Being Fair to Ron Paul...And Everyone Else

Yesterday, I received a column by Chuck Baldwin via e-mail from a local pro-life leader, entitled Pro-Life Candidates Should Put Up or Shut Up.  I found myself agreeing with the first several paragraphs that correctly pointed out that pro-lifers have been tricked into believing that ending abortion depends on having the right Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and that other than that, members of Congress and the President really have no control. 

Baldwin rightly criticizes the presidential candidates, specifically: Romney, McCain, Thompson, and even Huckabee for perpetuating this myth, and then points out that it is within the power of Congress and the President to use the "life raft" that is available to them to save pre-born babies from being executed.  That "life raft" is the Constitution.  Baldwin points out that for six years (2000-2006), with a Republican controlled Congress and with a Republican President, these leaders have failed us.  He goes on to say that the ONLY presidential candidate to use this "life raft" is Congressman Ron Paul. 

Ron Paul, as Baldwin asserts, is the ONLY presidential candidate to sponsor and support the "Sanctity of Human Life Act."

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

I must first point out that two glaring points that Baldwin failed to make were 1) the promotion of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which would be very difficult to achieve, would more permanently protect the right to life and make it permanently the law of the land, and 2) the two presidential candidates who have been in Congress and have proven their support of this Human Life Amendment, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.  They weren't even mentioned. 

I checked with the office of Tom Tancredo and am waiting for a response back from the Duncan Hunter campaign.  But aids from both camps said that they had never heard of this bill from Congressman Paul.  This is understandable, as that it hasn't made it to committee, at least in this Congress. 

But this does cause me to take another look at the Ron Paul campaign.  The man knows the Constitution and there is no doubt, he is very committed to the principles in it, and that is a good thing when it comes to protecting the right to life.  He also has demonstrated the leadership and the tenacity to fight for these principles.

Until now, Congressman Paul had been my third choice for President, behind 1) Tancredo and 2) Hunter.  And frankly, I haven't been talking about him much, because it didn't appear that he supported a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which I still think is the way to go.  But unlike Fred Thompson who, like Paul, talks about leaving it to the states, there is no question about Congressman Paul's commitment to protecting the right to life, or his belief that life begins at conception.  And as it turns out, Ron Paul has sponsored a Human Life Amendment in the past.   

In the last couple of weeks, several events have compelled me to take a crash course in why there is a "Ron Paul R3VOLution".  I'll keep you posted of my findings.    

Comments

[TheTownCrier]

This election , wouldn’t it be refreshing if we actually looked at the facts? If you want an ‘average’ do nothing congressman, Ron Paul is your man.

Just for comparison of actual accomplishments in congress:

Sponsored means he wrote or introduced the bill. Co sponsors sign on to other bills written by someone else.

Statistics: Duncan Hunter has sponsored 105 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 72 haven’t made it out of committee (Average)

and 10 were successfully enacted (Good, relative to peers).

Hunter has co-sponsored 894 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

Now take a look at Ron Paul, who claims many ‘accomplishments’ and would never vote for any frivolous, unconstitutional bill!

Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted .(Average, relative to peers).

Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)
NOTE: 1876 bills, written by other congress members. All ‘constitutional’ ? You decide.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311

[James]

Have you checked out the latest "Deace in the Afternoon"?

http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=deace.xml

Romney got slammed big time!

Sean Hannity has been trying to stop the whole Huckabee rise with all his sniping at him. Not that the things Hannity has been saying aren't right but the way he is doing it you know there's an ulterior motive at work. Personally I support Tancredo and Paul though I don't think either of them have a chance.

Perhaps Hannity is in Romney's pocket. I don't know. But I do know that in Iowa DEACE's the Man and they will listen to him before they listen to Hannity.

http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=deace.xml

And Deace Hates Romney. For good reason. Deace hates liars and it seems like practically everything that Romney says is a lie. Well perhaps not a lie but a creative repackaging of the truth.

And this is the real truth about Romney.

http://massresistance.org/romney/

[James]

So, let me get this straight.

The town crier is mad because Paul (and Hunter) sponsored good bills. Bills about restoring constitution freedoms and stuff which of course being anti-establishment were not successful

It's easy to put your name on legislation that get passed. Just find the shoe-in ones that the establishment wants and there you have it.

"Do nothing" legislators do this all the time. Some lobbyist wants them to sign or co-sign a bill and bill unread the legislator signs it. After all who really wants to bother with reading these bills anyway. If the lobbyist or party boss says put your name to it you put your name to it.

It would look good in the town crier's stats but to me that "go with the flow" attitude which is so common with legislators today is the ultimate in "do nothing" legislating. Do nothing that upsets the applecart. This "do nothing" but what the power elite tells you to do is what is wrong with politicians today.

This town crier person either knows nothing about politics or knows too much about politics. When I say knows to much I mean is probably someone in the inside of the political machinery who just sees principles as something that stands in the way.

By the way, if Paul (or Hunter) wins he will have the whole power of the executive branch behind him. That is a lot more power than just one Congressman has. That is too much power just to be ignored. Electing Paul or Hunter will mean that they will have the chance to do for America what needs to be done.