Why Dr. Paul lost my support

[mattman59]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

[Brandybuck]

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.
And how do any of those quotes affect that? As long as government isn't either promoting or hindering religion, there is not a problem.

[Exponent]

I don't like this either (I'm personally rather passionate in my dislike of religion in general, most notably when it is advocated as a method of discovering Truth), but since Ron Paul's idea is almost that government "has no place in our government", it become largely irrelevant, and I doubt that our country would move toward a theocracy in any way whatsoever under a Paul presidency.

[t3soro]

I'm an atheist too, and I can assure you RP won't be shoving his nor anyone else's religious values down our throats. What is meant by this quote is that the current mindset of the secularists is that religion and state can not coexist. RP argues that on a LOCAL level, allowing prayer in schools (not endorsing one deity, but just voluntary prayer or a moment of silence in general) is not prohibited by the constitution, nor is it a problem for atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc. He's not suggesting subversion of the First Amendment and instituting national religion. And even if you disagree with this still, keep in mind that the President of the US is NOT a king, and he probably won't get anything passed through congress anyways regarding this issue.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's the thing... There have been incidences of kids wanting to pray by themselves or in groups on school grounds and they have been told they could not. While I agree that a public school teacher should not be requiring students to pray, isn't it the individual kid's choice as to whether they want to say a prayer outside? Should it be government's place to tell them they cannot?

[torchbearer]

troll?

[LibertyEagle]

Not necessarily. I think he has a concern is all.

[torchbearer]

I'm just cautious to react to someone who doesn't have many post under their belt.

[LibertyEagle]

Mattman,

We don't want the church to run our government, that is true. On the other hand, we also don't want government dictating when and where we can practice our religion of choice, or in your case, not practice one at all.

[CurtisLow]

troll?

My exact thoughts.....

[torchbearer]

Its sad to lose someone because of one issue, but one man can't be everyones man... unless you are clinton.. and then you just lie to everyone...
i guess that's the point. you know Dr. Paul isn't lying to you. you know what you are getting...
who else in the campaign can you say that about?

[ARealConservative]

I'm an athiest myself but I don't see a problem with what Dr. Paul is saying.

The 1st amendment was quite clear that it only pertained to congress. "Incorporation" was a result of the 14th amendment.

Claiming prayer isn't allowed in publlic schools, claiming the commandments can't be on state government buildings, and blocking Christmas displays on town lawns all came about from wording intended to give equal rights to slaves.

It would be hypocritical for me to argue about things such as general welfare, the commerce clause, gun restrictions, taxes, etc. and not also acknowledge the travesty that has come of the 1st amendment.

[Kuldebar]

Explain your position better, or don't bother.

Ron Paul is running for Chief Executive of the Federal Government. He maintains that the Federal Government has no rightful role in public education.

What does this have to do with state and local governments? He ain't running for Governor or Mayor.

And last time I checked, he's a religious man.

A principled one.

[SeekLiberty]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

Then would be against the federal Constitution if you disagree with Ron Paul on this. Separation of church and state is not in our WE THE PEOPLE federal Constitution. Did you know that some ratifying states had official religions?

That's probably a bit scary to an atheist. :eek: But the problem is easy to solve. Live in a state that didn't. That's the beauty of the federal Union and Free and Independent States.

Perhaps you may want to read the new book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" which explains more about what I just said, and a hell of a lot more, too. :)

Of course, if you're not happy with our federal Constitution, you could start a project to ratify it, and if you're not happy with your State Constitution, you could do the same. If worse came to worse and you're not happy with the federal Constitution or any of the 50 State Constitutions, then there might be a Constitution you like somewhere in this world. But if not, you could always buy your own remote Island, and write your own. ;)

I encourage everybody to understand our federal Constitution, and their local State Constitution. :cool:

- SL

[Bloody Holly]

I find it hard to believe you only have 10 posts here and decided you've lost faith in Ron Paul. If you are THAT critical of candidates, you are going to be one unhappy person.

I think it's rather rude and judgemental to hold someone's personal beliefs against them. Ron Paul would not push his beliefs on you. Why do atheists think they should have things just their way and why can't they tolerate the fact that some people believe in the tooth fairy while others believe in the boogey man??

Like it or not, it's unconstitutional for the congress to pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion nor favortism for one religion. What exactly has happened in the past?? That's right, something unconstitutional. Teachers may be paid for by our taxes but students lips are sealed. You have rights as an atheist but I think in the past it was taken too far to the point of just catering to the wishes of atheists in schools and silencing everyone else. You think your rights mean more or something??

I'm speaking to you as someone who does not follow religion but I don't mind spirituality

[Sojourner]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Guess what...we already have a state established religion...the state as god.

