Ron Paul to End Active Campaigning
Posted by ThirstyJon in News, Politics, and World Events, tags: America, Election 2008, Elections, News Commentary, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, VideosWell, I am back in the USA! I feel closer to what is going on with the upcoming presidential election. I never had time to write about Huckabee pulling out of the race.
I just read that Ron Paul pulled out – although if you watch the video on my post here you will see that he has not pulled out! He has only acknowledged that he is not going to win and will “wind down” his campaign. According to Ron Paul, this is only the beginning of a liberty revolution.
This was a hard election for me to follow because I was in Australia and couldn’t have close discussions with the people that I would normally have around me during an election. I also couldn’t track what was going on by properly watching the debates.
As a result, I don’t know as much about Ron Paul as I would like to know. I don’t agree with him about the Iraq war, but I have heard some things that I do agree with.
I’ll be watching the movement to see what I have in common with the “Ron Paul Revolution.” (Although Ron Paul says in the video that it isn’t a “Ron Paul” revolution. It will take other candidates and people as well).
Here is the story on CNN.com:
“We are acknowledging that Ron will not be the nominee and that we are winding down the campaign,” said Jesse Benton, the Paul campaign’s communication manager.Paul hinted the end was near in a video to supporters posted on YouTube on Thursday.
“Though victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm,” Paul said in the video.
His comments came two days after Sen. John McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee. [Read More]
Here is Ron Paul making the announcement:
Entries (RSS)
Ron Paul has been publishing columns online for years on LewRockwell.com .
He’s a fairly radical Libertarian. He believes that government should be just almost nonexistent. He also believes that government should not be in the business of regulating behavior short of preventing harm to one another. So if the “Church of Freddie Mercury” were to start marrying men to each other, he could care less. Doesn’t figure it’s any of the gov’s business.
Read him here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Casper, I have just read a couple of the articles a the link you suggested. Fascinating stuff!
It will take me a while to catch up, but the articles I happened to scan only confirmed to me that I have some things in common with Ron Paul.
A friend asked me years ago why I was concerned with homosexuals getting married. I put a lot of thought into that question and began to realize that I am not actually concerned with that very much. I am concerned with people who object being forced to recognize such marriages!
As far as I am concerned, someone can have a ceremony saying they are married to a door nob and then going around saying that they are. I don’t believe that their marriage is valid, but I am not very concerned if they want to think that it is!
However, if they want me as their employer to fix their sick door nob when it is broken…
I would prefer that abortion and homosexual marriage and pornography and the like be handled by the States and local communities. The only reason I would support national laws or Constitutional Amendments about such things is because the Courts are sometimes “off the wall” and cannot be relied upon to make sensible decisions. There is no way around the fact that some believe the Constitution to be a “living document” that changes with the times. Of course the Founders of our Nation believed it should change with the times as well, and so set up an Amendment Process so that the people could make those changes!
Ok. I am rambling in a comment. We’ll see if I approve my own comment, it is too long. I need to get that forum going.
ThirstyJon
Welcome back!!!
When you say: “I am not very concerned if they want to think that it is!” (i.e. that their mariage is valid), doesn’t it bother you that gays and lesbians/abortion lobbyists are trying to impose their agenda on the majority of North-Americans who refuse to get down to that level of political correctness and accept that kind of behavior as a normal fact of life. By accepting it so, we are compromising as Christians on what the Bible says about that kind of behavior.
Contrary to Sen. Obama, as he spoke to students at Hocking College last week, I do not for one bit think the Sermon on the Mount was meant as an endorsement for those particular lifestyles. We would not want another Sodom and Gomorrha, would we???
one more thing…I don’t believe either that our forefathers meant by “change with times” that we’d have to compromise our values for the sake of a few…
Hello Lyne!
I suppose a better way of saying what I mean by “I’m not very concerned” is actually “I am not primarily concerned” with people thinking they are “married” when they are not. (The truth is, if the Supreme Court, the United Nations, and 100% of the world’s population said that members of the same sex could marry one another they still would not be married before God). I am not saying that I approve of “gay marriage.”
My point is that I am far more concerned about being forced to recognize a “gay” marriage then I am with a “gay” couple believing themselves to be married.
I don’t know if that makes sense or not.
I support a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, I think that is second best. (More laws are usually “second best”) It would have been better for individual States and Communities to behave as free people before God and implement such things by themselves. The only reason we need an Amendment is to stop the insanity of activist judges.
ThirtyJon
I do understand your point of view. It does concern me however that gay couples would believe themselves to be married when they parade it in front of an audience (like for instance a public display on TV). Also, by supporting constitutional amendments in that matter, we open the door to more discrimination on the part of the more liberals towards anyone who differs in opinion. Amendments would only increase the “insanity” on the part of some judges who will no doubt take advantage of their high position.
Like I said before, change is good but not when it compromises biblical truths.
So what you’re saying is – if 2 men are married in court by a justice of the peace, and enjoy all the legal benefits of legal marriage same as any other couple, they are discriminating against you. Is that correct? How?
They would counter that by refusing to allow the legal benefits of marriage to certain couples on the basis of gender (and there are several legal benefits) you are discriminating against them.
Do we really wish to make our civil laws based on the Bible? If so, you should check your pants. If your pants legs are blue denim and the pockets are white cotton, we’ll just have to stone you. Says so right in the book of Leviticus,,,
Think hard – be careful what you wish for. There’s lots of stuff in that book…
I’m a Liberal – and I have no desire to discriminate against you or anyone else, so please explain your idea of “Discrimination” to me.
Casper and Lyne,
God Himself led a people out of slavery and formed a nation in ancient Israel. We have no other case in history where he has done this in such an authoritative manner. We would not be wise to discount the reasonings of the only civil government ever founded directly by Supernatural Intervention from God Himself.
I do not propose such a shallow reading of the scriptures that would result in outlawing clothing made of multiple materials. However, we as humans are free to each read the Bible for ourselves and then come together to form our forms of Civil Government. Including the revolutionary Freedom Ideas from God Himself in His Law would be a good idea.
Unfortunately, not everyone accepts the Story of History as told by God in the Holy Scriptures. It would be best for those of us who do accept them to seek understanding of the reasonings behind God’s Laws, then apply those reasonings to our quest to form good law, and then present them to the world.
We can also work to persuade the world of the benefits that have resulted from Christian Civilization.
Most importantly of all we can work to invite and persuade the world to embrace Jesus and be filled with the Holy Spirit. A bunch of people filled with God can still disagree, but at least we would be pursuing the same goal – the Character of the Kingdom of God manifest right here on earth while we await Jesus’ imminent return.
ThirstyJon
P.S. I reposted this comment at: http://freedomthirst.com/2008/03/14/the-bible-and-government/