Romney and Obama - No Difference!

This is a good comparison showing that there is no substantive difference between Romney and Obama. In other words, it doesn't matter which of the two gets elected. Go vote for a good third party candidate and sleep well at night knowing you've done something honorable and useful instead of selling your children into slavery.

Is Ron Paul Pro-Life?

I periodically get emails from Christians claiming that Ron Paul is not pro-Life because he just:

• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) or
• Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) or
• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) or
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) or
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) or
• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999).

The latest such claim was that he does not care about moral issues because he just voted to allow people to abort their babies if they are the wrong gender - HR 3541. So once again, I dug out the law to see if in fact Ron Paul had made a bad vote. After reading the bill (copy here), I would have to agree once again with Dr. Paul. It’s an atrocious bill for a number of reasons. To be fair, I have found a couple times where he voted contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution, but not this time. First, it’s based on the politically correct notion of preventing sex and racial discrimination.  The bill reads:

• (B) United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimination in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.) …. (C) A `race-selection abortion' is an abortion performed for purposes of eliminating an unborn child because the child or a parent of the child is of an undesired race. Race-selection abortion is barbaric, and described by civil rights advocates as an act of race-based violence, predicated on race discrimination. By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the health of mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias.

This is a terrible basis for any law. Race selection abortion is barbaric because abortion itself is barbaric. Discrimination, on the other hand, is inevitable. It is impossible to live and not discriminate. I am not condoning race discrimination. I am just saying we should not have laws barring discrimination. For example, if someone is denied the right to vote because they are black, the crime is that a qualified voter was denied the right to vote - not that someone discriminated. Anyone who does that for any reason should be horsewhipped and forever barred from ever being an election official. If a state insists on outlawing black people from voting, the proper response is to expel that state from the Union. That preserves our Constitutional republic and disassociates us from reprehensible conduct. Meddling in the states' business undermines our Constitution and the country it established. But I digress.

Second, this bill is unconstitutional  because it usurps power that is retained to the states and has never been given to the Federal Government. The Federal government does not have jurisdiction over murder, which is what abortion is. This bill tries to assert authority based on the commerce clause – See Section 2(b) – as if the abortion industry was a type of interstate commerce to be regulated like the shipment of potatoes. Well, actually we know that the abortion industry does engage in interstate commerce and is tied to interstate sex trafficking. But that’s a great tragedy. To pass a bill based on their authority to regulate interstate commerce and allow the underlying industry to continue, is to implicitly sanction the underlying industry. 

Third, it claims that few states outlaw sex or race selection abortions. But that's a red herring. The real problem is many states which used to outlaw abortion no longer do. Our 2003 legislature in Texas (Republican controlled house) specifically voted to exclude abortions for profit from capitol murder by adding Sect 19.06 to the Penal Code. 

That would have been the place to get a good pro-life bill with some teeth. Instead "pro-life" Republicans changed the law to specifically exclude doctors who are performing a “medical procedure for profit where the death of the baby is the intended result “ from prosecution for capital murder.  A lot of so-called “pro life” people voted for that bill (HB246). Until we fix state law, violating the Constitution only undermines our Republic without stopping abortion.

The biggest problem with the bill, legally speaking, is that it tries to criminalize thoughts – like hate crime legislation.  It should criminalize abortion (but even that still runs afoul of #2). It is a meaningless bill that would do absolutely nothing to reduce abortions even if it were passed. Abortion providers would simply tell people who wanted an abortion because of the baby's gender to "pick another reason." This bill only exists to allow political actors to energize their base by voting for or against an abortion bill.

I would have voted against this bill too.  

On the other hand, if pro-lifers really wanted to do something to stop abortion, it would be very easy for our super majority republican legislature to outlaw abortion – just repeal section 19.06 of the Texas Penal code which was added in 2003. 

My question is, "Why, if we have so many pro life people in our legislature, aren’t they voting to do so?" If Ron Paul were in the TX house, I suspect, based on his record in Congress, that he would be submitting a bill every session to do just this, whether it went anywhere or not.  This is not to say that  Ron Paul hasn’t made some bad votes. I know of two very bad votes this session and there may be others. But I don’t think this is one of them.

Here's Dr. Paul's statement on why he did not support his bill. He reasoning is sound and has nothing to do with supporting abortion. 

Mr. Speaker, as an Ob-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different sex.