Ron Paul would end that, seriously.

[Oddball]

Guess what...we already have a state established religion...the state as god.

Ron Paul would end that, seriously.
Damn straight!!

[sickmint79]

i have an atheist friend, haven't admitted it to myself but may be becoming one. ron paul absolutely has my full support however, i consider it a trivial matter in terms of the real issues.

[kimosabi]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

I can't see what the problem is here. 200 years ago religion played a much larger part in society than it does today so Ron Paul is correct in the first statement.

His second Statement is exactly right. I can't see what the problem is.

And what do presidents say when they are sworn in? "So help me God"

If you don't believe in God, I sure Ron Paul isn't going to stick you in a Gulag because of it.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. Ron Pauls beliefs are his beliefs. I don't think Ron Paul is about pushing his beliefs onto others and neither should anyone else.

[Kuldebar]

Have some faith in your atheism, and get a grip.

I would expect a little more pragmatism and, shall we say, practicality from such an individualist as yourself.

[ChrisM]

I am a Christian and am glad to further the cause of true religious freedom. True faith cannot exist in a theocracy, because true faith must be voluntary. Voluntary faith cannot exist under a theocracy.

I believe in a Federal government that does not poke its nose at all into religion except where religion becomes disruptive to society. For example, Federal bans on spoken Christian prayer in school is a flat-out violation of the First Amendment because it is a law (judicial legislation) recognizing the establishment of religion. Unless spoken prayer is disruptive to the class, it should be allowed by all people of all faiths. At the same time, no law should be made hindering a Muslim's right to practice or an atheists right not to practice, as it may be, nor should any Federal law be made favoring Christianity or atheism.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment, which is, in my opinion, one of the most important Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, extends the right to practice to everybody and rightly imposes the First Amendment upon the State and local governments. As long as the government does not make any law either way, church and state can coexist peacefully. That is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote about the Separation of Church and State (which, by the way, is not mentioned in any law, so Ron Paul is correct there). Mr. Jefferson did not mean that there should be no church within state or no state within church as the result of a natural course. When you try and forcibly remove religion from public life, you get a specific type of socialism most prevalent in France, which results in widespread discrimination, especially against the most religious (which, in France's case, happens to be the large Muslim population).

[cac1963]

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.


How do you feel about Don't Ask, Don't Tell? That's the policy that prevents gays and lesbians in the military from revealing the fact that they're gay or lesbian. Most liberals are adamantly against DADT, especially on free speech grounds. But what they don't seem to connect with, is that the way they're interpreting "separation of church and state" is in a DADT manner. Liberals cannot stand it when a politician or other official, right down to the kindergarten aide, acknowledges their faith in front of others, and they do everything they can to stuff a sock in it so that nobody anywhere is permitted to so much as admit that they are Christian, much less boast about it. Liberals have made sure that to do so will get them censured or fired. It's DADT applied to religion, and it's sad really when 90+% of this country is Christian in some manner.

How would you react if I said, to borrow your own words: "I am straight, I have no problem with gays, but they have no place in our government."

[ChrisM]

How would you react if I said, to borrow your own words: "I am straight, I have no problem with gays, but they have no place in our government."

You're taking this out of context to make an improper comparison. The religion quote dealt with an idea while your quote uses people. The proper comparison using that quote would be: "I am straight, I have no problem with gays, but laws concerning sexual orientation have no place in our government."

[angrydragon]

Wasn't this country formed by Christian principles? I'm sure Ron Paul would never push any kind of religion down our throats either, so it's pretty much a non-issue. He also follows the Constitution and knows very well the meaning of the First Amendment. The principles of being good and having peace towards all and such are fine by me.

[cac1963]

You're taking this out of context to make an improper comparison. The religion quote dealt with an idea while your quote uses people. The proper comparison using that quote would be: "I am straight, I have no problem with gays, but laws concerning sexual orientation have no place in our government."

No we're clear it up even finer with this statement: "I am straight, I have no problems with homosexuality, but it has no place in our government."

For the record, I don't support DADT-style policies no matter what human characteristic they're applied to. I am merely trying to prompt the original poster to consider the actual boundaries of "separation of church and state." I don't believe the Constitution supports a complete blackout of religion, but I believe that's what the original poster wants himself. Prohibition of faith is just as much in violation of the 1st Amendment as Official Endorsement would be.

[Kuldebar]

I don't think Ron Paul has been ambiguous about things.

Let's not act like the noise in this thread topic has anything to do with what Paul has stated as his position.

It's not that hard folks, freedom can be a big responsibility, but you don't have to be so scared.

All manner of things will be alright. But, first, you need to be free.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

You are missing the point - when our founders said we have been endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights - they were saying that no person or group of people (government) shall dictate who is worthy of liberty and who is not. Whether you believe you are on this planet as the result of a god or good luck is irrelevant. The key here is that our rights are as indivduals exist totally apart from any man-made political organization. Come on anyone who understands what Ron Paul is all apart understands this.

[allyinoh]

This guy sounds like the same person but under a different name on a different Ron Paul forum.

It's almost word for word...

If you think that Ron Paul would push Christianity on the American people, then you don't know much about Ron Paul and probably didn't really support him in the first place.

If you really understood where Ron Paul stands on these issues, you would never have asked the question.

[Ponce]

I'm just cautious to react to someone who doesn't have many post under their belt.

You are out of line or don't you remember when you had only 10 posts?

His comment about state and religion makes more sense to me than what you posted.

[torchbearer]

You are out of line or don't you remember when you had only 10 posts?

His comment about state and religion makes more sense to me than what you posted.

ummm. ok? just trying to look out for trolls. sorry.
besides, my tenth post wasn't about why I don't support ron paul, placed on a ron paul forum. it would be like me, signing up on a fred thompson board and posting why fred lost my support. it makes sense to question the integrity of this thread. And to say it makes no sense... well, that is like Rudy saying he's never heard of such an explanation for 9/11.
Think. that is all I ask. remember. i'm on your team. had a bad day at work? kick a tree or something.

[ChrisM]

No we're clear it up even finer with this statement: "I am straight, I have no problems with homosexuality, but it has no place in our government."

For the record, I don't support DADT-style policies no matter what human characteristic they're applied to. I am merely trying to prompt the original poster to consider the actual boundaries of "separation of church and state." I don't believe the Constitution supports a complete blackout of religion, but I believe that's what the original poster wants himself. Prohibition of faith is just as much in violation of the 1st Amendment as Official Endorsement would be.
I don't think religious freedom means a religious blackout. That is a point I made in my initial post in this thread. If the government recognizes it has no place in regulating religion, for or against, then religion will go on alongside government, and even possibly intermingling as part of a natural course of inculturation, but not by any law. Otherwise, what you have is French Socialism, which incites discrimination against the religious and violence in the streets.

[WannaBfree]

This guy sounds like the same person but under a different name on a different Ron Paul forum.

It's almost word for word...

If you think that Ron Paul would push Christianity on the American people, then you don't know much about Ron Paul and probably didn't really support him in the first place.

If you really understood where Ron Paul stands on these issues, you would never have asked the question.

TROLL!
10 posts, negative thread title and no interest in the responses on this thread=TROLL
He got his negative little title in and he's gone.

[WannaBfree]

Here are some of his other posts. He was here last at the time of the Bill Maher show.

Will Dr. Paul be on Real Time tonight?

This is gonna be a good one boys and girls!!! I will post a torrent of the show later, rest assured, you will be able to watch it.

Well that sucked! Number one, Dr. Paul was not a panelist. Number 2, the second he walked off stage they quit taking him seriously and concluded that Romney would get the nod. I will post the torrent as soon as its up.

He came here in May, posted the above, comes here now and makes this thread.

TROLL ALERT!

Can someone flag this guy? I don't know how to do that.

[andrewgreve]

Atheist for RP, here!

[Estanislao]

This is a silly non-argument.

Taken out of context, no supporting evidence, etc. etc.

Please research quotes before you post your glass half-empty fears.

1) Under the Constitution, the states will work it out.

2) Every major candidate is a globalist. Pro NAU which means the destruction of National Sovereignty and the Constitution. What you're telling us is, that's ok with you?

Is this CENTCOM disinfo bullshit or a cry for help?

[SeekLiberty]

I am a Christian and am glad to further the cause of true religious freedom. True faith cannot exist in a theocracy, because true faith must be voluntary. Voluntary faith cannot exist under a theocracy.

I believe in a Federal government that does not poke its nose at all into religion except where religion becomes disruptive to society. For example, Federal bans on spoken Christian prayer in school is a flat-out violation of the First Amendment because it is a law (judicial legislation) recognizing the establishment of religion. Unless spoken prayer is disruptive to the class, it should be allowed by all people of all faiths. At the same time, no law should be made hindering a Muslim's right to practice or an atheists right not to practice, as it may be, nor should any Federal law be made favoring Christianity or atheism.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment, which is, in my opinion, one of the most important Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, extends the right to practice to everybody and rightly imposes the First Amendment upon the State and local governments. As long as the government does not make any law either way, church and state can coexist peacefully. That is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote about the Separation of Church and State (which, by the way, is not mentioned in any law, so Ron Paul is correct there). Mr. Jefferson did not mean that there should be no church within state or no state within church as the result of a natural course. When you try and forcibly remove religion from public life, you get a specific type of socialism most prevalent in France, which results in widespread discrimination, especially against the most religious (which, in France's case, happens to be the large Muslim population).

