An Open Letter to Ron Paul

by Adam Hammer on August 17, 2011

Well I THOUGHT I was a Libertarian.

Dr. Paul –

I caught you on the Republican Debate leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll. Good stuff my man. You were brazen, sharp, trailblazing, and fresh, to say the least. They all said “We need to cut spending” and you told them exactly where: the military. That’s a bold move man! One that might be mistaken as “unpatriotic” but you don’t hold back. They all say they support the troops but have no problem leaving them exposed in a foreign country thanks to an illegal war we started.

I say calling out overspending in the military is extremely patriotic.

I took a look at your website and I dig your free market ideas. While democrats are looking for more government control in the private sector, you’re running for the highest federal office saying everything short of “NO GOVERNMENT.”

Have you been reading my journal?

I like your plans to eradicate the Patriot Act, the IRS, the Death Tax, the FED, and oil drilling restrictions. I feel like I’ve been saying the same things for too long. Finally! A level headed politician that speaks his ideals and doesn’t just pander to the population. And while the Romneys, Bachmanns and Gingriches are younger than you, they all feel old hat. Just spouting out buzz words of patriotism and “a better tomorrow” with no plan of action.

In fact, while they’re all talking about a better tomorrow, you want to “restore America NOW.” Why wait? I agree.

You were a doctor. A DOCTOR. Not only in the military, but in private practice! You have real experience running a successful business AND practicing medicine. Which of your opponents can boast that kind of resume? Hell, which PRESIDENT can boast that type of resume? Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, MAYBE. But no one recently that I can think of. I blame public school.

It seems like you’re an “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself” type of guy. The kind of guy that wants the citizens to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to make their own place in the world. Not rest under the government boot of entitlement. The boot that gives them enough air to breath so they can vote for more handouts, but not enough room to rise so they can help themselves.

I like that you’re from Texas and hate boots. You’re the true maverick, sir. I mean, even though you want to get rid of the EPA, you still have a pretty pro-environment stance. That’s unheard of! A man that thinks for himself? A man that knows the free market and legal system can take care of pollution better than any bureaucrat trying to keep their job?

You’re an educated, pragmatic, fiscally sound and honest. So honest, that when the government interfered with your proposal, you voted against your own amendment! You’re a man with real private sector success as well as 2 decades worth of congressional experience and have always railed against the government stripping away our liberties. Patriot Act, anyone?

You are everything I am looking for in a Politician.

I just wish I could vote for you.

Unfortunately you don’t stand for “liberty” the way you say you do. I happened upon the Abortion section on your site. It was pretty easy, because it was the first “issue” on your “issues” tab.

I half expected to read a Ron Paul-style, heartfelt, diatribe about how this isn’t a real issue. It’s a “pork” issue. Thrown in amongst the other issues so that voters can say “Well, he might want to kill a few muslims, but at least he don’t wanna kill no Christian babies.” Like they do about the other Republicans. But since you ARE Republican I thought a more reasonable Ron Paul approach would be something like “I’m pro-life. Personally. But as a champion of liberty, and a man without a uterus, I feel this is a talking point best shelved until we figure out how to keep the people that are alive, working hard, and contributing in their homes and in their jobs so they can better their lives and their country.”

Or something like that.

But no. You want to repeal Roe v. Wade. ROE v. WADE???

That supreme court decision that granted women the LIBERTY to keep their own medical decisions between the woman and her doctor? That court decision that upheld the constitution’s right to medical privacy from the GOVERNMENT? Are you implying the government knows best how to restrict a medical decision between a woman and her doctor? That sounds like Obamacare to me!

In fact, you want to pass The Sanctity of Life Act-defining life at the moment of conception. As an experienced physician, I figured you’d know that no baby has survived longer than a couple of minutes – even hooked up to machines – if they were born short of 21 weeks, 5 days.

Sounds to me like “life” begins at about 22 weeks. And that’s not the standard, it’s the record.

Now, I know you don’t plan on outlawing abortion. You say you want to leave it in the states’ control. Your website says

“…America might not be ready to confront the grisly realities of abortion—but Alabama might.”

Right. Leave it up to the states. Let the states vote on all the laws that grant people liberty. Abortion, gay rights, and while we’re at it, let’s throw segregation back on the ballot.

America might not be ready to reinforce segregation-but Alabama might.

Your solution to the abortion issue is to steer women in the direction of adoption. So as a smaller government-free market-Libertarian, your suggestion for these unwanted babies is to hand them over to the state – funded by tax dollars. So that one day hopefully they’ll be placed in foster homes where their costs are covered by the state – more tax dollars. And their upbringing is monitored by a social worker – paid with tax money. With the hopes that one day they are adopted – where the adopting parents get a $12,000 or so tax CREDIT for adopting the kid. That’s a lot of money flying out of the kitty when $500 of PRIVATE MONEY could’ve taken care of this drain on the system you call a “life.”

And what if they’re not adopted? What if they spend their whole lives bouncing around foster homes, being raised by strangers reimbursed by the state? Or pushed out to group homes – also funded by taxes? A pretty high percentage of them end up in prison – that’s MORE tax dollars being thrown at this kid! How much tax money do you think this fetus deserves?? Are you some kind of LIBERAL??

And you want to strip all federal funding from programs like Planned Parenthood. The most fiscally responsible healthcare program in America. A place where women can take control of their lives so they have the freedom to move on and start businesses and provide jobs and contribute, because they had a place they could trust to help take care of their mistakes. You’re getting in the way of job growth. Typical “big government” move.

A place, by the way, that CHARGES FOR ABORTIONS. It’s not tax money. How is that not fiscally sound?

And who’s to say the state governments knows any better than the federal government? Roe v. Wade doesn’t mandate that doctors give abortions. It gives women the freedom to choose. I can’t go to my dermatologist with my pregnant wife and demand that he suck the baby out. Why not let the market sort it out? Remember the free market, or has Washington polluted your mind? It would be pretty hard for an abortion doctor to stay in business if there wasn’t a high enough demand.

Maybe if we dropped this Puritanical, sex is dirty, facade in this country and actually taught kids the realities of sex, we could even limit the supply of unwanted pregnancies. Imagine that! Telling teenagers the same age as Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus the TRUTH about sex?? If you really want to kill the weed, aim for the root. But that’s just a suggestion. And I know you’re a big homeschool proponent.

So as much as I wanted to vote for you, I can’t. Pro-life I can live with. Stripping away personal liberties, I can’t.

The sad part of all of this is the reason I went on your site, is that I was gonna find out how to donate to your campaign.


– Adam Hammer

If anyone knows how to get this to Ron Paul, feel free to forward along. If you like the things I write, use those share buttons down there and make sure to follow/add me on Twitter and Facebook. Thanks for reading.

Leave a Comment

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Robert Leahy August 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm

Is abortion really such a big issue for you that you’ll not vote for someone who has ideas that are radically different from every other candidate’s, and very close to your own, just because of it?

Plus: The maybe-they-won’t-be-adopted defense is pretty weak.


jim August 17, 2011 at 6:50 pm

What about the rights of the baby…I’m a libertarian and a hardcore Ron Paul supporter and I see where he’s coming from on this issue. Unfortunately the reason this is such an issue is the question…”when does life begin” it is my and Ron Paul’s belief that this happens at conception…even if it didn’t, it’s the potential for life that’s extinguished. Of course Ron Paul has a stron pro life stance, he was qn OBGYN that delivered over 4000 babies!!! He’s witnessed abortions where they’re throw the aborted baby in a bucket in the corner of the room and every dr in the room pretends not to hear it crying while they waited for it to die! This traumatized him so of course he’s against abortion.

But let’s be honest, with the way this country is going down the toilet, is abortion really you number one issue? If it is you have your priorities mixed up! No man can be 100% in line with your beliefs but Ron seems like he’s 90-95% in line with yours, and you’re going to throw that out over ONE ISSUE???


adamhammer August 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm

First of all, on his own website he said he’s witnessed ONE abortion.