However, I cannot support HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the states in the Roe V. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a federal issue.
I also cannot support HR 3541 because it creates yet another set of federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting.  All other criminal matters are expressly left to states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by states rather than Congress.
I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe V. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the states and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a "politically incorrect" reason for special federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a federal law prohibiting "sex selection" abortions and federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or sex.

I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying "It is a violation of federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' sex.  Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under federal law."

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe V. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the states.

Wal-Mart vs. Washington, D.C.

I didn't write this (it was anonymously posted on the internet) and I haven't checked all the numbers, but they look about right and they don't directly affect the point.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined,
and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am anti-capitalism, but actually I am laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
Dear Washington D. C.,

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right;

$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more..

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have attempted. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ??  It is obvious that the majority of Washington D.C. is corrupt.

A Comparison of the Biblical and Libertarian Philosophy of Government

What is the source of liberty?

Is liberty based on the principle of self ownership?

By what authority do we take the life of a murderer? a homosexual fornicator?

While Christians and Libertarians often agree on many things in the practice of government, we do so from a vastly different foundation because we have a markedly divergent view of authority.

See where we differ and why in this side by side comparison.

Samuel Rutherford, Author of Lex Rex

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

Some Help For FOX News

Dear Fox News,

I saw recently that you were asking where Ron Paul was. Wanting to lend a humanitarian hand to help you find this missing person, I took some time to look for him. Having found him very quickly, I thought I should pass along my missing person techniques so that, if you so desire, you could train your reporters how to locate successful presidential candidates as they speak to very large and very loud crowds.

1. First, I googled "Ron Paul Texas" since I live in Texas and don't have a large expense account.
    
2. I then inspected all the links that Google found relating to Ron Paul speaking and selected the closest one- about an hour away.
    
3. I then wrote down the address, located it on an online map, got in my car, and drove to the address.
    
4.  Here is where amazing things started happening. Signs started appearing on the road pointing the way to Ron Paul. When I arrived and parked the car, there were streams of people pouring into a building nearby. Although I wasn't familiar with these buildings, AMAZINGLY, nearly everyone was carrying signs with Ron Paul's name and picture on them. I guess they wanted to make sure they would remember who they were going to see and would recognize him when he showed up. From this point on it would have been hard not to find RP.  I just followed the crowd to a seat and there was Ron Paul.

Now, I never had any training in investigative journalism, but I am sure that if these techniques are studied and mastered by your investigative journalists, they won't have any more trouble in the future finding Ron Paul or other liberty minded people. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Lending A. Hand

PS. Since your journalists, not being able to find Ron Paul, were probably not able to obtain a picture of this big event, please feel free to use the following picture which I took. Sorry my camera is not the best.

My first thought on seeing the World Trade Towers fall on live television was "That is without doubt a controlled demolition." I'd seen enough video to recognize a building free falling into its own footprint when I saw it. However I didn't have the engineering data or experience to prove it. But here's a credible expert witness who does.



For those who prefer to see the experimental data backing up Richard Gage, here it is. Actually this guy deserves a medal for investigative engineering. He's managed to do outside his field of expertise what a whole passel government scientists working inside their specialty could not do.

Political Corruption Blown Away (1946)

Political corruption is, of course, not new. The difference between today and previous generations is how it was dealt with.

Ray Comfort Tongue Ties a Psychiatrist

Some candid revelations from a pro-abortion psychiatrist.

• A liar, thief, blasphemer, and adulterer is a good person. (Ted Bundy's mother thought he was basically a good person too.)
• A baby becomes a person somewhere around the 5th week because that's when the heart starts beating.

Is Ron Paul Too Eccentric on the Importance of State Sovereignty?

This was posted earlier, but has been substantially lengthened.

"It was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation ... would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself. Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger."

Those are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in a speech delivered March 2, 1930 while governor of NY as printed on the front page of the NY Times on March 3. He obviously didn't go on to govern by those words once elected President, but that's the message he campaigned on because that is what Americans believed and that's what he had to say to get elected.

Ron Paul's opposition to federal amendments regarding marriage and abortion is consistent with the historic understanding of the proper role of the federal government. Simply put, the federal government has no authority in these matters. The 10th Amendment is very clear that the federal congress has no authority except what is explicitly delegated to it by the states in the constitution. Any power not delegated to the federal government is retained by the states and the people. Clearly, one cannot delegate power to those who are higher in the chain of command. Powers can only be delegated to those who are lower in the chain of command. In both the language and intent, the 10the Amendment clearly establishes that the federal government is UNDER the states.

