Iowa Caucuses

The Religious Ron Paul, and Other Paul News of the Day

|

Chris Moody writing in Yahoo News focuses on Ron Paul's outreach to the communities of faith in Iowa. Some highlights w/commentary:

In stark contrast to how he campaigned four years ago, Paul has made a concerted push during this presidential campaign to emphasize how religion has shaped his policy ideas. Through public addresses, campaign advertisements and conversations with voters, Paul has engaged in an intentional effort to articulate the biblical roots of his philosophy. These efforts are most on display here in Iowa, where most Republican caucusgoers align themselves with socially conservative views, and where Paul is building what has become a robust organizational machine to connect with them.Paul has surged into second place in Iowa, according to several recent polls. The Real Clear Politics polling average for the state has Paul tied with Mitt Romney at 17 percent, behind Newt Gingrich's 30 percent.

Paul has brought several Christian conservatives onto his campaign in an ambitious effort to reach believers for his cause. Michael Heath, the campaign's Iowa director, previously worked for a New England-based group called the Christian Civic League of Maine that fought against adding sexual orientation to the state's Human Rights Act.

The national campaign has tasked Heath with leading church outreach in Iowa, where for months he has met with pastors and Christian congregations. "That's the biggest part of what I'm doing as state director," Heath told Yahoo News after a day of knocking on church doors with campaign literature. "Going to churches with a message in support of Dr. Paul's campaign that is very much faith-based and is also rooted in his commitment to a constitutionally defined limited federal government."

But it isn't necessarily winning them all over:

Prominent religious conservatives in Iowa, however, object that Paul does not apply his beliefs at the national level. Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He thinks both issues should be left up to the states.

"I don't want the federal government dictating marriage definitions nor a position on right to life,"Paul said in March during an event at the University of Iowa. "It should be done locally. It'll be imperfect, probably, because every state won't be the same, but what is really bad is when you allow the federal government to define marriage and put the pressure and make the states follow those laws."

One of the things I would argue about in this Moody piece is the hook-driven need to claim this is new news or some concerted change of strategy, this whole business of Paul reaching out to the religious in Iowa. Paul's campaign also questions Moody's premise:

Paul's efforts to reach these voters are not new, his campaign aides say. He has worked for years to gain access to an inner circle of Iowa-based religious conservatives. David Lane, a California-based evangelical political activist, has organized off-the-record policy briefings with pastors across the country since the 1990s. These invitation-only meetings give local pastors an opportunity to meet Republican candidates and, until recently, Paul was never invited.

Lane, who helped organize Rick Perry's August prayer rally in Houston, received multiple requests from Wead to let Paul speak to the pastors. After two years of urging from Wead, Lane agreed to allow Paul to come to a meeting of 400 pastors on Nov. 14 at the Marriott hotel in Des Moines. Paul canceled campaign events in New Hampshire and flew straight to Des Moines, where he joined Gingrich and Perry and delivered his regular speech about how his political beliefs are rooted in the teachings of scripture.

The reactions from the pastors, who were already skeptical of Paul, were mixed. "The evangelical constituency has not been somebody that Ron Paul, as far as I can tell, has really reached out to," Lane told Yahoo News. "Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are much more comfortable speaking to that constituency."

My notes no longer tell me who organized it, but I witnessed Paul speaking to a room full of about 60 evangelical pastors in Iowa in October 2007 at a meeting room in the airport in Des Moines, for this Reason cover feature. There, Paul used his occasional sense of political strategy to talk about two issues he had not talked about in his stump speeches that same week to college kids and general civilians: abortion and immigration.

The Moody Yahoo! story discusses Paul using specific Bible verses to defend specific positions. While I'm sure Moody did witness this, in the 20 or so Paul public appearances I've seen this election season, I never saw him do it once, so it is somewhat misleading to write that as if it has become a standard part of Paul's arsenal this season.

And, Bible quoting or no, I only saw him include abortion in his standard stump speech (which is never "standard" in a pre-written rehearsed way–Paul wings it fresh every time) once, and that was at the again strategically intelligent choice of the big crowd at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, the poll that Paul came in a very, very close second. (He did at least once in a speech I saw this year, but I think just once, refer to gold/hard money as "biblical money.")

Paul is by all accounts a sincerely religious man, but also sincerely dedicated to not trumpeting it much, and despite the implications of this Moody story, he still does not trumpet it much.

As Paul told Beliefnet in 2008:

some evangelicals get a little bit annoyed because I'm not always preaching and saying, "I'm this, I'm this, and this." I think my obligation is to reflect my beliefs in my life. I like the statement in the Bible that when you're really in deep prayer you go to your closet. You don't do it out on the streets and brag about it and say, "Look how holy I am." If a person has true beliefs and is truly born again, it will be reflected in their life.

Another exchange from that interview, which on the whole is required reading for those deeply concerned with the matter of Paul and religion, goes like this:

You caught some flack recently for quoting Sinclair Lewis on the Fox News Channel in response to a Mike Huckabee's TV ad that appeared to feature a cross. You said that "fascism would come to this country waving a flag and bearing a cross."

Unfortunately, that came up in dealing with Huckabee and it wasn't directed [at him]… that ad came out and I hadn't seen it and they asked me about the cross and that thing flashed across my mind.

Do you regret saying it?

Well I regret those circumstances, [but] the position is well taken. I think people should be cautious… because of people using [religion] and the insincerity. But I have not been judgmental. As a matter of fact, I've been strongly defending people. Even Mitt Romney—I don't defend the pros and cons of Mormonism, but I hate to see him picked on because somebody saying "I don't agree with the Mormon religion."

Reaching out to evangelic "values voter" is politically necessary in Iowa because there are so darn many of them. A Paul supporter who ran info tables for him at Iowa county fairs and other such public gatherings told me that the question he was most asked was: "What denomination is Ron Paul?" (Answer: Baptist, now, though raised Lutheran and married and raised children in the Episcopal Church.) I also found it interesting that this young man, who dedicated most of his summer to traveling around in his van promoting Ron Paul, had no idea how to answer the question–like with most Paul superfans, his religion just isn't an issue.

Thinking about Paul and Iowa and outreach to Christians, it is also worth bringing up this, from Paul grassroots organizers in the one county in Iowa that Paul actually won last go-round, Jefferson County (which in other religious news, is a huge center for Transcendental Meditation folk), stressing things they did not do in promoting Paul there:

What we did not do:

We had very little contact with traditional Republicans or the conservative Christian community.

We did not make phone calls to Republican or any registered voter lists. (we tried it, but found it disappointing.)

We did not focus on Ron Paul's positions on abortion or immigration (unless asked about them).

Now for a roundup of other Paul news and chatter of the moment:

*Billionaire Chronicles (for all your billionaire needs) is claiming that Ron Paul has zero billionaire financial supporters–even Rick Santorum has one.

*Real Clear Politics reports from the road with Ron in Iowa and points out a possible stumbling block given his assumed young-leaning base: the Jan 3 caucus date is during winter break so lots of college-age potential voters won't be around.

*Mother Jones admits Paul could win Iowa, but thinks he's got strong negatives that if brought to the fore by his foes would crush him after that.

*The Hill keeps talking about a Ron Paul third party run, even though Ron Paul is not.

*The Daily Caller has a quick Paul bit including skylarking about Vice President Ron Paul at that storied legend in the modern era, the brokered convention.

*And Vanity Fair with their continuing feature mocking the notion that the mainstream press doesn't pay attention to Ron Paul by paying lots of attention (usually light and minor, of course) to Ron Paul, features Ron Paul-themed petwear.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

192 responses to “The Religious Ron Paul, and Other Paul News of the Day

  1. “Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion…”

    Constitution-toting Conservative Christians = Cognitive Dissonance

  2. Holy shit, did Ron Paul give $20 to the Reason fundraiser? How many articles does he get per day?

    1. “How many articles does he get per day?”

      The more, the better.

    2. Holy shit, did you contribute? How many times are they going to let you post?

    3. It’s horrible how the KOCHtopus magazine (t)Reason is not covering the Ron Paul campaign!

      1. Reason is just pandering.

    4. Gingrich in the lead has made even Reason turn into Paultards. I approve and agree though.

  3. Billionaire Chronicles (for all your billionaire needs) is claiming that Ron Paul has zero billionaire financial supporters–even Rick Santorum has one.

    He could have two, if only they’re let bygones be bygones…

      1. Who? The Kochs? Why don’t they like Paul?

        1. Because of a rift in the 80s between libertarians with principles and libertarians who would betray any libertarian principle for personal and political gain.

          Ron Paul belongs to the first category.

  4. Decide things at the local level? *gasp* However will we force our views on every American?

  5. 1) Another positive article

    2) That RCP article about college students is just parroting a popular anti-Paul meme that has been floating around for a few months now. His campaign has already taken that into consideration and is working to make sure it’s not a factor by reminding student supporters to be in Iowa on the January 3rd.

  6. That RCP article about college students is just repeating a months old anti-Paul meme. His campaign has already taken it into consideration and is working hard to make sure the kids are where they need to be on Jan 3.

    1. It is very silly. It only affects students who go to school in Iowa but are from out of state (people who may be registered to vote at home anyways). I would imagine that this would at least be outweighed by Iowans who go to school out of state but will be home for the holidays.

      1. That’s assuming the locals don’t go on vacation during Winter break. I have no idea of the stats on that, but it certainly needs to be worked around. Not to say it won’t be, months-old or not, it’s an issue.

        1. That’s assuming the locals don’t go on vacation during Winter break.

          Ron Paul voters won’t let vacation get in the way of their vote. That’s pretty much the one thing he’s got going for him. People that believe him really believe.

          Speaking of faith…

          1. “Ron Paul voters won’t let vacation get in the way of their vote. That’s pretty much the one thing he’s got going for him. People that believe him really believe.
            Speaking of faith…”

            Uh, I’m not sure that qualifies as “faith”.

            1. don’t ruin my meme…

        2. Sure but then that wouldn’t be an issue specifically with students and would presumably be an issue for all candidates.

        3. Iowa didnt get a BCS bid this year.

          That would have a huge impact, the entire state of Iowa was in Miami with me two years ago.

  7. Here’s a great story for you. From the AP wire:

    In the Times-CBS poll, nearly half of Iowa Republicans said it’s more important to pick a nominee who can beat Obama than to have one who agrees with them on the issues. Gingrich has a 23-point lead among these voters: 43 percent to Romney’s 20 percent.

    Principals? What the fuck are those? GO TEAM GO!!!

    1. Yes but lets remember this if Paul somehow does when Iowa. When they say “oh we can’t vote for him because he doesn’t want to kill brown people” we can say “but I thought beating Obama was most important.” Presumably the TEAM RED people would have to vote for Paul if he won the nomination. Right?

      1. when win

      2. That’s an excellent point. The cynic in me believes that when that happens, they’ll suddenly reasses and decide that beating Obama isn’t really that important if it means trying to stop the Empire.

        But hopefully I’ll be wrong.

        1. You will be right. National Greatness and being able to make fun of the frogs with jokes that their tanks have multiple speeds for reverse is what’s important. And they’ll just meet TEAM BLUE halfway; they get what they want, and TEAM BLUE gets their interventions and peacekeeping missions and all their foreign adventurism shit. Everybody wins! Except for, well, everyone who doesn’t want any of that.

          1. Except for, well, everyone who doesn’t want any of that.

            Thankfully there’s only a paltry handfull of us. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

            1. Methinks that you underestimate the numbers who will choose liberty over national greatness – including a growing number of folks who you and I would never have thought would give the state the middle finger.

              1. Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I was just really disillusioned after GW, because the dominant narrative is that he was some kind of radical deregulating conservative, so that’s where all our problems came from. And people actually believed that.

                1. Of course, you could have aksed me if I haved perused the comments at HuffPo, Daily Kos et al lately.

          2. “being able to make fun of the frogs with jokes that their tanks have multiple speeds for reverse is what’s important.”

            Hey! That is important!
            But not *that* important.

          3. Oh, and I’m sad I missed a great ATHF reference in the previous thread from Epi.

            Greatest…show…ever.

            1. Awesome but not even the best Adult Swim show. That would be Sealab 2021.

      3. No, they’ll vote for Ron Paul if he wins the primary (which he won’t). The radio personalities and pundits who inform the average conservative will gloss over Ron Paul’s wacky foreign policy ideas (Rush will be on board, too because a hated Republican is better than any Democrat) and so that will be okay. Beating the Other Team is paramount.

    2. Newt the most electable? Shit. Jesus would envy Newton’s resurrection.

    3. One day the United States of America shall be renamed “United States of GOP” and all across the land there will be nothing but beautiful RINOs, legendary for their unwavering opposition to anything non-RINO, including that wretched constitution.

      And in that magnificent nation, true patriots will say “My country, right or wrong.”

      1. I’ve always read that toast as a statement of responsibility, not one of jingoism.

  8. “…but what is really bad is when you allow the federal government to define marriage and put the pressure and make the states follow those laws.”

    I hope Dr. Paul is at trying to explain why that’s undesirable, because I’m guessing evangelicals rabid to save the country in one fell swoop isn’t going to understand the states rights argument.

    And “reaching out” these days usually means naked pandering, but while Paul seems to be tailoring his message to the faithful, he doesn’t seem to be tailoring his policy positions. Which means, of course, he won’t get far with them.

    1. He could point out that it is more likely that the federal government will force all states to accept gay marriage than the opposite but they all have their heads in the sand apparently. The fact that it has already happened with abortion still hasn’t convinced them.

      1. Statists don’t see the forest through the trees.

        On every issue the question exactly the same regardless of faction: how do we use the state to force others from doing things of which we don’t approve?

  9. Not only does Ron Paul lack understanding of our Glorious Invasive Foreign Policy, but he also doesn’t understand our need for a half-assed theocracy.

    This concerns many limited government, Constitutional-luvin’ Conservative Christians. How can Ron Paul be counted on to advance a Protestant Theocracy at home when he refuses to bomb the Muslims in our extended Freedom Sphere? We simply cannot place our trust in a man like this to secure our God given liberties.

    1. Note to RP trolls who fail at reading comprehension: this is not his personal opinion but a humorous take on the opinions of many Republicans.

    2. #ron_paul

    3. Exactly!!! I’m going to have to steal the first paragraph of your comment and use it in conversation sometime!

    4. Most of the so called Christian Right isn’t looking to impose shit on anyone. They just want to be left alone, and have the establishment show them the same respect that Moslems get.

      In 08 Huckaboo was rising until he started talking about reinterpreting the constitution through a Christian prism, in South Carolina.

      The whole idea that the republicans are Christian wackjobs itching to impose their version of Sharia is nothing more than disgusting hate politics used to scare metrosexual idiots.

      But yeah, keep believing the threat to your freedom is some imaginary Elmer Gantry and not the open socialists running the government.

      1. Being left alone = imposing their *ahem* morality on everybody else.

  10. Ron Paul: 9/11 prompted “glee” in Bush administration

    In response to Paul’s comments Thursday evening, former Bush administration spokesman Ari Fleisher Tweeted: “The man is nuts.”

    ‘Nuff said. Bye bye, conspiracy cranks’ Messiah. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

    1. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHH

      *gasp*

      HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

      1. Southerner aspires to be a staffer for The Southern Poverty Law Center. He wants to be the next Morris Dees.

        1. I don’t know, this is a pretty stupid comment, but I’m not sure it reaches the level of concentrated imbecility one expects from an SPLC staffer.

          1. Julian Sanchez and Dave Weigel aspire to be staffers for the Southern Poverty Law Center. They want to be the next Bruder Schaft.

            Well, maybe; in Weigel’s case, at least, given what we know about that whole JournoList scandal that hit shortly afterward.

        2. Libertymike|12.5.11 @ 12:52PM|#

          If one supports giving a penny to Israel, one is, by definition, a real nutjob.

          In a free society, there is no room for taking property from the productive in order to give to a foreign cess pool with a history of violence and mass murder.

          1. Southerner|12.5.11 @ 1:17PM|#

            That’s right, Libertymike. Remind us all how Ron’s followers always project the worst faults of their violent, murderous, despotic terrorist buddies onto the productive representative republic of Israel. Ron’s suicide cult deserves no better than anti-Semitic hypocrites like you.

            1. Suicide Cult? Anti-Semitic? Get real, man. We will know the true meaning of suicide if any other that Ron Paul gets the nod, for nomination. You can bank on that one….It’s sad when that’s all you can use to disparage a man that has literally given his life to the pursuit of a better government. I guess your moniker speaks volumes, about your past…Just an observation…

              1. Suicide cult it is: if you hang go hanging out with terrorist-fellating Israel-hating anti-American slime like Lew Rockwell (who’s rumored to have been the writer of those racist newsletters, by the way) and sucking up to Iran and Hamas and every other terrorist state the way your fool Messiah and all his rabid backers at Lew’s hate site do, you are clearly eager to murder the USA, and that makes you fanatics a suicide cult.

                As to anti-Semitism, the charges keep sticking because your racist Messiah is in bed with Hamas and Iran and every other rogue state and terrorist organization foreign and domestic that wants to murder Jews and nuke the USA. If your fool Messiah ever comes within shouting distance of running against our current Communist-in-all-but-name administration (which is in fact just as terrible an anti-Semitic suicide cult as yours), all the leftists will have to do is run old videos and articles showing your Messiah advocating in favor of Hamas arms smuggling, trying to cut off aid to Israel (and only Israel despite what his lying flacks assert here), and advocating that we leave Iran alone to develop nuclear warheads; then voters of every stripe will desert him in droves.

                I’m sure your leftist “friends” are very eager for you to run crazy Ronnie, but only because they know he’ll lose and lose spectacularly. The fascists on the left already have their racist Messiah in office; they aren’t going to replace him with your pale (ha ha ha) imitation. The rest of us have had enough of political Messiahs and you insufferably self-righteous crackpot idolaters who worship them.

        1. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHH

          *gasp*

          HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

    2. “the good Lord”

      And how are all your imaginary friends?

      1. Imaginary friends? You mean like moderate Islamists, sane Paulestinians, and the Green Libertarian Nazis? (Oh, wait–the last one is real though I’ll concede those guys are no friends of mine.)

        You Paulestinians are just angry because I blasphemed your Messiah by quoting directly from his canon.

        1. It’s amazing, the bile that comes from your minds..It’s no wonder most that claim to be liberals look the way you do….Reminds me of the folks I see when I go to a health-food store…Pelosi would be the poster-bitch…Ask the Ho, how much money she’s “made” being a rep of the so-called people? The insider tradin’ ho…and you support sleazebags, like her?

          1. Is there some point to this poverty-of-content-stricken incoherent paragraph, or are you just trolling?

    3. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indistinguishable from Michael Moore’s.

      1. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHH

        *gasp*

        HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

      2. Richard |12.9.11 @ 9:24PM|#
        “Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indistinguishable from Michael Moore’s.”

        I doubt it:
        “Barr: “Doesn’t it look like we’re, like, trying to really go to war against all Muslim people? I mean it’s like five nations now. It’s scary. … Well what about just growin’ food? … I mean, weren’t we supposed to be the bread basket of the world at some point? We were that. Well how come we’re not doing that and producing something that helps people, rather than just all weapons all like going to attack, war, war, war? … The stock market works ’cause of war, right?”

        Moore: “Right. That’s right.”
        http://theneweditor.com/index……olicy.html
        I doubt that MM has any coherent thoughts on the matter at all.

        1. I just read your comment and didn’t find anything coherent there, either. Just a bunch of wasted space, trying to put someone down. Why? Nothing better to do? Just another “attack-Hack”, stirring the pot….?

      3. Oh yes, i’m sure Michael Moore wants none of that foreign aid to third world countries either.

      4. No, it’s who’s hosting his articles that’s indistinguishable:

        Megafat Whore

        aPauling moRon

    4. I’m sure they were very sad that they were handed a perfect excuse to do a lot of things they wanted to do, but would have had a difficult time with politically.

    5. Yup, he is really nuts.

      That’s why Bush and co. went into a country that had precisely nothing to do with 9/11

      They were broken hearted about it, but someone had to do it.
      After all, they had them some of those WMDs.

      1. Yes, I’m sure you recall how Bush was so overjoyed at the prospects of attacking Iraq after hearing somebody had steered jets into the World Trade Center towers that he immediately jumped up from his seat, threw down the copy of The Pet Goat he’d been reading, and yelled “One side, li’l rugrats! I got Saddam’s hash to settle right now!” to his audience before speeding off to Air Force One to go order the invasion.

        Is that what happened on the Bizarro planet where you Paulestinians live? You see, on planet Earth, where I live, Bush only got around to settling Saddam’s hash (a project the Clinton administration had previously left on the back burner) about two years after 9/11. On planet Earth, Bush took some time to go to Congress to ask for authorization for an attack on Afghanistan. On planet Earth, nothing even remotely like what Crazy Ronnie says took place.

        I notice you’re the first Paulestinian even to respond to the latest proof that your Messiah is a lunatic, though like the rest of them you then try to change the subject because you realize the proof is incontrovertible and you’ve already lost the argument.

        1. Where is the declaration of War against IraQ? Or Afghanistan for that matter?

          1. Iirc 89 senators voted for the use of force. Probably the closest to a formal declaration since WWII.

            1. Just to rub it in a bit, I should point out that Rand Paul recently put up an amendment calling for a de-authorization for use of force in Iraq now that the war there is pretty much at an end (arguably a reasonable move). Harry Reid & company promptly voted it down.

    6. And now for the non-propaganda version:

      “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq” – Ron Paul

      PNAC’s own materials said that a ‘Pearl Harbor’ type event would be necessary to galvanize the US public and allow them to obtain their Foreign Policy objectives.

      Cheney – “We scored a trifecta!”

  11. OT: Am I reading the pleas to donate right, and Reason is so desperate the Nick is going to cut up The Jacket?

    1. “Reason is so desperate the Nick is going to cut up The Jacket?”

      The folks who own the site could be a bit more forthcoming with info.
      Seems .com and .org do not share funds, prolly as a result of tax law.
      The .org side pitches haven’t had any reference to The Jacket, nor offers of pieces of it; that seems to be a meme of the .com site. But, yeah, it looks like pieces of leather (of the hide of the Nauga) will be distributed from Oxford, OH if you’re inclined to make such a trade.
      Hey, Nick! $5 if you *don’t* send a smelly piece of stuff!

  12. This article was fair and honest while providing the comprehensive info missing from the quoted piece.

    Nicely done.

  13. Dammit Doherty! You’re not paying enough attention to Ron Paul!

  14. The disgusting thing about this whole charade in Iowa apparently consider not talking up your faith enough a greater sin than double divorce and adultery.

    Proving once again that even men of God are not above tribalism, as shocking as that may seem to the denizens of these here threads.

    1. …in Iowa is that evangelical pastors apparently consider…

    2. not above tribalism

      its essential to their continued relevance…

  15. Ron Paul: “Well, a Federal government that can ban abortion also has the power to do other things that we might not like.

    Evangelicals: *silence*

    Ron Paul: “You know, how can we be for limited government if we want more government…”

    Evangelicals: *icy silence*

    Ron Paul: “Separation of church and state, guys, come on…”

    Evangelicals: “Rush was right. You hate both America and Jesus.”

    1. Ron Paul: “Well, a Federal government that can ban abortion also has the power to do other things that we might not like.”

      Such as banning Christianity. But they never think about 1st Amendment violations going their way. Towards Muslims, yes. To them, no.

    2. Ron Paul: “Be careful of what you ask for…”

      Evangelicals: *icy silence*

      1. Ron Paul: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give unto God that which is God’s.

        Evangelicals: *icy silence*

        Ron Paul: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

        Evangelicals: *icy silence*

        Ron Paul: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

        Evangelicals: *icy silence*

        And so on. Probably one reason I still self-identify as Christian while not wanting anything to do with institutional Christianity.

        1. Evangelicals: *icy silence*

          Pretty much covers it.

          1. There have been lots of descriptions of me, but no one has ever described my as icily silent.

            1. or any other kind of silent.

  16. You have to wonder if this very long post about Ron Paul is intended to get Gillespie’s “Five Myths About Ron Paul” off the front page. In the comments of that little hagiography I quoted Gillespie and other reasonoids verbatim from the time when they were all shocked and dismayed about Paul’s racist newletters.

    So why should people of faith trust Ron Paul when he denies, however weakly, the pandering to racists he did back then? I suspect the old fuck is a crypto-Nazi. And why is a state government telling women what to do with their bodies better than the federal government doing the same thing?

    1. Max|12.9.11 @ 8:57PM|#
      “…In the comments of that little hagiography I quoted Gillespie and other reasonoids verbatim from the time when they were all shocked and dismayed about Paul’s racist newletters.”

      Yes, dipshit, everyone was *shocked*! Until they got the actual story.
      I know any pony can make a living off of one really good trick, but yours *isn’t* good, and most everyone has tumbled to your bullshit by now.
      But, hey, if you want to keep posting bullshit, help yourself. We all need some amusement.

      1. So what was the actual story, dickless piece of shit?

        1. Max|12.9.11 @ 9:16PM|#
          “So what was the actual story, dickless piece of shit?”

          If you don’t know it, your ignorance tells us why you continue to spout bullshit; look it up yourslf.
          Oh, and fuck you, dipshit.

          1. You halfwit piece of shit, you know very well that Ron Paul never adequately explained those racist newsletters.

            1. Max|12.9.11 @ 9:43PM|#
              “never adequately explained”

              To dipshits, nothing is “adequate”.
              Oh, and fuck you.

    2. And why is a state government telling women what to do with their bodies better than the federal government doing the same thing?

      Because if you don’t like your state’s abortion laws, and it’s something you feel strongly about, you can move to a different state.

    3. It is impossible not to picture you with a unibrow. I’ve tried, but the best i could come up with is a less manly Michelle Lea with a Munster double crescent brow.

    4. “And why is a state government telling women what to do with their bodies better than the federal government doing the same thing?”

      Because the alternative is risking every woman in the country losing abortion rights if attitudes skew a bit more rightwards? Things are sort of in the middle right now, but hard times can lead to people gettin’ religion.

    5. Am I the only one who doesn’t care if Paul let the guy doing his newsletters get a little racist in the 80s?

      1. ** icy silence **

  17. “I don’t want the federal government dictating marriage definitions nor a position on right to life,”Paul said in March during an event at the University of Iowa. “It should be done locally.”

    And thus the reason why Ron Paul is a Constitutional federalist and not a libertarian. Sorry, I’d prefer the federal government asserting basic rights and erring on the side of liberty over local fascism.

    My big beef is that Ron Paul thinks Lawrence v. Texas is a bad decision. That’s one of few fundamental expansions of human liberty in our country’s history, in affirming the right of all consenting adults to sexual freedom. I like Ron Paul enough, but would prefer Gary Johnson who supports rights without asterisks.

    1. Also, Gary Johnson didn’t publish a disgusting racist newsletter for twenty years and has no connection to the John Birch Society. Johnson has probably never taken money from white supremisicts either.

      1. Max|12.9.11 @ 9:18PM|#
        ‘Also, I’m a dumb shit posting bullshit’
        FIFY, dipshit.

        1. Heil Hitler, you zombie true believer fuckwit.

          1. Max|12.9.11 @ 9:47PM|#
            ‘I’m and ignorant dipshit’
            FIFY

            1. How’s that job working in the back of the movie theater going?

                1. Oh, fucking great… Max, Tony, shrike, and Hobie are all back.

                  Things were almost better around here when they were gone, but we were getting spammed on every thread by Jason Godesky.

    2. I’ll take a goddamned do nothinger rather than the string of politicians actively working against my well being.

      People say libertarians won’t compromise. Paul is our fucking compromise.

  18. Ron Paul is the libertarian compromise with the gutter.

    1. Max|12.9.11 @ 9:44PM|#
      ‘I’m a dipshit who hates Ron Paul’
      FIFY

      1. I know that’s funny for you now, but in a few years you’ll start junior hight and realize how immature that was.

        1. Oh look everyone, it’s Dan T!

          How ya doing Dan?

        2. Stop calling us.

        3. Yae Hobie, yuo tlel hmi whta na idito eh si.

    2. Thought I heard a dog barking. Here’s a piece of red meat. Fetch.

  19. That’s one of few fundamental expansions of human liberty in our country’s history, in affirming the right of all consenting adults to sexual freedom.

    And then when Ron Paul is succeeded by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, you’ll have no legal or constitutional grounds to complain when she asserts what she thinks are basic rights to free health care and free college etc, and dumps your rights off the back of the truck like you dump the right to life of the unborn.

    Federalism is a more stable arrangement than “I rape you now – you rape me later” that is the inevitable result of an atmosphere of putting one’s ideology over the law.

    That’s one of few fundamental expansions of human liberty in our country’s history, in affirming the right of all consenting adults to sexual freedom.

    If you actually believe this, that pelvic freedoms are more important than any other sorts, you’re a leftist and not a libertarian.

