kosovo and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which he called a “declaration of virtual war.” Although he voted after Sept. 11 to approve the use of force in Afghanistan and spend $40 billion in emergency appropriations, he has sounded less thrilled with those votes as time has passed. “I voted for the authority and the money,” he now says. “I thought it was misused.”

There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home. But there is also something cosmopolitan and radical about him; his speeches can bring to mind the World Social Forum or the French international-affairs periodical Le Monde Diplomatique. Paul is surely the only congressman who would cite the assertion of the left-leaning Chennai-based daily The Hindu that “the world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony.” The word “empire” crops up a lot in his speeches.

This side of Paul has made him the candidate of many people, on both the right and the left, who hope that something more consequential than a mere change of party will come out of the 2008 elections. He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com. Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.” Although he is still in the low single digits in polls, he says he has raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, enough to broaden the four-state campaign he originally planned into a national one.

Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. But his is a less exuberant libertarianism than you find, say, in the pages of Reason magazine....

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Full Story Here - NY Times[/url]

 2007/7/22 19:12









 Ron Paul: The Christian Conservatives Choice for President in 2008

Ron Paul: The Christian Conservatives Choice for President in 2008


Why should a Christian who is conservative vote for Ron Paul in 2008?

Well here is a list of reasons why I will vote for Ron Paul as a Christian in the 08 primaries for Republican Candidate for President.

-When he says something he does it. (Thou shall not lie.)
-He has never voted to raise taxes. (Thou shall not steal.)
-He is married to his first wife for over 50 yrs. (Thou shall not commit adultery.)
-He was an OBGYN and delivered over 4,000 babies, he believes were created by our creator and we have a right to life from our creator. (Thou shall not murder.)
-He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. (Fiscally responsible)
-He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. ( The inalienable right to protect yourself.)
-He voted against the Iraq war. ( He believes in declaring war as constitutionally stated by Congress on those who directly attack us. No pre-emptive attacks or policing of other countries.)

He is often referred to as Dr. "NO" in Congress for his refusal to vote for anything he considers unconstitutional, which is almost every bill that is proposed in Congress these days, with special interest first politicians, who will blatantly ignore the rule of law.

If you voted for or liked Ronald Reagan you will like Ron Paul. If he does win the Republican Presidential Primaries in 2008, and goes on to win the White House, how fitting it will be that it all started out at the first Republican debates at the Reagan Library in California.

Paul who is often criticized within the Republican Party establishment for running as the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1988, should take a quote from Ronald Reagan, that would today back up his good friend Ron Paul, when he said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

As a Christian and a fellow American I urge you to check out Ron Paul for President of the United States in 2008.

He is the only true conservative running in the Republican Party and actually has a record to back it up. He strictly believes in the Constitution as a guide for America, and has a passion to uphold it. When he says he'll work to eliminate the IRS and unconstitutional spending he's not lying to you to get elected. He will do it.

I can't think of any candidate in my twenty plus voting years who is quite like Ron Paul. I've even heard some people refer to him as "founding father" material. For a limited government, Constitutionalist Christian like me, Ron Paul is too good to be true, but yet he is true.

[url=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/305241/ron_paul_the_christian_conservatives.html]Original Link - Associated[/url]

 2007/7/22 19:14
jordanamo
Member



Joined: 2006/11/23
Posts: 397


 Re: Dr. Ron Paul, Next Christian President?

I think Ron Paul is the best prominent candidate out there that is running, but there's no chance he'll ever be elected in my view.

He has political integrity. Which is a rarity these days.

However, I don't think a Christian should vote for Ron Paul, nor do I think Ron Paul is a Christian (or, I don't know). Christians should do as they feel lead to. I myself will stay out of the political process.

 2007/7/22 19:54Profile
Bomar
Member



Joined: 2005/2/8
Posts: 112


 Re:

The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States , and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal 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, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 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 H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq . It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan . I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America . I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul


For More Information Contact:
Paul Dorr
Iowa Field Director
RonPaul2008@ iowatelecom. net
Phone: 712-758-3660

Ron Paul 2008
Presidential Campaign Committee
www.RonPaul2008. com
Phone: 703-248-9115
FAX: 703-248-9119

 2007/7/23 10:49Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1787
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

Quote:
-He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. ( The inalienable right to protect yourself.)


I am from the Uk, we consider gunship ownership as a horror as they only have one use.

Also how does a president few the Israli- Palestine conflict. Because Israel is a major issue right now and will be until the lord comes back


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2007/7/23 10:54Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37004
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

He does seem like a interesting character but not very charismatic. But it does seem as others said that he has "integrity" and honor which is very rare these days.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2007/7/23 11:52Profile
Bomar
Member



Joined: 2005/2/8
Posts: 112


 Re:

Honestly Greg, that's the one thing that seems to be so appealing to me about Ron Paul...

Not exactly that I agree 100%, but he's not like every other candidate that floats back and forth with the wind.

He doesn't even take part in the government paid junket or pension system...because he disagrees with them in priniciple.

He may not be SI material, but he's honest, and trying to do what is best for people instead of his own political interests.

 2007/7/23 14:09Profile
Bomar
Member



Joined: 2005/2/8
Posts: 112


 Re:

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist...he does not believe in America being the world's police force...

 2007/7/23 14:11Profile
jordanamo
Member



Joined: 2006/11/23
Posts: 397


 Re:

Quote:

deltadom wrote:
I am from the Uk, we consider gunship ownership as a horror as they only have one use.



America is quite the different place! You might remember how our country was born from a... rebellion against your own country, and if we hadn't had our own guns, it wouldn't of been really possible! That's pretty much why I think the Founding Fathers primarily included it in the Bill of Rights... they saw the necessity for it in their own history.

Of course though, I dislike guns and probably will never own one.

 2007/7/23 15:15Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist...he does not believe in America being the world's police force...



So were the founding fathers. Non-interventionism's in the constitution.

If Ron Paul doesn't become the next U.S. President, I'd love to have him for my Prime Minister in Canada. Thrilled, actually.

 2007/7/23 17:43





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy