Ron Paul Said He Would Not Vote For "In God We Trust", (if he had been there)

[saddlebum]

Ron Paul wasn't present to vote for this resolution and said it wasn't neccessary. Which may be true and that part doesn't bother me too much. Especially since only 9 house reps voted against securing "In God We Trust" as a national motto.
 
What does bother me is his excuse for voting against it if he had voted. In the narrow ideology where Paul lives, he believes that representatives from all 50 states voting on this measure, (frivolous or not), is, "telling the states what to do".
 
“I would have voted ‘no’ not because I don’t like the motto and don’t think we can use it but ‘no’ because we were telling the states what to do,”
 
Give me a break! This is just  another example of how Paul takes his ideology to the extreme point where states can't come together as a nation, even over something like this. Are we the United States? One nation under God? Can we agree on anything as a nation? Or do we huddle up in our own states and treat out of staters as foreigners. The guy appears to be an isolationist even to his neigboring states.
So the House comes together to vote on a small national issue, something the majority already agrees on, and Paul jumps on his states rights soap box and says it's not constitutional?
How would we get anything done with Paul in the oval office?
 
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/ron-paul-i-oppose-in-god-we-trust-bill/
 
 

[BUGEYE]

at one time I was FOR Ron Paul.  but he keeps coming up with these tidbits that turned me against him.

[dukkillr]

He's never going to score well with the theocracy republicans.

[nw_hunter]

He's never going to score well with the theocracy republicans.

Unfortunately your right! Amazing isn't it? His honesty and believing in the Constitution is his biggest road block as a politician. He actually believes in states rights and most don't have a clue that is what he is trying to get across in a statement like this.

[yellowtail3]

I like Ron Paul; he's a smart guy, and a good man.

[powderman]

I like RP too, but every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it. Whats hard to understand IN GOD WE TRUST as as our NATIONAL motto?? I  wish he'd of stayed out of this and let his son Rand run, he could have beat obummer. I will vote for RP in the primaries, but if he loses and runs independent AGAIN it will ensure another 4 years of the obamination. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

I like RP too, but every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it. Whats hard to understand IN GOD WE TRUST as as our NATIONAL motto??

because... the pledge of allegiance was to the flag/country, God had nothing to do with it. Many can pledge allegiance to this country, but are not Christians, or Muslims... or believers of any sort. Why muddle it up with 'in God we trust'? Who is the we? It ain't everybody.

Ron Paul is waaaay smarter than to get caught up in that.

[Casull]

 

He's never going to score well with the theocracy republicans.

       Nor most of the independents, nor most of the moderates, nor the electorate at large.  Sorry guys, but the portion of the country that want's a strict Constitutionalist is a fairly small minority.

[nw_hunter]

He's never going to score well with the theocracy republicans.

       Nor most of the independents, nor most of the moderates, nor the electorate at large.  Sorry guys, but the portion of the country that want's a strict Constitutionalist is a fairly small minority.

Ain't it the truth............Ain't it a shame?

[Casull]

Yes, to both questions.

[jimster]

He's never going to score well with the theocracy republicans.

Unfortunately your right! Amazing isn't it? His honesty and believing in the Constitution is his biggest road block as a politician. He actually believes in states rights and most don't have a clue that is what he is trying to get across in a statement like this.

That pretty much sums it up.  Along comes the real thing and people run like hell on both sides.  Go figure.
 
 

[BUGEYE]

yeah, leave it up to the states to enforce the constitution and the folks on the left coast will have to turn in their guns.  imagine jerry brown enforcing it.
I'm sorry but leaving everything up to the states is a recipe for disaster.
we might as well wipe our butts on the constitution and break up into 50 countries because each state will interpret it differently.

[nw_hunter]

yeah, leave it up to the states to enforce the constitution and the folks on the left coast will have to turn in their guns.  imagine jerry brown enforcing it.
I'm sorry but leaving everything up to the states is a recipe for disaster.
we might as well wipe our butts on the constitution and break up into 50 countries because each state will interpret it differently.

Would you rather have a choice of leaving a state for one more to your liking, or leaving the country to try and find one better?

[BUGEYE]

yeah, leave it up to the states to enforce the constitution and the folks on the left coast will have to turn in their guns.  imagine jerry brown enforcing it.
I'm sorry but leaving everything up to the states is a recipe for disaster.
we might as well wipe our butts on the constitution and break up into 50 countries because each state will interpret it differently.

Would you rather have a choice of leaving a state for one more to your liking, or leaving the country to try and find one better?

all those from california, oregon and washington won't fit into Georgia.
everyone can't move, so you question is a cop-out like RPs.

[Casull]

Bugeye does have a point.  Seriously, how is a "National Motto" a states' rights matter?
 
 
 
 

the pledge of allegiance was to the flag/country, God had nothing to do with it

 
Maybe you think so yellowtail, but the Founders did not.

[powderman]

Bugeye does have a point.  Seriously, how is a "National Motto" a states' rights matter?
 

 
 
CASULL. That was my point.
 
 
 

Maybe you think so yellowtail, but the Founders did not.

 
 
Yes, but our founders loved America and were Godly men. POWDERMAN. 
 
 
 

[briarpatch]

We seem to cheapen that which we love by throwing it under the feet of swine.
Example: I worked as a prison guard and I would bet at least 70% if not higher had a tattoo of Jesus, Bible quote or religious theme. There was nothing they would not do for drugs or money. Not much of a billboard for Jesus or religion.
You have the hood rats, robbing at night, shooting and drugs during the day and when they get near a camera, Thank you Lord.
When I worked construction it never failed, there would be some dude hang out in the outhouses they had built for us. He would write on walls of every stall and on the wall, Jesus saves, Hand out literature on his Church, and preach. One guy asked for his wifes name, he said why? The guy said I'm going to write it on the s--t house walls. He didn't like that.
Sometimes we have to back up and decide if what we are doing is in the best interest of religion or are we helping make a mockery of it.
I would rather not have it than give the clowns something to get points off of. When it has no meaning to them.
If a man wants to seek religion it want be off a motto. The way has already been established and that did not require a vote.

[JustaShooter]

the pledge of allegiance was to the flag/country, God had nothing to do with it

 
Maybe you think so yellowtail, but the Founders did not.

Yellowtail has a point considering that the phrase "under God" was not a part of the Pledge of Allegiance originally.  The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.

Just a Shooter

[Casull]

Justashooter, read the writings of the Founders and let me know if they thought this was a Country "under God" or not.

[crustylicious]

Start with the Constitution.

[Casull]

 

Start with the Constitution.

       The Constitution was the culmination.  Start with their writings and the Declaration of Independance.

[jimster]

Would you rather have a choice of leaving a state for one more to your
liking, or leaving the country to try and find one better?

I like the idea of states rights because it is somewhat of a backup plan if the feds go in the wrong direction.  So I'm thinking places like Montana who just made their own gun laws/rights is a bit ahead of the game, now they can also concentrate on the fed level as well.  Yes there will be very liberal states and cities and you think you need the feds to correct them, but the truth is that don't work so well, the fed level just confirmed there is a right to own handguns, and yet Washington D.C has not yet really complied, they set up a nightmare of regulations I bet there are still people trying to buy handguns all this time, and Chicago (city) says we are still doing what we want we don't care what the high court just said.  The people in the end don't have a choice but to make their states conform to the second amendment and other things no matter how you cut it,  that's the way it is and always have been.  Try to change both fed and state levels...but give the states power first as a backup plan.  Don't count of the feds to pass some law to force liberal states to do anything conservative, it's ain't going to happen. So the above post is correct, better to head to another state than another country because you failed at the fed level. 
I say change it at the fed level too, no argument there, but get your state under control and make sure it has the power to challenge and over ride the feds if you need it. 

all those from California, oregon and washington won't fit into Georgia. everyone can't move, so you question is a cop-out like RPs.

Well all those people don't want anything to do with Georgia, or they would already be there, fact is they like their socialistic ways and that's why they are where they are and have what they have. You could not get most of those people anywhere near a conservative state.  Better off if they don't...they would chip away at your state laws over time. I like borders between the states and state rights. The people have more power to change a state than the fed level. Texas will always be Texas, Washigton D.C. will always be less free, you can't change that even with a ruling from the high court, and that can be reversed any time. 
 

[BUGEYE]

jimster, good post.  a prez with guts would send federal marshalls to DC and chicago and arrest the lawmakers.
but it won't happen cause we're a country of chickens now.
I believe in states rights for many things, but I am willing to fight for the rights of those people in Ill and CA. etc.
everybody wants to hide out in their own conservative state and let our less fortunate friends go down the tubes.  shame on us.

[jimster]

Well I'm with fighting the loss of freedoms as best I can too Bugeye, just have to do the best we can. The problem with some states and cities is the people were willing to give up their rights at some point, kind of hard to get the their rights back for them when it seems the majority of them don't want their rights. How does the mayor of Washington D.C. stay the mayor, how does the legislative branch stay in power and those people not be replaced?  Hard to fight for people who don't seem to be fighting for themselves to hard.  And your right, the prez has no sand, and to make it worse he did not like the ruling of the high court either,  he is from Chicago and agreed with bans on guns there.  He won't be helping any gun owners, but he would be more than happy to disarm them.  I don't know the answer...but right now it's so bad there are even people on this outdoor site that voted for Obama, and there is no helping them either, imagine an entire state filled with people who think like that. 

[BUGEYE]

Well I'm with fighting the loss of freedoms as best I can too Bugeye, just have to do the best we can. The problem with some states and cities is the people were willing to give up their rights at some point, kind of hard to get the their rights back for them when it seems the majority of them don't want their rights. How does the mayor of Washington D.C. stay the mayor, how does the legislative branch stay in power and those people not be replaced?  Hard to fight for people who don't seem to be fighting for themselves to hard.  And your right, the prez has no sand, and to make it worse he did not like the ruling of the high court either,  he is from Chicago and agreed with bans on guns there.  He won't be helping any gun owners, but he would be more than happy to disarm them.  I don't know the answer...but right now it's so bad there are even people on this outdoor site that voted for Obama, and there is no helping them either, imagine an entire state filled with people who think like that.

It could be made right.  the 2nd amendment was penned for a specific reason.  but everyone makes excuses.  if obama wins again, what will people talk about on guns and hunting forums ?
there won't be either one in this country.

[ironglow]

  Difficult understanding why RP would say such a thing ! .A smart person running for office doesn't offer things to criticize him by.  Saying such a thing is not going to gain him any votes..the anti-God crowd will be voting for Obama.
 
     To an aware office seeker, some things are simply best left unsaid..

[powderman]

Saying such a thing is not going to gain him any votes..the anti-God crowd will be voting for Obama.

 
IG. They are the ones who elected him. POWDERMAN. 

[Casull]

Okay....show us what you're talking about...What did the Founders say or think about 'under God' specifically?.....thanx/quote]
 
 
John Adams
 
 "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."     Ben Franklin   "I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" 
 
Alexander Hamilton
  "In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."
 
 
Ben Franklin
 
"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

[BUGEYE]

IG, very good.

[nw_hunter]

Okay....show us what you're talking about...What did the Founders say or think about 'under God' specifically?.....thanx/quote]
 
 
John Adams
 
 "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."     Ben Franklin   "I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" 
 
Alexander Hamilton
  "In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."
 
 
Ben Franklin
 
"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

I prefer Jefferson's Philosophy over Hamilton's. I believe RP is probably of the same mind set.
Jefferson wouldn't stand a chance running for the Presidency today.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Is Ron Paul a good politician? Not by today's standards! He's too honest! He's a lot like Jefferson.