I have HAD it. Waaaay too many progressive people have allowed themselves to heed Paul's siren call and it makes me want to scream. His fetish against federal spending just lets him pretend to be Mr. Constitution; the man is an idealogue and really doesn't give a toss about the freedoms he's always on about.
I make my case below the fold...
Exhibit A, Paul v. Jefferson:
Paul:
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. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: 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. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
If you didn't know better, you might almost imagine you were reading O' Falafel. Christmas is under attack - man the trenches!
Ahem... For the record, the Declaration and Constitution mention something about a non-specific deity precisely 4 times total. Combined. One is "the year of Our Lord." The rest are:
"...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
"...endowed by their Creator"
"...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"
So much for "replete with" notions of Christianity's God. And as for the founders intending this to be a Christian nation:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
- George Washington, the Treaty of Tripoli
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
- Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. - Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. - Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
- Thomas Jefferson
That last one's my favorite. But let's get back to the notion of a wall of separation between church and state; you know, the one Ron Paul says is neither mandated nor implied in anything the founding fathers wrote.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
...Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
That's a letter from one Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. So much for Paul's understanding of the inherent meaning of the constitution and our founders' intentions.
Ignorance or agenda? You decide!
Exhibit B, HR 4379, introduced by Ron Paul:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court .
Good night, Griswold v. Connecticut! Say hello to Sodomy Laws!
Sometimes I think the only thing Ron Paul loves more than not spending federal money is the 10th amendment. Unfortunately for Paul, the 9th trumps the 10th any day of the week in any honest reading of the document. But that doesn't stop him from the travesty of (all emphasis mine)...
Exhibit C, Ron Paul on the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban":
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.
...As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.
...Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.
...H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
Did you catch all of that? He's against the gov intervening into medical procedures, but not abortion. He finds the bill flawed both constitutionally and in principle, but voted for it anyway. Not only that, but he actually lamented the fact that the bill did not further the pro-life cause! IANAL, but I have read our Constitution a handful of times. I simply do not recall seeing a single thing about Congress being obligated to "further the pro-life cause."
Constitutional scholar or constitutional a la cartist? You decide!
Exhibit D, Paul v. Paul in the War on Drugs:
Ron Paul has repeatedly (he is consistent!) voted against funding needle exchange programs. I sometimes think the cost of the war on drugs is the root of his opposition to it. That is to say, he strikes me as not being at all concerned with the issue as a question of social policy.
Whatever lip service he may pay to freedom and choice and all that good stuff, his hatred of federal spending/oversight still seems to trump all his happy talk about the right to do what one will with one's body He passed up a prime opportunity for a case study to support his arguments for legalization. Someone approaching the problem realistically, with the goal towards actually enacting more effective policy, would well, do that...
That's the very definition of what makes an idealogue - he is so wedded to his skewed interpretation of the constitution that he ignores the practical reality that is sure to result from his politics. Such people are dangerous, plain and simple; I don't care how much of what they say sounds appealling. Given his "no" votes on funding for needle exchange programs, his support for ending the war on drugs rings somewhat hollow.