But in the country in which we live today, this has been completely reversed in most people's thinking. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been used to dismantle our republic and the 10th Amendment that guaranteed it and to set up a central government. And as FDR so accurately predicted in 1930, it has brought about a government by oligarchy.

How did the federal government justify blocking enforcement of Texas' anti-abortion statute in Roe v. Wade? 14th Amendment  substantive due process. How did it block Texas' anti-sodomy statute in Lawrence? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why can a child get an abortion without her parents knowledge, but not get her ears pierced without their consent? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why could they stop all state executions? 14th Amendment substantive due process. Why can't states outlaw pornography? You guessed it - 14th Amendment substantive due process. (See http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mike-farris-claims-ron-paul-bad-on-homeschooling/ for a much fuller discussion on this point.)

Big government "liberals" have long used the due process of 14th Amendment as a club to force all the states under the tyranny of the federal government. Many conservatives have cried foul, but not because of the abuse of the function of the federal government. They cried foul because they didn't like what they were being forced to do. But when big government "conservatives" have gotten a chance they have used the same club to force states to act according to their wishes. Their actions have had the same disastrous effects on liberty and on the health of our republic as the big government "liberals".  The Bill of Rights was meant to secure our liberty by restricting the federal government from imposing it's desires on the states. Notice, the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...". States were completely free to pass laws respecting the establishment of a religion, and several, including Massachusetts did. We have allowed the federal government to dictate to the states because we liked the policy they were imposing - black slaves are people too, don't drink alcohol (remember prohibition!), etc - but as soon as they started dictating policies we didn't like we start crying foul! We want the federal government out of our lives.But we can't have it both ways. Concentrated power corrupts. Like fornication, no man can withstand the temptation of concentrated power. The only answer is to flee from it.

Not only is Ron Paul's position regarding an anti-sodomy marriage amendment or federal legislation on prostitution Biblical, his position is also the historical position enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Passing these types of amendments will lead us yet one more step away from a republic of free people and 1 step closer to totalitarian slavery. Offered to a gullible nation in the name of stopping great evils, anti-abortion and anti-sodomy marriage amendments are a Trojan horse offered to the "Conservative Right" to destroy the fabric of our federal republic. Climate change and environmentalism are two Trojan horses offered to the "Liberal Left." It doesn't matter whether the Conservatives win or the Liberals win. As long as one group wins, the complete eradication of state sovereignty is ensured. Once the sovereignty of states has been undermined, there will be nothing standing in the way of the complete overthrow of our freedom and entire way of life.

Nevertheless, conservatives inevitably recoil in horror when they hear Ron Paul speak, thinking he wants to legalize sodomy, prostitution, drugs, and so on. But that misses the point of his argument and position. The point is that the federal government has no jurisdiction in those matters. The states have jurisdiction in those matters and that is where such laws need to be passed. You might think of it this way. Suppose your next door neighbors let their children eat candy and drink soda all day, watch unlimited TV every day, and stay up to midnight every night. Big government conservatives are like those who would seek to impose their own "good" rules on their neighbor's lives in order to correct such unhealthy behavior. Small government people like Ron Paul recognize that they have no jurisdiction over their neighbor's lives and don't attempt to regulate them. But refusing to regulate one's neighbors, because one has no jurisdiction to do so, is very different than believing that children ought to eat candy and watch TV all day.

It's a fair question to ask why it makes any difference if,  for example, prostitution is legislated at the state or federal level. How does the federal arrangement originally intended in the Constitution preserve freedom in a way that a centralized national government cannot? This was precisely the main issue debated between the federalists and the anti-federalists. (Actually those terms are a bit of a misnomer. The so-called federalist are more accurately described as supporters of a supreme central government over the states while the anti-federalists are more properly called "Federalists" in that they believed in a federal government to whom the states delegated certain limited powers.) This is most clearly seen in the resolution initially laid on the table at the start of the Constitutional Convention. According to Robert Yate's minutes, the first resolutions to be discussed were:

1. Resolved, That a union of the states, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.


2. Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the states, as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, liberty, or welfare.


3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." (Jonathan Elliot's Debates,  Vol 1, 1876. p391)

Thankfully the anti-federalists (who wanted a federal government) carried the day and we got a federal government (mostly), contrary to the wishes of a the Federalists who thought a federal union of sovereign states would not accomplish the objective of peace and security for the country.

The Anti-Federalists' reasoning which, tragically for us, has proven to be correct is:

1. That a central government was too far removed from the local region over which it was legislating, 
2. That laws need to be tailored to specific situations in order to be fair,
3. That representation at a national level was too dilute and thus unable to represent the many contours of the people, and 
4. Most importantly, that it did not allow for a good division of power. 

If a state passes tyrannical laws, people can easily move to another state. I moved to Texas because I did not want to live under the draconian homeschool laws of Ohio and Pennsylvania. If we had one national law, I would not have been able to do that.

We have a problem today with a tyrannical out-of-control federal government. Giving it more unconstitutional power, regardless of how well intentioned the supporting policy is, will only make our problems worse. This is what the anti-federalists understood, what FDR understood (although he used that knowledge to defeat freedom), and what Ron Paul understands so well. That's why he has so many enthusiastic supporters among common people, why he is bringing so many people back to the ballot box who had given up on politics years ago, and why he is so hated by the big government power brokers - be they "Conservative" or "Liberal."

Discussions of some of Ron Paul's positions from a Biblical perspective are here and here.

Coulter's Biting Satire Leaves Toothmarks In Her Own Tail

The main job of liberals like Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, and Michael Moore is to keep the liberals convinced that knuckle-dragging Republicans are responsible for everything that's wrong with America and that the solution is replacing them with intelligent Democrats. They seem to be doing a good job. On the other hand, the main job of Conservatives like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Mark Levin, and Michelle Malkin is to keep conservatives convinced that evil, God-hating Democrats are responsible for all that's wrong with America and that the solution is to elect good Christian Republicans.[i] Unfortunately for us, they too seem to be doing a snow-white job – or a white snow job depending on one’s perspective. Ann’s recent hit piece on Ron Paul in her Human Events article, Get Rid of Government, But First Make Me President, illustrates the extent to which these disinformers will bend logic and make fools of themselves in order to accomplish their purpose.

Now I don’t think Ann is all bad – she has an unquestionably sharp wit – but she commits a logical blunder of the first order when she attempts to go from Ron Paul’s statement

“I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church"

to

“If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? … Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicarebenefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry?”

This is a classic non sequitur. Registering a marriage is different than granting a license. You can have a requirement to register a marriage without having a requirement to get a license. It’s just like having a baby. A license is not required to have a baby, but the law does require the birth to be registered after the fact.

By definition, a license grants permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. (Bouvier’s Law dictionary defines a LICENSE as, “A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. VideAyl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.”)

When a couple requests a marriage license, they are entering into a 3 way contract with the state. This is explicitly stated in some state laws and acknowledged in many other places. For example see the first page of the Family Law manual produced by the Ohio Bar Association below. Or read the anecdotal, and possibly apocryphal, conversation that Virgil Cooper had with a clerk in the Maricopa County courthouse in Arizona that explains the implications of the fact that a marriage license from the state makes the state a party to the marriage.

Published by the Ohio Bar Association

All of the questions Ann Coulter raises about divorce, adoption,inheritance etc. were answered long ago. This country ran just fine for the first 250 years of its existence with the very situation she is mocking. Marriage licenses are relatively recent in history of the US, becoming commonplace only in the early 20^th century. The absence of a state issued marriage license in no way prevents the state from requiring that prospective adoptive parents be a married man and woman. What’s more, eliminating the necessity of asking the state’s permission to marry in no way diminishes the ability of a married couple to establish that they are married. It can be established the same way any other contract is established. Below is copy of the 1856 marriage covenant from my great, great grandparents. It is not a state issued document and it says nothing about it being a license, but it’s proof based on multiple witnesses that they were married.

In making irrational and ludicrous statements like: “Libertarians would be better off spearheading a movement to get rid of stop signs than to get rid of officially sanctioned marriage. A world without government stop signs would be safer than a world without government marriage." Ann is not only showing her us her juvenile reasoning ability, she is also, by implication,calling Blackstone a fool.

According to my 1915 US edition of his Commentary on the Laws of England, Blackstone said of marriage, “Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriage as a sin, but merely a civil inconvenience. The punishment therefore or annulling of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is in the province of the spiritual courts which act for the welfare of the soul. And taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties as the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract;secondly, able to contract; and lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.” [Chapter 15, §533,Vol. 1] Emphasis mine.

The editor of the edition I have ( William Carey Jones, Director of the School of Jurisprudence, University of California ) says in the footnotes that “the law gives no action to the wife or child, directly, for any breach of the husband’s or the parent’s duty,” although it might punish a parent for neglect. In other words the state had no authority to interfere in a private contract unless there was a crime being committed.

When Ann states: