Posted By: MMT Date: 2007-12-16 11:25:35What does Ron Paul think about animal cruelty? Does he support the libertarian nonsense "I don't like animal cruelty but everybody should have the right to brutally torture animals in any way they like because animals are things"?
Every normal person understands that animal cruelty should be punished. It's common sense. It doesn't matter if it's against the holy theory. Extremists who think a book or a theory is more important than common sense or humanity can go to Saudi-Arabia.
What Ron Paul "thinks" about animal cruelty is a wonderful way of explaining what he "thinks" about basically every issue that dampens his support among mainstream Republican Voters, and from the looks of it some on the far-left as well. It also provides a wonderful way of helping you understand exactly why he should be our next President.
The answer to your question if you are reading this, MMT, is that what Ron Paul personally "thinks" about animal cruelty is absolutely irrelevant because of what he knows about the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Let me explain.
Ron Paul is a Christian. Since he currently attends a Baptist church and I grew up in one, I can tell you that he is likely taught to "think", and may even believe, that all Muslims and Jews are going to burn in an eternal hellfire when they die.
If he were elected President and swore an Oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" his Christian beliefs would only impel him to follow the 10 Commandments and be true to his word to uphold the Constitution and the 10 Amendments (as well as the other ones).
Since freedom of religion is expressly given in the very first of those Amendments, what he personally thinks of the eternal resting place of people who don't share his religious beliefs is completely irrelevant. He would protect their right to believe what they believe as vigorously as he would support his fellow Christians' rights to believe what they do. If Christians want to go out and save people from eternal damnation, he would support their 1st Amendment right of free speech without fail. So long as they didn't start breaking into homes in order to tell the non-believers about their Lord and Savior. Doing so would violate the non-Christians' 4th Amendment right to be secure in their homes. He has a 20 year voting record in Congress that proves beyond question that he would protect these rights. It's pretty simple, actually. Thomas Jefferson (whom I often quote because he is more articulate and intelligent than I) said it best:
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Ron Paul "thinks" drugs are terrible. He recently said that not only has he never smoked marijuana, he has never seen anyone do it. He gives his own money to local drug outreach programs in Texas. He teaches his children and grandchildren not to use drugs (and it probably worked since three of his five children are doctors). To put it mildly, he is very anti-drug. However, he is against the War on Drugs. Why? The Constitution doesn't allow the Federal Government (except under the broadest interpretation of the Commerce Clause) to enact laws prohibiting individuals from choosing what to put into their bodies unless so doing would inhibit another individual's rights (think DUI laws). It also doesn't allow the use of taxpayer's hard-earned money to prosecute and imprison people who do make these poor personal choices in order to enforce these Federal Laws. For our current system of drug prohibition to be legal, a Constitutional amendment like the 18th which prohibited alcohol would be required. If the states believe prohibition is the best way to solve this issue, and the state's constitution allows it, they are welcome to enact such policies. But the Tenth Amendment is pretty clear that the Federal Government has no right to regulate drugs.
Ron Paul personally "thinks" that Rosa Parks is a great woman and admires her civil disobedience deeply. He believes that she deserved the Medal and Congressional Recognition she received. But he understands that he has no right under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on such an honor so he voted against honoring her (and was the only person who did--votes like these are why he is known as "Dr. No" in Washington). Instead he offered $100 of his own money and challenged other members of Congress to do the same; they didn't. Afterwards he remarked, "I guess it's easier to be generous with other people's money than it is to be with your own." His religion may have taught him to be a good steward of his personal money and led to him to "think" that Rosa Parks was a good person, but it was his fidelity in keeping his Congressional Oath of upholding the Constitution that caused him to vote the way he did--not what he "thought" about Rosa Parks.
Ron Paul "thinks" terrorists and their acts are just as deplorable as any other American who isn't a terrorist. He wants to see people like Osama bin Laden who actually did harm America on September 11th brought to justice. Going after specific people who have harmed us is perfectly constitutional. There is even a way to do it by issuing what's called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. This link provided explains that method, how it works and cites the House Bill Ron Paul introduced in October 2001. Believe it or not, he wasn't sitting around blaming Americans for the attacks. He was finding a Constitutional way to hunt down the people actually responsible for the attacks.
But what he "thinks" about terrorists doesn't cause him to support a war against a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The reasoning is simple. According to the Constitution he was sworn to protect, only Congress has the right to declare war. That's why he proposed a formal up or down Congressional vote to go to war with Iraq before we invaded. This would have allowed the representatives of the people (Congress) to decide if Iraq posed a true threat to our national security. If they had determined that they did, a war would have been justified. This declaration also would have provided clear objectives as to what it meant to "win" the war. And it would have provided full funding for our military objective there. When this idea was rejected, the reason given by Henry Hyde on 10/3/2003 was this:
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."
Am I the only one bothered that an elected representative who swore the same Congressional Oath to defend the Constitution as Ron Paul would make a statement like this? At least his candor shows how most members of Congress truly feel about the Constitution. If it is true that parts have become "overtaken by events, by time" there is a way to change it--it is called an Amendment. The Founders realized that parts of the Constitution would become dated which is why they included a process to change it.
If it really does make sense to just let the President decide where and when to use our forces in today's world, then let's get it on the ballots in the states and let the people decide. Until that happens or another Amendment Changes the Oath itself, we the people need to remind our representatives what they swore to do. It wasn't to "Preserve and Defend the partsof the Constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign which I "think" haven't been overtaken by events, by time."
Ron Paul may "think" that sleeping with one of his young coed supporters would be fun. But he gave his word to "forsake all others" over 50 years ago to his wife Carol, and it appears that he has kept it unless they have made an amendment due to events and time which would allow him to take full advantage of his increasing popularity. I have a feeling Carol would veto this Amendment if he proposed it. Since, as the New York Times reported, he doesn't even travel alone with a female companion so that his fidelity is never in question, he probably hasn't even proposed such an amendment for his wife to veto.
In regards to your specific question about what he "thinks" about animal cruelty, my only answer is that I have no idea. Since he seems like a decent man, my guess is that he thinks it is absolutely deplorable. But again, what he "thinks" doesn't keep him from doing what he swore he would. The Constitution doesn't have an animal cruelty provision in it, and the (seemingly forgotten) 10th Amendment grants all power to determine laws not expressly given to the Federal Government by the Constitution to the states. If the residents of the state of Virginia think an animal cruelty law is important, and their state constitution allows the creation of such a law, then that law is perfectly acceptable, constitutional, and enforceable. Animal Rights is simply not an issue the Federal Government has a right to be involved in. No matter how much you and people like you personally "think" it should be, unless you can get an Amendment passed; it isn't.
If you look at his voting record, Ron Paul votes against any federal laws banning cruelty to animals. But this isn't because he hates animals. It is for the same reason he doesn't believe in our Drug War, doesn't believe in our foreign interventionism, wouldn't mandate Muslims and Jews accept Jesus to keep them from burning in hell, and doesn't cheat on his wife--unshakable Integrity to do what he was sworn in to do regardless of what he "thinks" about an issue.
Unfortunately, as George Washington warned in his farewell address, the powers that be have found a way to circumvent the people and the Constitution by passing laws like the ones that currently have Mike Vick sitting in jail (instead of the Virginia Statues he could have been prosecuted under where he could have possibly had a trial by a jury of his peers instead of facing a powerful federal government that necessitated his acceptance of a plea bargain). These laws are then upheld by activist judges who "think" the government should be involved in issues like these and then find some way to stretch the Constitution to prove it. If you don't believe that this is happening, or that freedom is being lost, consider this simple fact that I noted in a previous article: When the Constitution was written there were three federal crimes: Piracy, Counterfeiting, and Treason. Today there are over 5500.
Of course understanding issues like this would require a little reading beyond headlines, propaganda, and "common sense." It also requires rational thought instead of emotional responses based on what we "think" our national government should do. If you walked in and saw someone cutting another person lying on a table with a knife and sticking them with needles, but didn't know the person was a surgeon; you would probably conclude you were witnessing a torturous murder. If you "think" the national government should have Animal Rights laws (and 5500, mainly freedom limiting, other ones), but don't know that they have no right to create such laws, you would probably think that the creation of such legislation was a good thing. Not knowing something or doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ignorant.
As Thomas Jefferson said:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
and
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
You have every right to decide not to support Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate, but please don't do so out of ignorance. One reason this campaign is taking off is due to the internet's making information readily available to combat our ignorance. It is nearly certain that it will soon be regulated in order to limit its power to do so. It is not the job of the President to solve our problems or make us better people. It is the job of the President to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" and in so doing protect our Freedoms. If you actually learn about what Ron Paul says and then look at what he does, you will see that he is BY FAR the most qualified person to fulfill the requirements of the job.
Not protecting every bit of the Constitution is like a wedding vow to "forsake all others unless I am drunk, lonely, mad, or meet someone more attractive." It's easy to see the detrimental effect a vow like this would have on a wedding contract and ultimately the relationship of a husband and wife; why can we not see the detrimental effect the type of fidelity our elected representatives display regarding their Oaths of Office are having on the Contract "We the People" have with our government and ultimately the relationship between us and Washington?
Why can I write an article like this? Because of my First Amendment Right to speak freely. But I have no doubt that my mentioning the words "War on Drugs", "Libertarian", "Iraq" and likely even "Ron Paul" in this article/paper have caused it to be sent to an FBI database for reviewing/searching (hello, Mr. or Ms. Homeland Security Employee, I hope you enjoy this article. I have no problem with you, and I steadfastly support your rights as an individual as well; I'm sure you can find my real name and email fairly easily, and you are welcome to write me if you'd like). This search, however, violates my Fourth Amendment Right to be secure in my papers but is perfectly "legal" under the Patriot Act.
If you really care about Fluffy, Spot, and Rover, you'd better start considering (however unlikely this may seem) that if the federal government is willing to break their contract with "we the people" by enacting unconstitutional laws in order to keep Fluffy, Spot, and Rover "secure" what would keep them from enacting another unconstitutional law to outright prohibit you from owning personal property, i.e. Fluffy?
I'll tell you what would keep them from doing it: Enlightening the Public. Doing this in the school system is tough when they are controlled by the Federal Government's Department of Education. Did it ever occur to you that there may be a benefit to our failed public school system?
Would you be okay with your husband sleeping around? If you'll really think about it, you'll probably discover it isn't the physical act that would bother you since it is nearly undetectable if not personally witnessed. What causes the pain is the betrayal of trust you feel when you find out about it. If he isn't faithful in that regard, why would he be faithful in anything else? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no matter what sweet nothings and promises your government whispers in your ear during election season or when you are alone, as soon as you are out of sight--your federal government is an insatiable whore.
I know this hurts at first. I've been through it myself. There's denial, then anger, and finally acceptance (which is different than resignation). If you haven't noticed, a lot of Ron Paul supporters are still in the anger stage.
The rights that are being taken away from the people may be nothing that affects you personally (I'm not a terrorist, so why should I care about the government reading my emails; I'm not a drug dealer so why do I care about drug laws; etc.). In fact you may even benefit or agree with some of these laws (Federally denying Mike Vick's right to personal property and freedom to protect animals, unconstitutionally sending someone you don't know to die so that you can think that your family is safer from terrorists, taking money from the tips of a single mom with a high school education so that your child can get federal loans and grants to pay for college, etc.). But that doesn't make them right.
When someone's rights are restricted, it always benefits someone else. In fact, the more rights one loses, the more someone else benefits. For example, if the government took all of my income from my real job, they could send 5 kids to college for a year instead of the one they could send now. By enacting a national "Do Not Call List" that very few people opposed, many gained a new right that never existed to "not be bothered" while many others lost their right to free speech and their jobs.
If we won't stand up for the rights of people who are different than we are, or who hold positions we flatly disagree with (like dogfighters, drug dealers, and telemarketers), how can we reasonably and rightly expect someone to stand up for our rights if that time comes?
If you will take an honest look at the situation you will realize that time is already here. All of these laws and policies our government has wrongfully enacted and the costs associated with them are threatening our economy (gas prices which affect the price of everything that's shipped; the housing market; health care costs; the impending collapse of social security), our national sovereignty (spreading our troops and national guardsmen around the world leaving nobody at home to protect our borders or to respond in time of a true national emergency; borrowing money from foreign governments like the Chinese; going to war to enforce a U.N. resolution), and our way of life (not getting to see the health benefits of alternative nutritional products because of lobbying by Pharmaceutical companies; the cost of health care; working more to keep less and fewer parents staying home with the kids; the right to a speedy trial and the true presumption of innocent until proven guilty; and most importantly a government that is truly of the people, by the people and, FOR the people).
We are determined grab the wheel from the people in this country who are still in the driver's seat but have fallen asleep before we wake up and find ourselves paralyzed and unable to do anything due to the imminent collision if we don't change course . Right now we are just slightly over the curb, so it's not too late.
I hope that you understand a little better now why "What Ron Paul thinks" is a completely irrelevant question. The real question is what does he DO? And the answer is: Exactly what he swore he would and in so doing protects our rights and liberties individually which strengthens us collectively. I don't know what Ron Paul thinks, but I do know what he does and why he does it. It's really not that hard to understand as long as you don't use "common sense" because what is "common sense" now would have been enough to start a revolution; oh, wait, it DID.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
Like this Article? Thumb it.
Want to comment? It's fun. You have the same 1st Amendment Right that I do. Use it. I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt if you don't like it.
Want to send it to a friend? Use the button below to send it to yourself first, then forward it on to avoid spam filters.
As always, and unlike the NFL, any rebroadcasts, retransmissions, accounts of this article, or downright theft of words or ideas contained herein, are completely okay with me when used to promote the cause of the Restoration of our Republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2007-12-31 16:48:15
Thanks creator. Tim, let's just forward it on. Google hasn't picked it up for some reason. I will try to repost it tomorrow on the holiday if it doesn't get picked up.
Why can I write an article like this? Because of my First Amendment Right to speak freely. But I have no doubt that my mentioning the words "War on Drugs", "Libertarian", "Iraq" and likely even "Ron Paul" in this article/paper have caused it to be sent to an FBI database for reviewing/searching (hello, Mr. or Ms. Homeland Security Employee, I hope you enjoy this article. I have no problem with you, and I steadfastly support your rights as an individual as well; I'm sure you can find my real name and email fairly easily, and you are welcome to write me if you'd like). This search, however, violates my Fourth Amendment Right to be secure in my papers but is perfectly "legal" under the Patriot Act.<><><><>
I recently started getting flashed.. as in >>getting my picture taken.. regularly in Santa Cruz at stop lights. It is maddening, I want to shoot the dang camera.. at the very least strap a sign to it pointing to it with an arrow and "big brother" in large letters. This is gross!!! Gary
Amended comment to my first post that I did not realize would be posted:
On 41st Ave in Capitola I regularly get flashed. On approach to stopping. The first time it happened I thought it odd but thought it was just them testing their big brother equipment. Upon asking friends to pay attention and their reporting that this had not happened to them I payed closer attention. Since that time I have been flashed by these cameras 6 times. It is maddening as it is my own tax money being used to track me and undermine my constitutional freedom. Anyone with insights about this as it pertains to how and what is used to set these devices off please email to backpackr@mac.com. thanks Gary
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