Second of all, I didn’t make abortion the number one issue. His website did. Click the issues tab and notice it’s first even though it’s not in alphabetical order. If that was the case, I was willing to overlook it.

3rd of all, as I mentioned, no baby has survived even with the most advanced medical equipment for more than a few minutes that was delivered sooner than 21 weeks, 5 days.

4th of all, pushing moral/religious beliefs on a populous is just as bad, if not worse, than stripping away liberties. Our beliefs may differ. Don’t force yours on mine by taking advantage of the democratic process.

5th of all, like I said, if there was no supply, there would be no demand for abortions.


Zach August 19, 2011 at 10:21 am

Just some food for thought about your 4th point here-
Our whole system of government is based on some form of morality – morality being those things that one believes is “right” or “wrong.” Morality is no more a strictly religious issue than history or philosophy. If you believe that something is wrong (for instance taking away someone’s personal liberties), then you are operating under some form of moral code.

The problem you seem to be having is where we get this moral code from. Some get it from the Bible, some get it from what they believe is common sense, and some get it straight from the depths of their anus. But not matter where you get it from, it is a personal choice to believe what you believe.

The question comes to be – at what point do we stop? At what point do we say that we are all okay with certain things being law, and certain things should be up to a personal preference?

I personally haven’t figured out a perfect way to draw that line – the best I can come up with is that your rights stop at my nose. So laws that protect me from you invading my nose space are okay (theft, murder, contract law, etc…). But laws that are intended to protect you from yourself are ridiculous (seatbelt laws, the war on drugs, etc…)

But either way – that is still my choice to believe that way – and in this country, it will (and has) gotten trampled on because of a collective belief (or at least voting preference) for certain ideas.

Now when it comes to abortion, I think we get to a sticky spot – because you are not dealing with 1 nose but 2 noses. So who’s nose do we decide to protect?

I think Matt makes some great points below about some of the other ideas that could be used to determine when “life” starts and I think it really furthers another point – where is there some solid line for determining the moral code we’ll all live by when it comes to abortion?

Do we determine it based on the efficiency of abortion? (proven to reduce crime, cheaper than taking care of unwanted children, more production from women who would otherwise be reluctant mothers, etc…)

Or do we determine it by some shared belief in the sanctity of life and a belief that life starts at whatever point we can agree on (conception, first signs of reaction to stimulus, or viability)?

No matter what we choose, it is just that – a choice. It is no more wrong to get the belief form the Bible than it is to pull it from your own head – that is unless you want to force your belief on others that the Bible is false and shouldn’t be followed 😉 Which I don’t think you would do after hearing your thoughts on personal liberties.

This is always an interesting discussion for me though – because I am definitely against abortion and for personal liberty (as long as it isn’t in my nose space), but I am not against abortion enough to believe that we should start a war against any country that does abortions, just as much as I don’t want to start a war with every country that does horrible things to its citizens. But does that mean I’d be okay with abortion being a state issue? Or even a city issue? or a personal choice? I have no idea. I do believe it is wrong, but I don’t know how far I’d want to go to enforce that.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.


P.S. – About Ron Paul specifically – if it is any consolation, I don’t know if Ron Paul as President would even be able to do anything in regards to Roe v. Wade – not unless the whole country decided to not be so polarized about the issue.


Darrell August 23, 2011 at 8:23 pm

@”Second of all, I didn’t make abortion the number one issue. His website did. Click the issues tab and notice it’s first even though it’s not in alphabetical order. If that was the case, I was willing to overlook it.”

It’s not even a list on his campaign site, they are sort of just clumped in a little drop down box. It never says that abortion is his #1 issue. If you are looking at something besides “”, please take another look. Are the topics in alphabetical order like his book, for reader ease? This seems to me to just be a pro-abortion rant. I believe in the rights of the mother. I believe that they end at the point when the child’s right to life begins. That’s it, end of discussion.


Dave Caldwell August 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Absolutely brilliant Adam. Thanks for giving me a lot of food for thought and for laying this out so well. Bra-VO man!


Jon W August 18, 2011 at 12:02 am

(if you don’t want to read all this shit skip to my paragraph 3)

This is obviously well written Adam and it’s great to see journalism & politics combined into a legible product made from someone of our proverbial “meh..” generation.

I am pro-choice but I don’t vote on it because I think political gridlock will never get us back to seriously debating Roe v Wade, plus we are all being depopulated in so many ways why wouldn’t abortions be allowed to continue by the establishment, other than to motivate the dumbest block of Republican voters?

My argument is that (if you would concede that most pregnancies are due to moronic promiscuity, that rape & incest are a minority) it’d be unusual to think along the lines of a.) I’m still extremely pro-choice, therefore b.) I’m against candidates who disagree, therefore c.) I’m voting against even the moderate candidates who say “it’s a state-by-state issue”, because I’m I tengentially recalling Alabama’s dirty past, therefore d.) I oppose States rights to legislate individually, therefore e.) what- a single-state nation? no nations? centralized power on a global scale?

Given the small chance RP would or could successfully prohibit abortions on a Federal level..

Isn’t your need for legal abortions going to outweigh your need for a respectable and unprecedented President?


Matt Blair August 18, 2011 at 2:48 am

I agree with a lot of what you had to say. I’m not gonna try to be a fanatical nutjob. I’m sure you’ll get enough of those hacks, or maybe people who just come across as hacks because they are so passionate about the issue, responding to you. I just wanted to bring up a few points about the hypocrisy of our system in determining at what point life begins. I try not to stick to the traditional talking points of pro-life advocates, though some may come through. Some may seem a bit off, but there is the possibility that they can be thought provoking and I’m all for open discussion, not an argument… No one ever changes their mind or grows closer to true within an argument, we only become deeper entrenched, at least that’s the commonplace result.

If a pregnant woman is murdered it is counted as a double homicide in many cases or if a woman is beaten and loses the baby that a homicide is charged and I’ve never heard of any of those cases being overturned. (If I’m wrong I blame public schools) ha. And this would include cases where the child is younger than the 21 weeks 5 days or whatever it was. So it seems to me that we must either decide to not convict in those cases for a second homicide (or homicide) OR that we must consider it a life. As currently set up, it is the intent of the mother, or assumed intent, that determines whether or not the termination of that “life” or whatever one wants to call it is a murder or legally ok. In short… our current laws don’t place any sort of scientific or consistent or logical approach to determine whether a fetus is a life, but rather emotion and the intent or assumed intent of a pregnant woman.

So the question then becomes… Does a government or judicial system tell an expectant mother and/or father who were excited for the arrival of their child that it wasn’t a life and therefore the loss of it is not punishable. In that case we violate the choice of that woman. So even to be consistent in what is or isn’t a life AND a maintain “pro-choice” stance it still results in a government going against the “choice” of some woman.

Another question that I have is this… who says that life is determined when something is only one that is self-sustainable? I understand it as a possible standard, however I would say it’s not a given that THAT is the breaking point. And just because it’s never happened before that it couldn’t happen… records are broken all the time… Or even if it never happened who is to say that because no baby ever born before 21 weeks and 5 days old has survived that it is not a viable life. Given long enough… no one survives. Surely we wouldn’t say… that none of us are a life. That would be crazy… you and I both agree on that much I’m sure. However, the issue THEN becomes IF sustainability is counted as THE standard of what is or isn’t a life, exactly how long would something have to survive to have been classified to be “alive?” Would it be a minute? A second? A moment? It’s just nearly impossible to be able to draw that line and enforce it, or to have a consistent ideology about it. And if we say a few minutes, then what happens if a man were to bust into a delivery room and throw a newborn on the ground within the first few minutes ending it’s “path to life”… is that a murder… or just nothing? (yes it’s extreme example… i agree, but food for thought) And that’s all of course assuming that sustainability was even the determining factor.

Another interesting fact is a heartbeat begins at 21 days and very early on in pregnancies fetuses have been shown to respond to external stimulants. This sounds an awful lot like life. If something can feel pain or react to it, it would seem to be a life. even here it’s tough to tell, because the heart could start at a different time for different babies and their ability to react to stimulants could differ from fetus to fetus. If this is viewed as a point of life, which would SEEM to me to be the LATEST any logical conclusion could determine it to be a life then there are other issues. the vast vast majority of clinically performed abortions do not take place before this time period, and a lot of women don’t even know they are for sure pregnant by this time.
IF we are legally say that this is life then we should require that women have tests to make sure there is no heartbeat and that the fetus doesn’t respond to stimulants before going ahead with the abortion. We may then say that this is invasive, but if it’s a question of life or death for what is legally considered a life then that fetus deserves the LIBERTY to have it’s status as a life checked. This standard would all but outlaw abortions because to have all of this done within the first 20 or 21 days would rarely if ever happen. And THAT is only IF you consider that to be the point of life beginning.

Scientifically there is also ground to say that the moment of conception is life. And scientifically and consistently seems to be a better way to determine when life begins than a person’s feeling or intention, especially when we consider that the person having that feeling may be having those feelings and intentions and determinations under lots of emotional duress and stress. It makes a lot more sense, to me at least, to let a question as important as life be determined by more consistent means.

A woman does indeed have a right to chose what to do with her body. But the choice shouldn’t include the ability to stamp out another life or potential life once the ball is rolling. I do agree with you tremendously that we need to treat sex like a much less taboo subject and educate! educate! educate! and I say that as a man believes that we are to wait until marriage to have sex. If that were the standard we’d have far far far less demand for abortion. However, unfortunately in my opinion, but perhaps not in the opinion of others… that is not the opinion of most, and it’s certainly not the outcome of most. IF as the church and as christians we would exercise more grace and mercy on people who make what we believe to be mistakes in having sex outside of marriage and actually were LOVE as Christ called us to be to those people then perhaps more women would feel more comfortable facing the life that they face with a child, because they would know people have their back. There are a lot of people who are like that, but unfortunately they are out-voiced by the louder purely judgmental segment with no grace. These people disgrace the name of the God we claim to love so much.

I’m not saying there is no room for correction or that there are no consequences, but rather that the job of the church is to help people who’ve made mistakes, because it’s only made up of people who’ve made mistakes and find themselves in difficult circumstances. There is a call to a change in lifestyle, but guilt is not the motivation for change in anyone’s life… guilt guilt guilt is not the path to joy, but rather thankfulness for love and grace is what leads to joy. And if we would be more LOVE which greatly includes educating and preparing people with honest frank discussion rather than… “don’t have sex!” we could as you say greatly greatly decrease the demand for abortions.

However, in the mean time I don’t think the answer is to allow the destruction of life, or at the very least “quite possibly life,” while we hope to weed out the demand. In that time, how many more would we lose? It’s a combination of education, prevention, and adoption. Not just one. It’s a lot more than just making abortion illegal. A lot of those parts lie on the backs of those of us who CLAIM to be Christians, who so ardently just scream and picket… don’t murder babies. (like i said there are people seeking to do this, but their voice is hidden by all the people yelling back and forth between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps).

I am “pro-choice.” But that choice ends at whether or not to have sex. Even with education a woman could learn that if a man wears a condom lets just say he has a 99.9% chance of not getting her pregnant. Well that woman in that case takes a .1% chance that she’ll get pregnant. She shouldn’t get to click the “undo button” if she loses(or wins) that lottery because she is otherwise unprepared.

If I make a significant financial investment that according to all studies has a 99.9% of either positive or neutral outcome, if unexpected events come and I lose all my money it’s not legal(and shouldn’t be) for me to then go take that money back from whoever has it at that time(provided they broke no law in getting it) and that’s true no matter what financial hardship it puts on me, no matter how embarrassed I am, and no matter how it ruins MY plans for my life. The answer at that time should be to have options of people to go to help me in the aftermath of what has happened to me. And to help me face up to my situation and do what I have to do in the aftermath and to help me as I get to the point where I can do that.

The same is true in case of a woman, even with precautions, getting pregnant. People are to help her with the pregnancy and the aftermath. I strongly believe that a lot of this is the responsibility of individuals, corporations, and non-profits rather than the government… and I think the government should openly encourage and call for that to be the case and provide and promote the educational resources for how those women can find those options if those people don’t first find them. The answer isn’t to snuff out the ‘problem’ (especially when doing such quenches a life or at the VERY least a potential life), but rather to come alongside these women who in spite of prevention and education efforts as a society have STILL found themselves with an unwanted situation of a pregnancy and live life with them. To help them with how their life is now, and how to cope, and how to be the best parents they can, and if after ALLLLL of this is done they still don’t want the child, THEN it can be put up for adoption. (this would also decrease the fear you have of overrunning foster homes, etc).

I am fervent in my belief that life starts at conception. And I’ve been heartbroken at what I see as the murder of millions upon millions of babies who never got a chance at LIBERTY. However, I do see how people could think otherwise, but even in those cases, I still see no grounds that justify the legalized status of abortion, at least none that are just and consistent, and certainly none that protect LIBERTY. Without the opportunity to live there is no LIBERTY.

If we want to be great people as individuals or a great nation then we should be a nation that faces our problems, not runs from them. And to be a great nation is only made of great people, and I think we’ve bought into the lie that we cannot face our problems and have become a society of taking the easier road, and abortion is the only example of this, but it is one. And though it may be tough, nothing worth having in life is really easy. So let’s arm and arm move forward and face the valleys and mountains of life, but let us not run. There is no LIBERTY in running. There is no LIBERTY in the path of least resistance, but rather a false sense of LIBERTY and freedom surrounded by an ignored yet very real wall of fear that keeps us where we are. There is no freedom in running from circumstance, but rather we then admit defeat and are slaves to what we feel we could never conquer. As people, and as a nation, we must admit and face our mistakes, or they’ve already defeated us, but the only way to ever overcome is to face them head on. Love, hope, grace, mercy, honesty, courage, and dedication are the path to FREEDOM and the lamp the lights the way to LIBERTY

As for voting for Paul… I see, especially based on all this that this one issue amongst an ocean of issues shouldn’t pull you from your vote for him, but it is America and you’re entitled to whatever you choose. Thanks for writing this Adam!

In His Grace,
matt Blair

(Don’t read this part after that last part… wait… it’s a far less serious approach that will do as Ricky Bobby says in Talladega Nights “you know everything awesome she just said… well you just ruined it.” But if you do read it… just know it’s a “PS” i couldn’t fit it anywhere else in this post, but at the end.. mentally consider it a different document and not tied in with my overall point)

The last thought I have is a little silly I know, but maybe it will provoke some small level of thought as well. This one’s free (just remember you get what you pay for) Ha. People promote abortion or the legalized status of it on the basis of women’s rights or a woman’s choice. However, this is only supporting the life and LIBERTY of “current women.” And it ignores the well-being of those fetuses that are female or will grow into women later. That sounds like agism. To support the rights of current women in this case is to destroy the rights to liberty of women to come. And if someone were to agree with that, but be preposterous enough to say only make illegal the abortion of future women, they would then be a sexist murderer ha. And do we want a government that openly condones the theft of liberty, especially when based on agism or sexism? ha oh not to mention what many consider murder. That’s just a random thought I had. I hope all you readers don’t hate me now.


Matt Blair August 18, 2011 at 3:01 am

“i meant abortion ISN’T the only example of this, but is one” in the next to last paragraph before my “signature”


Amanda Western August 18, 2011 at 11:26 am

I’m a woman. With a child. I’m completely 100% pro-choice. I’ve worked in a clinic that performs abortions. I’ve had the experience of an unexpected pregnancy. I’m also 100% a supporter of Ron Paul. I have never voted Republican before but to think of anyone else in that White House really frightens me.

