Thread: Ron Paul: A 2012 Revolution Vs Neocon Candidates - Vid

LIBYA: 7 Wars Lined up under the NEOCons

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw

LIBYA: THE HIDDEN TRUTH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNeZ75Sd ... re=related


and so EVERYBODY KNOWS a NEOCon is more connected to GLOBALISM; NOT THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

Statement of Faith

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.â€

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Originally Posted by GoodOleDays

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Do you consider yourself a Christian ... I do

what I see you doing is distorting facts and thats not what a Christian should do

Now if your on the absolute extream end of Christianity I think you will find that a WHOLE lot of People have a problem with going off of the deep end in beliefs

Ron Paul Knows this person who maybe a nut

Ron Paul sides with Code pink ... nobody sides with code pink but code pink

Ron Paul is for open gays in the military... What?

again .. where is your post attacking DEMOCRATS for Gays Openly Serving in the Military so I can see how hard you attacked them

I keep showing you what Ron Paul said, and how Ron Paul voted, and you keep turning it all around as if he did not actually do what he did. But he did vote to open up the military to homosexuals, and he did say we can not and should not deport illegal aliens. That is why he said to give them a card that would allow them to stay her legally forever. That is AMNESTY!

He said what he said and he did what he did. If you can't face it, I can't help it.

once again you are distorting fact

Ron Paul was for SELF Deportation; STOP Giving them the reason to stay; such as welfare. HUD Housing, the ability to get jobs.. if that is stopped they would have no choice but to self deport

as far as Repealing dont ask dont tell Ron Paul voted the way the constitution allowed him to vote; not as a cristian; not as a liberal; not as a Republican

why is there a problem with following the constitution; thats baffling the heck out of me

Everyone is for self deportation. But Ron Paul is also for amnesty if they don't self deport! That is one of the reasons numbersUSA gave him a 'F' on illegal immigration! It is in his own words!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=243 ... z1W63qcGhd

Ron Paul's anti-Constitution vote

Posted: December 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

So Obama has signed the legislation his henchmen pushed through the lame-duck session of Congress, intended to force personnel serving in the United States military to accept homosexual activity as lawful and legitimate conduct. Would this legislation have passed without the support of Republican congressmen like Ron Paul and senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts? Of course, Paul is the guru of some who claim to be staunch advocates of liberty; and without the votes and financial support of grass-roots conservatives throughout the country, Brown would never have won election. He obtained that support because the specious "money not morals" criteria allowed Republican media hacks (at Fox News and elsewhere) to identify him as a "conservative" who would oppose the Obama faction's socialist agenda.

Now, the prime source of visceral conservative opposition to socialism is its proven propensity to expand the sphere of government coercion and control. But no form of coercion is more deeply offensive to human dignity and self-respect than the coercion of conscience. When the force of law is abused to compel people to perform or tolerate actions they conscientiously believe to be intrinsically immoral, this usually announces the penultimate stage of tyrannical oppression.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was intended to circumvent state sovereignty to force all Americans to cooperate in the enforcement of slavery. The angry moral revulsion of anti-slavery citizens in the free states led to actions that matured into the kind of open, organized resistance that announced the onset of the American Civil War. Forced to choose between obeying God's law and submitting to human legislation that violated it, many chose to follow the dictates of natural conscience. In this they acted in the spirit of the American founders, who defied the dictates of the British monarch rather than accept impositions levied without regard for the requirements of God-ordained natural justice.

Proponents of the move to force military personnel to accept homosexuality seek to forestall the moral reaction against it with the argument that they are defending the rights of homosexuals just as Union forces defended the unalienable rights of people enslaved in the Southern States; or the U.S. government the civil rights of black Americans subjected to racial segregation and discrimination. According to America's founding principles, the security of their rights is the overall purpose for which people establish institutions of government. Therefore, they argue, coercion that serves this purpose does not destroy liberty. It preserves it.

But by invoking the doctrine of unalienable rights, the proponents of coerced tolerance for homosexuality are assuming that homosexual conduct fits the paradigm for right action that alone makes sense of the notion that justice requires respect for unalienable rights. In everyday parlance these days, we use the term "right" as though it is synonymous with the freedom to act as we choose. But if the choice is wrong, it makes no sense to assert that the chooser has the right to act on it (i.e., has right on his side as he does so.) What someone can do (has the physical capacity or opportunity to do) logically differs from what they ought to do. This is in fact the rationale for all criminal laws. It's what allows us to recognize that simply because an armed assailant has the opportunity and power to take someone's life or goods that does not grant the right to do so. It doesn't make it right.

Every time we assert a right, we are making a statement about what is right. Implicit, therefore, in the enforced legitimization of so-called sexual relations between people of the same sex is the institution of marriage between homosexuals a matter of right. This is, in fact, the reason the homosexual lobby pushed so hard for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The tacit, de facto tolerance of homosexual conduct was not enough. It had to be recognized as a matter of enforceable right. Only as such did it constitute the basis for the next logical step, which is to demand equal protection of that right under the law. Enforced acceptance of homosexual conduct must lead, as a matter of logical necessity to enforced provision for homosexual marriage. Since military chaplains are permitted by law to marry heterosexual couples, homosexual couples will demand the same privilege. The campaign to legitimize homosexual conduct in the military is thus a strategic maneuver intended to place the U.S. government in a position under federal law that directly opposes and supersedes strong opposition to homosexual marriage among the various states. The military services thus become national agencies for fundamental social change, metastasizing homosexual marriage throughout the body politic.

When Republicans like Scott Brown voted to support the movement to coerce our military personnel to accept homosexuality, did they consciously cooperate in this strategy, or was it the result of thoughtless incompetence? If done with due deliberation, such a vote gives the lie to the specious advocacy of states' rights those like Ron Paul use to cloak their refusal to defend the authority and rights of the natural family. It reveals them as fellow travelers in the movement intended to redefine the doctrine of rights in a way that promotes the pernicious notion that they are invented by government rather than authorized by the Creator God. Their action is not some minor disagreement with right-wing religious zealots. It is a decisive break with the understanding of right that is the basis for the U.S. Constitution, and the idea of limited government it implements. Is that conservative? Is it American? Is it even remotely consistent with the self-evident truths America's claim to freedom was justly founded upon?

What part of this is confusing you

From Ron Pauls Web Site

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

Immigration



A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

A nation without borders is no nation at all.

It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutionsâ€

[quote="AirborneSapper7"]Statement of Faith

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.â€

Sure, Ron Paul claims to be a Christian, but when it comes to Almighty God's judgment against homosexuality (something that destroys God's most precious creation the man and woman only bond), Paul says he has a problem with that. So I don't know what kind of a Christian thinks homosexuality is not a sin.

so your version of Christianity allows you to Judge Others

WOW .. is this New NEW Testiment Stuff

The Gospel according to St. Matthew

Judge not, that ye be not judged.


Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Ask, Seek, Knock
Lk. 11.9-13
7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: Lk. 6.31 for this is the law and the prophets.


The Narrow Gate
Lk. 13.24
13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit
Lk. 6.43, 44
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mt. 12.33


I Never Knew You
Lk. 13.25-27
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Ps. 6.8


The Two Foundations
Lk. 6.46-49
24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 ¶ And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Mk. 1.22 · Lk. 4.32

Published by The American Bible Society

http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!

and

Let Him Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

This is the verse so many use to try to shame Christians for discerning poor behavior, ethics, morals, and values: the "judge not lest ye be judged" verse. So many times people, mostly teens have emailed us saying "judge not lest you be judged" regarding our analysis reports which reveal to their parents the content of movies. Using only Matt 7:1 is entirely incomplete. This verse is not speaking to not judging at all -- it is speaking to not judging unfairly or any other cheap and selfish way. Read the rest of the story ...

Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, our judgment will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense thinking of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother's eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin]." At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

* Jesus' use of "hypocrite" in this verse is "hupokrites" {hoop-ok-ree-tace'} meaning an actor, stage player, a dissembler, pretender.

And, as a FEW examples of His desire for us to judge,


1Cor. 6:2-3 Do you not know that the saints [the saved; Christians] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Prov. 3:21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jer. 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10 so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

Phil. 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you [judge you]...

Matt 7:1 seems to support the allusion that we are not to judge at all if we use small-vision tactics by focusing on only that small piece of the total of what Jesus was saying.

Look at John 7:24. There, Jesus tells us to judge, but to do so righteously. Righteously means to use the Truth of the Word to discern sins and not by appearances only. In 1Cor. 6:2-3 Jesus authorizes us to judge. Judge we must else we could not discern good from bad, proper from improper, righteousness from evil. But judge behavior, not the individual; the deed not the doer; the choice not the chooser. The individual/doer/chooser is accountable for his/her deed/choice, but judge the deed/choice in your judgment. Jesus could see a king in a shepherd boy. And an Apostle in a murderer. So while we must judge one's behavior we must we try to nurture the goodness in an individual: to separate the deed from the doer.

And to continue, Matt 7:6 says. "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs (the KJV says "swine"). If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." How are we going to know as undesirable the behaviors of "dogs" and "swine" if we do not judge?

Yes, we do have the right and the authority to judge the behavior of others as long as we honor and obey His Word in doing so. That Jesus is the only one who can judge is speaking to judging whether someone is or is not saved. Neither you nor I nor anyone else who ever draws a breath (except Jesus) has the authority to say whether another has or has not been saved. Only Jesus can make that judgment since only He can give Salvation. Nor may we who discern poor behavior based on His Word think of ourselves as "better than" the one whose behavior we judge as poor.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain.

Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."

The point of this as applicable to this article? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute.

Some have told us we should be more tolerant. "Tolerance" has become quite probably the most abused and misused word in the English language. We will not situationally redefine or conditionally apply His Word to suit political correctness, cultural tolerances, modern ethics and false religions or even to avoid invading the comfort zone of Christians. Jesus spent three days in Hell so you and I would not have to spend one moment there! For too long, well-meaning clergy have pabulum fed the people with watered down Scriptures to avoid invading the comfort zone. We will not do that. We love you too much to feed you lies or less-than-truths. It is people who do who pull people away from the CHRIST of Christianity. Practicing the Christian faith and what is expected of it is being very intolerant ... of sin ... even our own by His Word, not yours or mine, by embracing the sinner but not embracing the sin; by helping the sinner, even ourselves, out of bondage to the sin by loving him/her enough to tell the Truth. On Judgment Day, Jesus will send the unforgiven sinner into the fiery pits of Hell in a heartbeat. Now that is intolerance. Of sin. And Righteously so. He further will not excuse any single sin. In the example of the adulteress/prostitute, Jesus forgave her sin but did not excuse it. Worth repeating, Jesus did not argue the judgment, the act of judging nor did He argue the law. He argued our right to execute the woman. Adultery/prostitution is just as sinful now, after Jesus forgave the woman of it, as it was before He forgave her. He will forgive us all our sins -- past, present, future -- if we are humble enough to ask believing. But He will not excuse any sin. All behavior that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after. More intolerance. And righteously so.

The Bible provides quite enough knowledge and understanding to make each of us a righteous judge of behavior, even and especially our own if we r-e-a-d it and not just look at the words and use the total of what He says, not just the pieces that seem to fit an agenda: that seem to fill our own bellies; that seem to excuse sin in "sinema."

Tom Carder
President
CAP Ministry

http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm

and I gotta tell ya

Ron Paul has a PERFECT RECORD in defending the Constitution

Not voting to what Liberals think

Not Voting for what NEOCONS or PROGRESSIVES Think

A PERFECT RECORD in defending the Constitution