    1. Tsunami Tulpa|12.9.11 @ 9:49PM|#
      “That’s one of few fundamental expansions of human liberty in our country’s history, in affirming the right of all consenting adults to sexual freedom.
      And then when Ron Paul is succeeded by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, you’ll have no legal or constitutional grounds to complain when she asserts what she thinks are basic rights to free health care and free college etc,”

      Spoof or stupidity? You decide.
      I thought Perry’s false dichotomy retired the chair until I saw this!

      1. I fucked up the copy/paste. That was in response to the stuff about federally enforcing libertarian ideology.

        1. OK, maybe I owe you an apology. Try again.

    2. “And then when Ron Paul is succeeded by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, you’ll have no legal or constitutional grounds to complain when she asserts what she thinks are basic rights to free health care and free college etc, and dumps your rights off the back of the truck like you dump the right to life of the unborn.”

      Supporting laws expanding negative rights at the Federal level is very different from supporting laws expanding positive rights, much less supporting authoritarianism. If the states want to assert positive rights, I would disagree with and fight them at the state level – while agreeing that’s not the federal government’s jurisdiction. Libertarians should should support maximizing negative rights, including supporting federal laws that overturn state laws that harm these rights.

      I’m an agnostic on abortion, so I won’t defend or fight for the ideal jurisdiction on something I can’t answer myself. I’d be careful about making blanket assumptions.

      “Federalism is a more stable arrangement than “I rape you now – you rape me later” that is the inevitable result of an atmosphere of putting one’s ideology over the law.”

      Federalism can be good or bad, and is not inherently so. Federal laws outlawing slavery were the most fundamentally libertarian laws ever, even though they required violating “state rights”. Of course, I agree with the concept of states as “laboratories of democracy” when talking about things like education, health care, etc., I just think the federal government should affirm and support negative rights nationwide.

      “If you actually believe this, that pelvic freedoms are more important than any other sorts, you’re a leftist and not a libertarian”

      WTF? I said it’s “one of few fundamental expansions…in our country’s history” – where did I prioritize it over all other forms of liberty? Sodomy laws have been on the books forever and they certainly violate the core value that we have sole control over our own bodies and how we consensually relate to others.

      1. “Federal laws outlawing slavery were the most fundamentally libertarian laws ever, even though they required violating “state rights”.”

        Uh, you need to be careful here.
        Slavery could not exist absent laws which enabled it; the state yielded some of its monopoly on coercion to those who would coerce individuals into slavery.
        So “outlawing” slavery meant simply denying the power of the state to those who would use it to enslave others.
        To be clear, slavery was a product of the state, and there was no need to “outlaw” it; ending it simply required the state to stop promoting it.
        The difference is not trivial.

        1. Nope, slavery pre-dates the existence of the state.

          Not all coercion originates with government. In the case of slavery it’s perfectly possible for the strong to enslave the weak with no help from govt.

          1. Tulpa|12.9.11 @ 11:29PM|#
            “Nope, slavery pre-dates the existence of the state.”

            Irrelevant.
            By the 19th century, it could not exist absent state enforcement of it.

            1. Non-state enforced slavery happens all the time. See also: human trafficking, creeps who keep 14 year old girls locked in their basement, etc. In absence of state enforcement against her enslaver, the victim would be relying solely on the ability of private actors to enforce her freedom and basic human rights.

              1. Ah yes, but without state support it’s hard.

                Keeping a person locked up in your basement dungeon is possible. Having a slave working in the fields isn’t; once they clear your fence they are free again.

                Absent a state, systematic slavery is impossible.

                1. Same with systematic freedom.

                  1. Tony the Vikings living in medeival Iceland were free and had no state.

                    Your notion that a violent monopoly is required for freedom is a superstition that is not backed up by logic or historical experience.

                    1. Tony the Vikings living in medeival Iceland were free and had no state.

                      It’s not clear how free they really were; little reputable documentation survives from Saga Iceland, so the only evidence we have is that there were a ton of castles built during that time and that situation ended when Icelanders begged the King of Norway to take over their island. Neither of those is terribly indicative of freedom.

                2. Simply not true. Had the state simply stopped enforcing fugitive slave laws but left slavery legal, owners would have been even more brutal, keeping their slaves locked in cages, etc. to prevent any chance of escape. The action itself has to be illegal under the threat of state sanction.

                  Yet another one of many examples where libertarians prefer the victimizer’s “property rights” being protected from State intrusion over the victim’s rights not to be enslaved by a private actor or mafia, with State intervention if necessary. Exactly the sort of stupid bullshit that makes anarcho-libertarians come off as nihilistic assholes who deserve their political obscurity. Unfortunately have dragged the entire libertarian movement into their gutter, leaving the entire movement either irrelevant or open to easy attack.

                  Libertarians should be about maximizing liberty and not about simply minimizing government. If you think private authoritarianism will inherently be less coercive than government authoritarianism, I’d like you to meet the Lord’s Resistance Army, Los Zetas, KKK lynch mobs, etc. Assuming the weak have the means to resist the oppression by the strong merely validates all the Leftist stereotypes and straw men about libertarianism that pragmatists like myself have spent years fighting against simply for political relevancy. Anarchy is a fucking terrible idea and profoundly unlibertarian in my view – you don’t fundamentally believe in maximizing liberty, merely leaving everyone to their own devices regardless of the consequences on overall liberty. Give the me statism that reaffirms negative rights over nonstatism that doesn’t affirm any rights whatsoever any day.

                  1. Yes, and how economically productive would these heavily brutalized slaves be? Would they farm? No. Would they do good work in factories? No.

                    Would they produce enough to pay for the food required to keep them starving to death? No.

                    Slavery is or was only sustainable in places like North Korea, the Soviet Union, the Gulf Oil States, Nazi Germany because either they were intended to get work out of the slaves while killing them – or – because the state used taxes/oil revenues to maintain the security apparatus surveilling large areas of territory to make escape almost impossible.

                    From what I’ve seen in contemporary news reports, the only forms of slavery that people can get away with in the absence of state support are keeping sex slaves or household help. And they keep escaping.

                    1. “Yes, and how economically productive would these heavily brutalized slaves be? Would they farm? No.”

                      Depends on if the slaveowner tortures them enough to make them work and not enough to disable them. They could threaten to kill their children if they don’t work, or any number of forms of coercion. I don’t see how a state, which is made up of a group of people, is different from a powerful cartel or militia asserting state-like control and extortion. If forced to choose between one, where I have the illusion of a democratic voice, and the other, where I’m at the mercy of powerful and brutal private actors who can essentially perform the same actions as a state, I’ll take the former.

                      If action X (murder, enslavement, etc) violates victim’s freedoms and rights, what the fuck difference does it make whether state, a cartel or a single individual engages in that action? I get really sick of libertarians pretending like the State is automatically the sole or even primary bad guy. It doesn’t have to be, and coercion would be worse without a state altogether than in a state that’s sole purpose is defense of rights.

                    2. “From what I’ve seen in contemporary news reports, the only forms of slavery that people can get away with in the absence of state support are keeping sex slaves or household help. And they keep escaping.”

                      Um, slavery is…illegal, proving my point. Maybe that’s why you don’t hear of many cases of widespread, institutionalized slavery.

                3. Keeping a person locked up in your basement dungeon is possible. Having a slave working in the fields isn’t; once they clear your fence they are free again.

                  1. You’re moving the goal posts, as if basement slavery isn’t slavery; and

                  2. it’s quite possible to let people go outside without having a high risk of escape, as long as you take appropriate measures. Ever heard of a prison yard?

              2. Those things are called “human trafficking” and “kidnapping”.

                You weren’t talking about human trafficking or girls locked up in basements, so don’t shift the goal posts so you can prove a point.

                1. Which often lead to forms of slavery. If slavery isn’t illegal, what right do others have to “violate” the kidnapper/slaveowner’s property rights to liberate them? The state enforcement of the ban on slavery has made trafficking much harder than it would have otherwise been.

      2. Negative rights like the right to have decently paid armed men intervene when someone trespasses on your property? Paid for by me, with no stake in your property?

        1. That’s not a negative right, as you well know.

          1. God, I hate that fucking term. It makes “rights” sound like a negative concept… which is why Tony and Obama use the phrase “negative rights”.

        2. I’d gladly go to a system where those who use the police pay directly for services rendered without tax support. Taking out all of the “free” money that police unions use to shield bad cops as well as the money used in the War on People and move to a system where the police provide a direct service to a direct client would be a good way to cut down on police corruption.

          Next question.

  20. More on the Newt and his affair with Freddie:

    http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/r…..ening.html

  21. That may well be the coolest thign I have ever seen dude.

    http://www.ano-vpn.tk

  22. Gosh, I’m getting a little moist in my udders. I mean, when Ron Paul gets all religious and panders to Christian Conservatives, why it’s sooooo dreamy!!

    But when Sarah Palin and Bush and R. Santorum do the very same, why that’s just yuck! Ewwww! Make them stop! Waaaahhhh, somebody pissed in my peach-flavored martini!!

    1. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHH

      *gasp*

      HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

  23. Paul seems to agree with the evangelicals that Christianity is all about condemning people who behave in unacceptable ways. Not exactly the altruism of Jesus I learned about in Church, but it accords nicely with an economic system equally as unforgiving and brutal.

    One wonders why, if your entire worldview is a moral justification for the fact that 6 Walton offspring own more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans, one appeals to a religion based on egalitarianism in the eyes of god. But interesting how the ideas get completely lost in favor of primitive tribalism.

    1. Christianity is non-materalist and non-coercive, therefore it suits capitalism fine since capitalism is about voluntary exchange and voluntary relationships.

      Show me where in the Bible Jesus advocates redistributive policies, ie taking through force or threat of force the property of others.

      But of course Marxoids punks such as yourself have no desire for the kind of self-discipline and self-sacrifice Jesus taught. Nooo, that would require you to acknowledge that in an imperfect world it is illogical to force people to behave morally or ethically, something Jesus seemed to understand very well given his emphasis on the Kingdom of Heaven to come.

      1. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. ‘Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. [Luke 6:20-21]

        But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
        because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14;.]

        Then he looked up at his disciples and said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

        The claim that Christianity (or any religion) is about anything other than “forcing people to behave morally or ethically” is absurd on its face.

        But what about redistributive Justice? That is definitely a very modern concept, but the seeds of it can be found in the new testament.

        The passages I quoted are interesting to unpack. Jesus is placing not just the poor but all forms of “weak” people on a pedestal. The poor are equated to the blind and maimed. That is, they are the victims of misfortune all the same. They are not people who should be condemned for making bad choices. Libertarians blame the poor for their situation and go on to say society should condemn and punish them. Whatever that is it’s not Christian by any mainstream understanding of it.

        But you could just as well agree that the poor are like the blind, but think society should treat all people who suffer misfortune the way natural selection does. That’s certainly a theory, but not a Christian one.

        1. “The claim that Christianity (or any religion) is about anything other than “forcing people to behave morally or ethically” is absurd on its face.”

          Well let’s see: Jesus had no qualmns about preaching to sinners, and always, ALWAYS, he asked them to VOLUNTARILY turn away from their sin. You are mistakenly conflating the actions of imperfect followers of Christ to the perfection of Christ himself. Just because the church evolved into a pillar of Western society that in many cases forced morality and social norms doesn’t mean Jesus ever did.

          “They are not people who should be condemned for making bad choices. Libertarians blame the poor for their situation and go on to say society should condemn and punish them.”

          Libertarians DO NOT believe that society should punish or condemn anyone other than those that initiate acts of agression. Instead, we expect people to live with the consequences of their choices as free individuals without demanding other people be coerced into caring for them. Of course society would be better if more people believed in taking care of each other, but it becomes fundamentally immoral and perverse when such assistance is forced rather than voluntary. If we can’t force morality on issues like drug usage, pornography, or homosexuality, then what makes it okay for society to force your view of moral and ethical behavior in the form of welfare or socialism?

          Obviously you don’t believe in the most important aspect of the teachings of Christ, that it doesn’t matter what level of wealth or comfort you achieve in this world since it’s all temporary. What matters is your relationship with Christ. So you really can’t argue that Jesus was a socialist or Christianity is a socialist religion. It most certainly is not since at its core it isn’t even a religion, but rather an individual’s relationship with God.

          1. If the threat of eternal torment isn’t coercion I don’t know what is. However you interpret the nature of the requests, Jesus did expect people to behave in a certain way, as all religions do.

            If we can’t force morality on issues like drug usage, pornography, or homosexuality, then what makes it okay for society to force your view of moral and ethical behavior in the form of welfare or socialism?

            It’s only not voluntary if the decisions to collectively provide for basic human needs are made by autocrats instead of democratic action. Democratic action is how voluntary is done in group decision making.

            And the welfare state is not the same thing as forced charity. You favor a welfare state even if you aren’t poor because you could some day be poor, and it’s in your best interest to be insured against that risk by maintaining a safety net.

            If you don’t grasp that then what you’re saying is that the poor are a genetic underclass (i.e., they owe their status to misfortune alone) AND they should be left to suffer their fate. You have to torture Christianity pretty thoroughly to get an endorsement of natural selection out of it.

            1. “If the threat of eternal torment isn’t coercion I don’t know what is.”

              In order to debate this you must first assume that it is true. So if there is a Hell that people will go to based on the choices they make with their free will, then it hardly is coercive to inform them of the truth, which is that you need Jesus. Even atheist Penn Jillette (an atheist I admire) agrees that warning someone about Hell is a gesture of love rather than condemnation.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owZc3Xq8obk

              “It’s only not voluntary if the decisions to collectively provide for basic human needs are made by autocrats instead of democratic action. Democratic action is how voluntary is done in group decision making.”

              How beautiful it is that the irony of this statement escapes you. We have representative democracy right now (which is the most practical form of democracy a large nation can have) and yet we still ended up with a government that can and has tortured and murdered its own citizens, and has the power to deprive people of their liberty and property in a completely arbitrary fashion.

              Now I, for one, think it would great to write down on a piece of paper what the government can do and how much power it can possess because that would prevent such abuses. But alas, a certain group of charalatans, cloaked in a cloud of false indignation and empty promises of fairness, have spent the last century chipping away at that piece of paper and effectively destroying the notion of a nation of limited government. And I gotta tell you, the people responsible for that are not libertarians.

              “And the welfare state is not the same thing as forced charity. You favor a welfare state even if you aren’t poor because you could some day be poor, and it’s in your best interest to be insured against that risk by maintaining a safety net”

              When it leads to the destruction of wealth and the staganation of capital accumulation, the welfare state will collapse upon itself to the benefit of no one other than those in government. I can think of a certain continent across the Atlantic that is discovering that right now.

              “If you don’t grasp that then what you’re saying is that the poor are a genetic underclass (i.e., they owe their status to misfortune alone) AND they should be left to suffer their fate”

              What the frak? At what point have even come close to saying that? All I’ve been saying is that 1. virtue is only virtue when done voluntarily, and 2. a system that facilitates voluntary exchange and maximizes freedom is therefore virtuous and moral. That’s one heck of a strawman since the capitalist system I believe in is responsible for the elmination of poverty in this country and a global trend in rising living standards.

              “You have to torture Christianity pretty thoroughly to get an endorsement of natural selection out of it.”

              And you have to being incredibly dishonest or ignorant to conflate anything not statist with natural selection, as if in a socialist system we don’t have bureaucrats deciding who gets healthcare.

              Clearly the concept of the individual is abhorrent to you or else you wouldn’t be having such a hard time understanding the difference between a group of people with the same values volutarily pooling their resources to help the less fortunate, and a coercive entity which has, by nature of its mission to maximize human well-being, unlimited and completely arbitrary power over the lives of the people it controls.

              1. assuming jesus existed, and assuming the currently accepted gospels are reasonably accurate … (both of which are debatable… but ASSUMING)…

                jesus never said jackshit (and jack left town) about using govt. force for redistributing wealth etc.

                he said people should be charitable, etc.

                he never said govt. should forcefully take money from people to be charitable with

                huge difference.

                this doesn’t mean that many people don’t justify their belief in redistribution of wealth based on their christianity, but for whatever reason… jesus never endorsed OR condemned such a practice

                he did endorse people making the CHOICE to give of their own wealth for other’s benefit

            2. Democratic action is how voluntary is done in group decision making.

              No, that would be redefining the word “voluntary”. If nine out of ten people volunteer to do something and the last one doesn’t… the last one doesn’t.

              And the welfare state is not the same thing as forced charity. You favor a welfare state even if you aren’t poor because you could some day be poor, and it’s in your best interest to be insured against that risk by maintaining a safety net.

              I agree. I also think that you and I should be allowed to decide for ourselves what’s in our best interest. By all means establish a safety net. People who don’t want to buy in shouldn’t be forced to.

              If you don’t grasp that then what you’re saying is that the poor are a genetic underclass (i.e., they owe their status to misfortune alone) AND they should be left to suffer their fate.

              Neither of those things are true. You can agree that some poor people owe their situation to misfortune alone without admitting that all poor people owe their situation to misfortune alone. You can also recommend helping the unfortunate without agreeing that others should be forced to help – see Bastiat. And you already knew that, because I and others have explained it to you many times, which means that, once again, you were being dishonest.

              1. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled by taking food from others. ‘Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh at those who are forced to give you their money. [Luke 6:20-21]

                There you go, Luke, Tony FIFY.

              2. No, that would be redefining the word “voluntary”. If nine out of ten people volunteer to do something and the last one doesn’t… the last one doesn’t.

                Yeah and he doesn’t get his way and tough titties. There are some types of group decision-making that are judged to necessitate unanimity, like on some juries. But for the normal functioning of any society, even if it is a society of 3, majority rule is the way things get done.

                By all means establish a safety net. People who don’t want to buy in shouldn’t be forced to.

                That’s just private insurance. Fine for some things, but in order for it to work with respect to a safety net then you’d have to let all those who succumb to risk but didn’t buy in die in the street. It’s most clear in healthcare: do we really want to be checking people’s pockets for insurance cards before we give them emergency medical care?

                And it’s a bit absurd to say that the poor should pay for their own safety net, since being poor means you can’t afford to provide for your needs.

        2. Hey, Tony… why do you liberals espouse separation of church and state, but bring up Christianity when it suits your agenda?

          Either/or, motherfucker.

      2. “Show me where in the Bible Jesus advocates redistributive policies, ie taking through force or threat of force the property of others.”

        Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

        What happened when you didn’t go along with the Christian Redistribution Plan:

        Acts 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

        1. Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

          What happened when you didn’t go along with the Christian Redistribution Plan didn’t tell the truth about how much money you’d given to charity:

          Acts 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

          Yep, they totally told that guy the money wasn’t his and he couldn’t do whatever he wanted with it. This is totally an argument in favor of taking money from people by force and giving it to anti-Christian governments to spend on Satanic corporate fat cats like Soros.

          1. 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

            You heard the man, fatso! Go sell your mansion on Torch Lake, your Halliburton holdings, your copyright holdings for your movies, and everything else you have, give your money to various poor people (whichever ones you prefer), and go follow Jesus. Then you’ll have treasure in Heaven and be perfect.

          2. Thanks for the correction. Loving Christian God only killed the man and his wife for ~lying~ about the money they withheld from the Christian Redistribution Plan, not for the actual withholding.

            Man. I was way off.

            1. Once you get to know people for what they really are (surfing comments sections on the internet is especially instructive), you really only end up wondering why God doesn’t do more smiting, or just nuke the planet and be done with it.

              You’ve wished an incinerating bolt of lightning on your enemies yourself whenever anyone’s wronged you and gotten away with it. I know you have; I’ve never met anyone who hasn’t made just such a wish, or celebrated when something bad did happen to one of that wish’s targets. In fact, you’re probably making that wish right now, aren’t you? Ask, and ye shall receive; just don’t be surprised if the next target turns out to be you.

          3. Yup. I’m sure after they dragged off dead Ananias and his dead wife, the rest of the church, who were “seized with a great fear,” felt in no way obligated to give their money to the Church. Just as the Israelites could keep their own money instead of tithing it to the Levites.

            It’s all voluntary, folks.

            1. What a kind, loving god! Shakes down his followers. The Mafia learned at the feet of a master.

              1. I’m sure we all know how kind and non-coercive atheist states have been about your money if you don’t give it to them, not to mention your children if you don’t send them to their government schools. Everyone knows what a bastion of religious liberty the Soviet Union was and North Korea is, right? Everyone knows you’re free to keep your private property to yourself and worship God all you want there, right?

            2. Well, nobody was going to try telling that lie again. I might point out, though, that Ananias and Sapphira were never obligated to join any of these early prototypes of kibbutzim, nor to sell their property, nor even to give so much as a mite of their money to any of these collectives. Plenty of early Christian churches met in privately-owned houses as various believing homeowners took turns hosting meetings.

              I should also point out that one still sees such arrangements today, and they’re just as voluntary as they were back then. In addition to Israel’s kibbutzim (the only commune I’ve ever seen that actually worked), one still sees various Christian monasteries and abbeys in various places as well as privately owned church buildings and yes, even some private home churches like the ones in those earlier days. Just as not all Christians are obligated to be monks or nuns nowadays, neither were any of them obligated to join a kibbutz and share their possessions then. They joined because they wanted to: they were having such a great time at those house meetings that they started wanting to be together all the time.

              As for tithing to the Levites, the Israelites were free to keep all their money and refuse to give a tenth of it for the upkeep of the Levites and their temple. They just wouldn’t be Israelites anymore. That’s the same way you’re free not to pay your country’s taxes (which I’ll bet you wish were only a tenth of your income) if you renounce your citizenship and all the legal and physical protections that come with it. Life’s full of these voluntary choices, as any anarchist can tell you. (What they don’t tell you is that life in a state of anarchy tends to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and you’re always in danger of being enslaved.)

              You want to worship at the feet of Barry as a disgustingly large number of the columnists here did back in 2008, well, you can do that. And if you want to worship at Ronnie’s feet as an even disgustingly larger number of them do now, well, you can do that too. If you prefer to worship at the feet of God instead and take your chances with what all these “tolerant” political Messiahs and their rabid cultists will do to you for not paying your respects to their contemptible fiefdoms, you can do that too. Just don’t be surprised when the guy promising you freedom from all consequences turns out to be a charlatan.

  24. Thanks for telling us that the Christian Civic League of Maine is “a New England-based group.” I’m sure we never would have guessed it.

  25. As I recall, our constitution and the bill of rights were based on morals, the bible, and god. So if he is a strict constitutionalist, I say he is championing the foundations under which it was written.

  26. Look at this bullshit. Yet another article that prefaces its discussion of Ron Paul with:

    Let’s be frank from the outset about one thing: Under no imaginable circumstances short of a takeover of Earth by an Ayn Rand?worshiping species of space aliens will the libertarian Texas congressman be the Republican nominee.

    The hyperbole really illustrates the desperation of the writer to persuade the reader he doesn’t have a chance. Sickening.

    1. It’s all good. As a Dallas Mavericks fan, I like underdogs with “no chance”. It just makes the final victory sweeter.

    2. The Ferengi come to mind, though I think their Grand Exchequer is a little bit different from Ayn Rand. Also, the first time they heard any of RP’s Stormfronters going on one of their paranoid rants about Jewish bankers, they’d all be flying out to Israel to see where they can pick up their cut of the take.

  27. All Things Considered actually ran a reasonably fair piece on the guy yesterday.

    1. The morning after Ron Paul wins the primary (won’t happen, of course) All Things Considered will be reading the infamous newsletters all morning. They pat Ron Paul’s head right now because they see him as no threat, and what’s more, the majority of the Republicans hate him.
      But it is good to see Paul’s anti-war stance getting airtime on NPR. Perhaps it will get some liberals thinking (Not that they would support Paul; after all, he’s a Republican, anti-war or no).

      1. I had a liberal friend of mine say that the Pauls are SAVAGES despite their no more unfuckingnecessary war stance and exemplary record on civil liberties.

        Apparently believing such means that I have “neighbor-driven militia inclinations”.

        Seriously. This is the mindset of Team BLUE statists.

        1. What, you seriously believed the leftards were really anti-war when they were out there protesting Bu$atanHitlerMcChimpy?

          Boy, did they play you like a penny whistle! Now that you dropped your panties like any two-bit whore, you’ve been broomed, sweetheart; just another one of life’s lessons you gotta learn sooner or later.

  28. Those who slander Ron Paul are some of the most naive people around. Here you have a group of people who have a “supposedly” genuine antipathy for government. On one hand, they decry the actions of encroaching government, while not realizing the fact that our military strength is a major cause for our debt, both in the form of dollars and lives. There are many military families sick and tired of the death and destruction of our young people. It’s time to evolve. Vote Ron Paul!

  29. Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul

    During the debate in South Carolina, all that Ron Paul said, with respect to recent events in the Middle East, was that we should not be telling Israel what to do with its foreign policy, and that he advocates ceasing all foreign aid, to any country. As I recall, he added that this would not be bad for Israel, because we give more to Israel’s enemies right now anyway. Probably to most of the audience watching, Paul’s position didn’t sound too bad. Surely it sounds better than pressuring Israel to make “peace” with those who would like to destroy it, or than criticizing Israel for taking steps to defend itself, both of which we’ve been doing for years.

    ….

    In this interview, which took place in June of 2010, Paul states that he voted against imposing sanctions on Iran, and that he thought we should oppose Israel’s blockade of the flow of weapons into Gaza. If you listen (at some point I suspect that Ron Paul’s supporters will take this interview down ? yes, *they* posted it ? but maybe not), you will hear that at first Paul’s argument rests on how evil Israel is for blocking the flow of “humanitarian” supplies into Gaza. When Imus informs him that Israel was allowing food and medicine to pass, but was stopping only the flow of weapons, Paul replies that, since Hamas was democratically elected, they should have the right to get the weapons, too.

    Hamas, who is out to destroy Israel, should be entitled to get weapons masquerading as humanitarian aid, simply because they were democratically elected. He went on to say that we should go ahead and “talk” to Hamas and the like, because it would likely do some good, as it has with China. Anyway, listen for yourself.

    Given what Paul says in the interview, I suspect that he might defend his position here by reiterating the “context” that he alludes to in the clip: that the U.S. is currently giving aid and weapons to Israel, so what Israel does with those weapons reflects on us. He would say this in response to my charge that he misrepresented his view on Israel in last week’s debate. Last week he said we should leave Israel alone, last June he said we should oppose Israel’s attempt to defend itself.

    In fact, both these positions are wrong. We should support Israel. In the context of the Middle East, Israel is the lone beacon representing the protection of individual rights. (True, it doesn’t do this perfectly ? not by a longshot ? but it does so far better than any other country in the region.) It is for this reason that Leonard Peikoff argues that every person who is anti-Israel is also anti-American. And, if that commonality is not enough, Israel has also proven itself to be a valuable ally against our enemies, contributing intelligence along with military expertise and capability to the war against Islamic Jihad.

    ….

    If Paul thinks we are to blame for the terrorists’ behavior because we are “occupiers,” then could he think we’d be morally justified in retaliating against them (much less stopping them from getting nuclear weapons, etc.)? Of course, I thought that point was already made pretty clearly when Paul, in the other clip I posted, above, said that Hamas should have free access to weapons, even though it has repeatedly attacked Israel with same. But in case another piece of evidence might help…

    On my view, both Obama and Bush lacked the moral certainty necessary to properly defend our country. (In fact, even Reagan wasn’t perfect in this regard.) And neither of them has come out explicitly and said that we’re to blame for terrorism, as Paul has. I assume that, if he were elected President, Paul’s actions (or his choice to refrain from acting) would follow from these ideas. And so I will vote accordingly.

    Shorter version:

    Ron Paul is an anti-American Hamas-fellating Nazi.

    1. Anti-American for not giving a rip about a foreign country? Outside of socon circles that is going to be a hard sale. Neocons are looking like assburger central for even trying it.

      1. …says a guy who looks like an assburger for thinking everyone outside of “socon circles” supports weapons smuggling to Hamas, thinks we’re to blame for terrorist attacks on our country, and wants Iran to have nuclear warheads.

    2. “We should support Israel. In the context of the Middle East, Israel is the lone beacon representing the protection of individual rights.”

      Oh, so that’s why we support Israel. So that’s why we have such a vested interest in the Middle East. How silly of me to have thought otherwise.

      1. Exactly.

        Funny how the only time Paul’s worshipers ever agree to anything sensible is when they’re being sarcastic.

  30. Let’s give Nick Gillespie the last word:

    “As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I’ve got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
    I don’t think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn’t matter–the newsletters carried his name after all–and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.”– Nick Gillespie

    1. If we’ve learned anything about RP, it is that he is not a micromanager of his staff. Just consider the 2008 campaign – loose and uncoordinated. This year for the first time he has an able, professional team and look at the result. He has had a fantastic online ad campaign and tight schedule of appearances. It does not surprise me that in his early days he ran a very loose, even sloppy ship.

      I just hope when he is Prez he keeps his current help.

      1. He can keep them in that solid gold palace he’ll never have either.

    2. You mean the racist stuff Paul *didn’t* write? That stuff?

      You’ve been pounding that bucket for years now, Max. Give it a fucking rest.

  31. Anthing religious is good dude. Seriously.

    http://www.surf-private.tk

  32. ==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.