I agree with a lot of what you say except in bold and underlined italics.

NOTHING in our Constitution "extends the right" to WE THE PEOPLE. Our Individual Rights are UNalieniable. Our Rights PRE-date our Constitution. They are natural Rights.

The perverted idea that the Constitution of our American Republic "extends us rights" is communistic' bullshit, and is exactly how things were turned around to control you. IMO, this demonic idea is the furthest thing away from true Christianity that I know.

Also, the unConstitutional 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It "granted" no Rights to Individuals that our federal Constitution, before that "Amendment," did not already protect or respect. The whole thing was a scam by our criminal Congress. It was an unConstitutional and invalid Amendment that was designed to look like it FREED but actually ENSLAVED.

(Yes, even back then, which President Andrew Jackson objected to its constitutionality by the way, our Congress were full of criminals like it is today.)

The design was to turn every "state Citizen" into a federally controlled "U.S. citizen." Have you ever signed anything that asked you "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Did you acknowledge you were?

Americans really need to learn their history to find out what happened to them.

In times of War, the General Government uses its opportunity to oppress its Countrymen.

op·press - to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.

"It is difficult to emphasize strongly enough, the importance of this memorandum written by Judge Perez. History is always written by the 'victor'. In this case — again — the victor was the small group of powerful U.S. and International financiers who have orchestrated every war in which Americans have fought and died, and who have installed their minions in all levels of both federal and state government today... executive, legislative, judicial, bureaucratic. Because this group also controls the media and the educational system in America, they have successfully promulgated their version of the War of Northern Aggression which they labeled the 'Civil War'."

For more about the fourteenth amendment, go to ...

http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

Keep your eyes wide open my Liberty Seekers! :)

- SL

[Ponce]

ummm. ok? just trying to look out for trolls. sorry.
besides, my tenth post wasn't about why I don't support ron paul, placed on a ron paul forum. it would be like me, signing up on a fred thompson board and posting why fred lost my support. it makes sense to question the integrity of this thread. And to say it makes no sense... well, that is like Rudy saying he's never heard of such an explanation for 9/11.
Think. that is all I ask. remember. i'm on your team. had a bad day at work? kick a tree or something.

I feel that it is the right of a "troll" to post just like every one else, after all we must be awared of what the other side are thinking.
I say "If you only agree with what everyone else writes then you may as well placed a mirror infront of you and talk to yourself"

Even I have been called a troll for what I say against the Zionists... love it.

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

I agree with a lot of what you say except in bold and underlined italics.

NOTHING in our Constitution "extends the right" to WE THE PEOPLE. Our Individual Rights are inalieniable.

The perverted idea that the Constitution of our American Republic "extends us rights" is communistic' bullshit, and is exactly how things were turned around to control you.

Also, the unConstitutional 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It "granted" no Rights to Individuals that our federal Constitution, before that "Amendment," did not already protect or respect. The whole thing was a scam by our criminal Congress. It was an unConstitutional and invalid Amendment that was designed to look like it FREED but actually ENSLAVED.

(Yes, even back then, which President Andrew Jackson objected to its constitutionality by the way, our Congress were full of criminals like it is today.)

The design was to turn every "state Citizen" into a federally controlled "U.S. citizen." Have you ever signed anything that asked you "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Did you acknowledge you were?

Americans really need to learn their history to find out what happened to them.

"It is difficult to emphasize strongly enough, the importance of this memorandum written by Judge Perez. History is always written by the 'victor'. In this case — again — the victor was the small group of powerful U.S. and International financiers who have orchestrated every war in which Americans have fought and died, and who have installed their minions in all levels of both federal and state government today... executive, legislative, judicial, bureaucratic. Because this group also controls the media and the educational system in America, they have successfully promulgated their version of the War of Northern Aggression which they labeled the 'Civil War'."

For more about the fourteenth amendment, go to ...

http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

Keep your eyes wide open my Liberty Seekers! :)

- SL

Good post...

[SeekLiberty]

I feel that it is the right of a "troll" to post just like every one else, after all we must be awared of what the other side are thinking.
I say "If you only agree with what everyone else writes then you may as well placed a mirror infront of you and talk to yourself"

Even I have been called a troll for what I say against the Zionists... love it.

When you KNOW you're standing up for Liberty, and yet others still attack you, then BE PROUD! Rest assured, you're dealing death blows to their bad ideas of enslavement, and you are fighting for Liberty for us all. I thank you!