I get his views on abortion and I can actually understand why he’s pro-life so vehemently. Does he really need to witness more than one abortion to understand? Does a life become more important because it can survive outside a woman’s body? I had an ultrasound at 16 weeks and I saw my baby. They told me she was a little girl. Did she not deserve to live because she needed me to survive?

He’s not trying to take away a woman’s right. He’s standing up for the children. That life is a life from the moment of conception. Any woman that has been pregnant knows that. Abortion SHOULD be a big deal for a woman. If she’s got to travel out of state to get one, so be it. Maybe she’ll take better care of ensuring she doesn’t get pregnant the next time. It’s really not that hard to not get knocked up. And it’s called accountability. Make birth control more available, teach about it in schools. Abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control.

Like I said before, I am pro-choice even though I hate the idea of abortion. If Roe V Wade stays in place (which it probably will, even if he is elected president), then great! This will be a moot point. But it’s Ron Paul’s stance… it’s just one issue out of his whole platform. He is what this country needs right now.


Maximo Madnick August 20, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Awsome post and straight to the point. I don’t know if this is really the best place to ask but do you folks have any thoughts on where to employ some professional writers? Thanks :)


Garrett Marines August 25, 2011 at 3:37 am

Awsome blog! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am bookmarking your feeds also


shane November 24, 2011 at 10:32 am

You obviously did not get he liberty message. Your sticking point with him is a private held belief for both of you. He does not wish to repeal Roe vs Wade and it would be impossible. You live in a world were you have no sense of what is actually possible. He is a libertarian and despite his personal beliefs will stand by those who chose abortion because it is their right. You sir are a troll.


adamhammer November 24, 2011 at 11:41 am

Normally I just approve comments that aren’t spam and move on. But you sound like someone who likes to repeat things you’ve heard instead of doing your own research.

What his “personal” beliefs on abortion may be are of no consequence to me. It’s what he has posted on his campaign website. Specifically the part about immediately repealing Roe v. Wade. You can read that for yourself here:

To have his personal belief listed on his campaign website leads me to believe it is an agenda point. It’s a point that even the prayer revival moron Rick Perry left off his website. It’s fun to have a politician we think we can trust for once (Ron Paul I mean, not Rick Perry) but lets not forget they are politicians.

And although he has some pretty strong Libertarian beliefs, the fact is he is running as a Republican. Not a Libertarian. So let’s not jump out and call him a Libertarian when there’s a big R-TX next to his name.

And as an update for you – I follow Ron Paul’s campaign on Twitter. This blog, or others like it, must’ve gotten back to him because his team made a post saying something to the effect of “Ron doesn’t think abortion is a political issue, but a moral issue and the government should have nothing to do with it either way.” I’m paraphrasing but that was good enough for me to vote for him in the general election. But as long as that’s on his site, I’m not gonna register Republican to vote for him in the primaries.

Make sure to subscribe to see how bad I “troll” against the cops in my next post. Unless, of course, you believe everything you hear about how good they are too then you might not enjoy it.

Happy Thanksgiving!


kualifikasi piala dunia 2014 January 18, 2012 at 10:49 am

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch since I found it for him smile Therefore let me rephrase that: Thank you for lunch! “Without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.” by Aristotle.


Chris January 23, 2012 at 1:28 am

It sounds to me like you’re not voting for him because he defines life at conception as opposed to 22 weeks. That’s silly. If it’s not a life before 22 weeks and you prevent the woman from aborting it you’re violating her civil liberties. If it is a life before 22 weeks and you allow the woman to abort it you’re violating civil liberties once again. It’s not that hard to see where he’s coming from. You’re acting like he’s purposely trying to take away people’s civil liberties like Obama or Bush. Letting such a small disagreement keep you from voting from the one man that could repeal the patriot act and the NDAA while making sure the government doesn’t try to control the internet is dumb. I don’t mean to be rude though. I guess we’ll just have to stick to politicians that say they’ll close Guantanamo but then sign the NDAA. I don’t think I’ll be visiting you’re website ever again. Good luck finding a politician you agree 100% with. Peace.


Previous post:

Next post: