Thread: No Bimbo Eruptions in Ron Paul’s Career

No Bimbo Eruptions in Ron Paul’s Career


I served on Ron Paul’s staff in 1976. There were no “bimbo eruptions.â€

Well. .LOL . that's nice to know, but I can hardly imagine Ron Paul to be a casanova!!! LOL Now I could imagine Mitt Romney to be a playboy, but I guess he is just a good Mormon husband and father. (Btw, I am not Mormon.)

IF THE UNTHINKABLE SHOULD HAPPEN HOW WILL YOU RESPOND?

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-256425.html

Nothing worrisome about Ron Paul having a shameful past with women. But he does have a shameful past. He did watch the murder of a live, crying, baby born of a c-section and did not report it. He watched them throw the baby in a bucket so he/she would die. Ron Paul did nothing to help the baby. He just left the room.

And some of Ron Paul's anti-abortion supporters stopped supporting him when they found out that although he claims to be pro-life and firmly believes that life begins at conception, he supports the 'morning after pill,' which kills a fertilized egg after conception.

And then there are those who respect God's judgment against homosexuality who found out that Ron Paul does not personally consider homosexuality a sin. They also discovered that Ron Paul disrespects God and his judgment on the issue of homosexuality. Ron Paul lost supporters such as Devvy (and me) over his liberal stand on homosexuality.
http://www.rense.com/general94/taking_dev.htm
"Taking Heat Over Ron Paul"
By Devvy
9-29-11

Ron Paul is a fake/fraud Republican. He is really a socially liberal Libertarian, and he is no better than the other candidates, and is worse than some when it comes to being a social conservative.

If the candidates don't stand for personal morality, how in the world are they going to do what is right in the White House? They won't!

I am not proud of any of the candidates. Obama's people must be rolling on the floor laughing at what is going on in the Republican party.

Well these other choices are just peachy...video at link below before the Ron Paul Bio

Ron Paul Supporter Makes The Attack-Ad The Ron Paul Campaign Won't
Michael Brendan Dougherty | Nov. 29, 2011, 2:58 PM | 4,633 | 34



A Ron Paul supporter on YouTube has made a devastating attack-ad aimed at Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Paul doesn't normally attack his opponents, instead he counts on his ideas and record speaking for themselves.

Paul ventured one attack in a debate this summer. When asked what he thought of Rick Perry's record on taxes, Paul said, "I’m a taxpayer there [in Texas]. My taxes have gone up… I would put a little damper on this, but I don’t want to offend the governor... he might raise my taxes or something!â€

A Johnny Cash Parody: "I'd End the FED."
Gary North
Printer-Friendly Format

Nov. 30, 2011

I like YouTube. It lets creative people find an audience.

Bernanke won't like this video. But I do.



http://www.garynorth.com/public/8797.cfm

Speaking about the candidates and their past actions concerning morality.

Taking Heat Over Ron Paul
By Devvy
9-29-11

As expected, Ron Paul supporters have been excoriating me via email and all over the Internet because I brought up his vote to allow sexual deviants to openly serve in our military in this column. Nothing new. This Ron Paul supporter says I'm "sort of an embarrassment" because of my firm belief that what God says is His word and I will not "set aside" God for any candidate. He was referring to this column I wrote in June 2008.

Every email basically said the same thing: Ron Paul is too important to this country because he's going after the Federal Reserve, as if Ron Paul invented the idea. One indignant female said in her email if it wasn't for Ron Paul, I wouldn't even know about the Federal Reserve and how bad it is for this country. Really?

When I ran for Congress in '94 & '96, that was the key item on my platform: abolishing the Fed, the income tax, getting us out of the communist UN and abolishing unconstitutional cabinets. The first time I ran I changed to the American Independent Party (very conservative) because I knew I couldn't beat Herger the first time as a Republican in the primary even though I had voted Republican since I was 18 years old. I ended up with the highest vote total for any independent in the state for the '94 general election because so many Republicans changed their voter registration to vote for me, but old Waffle Wally "won".
[...]
I can't count the number of emails I've received literally screeching we must vote for Ron Paul because he will abolish the Federal Reserve, get rid of the income tax, get us out of the UN and so forth. The only problem being a president in this country has no constitutional authority to do any of those things; Art. II, Sec. II. Not by Executive order or otherwise. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was an act passed by the U.S. Congress and only they can abolish it via legislation. While the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified by enough states, the income tax is enforced using a law that doesn't exist; it also has to be abolished by Congress as well as ending the U.S.'s participation in the UN. If Ron Paul were to be elected, he can encourage his party to pursue those goals or even veto spending bills, but since the "FED" is privately owned and receives no funding from Congress that's a non option.

Besides, what's happening in this country economically is going to send tens of millions of Americans into shock in the near future. Whoever gets elected won't be sworn in until January 2013. What should have been done decades ago will now visit more hell and misery on this country because the "Fed" wasn't abolished. That's why it's so critical states of the Union pass sound money bills, which they haven't except for a watered down version in Utah.

Congressman Paul said this to justify voting to repeal DADT:
"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Ron Paul is a pro-life doctor and I have supported him in the past because he is for life, not murdering unborn babies. However, he knows how dangerous fecal sex is and all the diseases associated with sodomy - not to mention the spread of AIDS:

CDC: Homosexual men account for 61% of new HIV infections but only 2% of population

If you read my column, Wait gunny - I have to change my diaper, which many had a problem reading because of the revolting facts regarding "gay sex", it is simply inconsistent for Ron Paul to support such dangerous behavior. For him to continue to repeat sexual deviants are "born that way" is to completely ignore science and proof there is no such thing as a "gay gene".

Second, I have a problem with his logic that repealing DADT will save we the taxpayers money by allowing sexual deviants to remain in the military. For all the reasons I put forth in my gunny and the diaper column, that's a sorry excuse if I ever heard one. If you owned a business, would you hire employees you know in advance are going to cause a problem with the rest of the workforce, cause a huge drain on financial resources (in this case health care) and lower morale? As I have written so many times: Our military is all volunteer. When individuals enlist, they know the rules up front. Prior to DADT, sexual deviants were not allowed in the military. After Billy Clinton's DADT, sodomites enlisted and then screamed they were being discriminated against for being discharged because of their sexual preferences they knew were taboo. Well, for now, the morally bankrupt have won one battle.

Here is where many libertarians have a problem with me: It's about what God made very clear in the Holy Bible (KJV): sodomy is an abomination. The vile things lesbians do to each other is also a sin. Ron Paul has a different opinion, which he's entitled to:
Being 'gay' a sin? Ron Paul can't say

"Only months after announcing his candidacy for president, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, declared that he could not judge homosexuality as a sin and affirmed his support for the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy - a rule the Obama administration has indicated it plans to repeal altogether. In an interview on "The American View" on Aug. 25, 2007, host John Lofton asked Paul, "Do you believe [homosexuality] is a sin?"

"I'm not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background, so I don't see it in that simplistic terms," Paul said. "I think it's a complex issue to decide whether it is sin or other problems with the way people are born. It's, to me, too complex to give an answer as simple as that."

While I don't try to shove my religion in anyone's face, I am a very devout Christian. My relationship with God and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is a part of who I am. A belief system scoffed at by many Ron Paul supporters, but I will not put my soul in jeopardy just because people think Ron Paul can somehow magically get rid of the Federal Reserve. It's the same as the myth that Ronald Reagan's carefully scripted photo op challenging Gorbechev to "tear down this wall" bringing about the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union.

I know of one Christian pastor who vigorously endorses Ron Paul in his columns as the only candidate who can save America. That certainly is his choice, but for me, God's word trumps political candidates. Our destiny lies in His hands because the battle we fight is good vs evil and God will only bestow His blessings upon a moral nation.

Like Ron Paul, I want our troops brought home now, today, from the grotesque, constitutional invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Get all out troops out of Pakistan and this latest insanity in Libya. And, while the repeal of DADT would have passed without Ron Paul's vote, to me it was a slap in God's face and giving his support not only to sin, but to endorse the further spreading of diseases because of the type of dangerous sex preferred by sodomites. To do this to our military is unconscionable - especially during those never ending, undeclared "wars" in the Middle East.

When Bill Clinton shoved DADT down America's throat, Republicans were up in arms! They were outraged! It was a huge controversy and the political pounding against a Democrat was relentless.

Ron Paul, a Republican, votes to further cause massive problems in our military by repealing DADT, but gets a free pass from a lot of Republicans, many who identify themselves as Christians.

Now, whose the hypocrite?

One woman in her email even blamed me for the bill: "Why are you laying the blame for this legislation at the feet of Ron Paul? He didn't even sponsor the bill!! The SENATE passed it."

No where in my gunny/ diaper column did I "blame Ron Paul for the bill" and what does the senate passing a bill have to do with it? Ron Paul serves in the house, not the senate. His votes are a matter of public record. She gets my favorite bumper sticker: It's time to pull over and change the air in your head.

I share the same opinion of millions, including Ron Paul, that the "war on drugs" is an insane waste of time and money and is putting "lesser offenders" in prisons where they don't belong. I have and still support his bills to decriminalize industrial hemp. I'm not going to go into it right now in great depth, but it wasn't until rogue elements inside government agencies began running drugs into this country that the problem mushroomed. Many may not remember back in the late '90s when socialist congresswoman, Maxine Waters, began to dig into the CIA's drug running, but if one takes the time to read credible books and articles, you will come to the same conclusion: a gutless Congress has turned a blind eye to it and laundering drug money through the big banks on Wall Street.

Ron Paul wants all drugs legalized (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc). The argument is about money and violence. Again, Ron Paul, is a medical doctor. He knows how highly addictive those three drugs are and if he doesn't know the statistics regarding violence and meth use (especially domestic violence), he needs to get caught up. Addiction to those drugs isn't going to make people stop using them just because they become cheap by making them legal. Addicts will just be able to buy more. Here in the small town where I live, 82 children are in foster care because their parents are druggies. Do people really believe making meth, heroin or cocaine legal and cheap is going to get those addicted off the path of killing themselves in slow motion?

Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty has been powerful, but, and again this always gets me in trouble: hard core libertarians confuse licentiousness with liberty. (licentiousness: sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd; unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral; going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.) Anyone who claims porn, addiction to drugs like meth, cocaine, heroin and abortion and sodomy are harmless as long as the person "doing it" doesn't hurt someone else is either naive or is ignoring what the aforementioned has done to our country over the past few decades.

And, speaking of socialists: "Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he wins the presidency in 2012." I listed 72 members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in my Blind Loyalty booklet in back 1996. Both Mad Max Waters and Kucinich are members. No individual who is a socialist should ever be allowed to serve in the U.S. Congress because their political agenda is destroy this republic and they cannot uphold their oath of office. Not to mention, Kucinich has a dangerous bill in the Housewhich clearly shows either his ignorance on the subject or his desire to see the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve Banking System remain intact - just the opposite of the bill to abolish it introduced by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, "champion of the Constitution", would consider putting a socialist in his cabinet just because Kucinich is anti-war?

Continued here http://www.rense.com/general94/taking_dev.htm

Ron Paul supports 'the morning after pill. It destroys a fertilized human egg after conception. It is immoral of Ron Paul to support taking the life of the unborn.

The "Morning After" Pill: Another Republican Sponsored Disaster!

by Chuck Baldwin
January 20, 2004

With the anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand just two days away, it is important for the American people to realize that Republicans, even more than Democrats, are responsible for the killing of innocents in the womb. Furthermore, President Bush's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to put the "morning after" pill on grocery store shelves next to aspirin. Such a move would result in the deaths of even more unborn babies.

While conservatives like to condemn Democrats for their pro- abortion position (justifiably so), they seldom hold Republicans to the same standard. It seems that most conservatives only object if Democrats kill babies. Republicans, however, are able to kill babies with impunity.

For example, the court that decided the Roe case back in 1973 was dominated by Republican appointees by 6-3. Yes, Martha, it was a Republican court that legalized abortion on demand which has resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million unborn babies. And, there is no end in sight.

Furthermore, Republican courts have repeatedly upheld Roe v Wade and have worked to permanently ensconce abortion on demand as a constitutionally protected "right" in this country. Beyond that, a Republican Congress has done absolutely nothing to overturn Roe, even though Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives it the authority to except and/or regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In other words, Congress has the power to overturn Roe v Wade and put an end to legal abortion in this country any time it wants to. That professing pro-life Republicans have dominated Congress (to one degree or another) for some two decades now, but have done positively nothing to end abortion on demand means that the pro-life rhetoric of the Republican Party is only that: rhetoric. But the story only gets worse.

The FDA is currently proposing to make the "morning after" pill available without a prescription. Sometimes called "Plan B," this pregnancy-terminating pill would be placed on drug and grocery store shelves somewhere near aspirin and cold medication, making it accessible to everyone, including teenagers.

The "morning after" pill is called "Preven," and according to the manufacturer, has the potential to produce serious side effects including blood clotting, chest pain, coughing of blood, shortness of breath, high blood pressure, vomiting, dizziness, disturbance of vision or speech, etc. Can you imagine any other medication with such risks being approved for over-the-counter sales?

However, the worst part of Preven is that it terminates an early pregnancy. By preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the fallopian tube, Preven aborts a newly conceived baby.

If the Bush administration allows Preven to be purchased without a prescription, can you imagine the numbers of babies that will be aborted? The numbers would be incalculable!

Furthermore, just as the federal government's promotion of "Plan A" (condoms) has resulted in a substantial rise in promiscuity and venereal disease so will its promotion of "Plan B" (the "morning after" pill.) Without understanding its intrinsic risks and even how it actually works, women (and girls) will attempt to use the "morning after" pill as simple contraception. The results will be devastating.

Many women who are medically at risk for taking the drug will experience numerous serious side effects. Many will become murderers by deliberately inducing the deaths of their own babies. Others will take the pill too late and will then opt to get a late term abortion. All in all, the "morning after" pill seems destined to be the latest Republican sponsored disaster!

© Chuck Baldwin http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2004/cb..._20040120.html
__________________

Obama is also scandal-free. He seems to be a good family man. His conduct here is exemplary. There is no necessary connection between liberalism and adultery. The same was true of Truman and Carter.

NOT TRUE! What about Larry Sinclair!? What about Rezko and Ayers?

The "Morning After" Pill: Another Republican Sponsored Disaster!

I never could understand why Republicans object to liberals aborting their children!! If this were not so, we would be even far more outnumbered than we are now.