The REAL War ... is the FIGHT against bad ideas that enslave mankind.

To Liberty and Justice for ALL! :)

- SL

[Justin]

Here are some of his other posts. He was here last at the time of the Bill Maher show.

Will Dr. Paul be on Real Time tonight?

This is gonna be a good one boys and girls!!! I will post a torrent of the show later, rest assured, you will be able to watch it.

Well that sucked! Number one, Dr. Paul was not a panelist. Number 2, the second he walked off stage they quit taking him seriously and concluded that Romney would get the nod. I will post the torrent as soon as its up.

He came here in May, posted the above, comes here now and makes this thread.

TROLL ALERT!

Can someone flag this guy? I don't know how to do that.

Yet his posted has incited some excellent discussion here. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

[SeekLiberty]

Yet his posted has incited some excellent discussion here. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

:) Exactly. The tempestuous sea of the Liberty of opinion has its benefits! It brings out the Truth. :D

- SL

[WannaBfree]

I dropped out of discussion here but did post earlier that this thread was likely posted by a

TROLL

(with reasons given). He probably just wanted a thread on this forum with the title he used. I didn't know how to flag it for removal, but maybe we shouldn't post on this anymore to let it drop down. Post on others threads to help bring this down faster.

[ChrisM]

NOTHING in our Constitution "extends the right" to WE THE PEOPLE. Our Individual Rights are inalieniable. Our Rights PRE-date our Constitution. They are natural Rights.

The perverted idea that the Constitution of our American Republic "extends us rights" is communistic' bullshit, and is exactly how things were turned around to control you. IMO, this demonic idea is the furthest thing away from true Christianity that I know.
I meant that the Bill of Rights coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to us the protection of rights by the government, not the rights themselves. Of course we all have certain unalienable rights (which is an essential part of the Christian faith), but the Bill of Rights outlines those and makes sure that the government protects them. I did not mean to say that it was the Bill of Rights itself which gives citizens their rights.

Also, remember that our rights are unalienable, and not inalienable, which is a good thing. If our rights were inalienable, by definition, it would be possible to surrender those rights. Unalienable rights, however, can never be sold, transferred, or surrendered.



Also, the unConstitutional 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It "granted" no Rights to Individuals that our federal Constitution, before that "Amendment," did not already protect or respect. The whole thing was a scam by our criminal Congress. It was an unConstitutional and invalid Amendment that was designed to look like it FREED but actually ENSLAVED.

I am not familiar with the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but please enlighten me.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. It was possible for the State and local governments to infringe upon those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects.

[torchbearer]

I meant that the Bill of Rights coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to us the protection of rights by the government, not the rights themselves. Of course we all have certain unalienable rights (which is an essential part of the Christian faith), but the Bill of Rights outlines those and makes sure that the government protects them. I did not mean to say that it was the Bill of Rights itself which gives citizens their rights.

Also, remember that our rights are unalienable, and not inalienable, which is a good thing. If our rights were inalienable, by definition, it would be possible to surrender those rights. Unalienable rights, however, can never be sold, transferred, or surrendered.


I am not familiar with the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but please enlighten me.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. It was possible for the State and local governments to infringe upon those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects.


I don't think the sourthern states every really ratified it. If they did, it was a puppet, "carpet bagger", regime change, GOP controlled state governments.

Did you know there are still laws on the books that only apply to the "reconstruction states". meaning, the confederate states are still under tight federal rule. We resent the federal government for this treatment... and this is another good reason why Ron Paul will win the southern vote!
States Rights.

[Gee]

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.
Government can make no law respecting religion. It cannot promote atheism or anything else, nor can it prevent people from exercising their religious preferences. And yes, even people in government are guaranteed they can exercise their religion without the law being able to stop them. Recent supreme court rulings are a complete perversion of this principle.

So, if you want religion completely out of government, I'd suggest you either find another country or try to pad the Supreme Court with more atheist activist judges.

[SeekLiberty]

I meant that the Bill of Rights coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to us the protection of rights by the government, not the rights themselves. Of course we all have certain unalienable rights (which is an essential part of the Christian faith), but the Bill of Rights outlines those and makes sure that the government protects them. I did not mean to say that it was the Bill of Rights itself which gives citizens their rights.

Also, remember that our rights are unalienable, and not inalienable, which is a good thing. If our rights were inalienable, by definition, it would be possible to surrender those rights. Unalienable rights, however, can never be sold, transferred, or surrendered.


I am not familiar with the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but please enlighten me.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. It was possible for the State and local governments to infringe upon those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects.

You're absolutely RIGHT about UNalienable versus INalienable. Admittedly, I stand corrected on this. I actually really already knew this even! Even myself is still in the process of deprogramming so I'm completely UNwashed! Bad habits die hard sometimes. ;) (I've edited and made the correction and truly thank you for bringing up this important point.)

It would be helpful too ... to provide a reference on the difference. Here's one:

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

So I apologize to all for my UNthinkingly supporting "political ponerology" (which is a good book by the way.) People are more inculcated than they realize. :D

As to your quote here:

The Fourteenth Amendment made us all citizens of the United States in addition to citizens of our respective States, which is important, because otherwise the States would be able to infringe upon the rights that the Federal Constitution protects

The correct part you said is that the Fourteenth Amendment made us all U.S. ciitizens. However, it's NOT for the reasons you're saying.

The several States were ALREADY bound to uphold our UNalienable (:)) Individual Rights BEFORE this Amendment by the very fact they ratified our Bill of Rights! lol. Otherwise, ratifying them would be meaningless! lol. They didn't ratify them for the federal territories, but for WE THE PEOPLE of the several States of the Union.

You see how we've all been hoodwinked on this? This Amendment attempted to set the stage to make our Country into nationalist State which, of course, is entirely UNconstitutional.

Please read the content in the link I have posted in my previous post to you, and study it please. It may be too long to post it here unless I get it requested. :)

Here, I'll just provide the link here again ...

http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

- SL

PS: I can admit when I'm wrong and I have (as above) and now you need to be able to do the same. ;)

[ChrisM]

I don't think the sourthern states every really ratified it. If they did, it was a puppet, "carpet bagger", regime change, GOP controlled state governments.

Did you know there are still laws on the books that only apply to the "reconstruction states". meaning, the confederate states are still under tight federal rule. We resent the federal government for this treatment... and this is another good reason why Ron Paul will win the southern vote!
States Rights.
Actually, I did know this issue and had forgotten.

[SeekLiberty]

I don't think the sourthern states every really ratified it. If they did, it was a puppet, "carpet bagger", regime change, GOP controlled state governments.

Did you know there are still laws on the books that only apply to the "reconstruction states". meaning, the confederate states are still under tight federal rule. We resent the federal government for this treatment... and this is another good reason why Ron Paul will win the southern vote!
States Rights.

You're 100% correct! :)

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ***.

That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses. (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868)

The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress. (Alabama House Journal, 1866, pp. 210-213)

The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives in Congress from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity. (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577.)

The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:

The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution. (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.)

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 1866, protested as follows:

Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as part of the Congress to act upon the question, "Shall these amendments be proposed?" Every other excluded State had the same right.

The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of the eleven co-equal States. (Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67)

The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:

Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise. (Florida House Journal, 1866)

The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866 protested as follows:

Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws. Hence this amendment has not been proposed by "two-thirds of both Houses" of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification. (South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 and 34)

The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:

The Federal Constitution declares in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation, both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.

If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion. (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93.)

[ChrisM]

The several States were ALREADY bound to uphold our UNalienable (:)) Individual Rights BEFORE this Amendment by the very fact they ratified our Bill of Rights! lol. Otherwise, ratifying them would be meaningless! lol. They didn't ratify them for the federal territories, but for WE THE PEOPLE of the several States of the Union.
Actually, Barron v. Baltimore established that the Bill of Rights only limited the Federal government, and in practice, State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the BIll of Rights.

[SeekLiberty]

Actually, I did know this issue and had forgotten.

Hey, it's all good. We're all in this process of "group unwashing" and all this discussion is getting our heads clear of Government inculcation which they FEAR. :D

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

Actually, Barron v. Baltimore established that the Bill of Rights only limited the Federal government, and in practice, State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the BIll of Rights.

Another lawyer in a long black dress trying to legislate and twist the interpretation of WE THE PEOPLE's Constitution!

Please read the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" and it will tell you all about this.

Did you know that modern "constitutional law" has almost nothing to do with the Constitution?

That "State governments were regularly passing legislation that would be a violation of the Bill of Rights" is a problem for WE THE PEOPLE in the several States to fix.

Has the 14th Amendment stopped this from happening NOW? lol. Of course not, it happens at every level of Government.

There is only ONE appropriate and proper, CORRECT Constitutional way for WE THE PEOPLE to stop this from happening. Anybody care to guess?

- SL

[Nefertiti]

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul



In the first quote, he stated what he feels was the influences on the founding fathers. That is history, not his opinion on how things should be. And that there is no rigid division does not mean there can't be one.

Second quote, I am Muslim, but I recognize that the founders of this country were Christians so of course the country has a Christian heritage. We can't change history. It's no big deal. But if you truly believe in separation of church and state as it seems you do, then you should realize that he means the secularists are at war against religion, not against the state.

[Nefertiti]

On another totally unrelated forum, someone once said something I found very wise-atheism is a belief system just like any religion is a belief system.

[SeekLiberty]

On another totally unrelated forum, someone once said something I found very wise-atheism is a belief system just like any religion is a belief system.

lol. Very smart!

- SL

[aravoth]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

I don't see the problem. The government does not force religion on anyone. Which is why he has said over and over agian that church and state is a local issue, not a federal issue, why? Cause this isn't the CCCP.

People ahve a right to believe in whatever they want, be it god, allah, the flying purple people eater, or nothing. Politicians are american citizens, so naturally they retain that right as well.

Our nation does have roots in judeo-christian theology, wether you like it or not, it's a fact. But the founders recognized the need for openess, which is why anything goes. Anything except people attempting to assualt religion in all it's forms, just becuase they believe in nothing.

[sorianofan]

Atheists, wqho believe God is just a retarded fantasy, get WAY too angry whenever anything related to God gets brought up. They are often more obsessed with God than theists.

Ron Paul will not impose Christianity on people. To dislike him because he is religious is prejudice, plain and simple.

[Mesogen]

I agree with a lot of what you say except in bold and underlined italics.

NOTHING in our Constitution "extends the right" to WE THE PEOPLE. Our Individual Rights are UNalieniable. Our Rights PRE-date our Constitution. They are natural Rights.

The perverted idea that the Constitution of our American Republic "extends us rights" is communistic' bullshit, and is exactly how things were turned around to control you. IMO, this demonic idea is the furthest thing away from true Christianity that I know.

Also, the unConstitutional 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It "granted" no Rights to Individuals that our federal Constitution, before that "Amendment," did not already protect or respect. The whole thing was a scam by our criminal Congress. It was an unConstitutional and invalid Amendment that was designed to look like it FREED but actually ENSLAVED.

(Yes, even back then, which President Andrew Jackson objected to its constitutionality by the way, our Congress were full of criminals like it is today.)

The design was to turn every "state Citizen" into a federally controlled "U.S. citizen." Have you ever signed anything that asked you "Are you a U.S. citizen?" Did you acknowledge you were?

Americans really need to learn their history to find out what happened to them.

In times of War, the General Government uses its opportunity to oppress its Countrymen.

op·press - to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.

"It is difficult to emphasize strongly enough, the importance of this memorandum written by Judge Perez. History is always written by the 'victor'. In this case — again — the victor was the small group of powerful U.S. and International financiers who have orchestrated every war in which Americans have fought and died, and who have installed their minions in all levels of both federal and state government today... executive, legislative, judicial, bureaucratic. Because this group also controls the media and the educational system in America, they have successfully promulgated their version of the War of Northern Aggression which they labeled the 'Civil War'."

For more about the fourteenth amendment, go to ...

http://www.SweetLiberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

Keep your eyes wide open my Liberty Seekers! :)

- SL



This is very interesting. I never heard of this before.

But before the 14th amendment weren't people in one state perfectly free to travel to any other state and even move there without restriction? I would think that this means they were already "citizens of the U.S."

And how could an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional? I can understand if it conflicts with something that preceded it without repealing it, maybe. I dunno.


Oh, btw, to continue the other part of the conversation, I too, am an atheist, but more of the agnostic kind. I'm really just areligious.

I don't see why it should be ok for the 10 commandments or pictures of Jesus should be used a decorations in government buildings. I know it's not particularly unlawful or unconstitutional since "Congress made no law" and neither did any state legislature. Someone that works there just put up a decoration by fiat and that person happens to have the last word about how the building is decorated, for some reason. I guess if I were a judge or some other public servant, I'd want to test the system a bit, see what would happen. In my courthouse, I'd put a nice statue of baphomet right in the middle of the foyer to greet all who came in. It's just decoration. There was no law saying it had to be there. What could people's objections be? There is no separation of church and state, is there?

And about the term "secular." I take that to mean "not bound by religious rules." I think the government and its laws should never be bound by religious rules, so the law should always be secular.

And, sorianofan, this is one "atheist" who doesn't obsess with god or religion.

[Ponce]

I think that is kind of funny that someone by saying "I don't believe in God" is saying that there is a god but that he doesen't believe in it........ better to say " I have no opinion about the one that you refer to as God".

I for one believe in "The Force" that which is everything and is everywhere......yes I know, from "Star Wars".......just don't call me R2D2 :rolleyes:

[michaelwise]

You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[micahnelson]

We just need to please a majority of people in certain districts of certain states up until about the 5th of November 2008. =)

[SeekLiberty]

And how could an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional?

Because the Amendment was not properly ratified. That's "all" it takes to make it UNconstitutional. :)

- SL

[Mesogen]

<eddie murphy as jewish man in coming to america> A HA! </eddie murphy as jewish man in coming to america>

[Mesogen]

I think that is kind of funny that someone by saying "I don't believe in God" is saying that there is a god but that he doesen't believe in it........ better to say " I have no opinion about the one that you refer to as God".

I for one believe in "The Force" that which is everything and is everywhere......yes I know, from "Star Wars".......just don't call me R2D2 :rolleyes:

Maybe it would be more appropriate for a positive atheist to say "I don't believe in gods."

[Ponce]

Maybe it would be more appropriate for a positive atheist to say "I don't believe in gods."

Meso? even then you are still saying that there are Gods.

[ChrisM]

Because the Amendment was not properly ratified. That's "all" it takes to make it UNconstitutional. :)

- SL
Let's be real, though... If it were challenged, the Southern states would almost immediately re-ratify it as a political move.

[ChooseLiberty]

Definitely troll. BTW - has anyone gone over to other candidates boards and trolled - why I no longer support Ghouliani, Thompson, etc.? Good technique.


troll?

[Mesogen]

Meso? even then you are still saying that there are Gods.

Sorry, no.

So when you say "I don't believe in the loch ness monster" are you saying that the loch ness monster exists? No.

[Ponce]

It has not been proven that it not exist........ the adds are that there is something in the water.

And how about UFO's?

[Kandilynn]

I'm an atheist and I'm voting for Ron Paul.

[cjhowe]

Because the Amendment was not properly ratified. That's "all" it takes to make it UNconstitutional. :)

- SL

I hate to be nit picky, but that's not entirely true.

Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

So... if an amendment is not ratified, it is not for all intent and purposes a part of the constitution. Unconstitutional means contrary to the constitution, it does not mean that something is simply not a part of the constitution.

This may seem like a small distinction, however because all but one of the amendments were ratified by state legislatures, those states that ratified have agreed and made it valid, as it is then a state law. Those states that did not ratify it may have a case to make, however none have successfully made that case.

[Mesogen]

It has not been proven that it not exist........ the adds are that there is something in the water.

And how about UFO's?

When one says "I don't believe in it" that means "My opinion is that it does not exist."

So whether it exists or not is immaterial to one's belief or opinion.

[mtmedlin]

WOW, this reminds me of my undergraduate work in Political Science at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA!!! (Go Bulls)
Hours and hours of debate by people who in the end agree with each other. Splitting hairs over basically nothing. In the end Ron Paul supports the atheists rights just as much as the religious.
Now, let me ask you a real question.

What does an insomniac dyslexic atheist do?

[ShaneC]

WOW, this reminds me of my undergraduate work in Political Science at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA!!! (Go Bulls)
Hours and hours of debate by people who in the end agree with each other. Splitting hairs over basically nothing. In the end Ron Paul supports the atheists rights just as much as the religious.
Now, let me ask you a real question.

What does an insomniac dyslexic atheist do?

I don't know?

But if he were an agnostic, I'd imagine he'd stay up all night debating the existence of Dog(s).

[David Merrill]

Ever since I heard about Dr. Paul and what he stood for I really wanted to do everything I could to get him elected. Over the past few months I have noticed a lot of things I really don't like. Today I read 2 quotes from him that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs". — Ron Paul

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage." - Ron Paul

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.





Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;





This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.




Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.




Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

One really has to come to grip with the inherent purpose of Paul's War by Propaganda against Rome. The installment of the Seven Noachide Laws in Asia Minor - Turkey. Then one can get some perspective:




Oath to support constitution. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

View the public trust from 1913 that Ron Paul keeps trying to abolish:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html
search "HR 2778"

and

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html
search "HR 2755"

But to really understand search "HR 2777" through "HR 2779" to get the gist of Ron Paul that day. And a flash in the pan it was. The bill keeps flopping - why?

Well why would nobody want to abolish the Fed but Ron Paul?


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Maybe tomorrow I will look to see how Ron voted on that bill.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_PublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1054706869308133588

[Wendi]

I am an atheist, I have no problems with religion but it has no place in our government.

I'm glad to know that you won't be using our nation's currency then.

[pyrazole]

I'm glad to know that you won't be using our nation's currency then.

ooh, nice one! :D

[David Merrill]

P.S. Maybe tomorrow I will look to see how Ron voted on that bill.


It turns out that Ronald Ernest was not a Congressman during the confirmation of the Seven Noachide Laws by Congress. It passed unanimously.