More Paul Pro-life Problems

t1larg.ronpaul.aug27

By Rebekah Maxwell

Silence can be deafening. This week, Personhood USA’s presidential pledge drew several GOP signatures, but not the approval of the only physician in the race, Ron Paul.

At the time of this article’s publication, Paul’s legendary campaign team had yet to even craft a response clarifying Paul’s position and why he had not yet signed the pledge, which defines life at conception, without exception.

It’s deafening silence from the professed pro-lifer’s camp, especially since Paul signed the Susan B. Anthony anti-abortion pledge in June…for that matter, why would a candidate sign a pledge to support drinking raw milk, and yet not sign one to uphold the unalienable right to life?

But Paul’s newest campaign literature is stirring up even more questions for the Texas congressman.

 

The Ron Paul Family Cookbook, distributed to thousands of Iowans at Paul’s campaign stops, includes a few dozen recipes, some Bible verses and lots of family photos. But one picture stands out. It’s a picture memorializing Paul’s friendship with the Feldkamp family.

The Feldkamps are linked with one of the largest private chains of abortion clinics in the country.

 

In the book, Maggie Feldkamp Cotton’s recipe remembers her sisters, Vanessa Pullen (“an avid Ron Paul supporter”) and Amy Jacobson who, along with 12 other people, tragically died in a plane crash in 2009.

At the time, grief over the accident was marred by the report that their father, Irving Feldkamp III, owned Family Planning Associates, a chain of 17 abortion clinics, most operating in California.

Recommended For You

According to Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, the Feldkamps have owned the clinics since 2005, when they bought them from their founder, Edward Allred (who is said to have lauded personally aborting at least 500,000 babies).

Fifteen of those clinics are still in operation today, with Feldkamp’s son, Dr. Irving Feldkamp IV as the “Agent for Service of Process” for Family Planning Associates.

Christian Newswire reports those clinics “perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider -Planned Parenthood included – and they perform abortions through the first 5 months of pregnancy.”

 

California state law provides taxpayer-funded abortions for low-income women with little to no restriction. That means clinics like FPA can charge between $450-$2100 per abortion straight to the citizens of California.

Irving Feldkamp III has personally supported Ron Paul’s run for the White House. This year, Feldkamp donated $1,500 to Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, and $5,500 to Paul’s Liberty PAC.

 

With mere days remaining until the Iowa Caucuses, the Paul campaign has little time to clear away these questions about their candidate’s stance on life. But they have the momentum, organization, and now the means, through the Personhood Pledge, to at least address pro-lifers’ doubts. What Paul cannot do is remain silent.



  • Matt

    For the record:

    “One thing I do know: that life begins at conception and also the legal rights of the unborn begin at conception.” – Ron Paul

    As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows
    firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is. He
    knows that in order to champion a free society, life must be protected – born and unborn.
    He has consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by
    helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.

    As President, Ron Paul will fight for life by:

    Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade
    and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on
    life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
    legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”Prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to support abortions or “family planning” clinics.

    ———————

    …. Ron Paul has already agreed with %90 of the pledge.  Dr. Paul takes oaths and pledges VERY seriously, and they may have boxed him out by making it too broad, and by expanding Federal jurisdiction beyond the intent of the constitution. 

    Also, the pledge tries to pin him down on some other topics, like stem-cell research, which has some grey areas, as well as assisted suicide, which Libertarians MAY disagree on.

    Keep your eyes on the prize, people…

    • Bob Eschliman

      Matt… as I said to Justin, there’s nothing in the pledge that expands the scope of government beyond the constraints of the constitution. In fact, it uses the Bible and Constitution as the basis for its tennets. Dr. Paul had WEEKS to decide whether or not to sign the pledge before it was made public, and he chose not to. Based on what you’re saying above, I would think it highly unlikely you’ve actually read the pledge. But, this article isn’t just about the pledge… it’s about WHO is supporting his campaign, and it begs the question WHY… why would the largest abortion provider in California support a candidate for POTUS who has publically stated he is opposed to abortion and believes we must protect life from conception? There’s a disconnect that must be explained, which is the gist of the entire article.

      • Karlschenk

        Allow me to quote the pledge:”If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life.”

        source: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge
        Right, so this last paragraph has a commitment to advance state and federal laws and amendments to the constitution. This sounds to me like expanding the scope of the government beyond the constraints of the constitution. It literally has a commitment to amend it FFS!
        Compared to the Susan B Anthony Pledge, this one is more grave in it’s commitments. And like Matt said Paul takes his oaths and pledges VERY seriously. If he doesn’t agree with it 100% he will not sign it.

        As for the disconnect between Paul and his supporter’s connections with abortion clinics in CA, it should be irrelevant. This might be hard to accept, but think about it this way; any citizen can contribute to and support any candidate they want for what ever reason they want. Do you think there is some pro-choice conspiracy going on? A more logical explanation for this support is that the Feldkamp’s and the Paul’s are friends, and friends support their friends when they run for president. More likely still, yet perhaps a bit optimistic, they could just be confident in Paul’s ability to lead this country into a better future. Ultimately though, the reasons for pledging support are, and should, only be known to the supporter. Unless they feel like sharing. By the way, I support Paul because of his integrity, shrewd economic policy and consistent political track record. Qualities which no other candidate for the Presidency has. ;)

        From what I can tell, this article is drawing baseless and irrelevant conclusions about Ron Paul. Whether or not this is done as a political attack is known only to the author. Paul’s refusal to sign this is not remaining silent on the issue of abortion. He has made his stance on that clear, pro-life. Anyone who doubts this has not done sufficient research on Paul.

        • Bob Eschliman

          Karl… the article barely mentions the pledge… you guys are so worked up about the pledge, but you’re missing the point of the article. Ron Paul is closely aligned and fully supported by the biggest abortion provider in California. These are facts that are easily verified by looking at the reports Rebekah quotes. She’s merely suggesting your candidate has to explain what is going on.

          • Karlschenk

            I have read, and re-read, the article and I am sure I get the point. The article in question does more then barely mention the pledge. It opens with it, and closes with it, as an attack on Paul and his stance on abortion. Paul’s stance on the right to life is so well documented, that this article to me seems absolutely ridiculous. He is the only congressman to consistently support legislation that extends rights to unborn children. I have never, ever, heard or read about Paul supporting abortions in any way. I challenge you and anyone of his detractors to find an example of this.

            Did you fully read my response? Because, I addressed that relationship between Paul and his supporters already. It should not matter. In this country you can associate with whomever you want. Support and vote for whomever you want. Saying Paul is closely aligned with them is not necessarily true, and an irrelevant conclusion. He is supported by the Feldkamps, friends with the Feldkamps, but there is no proof of this alliance you imply. No proof that Paul is working towards any common goal or interest with the Feldkamps, other then getting Paul elected president. His plans to limit abortions are by far the most logical and effective.

            Rebekah’s selective quoting, of what you really shouldn’t call facts because they are un-sourced or sourced to other un-sourced web articles and opinion pages, are about the abortion providers service record are irrelevant to Paul. Paul did not perform, or pay for these abortions. And, not only did he not condone these procedures he outright condemns them. Her suggestion, then, that Paul has something to explain… Well it is just as invalid as her article.Do you want me or any other logical person to doubt Paul? Then find some facts, evidence beyond hearsay and happenstance, that throws into question his integrity, competency, or stance on specific issues.

            I am tempted to keep writing, because I feel so passionately about this… But I will stop for now, unless you respond that is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Faust/697319623 William Faust

            Ron Paul has been dominating campaign donations from the federal bureaucracy’s work force. They doubtless must know that many of them would receive pink slips were Ron elected President. So there must be some evil close alignment and full support at play here. Shazaam!

          • Bernadette

            Fully supported? His campaign received $1500 ?  Are you serious?  This is absolutely ridiculous!  Whose side are you on anyway?  Yes, wouldn’t we  like to have it all?  Have the federal government overturn Roe v Wade, but wake up people! RP is on our side!!I It can’t be all or nothing!  Any other candidate gets in , NOTHING changes!!!!  But how many babies will Ron Paul save if he is President?  And yes, those other states will continue to murder babies, just as they are NOW!!!!No, this is not ok, it’s sickening, but we have to actually start somewhere and RP has the best plan!  Go ahead and push forward with this and you can have murder on your conscience and call yourself a hypocrite! No wonder we can’t get anything done with people like you supposedly on our side! THiNK PEOPLE!  FOR THE SAKE OF THE UNBORN, THINK!This is war and we have to win this by winning battles….”THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE GREATER NUMBER”

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1372296666 Don Andersen

          Taken by itself, I would agree this is innocuous: “This might be hard to accept, but think about it this way; any citizen
          can contribute to and support any candidate they want for what ever
          reason they want.”

          BUT, when I see how much Ron Paul wants everyone to KNOW he is friends with the Feldkamp’s by including this info in his cookbook, that is a horse of a different color!

          • Karlschenk

            I think Paul put his friendship with the Feldkamps into his family cookbook for three reasons. One, the Feldkamps are longtime friends with, and supporters, of the Paul’s. Two, the Feldkamps seem to have a happy well adjusted family. He does not openly condone or endorse their business in the family cookbook, as far as I know anyways.

          • Karlschenk

            And I think you are making assumptions ” when (you) see how much Ron Paul wants everyone to KNOW he is friends with the Feldkamp’s “. Dangerous assumptions which lead you down the path of falsity and ignorance. It is important that when you are dealing with something that has the scope of politics, you cut out everything extraneous. Look only at a politicians voting record, beliefs, consistency, and campaign platform. Everything else is a distraction, at best. 

            I have close friends who I disagree with on many issues. Some so much that physical scuffles have resulted, such is the way of young men. But, my friendship with them does not influence my ideals or stances on any issue. My stance also does not effect my friendships unless they choose to alienate themselves from me because of our differing opinions, but I digress.

  • Justin

    this article is a joke – if you really want to know where Paul stands on abortion, you should watch this video – http://youtu.be/Rb1osemR4ys

    Paul must be rising in the polls, since the hit pieces are coming!

    • Bob Eschliman

      Justin… certainly a powerful video. Just one teensy-tiny problem, though. If he’s that adamant that we need to “protect all life from the moment of conception,” then why has Dr. Paul not signed the Personhood Pledge? There’s absolutely nothing in there that any God-fearing Constitutionalist should get hung up on. It’s not like this was sprung upon his campaign at the last minute… they’ve had WEEKS to read it and decide whether or not to support it. So, where’s the “joke” in this article? Provide specifics. Where is Rebekah wrong?

      • Justin

        the joke is the fact that this hit piece falsely concludes that Dr. Paul is not 100% Pro-Life.  If he hasn’t signed the pledge that doesn’t mean he’s pro-choice.  My assumption is there is something in the pledge that he doesn’t agree with totally.  If the only thing in the pledge recognized that human life begins at conception I’m willing to bet he’d sign it.  His actions and words over the last 30 years is consistent with this belief.   I’m 100% Pro-Life, but I probably wouldn’t sign it either.  That has mostly to do with the issue of assisted suicide.   I’m at odds with that point.  If I personally was in such a terrible health condition with no hope, costing my family $1000’s of dollars a day to keep me alive, the decision to keep myself alive is a decision I should be able to make with my wife, family, children, and my creator… not by the government.  You can disagree with that, it’s okay, but anybody who takes their pledge or oath seriously won’t sign it if there is something in there that you don’t agree with 100%  If you disagree with 1% of the pledge, that is grounds to not sign it in my opinion.

        • Bob Eschliman

          Justin… Here’s the full text of the pledge… it’s BRUTAL, I tell you.

          I __________________ proclaim that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.
          I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
          I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
          I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.
          I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
          If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life.

          I don’t see anywhere in the story where Rebekah “concluded” Dr. Paul is less than 100-percent pro-life. She simply said there are questions regarding his sincerity that he must answer… surely even the most staunch supporter would agree he cannot simply let these facts go without explanation.

          Perhaps you’re not Christian… I don’t know… but the Bible is very clear that those who take their own lives are doomed to eternal damnation. Ron Paul says he’s a Christian–farbeit for me to question that in this setting–so I can only presume he holds the same belief. If not, then Matthew 7:16 applies, followed in short order by Ephesians 5:11.

          • Justin

            Bob, I’m a Christain and who are you to judge? Like I said, that’s an issue between me and my creator not a decision to be dictated by the government. If I make the wrong choice, I’ll suffer the consequences.

            It’s clear this was written to be a hit piece to paint Paul has pro-choice…

          • Bob Eschliman

            If you’re a Christian, then you understand we each have a responsibility to admonish each other when we attempt to teach falsely. Point out to me where Rebekah has painted Ron Paul as pro-choice.

          • Michael1776

            If you’re a Christian: Love the sinner; Hate the sin in your own life.

          • James

            Here is the hang up – ‘I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise.’
             
            NOTE – Without compromise means that according to the wording we cannot fight to save unborn children stripping the den of wolves in DC of this authority and give this authority to the people of the States to be pro-life.
            So in short our stubbornness is allowing millions to babies to die instead of immediately saving potentially thousands of babies lives by fighting this from the ground up.
            So who is the real pro-lifer and the demagogue? Dig down deep and think.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Utz/100001482627636 Tim Utz

            I as a 100% pro life from conception (visit my website for written statement at http://www.timutzforhouse.com) candidate for MN state house in 2012 I would not sign this pledge either, because is uses the federal force of power against the states and people. From my view this pledge strays far from a pro life anti abortion stance into other issues of life and personal choice, murky hair splitting usage of words around the issues of personal end of life decisions. Try completing a health care directive document for a will and you quickly understand the issues around end of life. I would sign a prolife pledge but not this extended subject pledge. In fact on record here, when elected I pledge to introduce a no abortions from conception bill in Minnesota, and suspect the Republicans will run for the doors when a vote to pass the bill out of committee to the House floor for a public vote happens. 

      • Dan

        Romney and Perry both beleive in exceptions for abortion. Newt stated that life begins at implantation NOT conception. They broke the pledge the moment they signed it!!!

  • Lissa1275

    This is the one site I honestly trusted to get information on candidates… How sad to find the same thing here as I would at CNN…
    One of two things happened with the article… You either do not know anything about Ron Paul or you are outright lying to turn people away. Either way… my faith in this site went from 100% to 0%.
    Sad really, I have been visiting the site a lot lately and and almost fell for what I was hearing. I should have known better.

    • Bob Eschliman

      Lissa… Are you denying Dr. Paul knows Dr. Feldkamp? Are you denying Dr. Feldkamp is the largest provider of abortions in California? Are you denying Dr. Feldkamp is a substantial supporter of Dr. Paul’s presidential campaign? Are you denying Dr. Paul has not signed the Personhood Pledge? I’m struggling to see where the “outright lying” has occurred. What portion of the Ron Paul record do we not know that washes these facts away? I can say, “The sky is purple with pink polka dots,” but without hard facts and evidence to support it, it’s little more than the blathering of an idiot. So, what are your facts? Where’s your evidence that Rebekah is wrong?

      • Lissa1275

        ” the Paul campaign has little time to clear away these questions about their candidate’s stance on life”
        That statement is in outright lie… the campaign and Dr. Paul have made very clear what his stance on life is. So you can stop struggling with it now, if you need the hundreds of links to his stance, I and others I am sure would be happy to provide them to you.
        I fail to see how his long standing friendship with the Feldkamp family has anything to do with his stance on life. Should he turn his back on them because they think or feel differently than he does?

    • Pammi

      My feelings exactly, Lissa1275. What a letdown.

      Dear Deace Gang,

      Do you actually believe that you can sully Ron Paul’s 2nd-to-none moral record with your pseudo-lifer stunt and your conniving smears of him? And by the way, Ron Paul doesn’t need your endorsement; I doubt that you truly considered endorsing him anyway. So stop the charade already. Be happy that you got a few pandering empty suits to “sign their names.” *smh*

      Dear pseudo-lifers,

      ALL innocent life is precious — even those humans the U.S. govt has murdered by the thousands in aggressive, unconstitutional wars YOU support.

  • Mr. Right

    Personhood is not going to solve the abortion problem brought to us by the courts in Roe v. Wade. Christians have no understanding of natural law, divine law, common law or constitutional law and they really have serious problems grasping judicial review. Abortion is the murder of unborn children. Women have no right to destroy the innocent image of God. Stupid, ignorant Christians believe that a court is going to listen to “personhood” as a legal argument and overturn the legalization of murder. How many years and your dollars are going to fund corrupt lawyers who abuse christians and  steal their money in order to scam sincere people who hate abortion into advancing another losing and ignorant legal case. My God in Heaven, why have you created so many dumb, idiot christians!????
    Ron Paul is the only candidate whose stand on the law, the constitution and liberty comport with the Word of God. Is warmongering of the neocon right a Christian-Biblical mandate?
    Rebekka, who gave you this story?

    Ron Paul is pro life. Ron Paul is for peace. Ron Paul is for sound and honest money.
    Newt is a whore and war monger.
    Romney is a wall street crook, war monger, collectivist ass.
    Bachmann believes America should fight Israel’s wars, even though she is right on everything else.
    Ron Paul is right! Ron Paul will destroy Obama in a bigger landslide then Reagan ever had.

    • Bob Eschliman

      So, we’re back to the, “you’re stupid” argument in support of Dr. Paul. Terrific. I was afraid the Paulbots had changed tactics, and I was going to be horribly disappointed. Just one question, Mr. Right… how does declaring the unborn to be human beings from the moment of conception lead to “losing an ignorant legal case” or have anything at all to do with “warmongering” by neocons?

    • http://twitter.com/Alexander_ThGr8 Andy Alexander

      Uh…sorry…”Moses” the defense team for “Roe” and the 1973 SCOTUS judges would disagree with your position that “personhood is not going to solve the abortion problem brought to us by the courts in Roe v. Wade.

      During the oral arguments for Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart asked of the Roe legal team:“The basic constitutional question, initially is, whether or not the unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case is it not? If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protections of the 14th amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?”The pro-abortion attorney for Roe, Sarah Weddington, responded with these words amidst a nervous half laugh: “I would have a very difficult case.”The way to defeat Roe v. Wade and to abolish human abortion is no secret. The very text of the Roe v. Wade majority decision, penned by Justice Harry Blackmun, contains the key to its own demise:When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma.  Neither in Texas nor in any other state are all abortions prohibited.  Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists…But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?In other words, the Court recognized that exceptions to legal personhood are illogical and, more importantly, unconstitutional. A person is a person is a person. Either you are a person, or you are not. Either the pre-born child is a person, or he is not. There can be no exceptions to personhood.

      You, sir, are the one that doesn’t get it.

  • Akble

    justin – I watched this video on Dr Pauls stand on abortion and it is disgusting that he as a Dr would walk past a baby in a bucket breathing and crying and DO NOTHING -ZIP -NADA and then try and say he respects life- his actions described in his own commercials speaks much louder than his words designed to win votes – http://www.pursuingholiness.com/ron-paul-watched-a-baby-die-and-did-nothing/

    • Joe

      And what exactly did you expect him to do? He was a med student or resident with zero authority whatsoever, working under senior staff who were obviously sick if they allowed that to happen. Ron has delivered over 4,000 babies and has refused to do a single abortion. His plan for allowing the states to prohibit it again would save thousands of unborn children. When he hired other doctors for his practice, the conditions were that they would treat everyone whether or not they could pay and that they would never do an abortion. That sounds pretty Christian to me.

  • Moses

    This is the most vile attack so far. And, it’s been released two weeks sooner then what was planned. It’s almost as good as Newt the liar, who linked “liberty to Libertine, and libertine to immorality”. The Christian right, as dumb as the left is criminal, believes that a snake can walk upright. Liberty is predicated on a moral people. You cannot have liberty in an immoral society. Ron Paul is the only moral candidate in this race. Even Ms. Bachmann cannot defend her days as a government IRS agent-shyster destroying innocent people. On page 93 or 98 in her book, she says negotiating with a tax slave was exhilarating.  Is holding a gun to a poor tax payer exciting? It is if you are a thug, I suppose. America is an immoral crap hole and Newt is its poster child. Obama, Newt and Romney are all statist, collectivist opportunists. George Washington said Liberty and order are inseparable. President Washington was talking about God’s order, not the order of the Leviathan state. Many Christians support the leviathan state because they prefer slavery over personal responsibility. They think it perfectly ok to steal from your neighbor in direct violation of the ten commandments. Gee, did God give an exception to his commandments if it is done in the name of women and children? For tax evading Christians who pay tithes as a tax deduction….. hmmmmmmm…. but would not pay tithes if it were not a tax deduction….. hmmmmm….. Ye hypocrites.

    • Bob Eschliman

      OK… So, it’s Moses now… Jesus was already taken?

      Since you’re Moses, you obviously know you didn’t stop at just 10 Commandments, or even 100, or 500. What was the purpose of those additional laws? Surely not to ensure an orderly society, right?

      So, rather than deflect from the topic of the article, do you have anything to say about the facts Rebekah laid out? No?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1372296666 Don Andersen

        It appears these Paulbots are coming out of the woodwork! :)  I fully expect one of them to declare that Ron Paul is the most perfect man since Jesus!

  • RepealRoeVWade

    He didn’t sign my pledge either! And I heard his
    second-cousin once worked at a Planned Parenthood!

    This must mean that he is not pro-life, right!??

    Wait a minute… that must mean I’m not pro-life, too! (I have
    family members actively pro-choice and involved in the industry though I am
    passionately pro-life.)

    I’m so glad, Rebekah, that you have exposed this evil man
    for what he is. I always suspected that his tireless work to defund and derail
    abortion funding in Congress, his unwavering support of the prohibition of
    Partial Birth Abortion, as well as his sponsorship of the “Sanctity of Life”
    act defining life as beginning at conception as just a big act! I mean, he is
    pretty much known for pandering and flip-flopping, right?

    Oh wait, that’s Newt/Gingrich/Bachmann/Perry/Santorum.

    P.S. Paul, by far, has the best strategy for saving babies
    (by immediately and effectively repealing Roe V. Wade and returning the power
    to the states). Most pro-lifers don’t even know that this is a valid option and
    the best one for saving lives. We are told to “wait for more pro-life justices
    and keep your fingers crossed” and nothing ever changes. Then someone like Paul
    who knows the Constitution inside and out points to an obvious fix and people
    want to derail him. Shame on you, Steve Deace and Rebekah Maxwell.

    • Bob Eschliman

      OK… so explain two know facts to me, Repeal:

      1. If Ron Paul is the champion of the pro-life movement you make him out to be, why did he leave a baby, “capable of breathing and crying” (his words, not mine), in a bucket to die?

      2. If Ron Paul is the champion of the pro-life movement you make him out to be, why does he accept campaign contributions from the largest abortion provider in California?

      Your comments alone prove only one thing to me: you’ve never listened to, nor read, anything Steve Deace has said on the issue of abortion.

      • RepealRoeVWade

        1. It is that story he points to as being the defining moment for becoming as pro-life as he is. Our biggest pro-life activists have similar stories (Carol Everett is one that comes to mind). Carol Everett used to own and run abortion clinics, remember? Yet no one questions her pro-life convictions now. Everyone has a personal story that propelled them to the pro-life camp, including myself. You cannot hold someone accountable for a belief they didn’t have or espouse at the time.

        2. And Mother Teresa was criticized for accepting money from illicit people… money which she used for good purposes. Christ was criticized for dining with the most rotten scum around. If Paul were known to be a flip-flopping easily corruptible politician, it would cause concern. Since he has spent his life proving his integrity with his actions, I say let everyone give him money… he won’t be swayed. He has proven that. Anyone who thinks they can buy him is wasting their money, and they probably don’t expect to buy him, do they?

      • Pammi

        Bob,

        You’re a sneaky fraud, aren’t you? Ron Paul NEVER killed any human being in his life! He did NOT “leave a baby … in a bucket to die.” You are LYING. And even if you believe that BS, then why are you so jammed up about his not signing that pledge? His pledge wouldn’t mean a thing anyway, right? But apparently, you love being a sucker, don’t you? Yes, you do. You are a disciple of Deace, after all. *smh*

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Faust/697319623 William Faust

        1. Because he would have been sued for tens of millions of dollars by the mother who chose to kill her baby and because doing so would have meant sacrificing his life-supporting, baby-delivering medical career as an OB/GYN to easily sustained charges of medical malpractice before a medical board of inquiry. You know, for a journalist, you ask too many questions that are so easily answered, by his voting record and public utterances, via simple use of a browser. With all thine getting, get understanding.

  • Ed

    Is it better to sign the pledge and do nothing like Perry, or not sign the pledge and stop judicial activism that has foisted abortion and gay marriage on us? We don’t want to get fooled again.

    • Bob Eschliman

      What’s wrong with signing the pledge and following through on it?

      • Joe

        You don’t think that if Ron Paul could end all abortions with a stroke of the pen he would do it? He’s as pro-life as you can get. But you have to make a decision, either go for a big-government solution to a problem that big government created, or let the states decide and make at least some progress on the issue. Thousands of unborn children get saved under Ron Paul’s plan.

  • Matt

    @f200fd8e406f548dbcc03a364ec50a86:disqus
    This man Ron Paul has done hundreds or even thousands of time more on
    this issue in a SINGLE LIFE TIME than ALL of you put together…

    It would take hundreds of your “steve deace” radio shows to reach the kind of people
    Dr. Paul has.  It would take millions of Bob Echliman’s ranting in
    random comment posts to convince even a tenth of the people Dr. Paul has
    reached ..  to do the kind of good he has done for defenseless …
    well, you could never achieve it. 

    To denigrate this man b/c he won’t sign your wrong-headed pledge is shameful and pathetic ..

    It appears that you will (in fact) be fooled again.  I almost feel sorry for you …

    • Matt

      That goes for all of ya .. not just poor Bob. 

    • Bob Eschliman

      There’s one difference between Ron Paul’s impact and mine in this world… he’s been TRYING to be the “Most Powerful Man in the World” for nearly 30 years. I haven’t. You say I’m randomly commenting on posts, as though I’m a SteveDeace.com troll, but I’m the only person in here who is using my real name and my picture. Are you afraid to let the rest of the world know who you are?

      • Mikewest

        If you really want to be brave Bob, please tell us which candidate you have camped out with and we can explore their associations and positions.

      • James

        According to the Constitution – the President dare not be the most powerful man in the world.

  • Ujku

    $1500 from an individual vs. $100 Million peddling influence K-Street style and you are trying to pull the wool from our eyes! Do you know math, do you have a GED
    Your logic is below bar of PLEASE WE WILL NOT GET FOOLED AGAIN!   The genie is out of the bottle and as St.Paul says you can tell the tree from its fruit. 

    It is RON PAUL all the way and cut short the nitpicking bcs is devaluing you, not our faith in RON Paul and what he has preached for 35 years!

    Shame on you Steve for not being able to control this bile that has your name on top….

    S   H   A   M  E!

  • http://www.facebook.com/nifaron Aaron Nnifer Pierce

    “Why does your teacher eat with ‘sinners’?”
    “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”

  • Me

    For crying out load, SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT!!!

    None of the others running can even claim they attempted something that bold.

    Get a clue….

  • Michael1776

    I’m not a Ron Paul fan, but I don’t understand how most Evangelicals can claim to love his Libertarian, small-government bona-fides yet still want him to do exactly the opposite and use the Federal government to enforce a personhood amendment.

    Ron Paul, moreso than any of the other Republican candidates, has proven time and time again that he will not ever do or endorse something that does not fall within the narrow envelope in which he believes the Federal government should operate. That’s why he even went so far as to say that he wouldn’t do anything to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

    Obviously, Ron Paul is pro life – but he’s also a Libertarian of the strictest conviction (for better or for worse), which means he has principals that he will literally cling to forever. Quit complaining about the things that he obviously won’t do, and more importantly, don’t bring up non-sensical arguments about his relationship with a family linked to abortion clinics to somehow poke holes in his pro-life stance.

    Do you literally expect every pro-life person to hate and distance themselves from every pro-choice person they might ever come in contact with? That would leave pro-life people with only about 25 percent of the U.S. populaton.

    • Ken

      Michael,

      As an
      Evangelical I believe that government has a role in society.  What is that role?  It is simply to protect life, liberty and the
      pursuit of happiness(private property rights). 
      It is not a big government idea to ask the them to protect life. 

       

      Michael, would you have literally expected
      every pro-Jewish person in Hitler’s Germany to distance themselves from every Nazi
      they might ever come in contact with?  That
      would leave the pro-Jewish people with only about 25 percent of the German
      population.  The killing of the innocent
      is evil, even when it is popular. 

       

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
      is that good men do nothing.  I, for one,
      do not want my presidential candidate to do nothing on this issue.

      • RepealRoeVWade

        If you want the Federal Government to take over the roles of the state in prosecuting the crime of abortion, then why not rape and murder of children, too? I do not hear anyone screaming out to protect innocent children who are raped and murdered in this country at the Federal level. Throw in all the other hideous crimes the states have jurisdiction over as well.

        What say ye? Are unborn children the only citizens worthy of Federal crime status?

      • Michael1776

        Comparing abortion to the Holocaust = fail. Shame on you

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Nolder/1293164879 Brian Nolder

    Paul’s campaign chair asked Dr. Paul about this article, and Dr. Paul claims he knew nothing about this family’s pro-abortion activities/business.  Dr. Paul chose to speak about pro-life = liberty at the 2007 Iowa straw poll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb1osemR4ys&feature=youtu.be).  He did the same thing this year at 2011.  He believes in the unalienable right to life for all, including the unborn in the womb.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1372296666 Don Andersen

      THIS is the main reason I can’t vote for Ron Paul….he is too old and out of touch with what is going on around him.

      • Joe

        Actually, he’s the only one who predicted the economic crisis, getting bogged down with the wars, and a whole lot of other issues. His record on “being in touch” with what’s going on is way, way better than any other candidate.

  • Jeremiah

    Chuck Baldwin, founding pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church, explains why Ron Paul is right when it comes to the issue of life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk

    • RepealRoeVWade

      Thanks for posting this. Every Pro-Lifer needs to watch this video and take two minutes  out of their day to understand why we haven’t gained one inch of ground despite our strong Republican representation. As Baldwin said, they don’t have any intention of changing the law… they simply want to use the abortion issue to get elected… because it works. Ron Paul has made the most direct and effective effort to save babies… but because he is not part of the RHINO establishment, he gets ignored and even worse, as we see in this obvious hit piece trash article, his views are blatantly distorted.

      Keep electing your pro-life IN NAME ONLY politicians, people. And keep getting what you’re getting. Nothing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/daveelfers Dave Elfers

    Ummm, some of you need to lighten up.  This article raises valid questions that should be answered.  I was surprised to read these facts and I want answers, too.  But don’t assume such things about the author.  Take her at her words and nothing more.

    I profess Christ.  I am a Ron Paul supporter.  I am pro-life.

    I also believe in liberty.  As a Christian I am called to promote what is right and true and reveal what is hidden in darkness.  But like Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees of his time, the more the powers that be legislate morality, the more of a mess we get.

    God calls us to be moral along with, or in spite of, the law.

    That being said, I am in favor of pursuing law that defines personhood of the unborn.  In general, however, I am in favor of allowing people the liberty to live as they please in as evil a manner as they please…just as God does.  But in a civilized society and in the spirit of our constitution, law is required to punish those who infringe on the rights of others, so lines must be drawn.

    Fact:  Ron Paul has advanced life at conception legislation and LIVED as a pro-life doctor for many years, so to say he is not in favor of it is ludicrous.  He has never cast a vote in favor of any form of abortion (to my knowledge)

    I think that the argument about Ron Paul’s pro-life credentials on this site are valid, but come down to strategy rather than heart.  At heart this man is more pro-life than most.  I think is might be a bit shallow or perhaps “nit-picky” to vehemently oppose his stands on strategic grounds, but each to his own, I guess.

    As long as these items are taken into consideration when people make a judgment about Ron Paul, I respect their opinions.

    I look forward to hearing an explanation from the campaign.

  • Peter Heers

    This kind of reporting from a Christian is distressing. This is not serious. It is reminiscent of a tabloid, not a serious Christian.

    What has the
    man SAID. YEA-YEA, NAY, NAY is what the Lord said. Do you really think
    Paul is dishonest, “hiding something,” or not principled? C’mon, he’s
    the most principled of them all. If you do think this, you are a poorer
    judge of character than I thought – and you’ve incurred even more
    responsibility upon your shoulders for nearly slandering the man because
    of his associates. I seem to remember the Pharisees saying something to
    Christ once along these lines: “he keeps company with sinners!”

    Has he come out in support of abortion? Fair game. Point it out. Do
    pro-abortion people support him or even “keep company” with him? Well,
    have you perhaps thought that 1)he didn’t know that, or 2) he is trying
    to bring them around? For goodness sake, people, what did you learn all
    those years in Bible study? “The sick have need of Physician” said the
    Lord! He has come to save and redeem, not to judge. Again, if Paul
    support abortion, point it out. Otherwise, please don’t approach
    slandering the man – which is grave sin.

    Rebekah (and Steve), have you thought that perhaps you have something better to do than blacken a fellow Christian’s record?

    This year is not about one man or even one election. This year is about
    avoiding the imminent disintegration of America and rise of tyranny
    here, on our soil. We NEED Paul’s voice in this race and in public life,
    because no one is bringing what he does to the discussion and because
    he is exposing our own hypocrisy, inconsistencies, delusions – which is
    VERY NECESSARY.

    Again, Steve, a win for Paul in Iowa IS NOT a loss for Iowa, at
    all. It means that the Iowans are thinking for themselves, really
    searching and not being led by the hand of “the party” and “the media”
    which you have unfortunately exalted to the status of judge and jury!
    Lord have mercy.

  • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

    Ron Paul required two promises of his junior partner before taking him on in his practice: 1) that they would perform no abortions, and  2) that they would not accept either medicaid or medicare, but would take the patients and treat them the same as anyone else.

    The NPR did an interview over the last month or so, mentioning this (although they hold his abortion position against him.)

    If you have family friends, do you know or condone, or feel you need to take a position on everything their grandfather did?  

    Frankly, since the picture was in the cook book, I’m betting on ‘didn’t know’.

    No one is more pro life than Ron Paul.  I don’t know the pledge in question, and maybe he just figured he’d already signed one, and has his record.  He has multiple times introduced ‘personhood’ amendments in Congress.  In the last election cycle he was endorsed by Jane Roe of Roe v Wade based on his pro life record.

    You don’t have to guess about Ron Paul he has a thirty year record to review.

  • Lisa

    Ron Paul has always been clear about his position on life. Sad to see people questioning it!

  • Mikewest

    This is a very good issue that clearly
    illustrates the mistake the church is making today and has made in many past
    elections when it comes to selecting civil leaders. Instead of first magnifying
    and expounding the specific scriptures as it relates to our called upon duty,
    we start running down one of the many secondary rabbits that divert our
    attention from hunting down the really big game. I believe our Lord and
    commander has given us crystal clear instructions for this very moment in time
    in the following scriptures

    “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the
    people ABLE MEN, such as FEAR GOD, MEN OF TRUTH, HATING
    COVETEOUSNESS…” (Exodus 18:21)

    “Take you WISE MEN, and UNDERSTANDING,
    and KNOWN AMONG YOUR TRIBES,
    and I will make them rulers over you. “ (Deuteronomy 1:13)

    Sadly, the mistake most Christians make today is by ignoring
    these clear and specific scriptures above. Instead they will draw deep lines in
    the sand over particular shared VALUES and ISSUES versus making a
    candidate’s RELATIONSHIP with Christ the top priority. This often
    compromised requirement should be first, foremost and non-negotiable. Surely it
    would be the same model for choosing a wife, husband, business partner, church
    leader, and most importantly how God Himself will chose one day whether we are
    allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

    The confusion comes from theologians who wrongfully justify
    this elevation of values over relationship based on the “no religious test for
    office” in the constitution. However, this man-made document’s main purpose is
    to restrain the gov’t not the people. It’s because of this very clause that protects
    our individual right to have a religious test! When you think about it, everyone
    has a religious test. We all choose to worship someone or something.

    In my limited mind with limited
    time, looking at the verses above, these are just a few reasons I place Dr. Ron
    Paul as the choice of any serious Christian voter.

     

    1.     
    As a real constitutional scholar and avid student
    of our founder’s vision of a very, very, very limited federal gov’t, he’s quite
    ABLE to keep his oath of
    office. In all sincerity he will solemnly swear to actually uphold the
    constitution in its original intent. Based on his years of public service, he
    has shown nothing but respect and unwavering loyalty to this providential
    document.

     As the only Austrian economist that supports
    gov’t accountability and individual responsibility, he’s clearly the only one able to really change this economic
    crisis by exiting the wars, the wicked United Nations & International
    Monetary Fund. I also believe by truly limiting the gov’t, the Church will be
    set free to be unlimited and will indirectly assist in another great national
    revival.

    2.     
    As a seasoned congressional leader who’s notably
    known as “Dr. No” for his willingness to stand alone based on his personal
    convictions, He’s shown time and time again to be a man that FEARS GOD more so than mortal men
    of his own party or constituency.

    3.     
    Dr. Paul has proven over the years to a solid “MAN OF TRUTH”. His life’s record of
    honesty to his family and the many people he has served is impeccable, widely
    respected and without comparison to his peers. As a born again follower of “The
    Truth” Jesus Christ, he refuses to go around proudly proclaiming his
    righteousness in order to gain political favor. Unlike the many politicians of
    our day who conveniently give deceptive, insincere, and pompous speeches filled
    with self-righteous God-talk designed to fool gullible Christians. Verifiable actions
    need to precede words.

    4.     
    If there was ever an ISSUE that needs further
    exploration and expansion by the Christian community this is it! “HATING COVETEOUSNESS”. Here Dr.
    Paul has teed off like no other modern day Christian Statesman by countless
    stands against one political group taking from another. He’s clearly against
    Obama’s Social Welfare in taxing the rich to give to the poor. And on the flip
    side, he’s against Republican Corporate Welfare that takes from the poor tax payers
    and bails out wall-street bankers. He has been a true congressional watchdog in
    these matters.

    5.      MEN or Male Like all other ordained
    institutions, God’s highest standard is for men to take the lead.

    Now don’t get me wrong, the secondary
    issues are important to discuss, just don’t throw out
    the baby with the bath water.

    In researching and looking over his
    life-long commitments to his faith, family and 30 year record of humble Christian
    servant hood that even comes close to his record.

    If you are sincere follower of Christ, please
    tell me based on these 5 golden standards from Jehthro, which candidate really comes
    close?

  • Mikewest

    This is a very good issue that clearly
    illustrates the mistake the church is making today and has made in many past
    elections when it comes to selecting civil leaders. Instead of first magnifying
    and expounding the specific scriptures as it relates to our called upon duty,
    we start running down one of the many secondary rabbits that divert our
    attention from hunting down the really big game. I believe our Lord and
    commander has given us crystal clear instructions for this very moment in time
    in the following scriptures.

    “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the
    people ABLE MEN, such as FEAR GOD, MEN OF TRUTH, HATING
    COVETEOUSNESS…” (Exodus 18:21)

    “Take you WISE MEN, and UNDERSTANDING,
    and KNOWN AMONG YOUR TRIBES,
    and I will make them rulers over you. “ (Deuteronomy 1:13)

    Sadly, the mistake most Christians make today is by ignoring
    these clear and specific scriptures above. Instead they will draw deep lines in
    the sand over particular shared VALUES and ISSUES versus making a
    candidate’s RELATIONSHIP with Christ the top priority. This often
    compromised requirement should be first, foremost and non-negotiable. Surely it
    would be the same model for choosing a wife, husband, business partner, church
    leader, and most importantly how God Himself will chose one day whether we are
    allowed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

    The confusion comes from theologians who wrongfully justify
    this elevation of values over relationship based on the “no religious test for
    office” in the constitution. However, this man-made document’s main purpose is
    to restrain the gov’t not the people. It’s because of this very clause that protects
    our individual right to have a religious test! When you think about it, everyone
    has a religious test. We all choose to worship someone or something.

    In my limited mind with limited
    time, looking at the verses above, these are just a few reasons I place Dr. Ron
    Paul as the choice of any serious Christian voter.

    1.     
    As a real constitutional scholar and avid student
    of our founder’s vision of a very, very, very limited federal gov’t, he’s quite
    ABLE to keep his oath of
    office. In all sincerity he will solemnly swear to actually uphold the
    constitution in its original intent. Based on his years of public service, he
    has shown nothing but respect and unwavering loyalty to this providential
    document.

     As the only Austrian economist that supports
    gov’t accountability and individual responsibility, he’s clearly the only one able to really change this economic
    crisis by exiting the wars, the wicked United Nations & International
    Monetary Fund. I also believe by truly limiting the gov’t, the Church will be
    set free to be unlimited and will indirectly assist in another great national
    revival.

    2.     
    As a seasoned congressional leader who’s notably
    known as “Dr. No” for his willingness to stand alone based on his personal
    convictions, He’s shown time and time again to be a man that FEARS GOD more so than mortal men
    of his own party or constituency.

    3.     
    Dr. Paul has proven over the years to a solid “MAN OF TRUTH”. His life’s record of
    honesty to his family and the many people he has served is impeccable, widely
    respected and without comparison to his peers. As a born again follower of “The
    Truth” Jesus Christ, he refuses to go around proudly proclaiming his
    righteousness in order to gain political favor. Unlike the many politicians of
    our day who conveniently give deceptive, insincere, and pompous speeches filled
    with self-righteous God-talk designed to fool gullible Christians. Verifiable actions
    need to precede words.

    4.     
    If there was ever an ISSUE that needs further
    exploration and expansion by the Christian community this is it! “HATING COVETEOUSNESS”. Here Dr.
    Paul has teed off like no other modern day Christian Statesman by countless
    stands against one political group taking from another. He’s clearly against
    Obama’s Social Welfare in taxing the rich to give to the poor. And on the flip
    side, he’s against Republican Corporate Welfare that takes from the poor tax payers
    and bails out wall-street bankers. He has been a true congressional watchdog in
    these matters.

    5.      MEN or Male

    Like all other ordained institutions,
    God’s highest standard is for men to take the lead.

    Finally, in researching and looking over
    his life-long commitments to his faith, family and 30 year record of humble
    Christian service, it appears that no one comes closer to matching up to this
    specific 5 gold standards from Jehthro. If you disagree, please be sure to
    offer up your candidate and how they match up rather than just attacking Dr.
    Paul!

  • Matt

    Ron Paul is a very busy man.  The idea that he is sitting around editing cookbooks is ludicrous. 

    Do you have a family friend?  Do you know everything about that persons’ father’s business associations?  From what I understand about Feldkamp he owns a large medical company that does lots of different things … and I’m certain Paul doesn’t have the time or inclination to examine the business practices of every (of the thousands) of people he meets.

    Helping some poor girl who lost her family and friends in a tragic accident sound like the work of a good Christian.  If you later find out that her father is doing something you don’t like, are you supposed to disassociate yourself from her?  I don’t think that would be right …

    Also, given that Paul abhors the idea of tax-dollars being used for abortion and wants to make sure it never happens, I don’t see how California’s decision to subsidize abortion can be Paul’s fault.  He would put a stop to that immediately..

    As to Feldkamp’s support, I can’t answer.  Certainly a Paul presidency would be far less friendly to that aspect of his company than an Obama presidency would.  Maybe Feldkamp likes Paul on other issues which he feels are more imprtant, I don’t know…

  • Joe

    You’ve got to be kidding if the best you can come up with is that the wrong people are in his cookbook. Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies and has refused to do a single abortion (and made this a condition of joining his practice for other doctors). Listen to him talk about when he had to witness one in his medical training… I don’t think you’ll find anyone who’s more sincere in his pro-life views.

    Over and over and over again Ron has affirmed that he believes in the sanctity of life. Do you know that his plan of returning abortion laws to the states will actually allow states to prohibit abortions again? When we leave social decisions for the Supreme Court to make for the entire country, we get disasters like Roe v. Wade. Seeking another big-government decree to overturn it isn’t going to have any practical effect.

    Here’s your choice. You can talk big about making abortion illegal all over the country in one giant step, all or nothing, rah rah rah… and get absolutely nothing done. Not a single life saved. OR, you can return it to the states, yes MA and CA and the like will keep it, but think about all the states that will prohibit it again. That’s a lot of innocent unborn children saved under Ron Paul’s plan. Isn’t that the whole point?

  • http://www.glenwoodfin.com Glen Woodfin

    I can’t speak for Ron Paul, but I know he supports me making the right choice rather than the government forcing it on us.

  • Dan

    Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both beleive abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest. So they have already broken their pledge. Newt recently stated life does not begin at conception, he also broke the pledge.

  • Dan

    Correction, Romney did not sign the pledge.

  • James

    Here is the hang up – ‘I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise.’ NOTE – Without compromise means that according to the wording we cannot fight to save unborn children stripping the den of wolves in DC of this authority and atrocity by given this authority to the people of the States to be pro-life. So in short our stubbornness is allowing millions to babies to die instead of immediately saving potentially thousands of babies lives by fighting this from the ground up.So who is the real pro-lifer and the demagogue? Dig down deep and think.

  • Bill

    Hahaha this is hilarious! Is this the best you monkeys can do?

  • Dither

    Where is the evidence that Dr. Paul is “friends” with Dr. Feldcamp, or knew of the family’s connection to abortion clinics? Jimmy Carter’s wife once posed for a photo with serial killer John Wayne Gacey. Does that mean she supported murder, or just that public figures don’t necessarily know everything about the people with whom they are photographed?

    The people in the photo with Ron Paul are apparently the children/in laws of Dr. Feldcamp. Are the children responsible for the sins of their father? One of the linked websites tries to insinuate that their deaths in a plane crash were God’s punishment. Disgraceful.

    Should Ron Paul vet everyone who contributes to his campaign for ideological and moral purity? Why don’t you apply this standard to the other candidates? How many babies have been aborted in recent wars by the weapons of the arms manufacturers who fill the coffers of mainstream candidates? I know, many Christians are in thrall to militarism and war, in complete disregard for the teachings and example of Christ, making this subject a taboo.

    Anyway, a contribution indicates the contributor’s support for Ron Paul, not Ron Paul’s support for the contributor. If Dr. Feldcamp donated money to the staunchly pro-life Dr. Paul, then maybe it was an instance of a sinner doing some good.

    As for why Ron Paul doesn’t want to sign your pledge, it’s because he genuinely believes in the principle of federalism. Why don’t you support a one-world government to outlaw abortion all over the world? Is it because you don’t care about babies in Japan, France and elsewhere, or because you recognize the danger in concentrated power centers?

    The pledge is also a misreading of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is a restriction upon the state governments (“No state shall…”), such as to prohibit a state from executing an accused criminal without a fair trial before an impartial jury. It is not a federal law against murder of any kind. The only crime listed in the Constitution is treason. Laws concerning murder, rape, armed robbery and other violent acts are left to the states.

    Ron Paul has proposed eliminating abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts by an act of Congress. This could have been done when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency, if they were serious about ending abortion. Most of them just use it to get votes and donations. The insinuation that Ron Paul, who delivered over 4,000 babies and refused to perform abortions, doesn’t support your pledge because he is somehow a closeted abortionist is both vicious and absurd. So is Steve Deace’s attempt to smear Ron Paul for having been endorsed by a “homosexual activist.”

    It is almost comical watching people who will likely rally around the serial adulterer and New Age “futurist” Newt Gingrich, or the serial flip-flopper Mitt Romney, twisting reality into pretzels to attack the most honest, principled, consistent and genuinely Christian candidate in the race. Why not be honest and admit that you are attacking Ron Paul because of his pro-American, pro-peace, pro-life foreign policy? Everybody knows it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Faust/697319623 William Faust

      Very well said. The subject pledge is at once insipid and disrespectful of the Constitution.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/JJohn-Suprise/100000498684384 JJohn Suprise

      Great post. The only thing I can disagree with in the post is that along with Treason, Counterfeiting, Bribery and Piracy are also Federal crimes.

      ALL the rest are up to the States and the People. Sure would be nice if folks could understand this simple concept.

      Got Article 1, Section 8 ?
      Let’s GET IT and SPREAD IT, It IS the SOLUTION!
      HooDeeHoo!

  • Crazy_Redneck

    I have friends that are pro-abortion.  I am personally and consistently pro-life (I am against abortion, I am against the death penalty and I am against sending our military men and women (which I used to be one) to undeclared wars that aren’t in the interest of national security).

    So, because some of my friends may be pro-abortion (they say pro-choice, but I don’t see it as a choice), does that make me any less pro-life?

  • Matthew

    To be frank, the problem with the Personhood Pledge is that it is verbal slop.  It doesn’t really appear to show respect for states’ rights.  Even worse, some of the language, such as “I will defend ALL innocent human life” (my emphasis) appears not even to take into account that the president’s authority is limited to the boundaries of the US, or even the earth for that matter.  It also does not specify in what manner such defense is to be provided.  It could be taken to mean many things, even as a pledge that he would put his body in the way of bullets as a shield for other people.  Overall, the pledge reads more like an emotional outpouring — or political pandering — than an oath someone could actually take seriously.  I don’t get the sense that the people who wrote it were legal scholars of any sort — even of an amateur sort.

  • http://www.praxacademy.com Rothbardian

    Ron Paul has a better chance to influence the Feldkamps positively by staying friends with them than by shunning them.  Do Republicans and ‘conservatives’ not understand friendship? Who is the better man here, the man who talks and discusses with a man he disagrees with, or the man who runs away and complains about the other person? Obviously, the better man is Ron Paul.

    As for the ‘pledge’…this is too funny.  As if Ron Paul needs to sign a pledge to prove anything.  The man has an impeccable record.  There’s your stupid pledge.

  • http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=299 Murray Newton Rothbard

    So what? Only an unconstitutionalist would sign this dribble:
    I ___ proclaim that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life….affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”…every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well (as the mother’s); leaving the death of an innocent child (and/or mother) as an unintended tragedy…I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings. ,,, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all … and … I will only appoint … judges and … officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing right to life.

  • Anonymous

    Why are you bringing Ronald Reagan into this pledge?  Reagan did nothing to stop child killing.  Reagan signed legislation in California as governor to legalize abortion.  After his supposed conversion to the pro-life position, he appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the US Supreme Court who have both worked to make child killing the most protected institution of the state since slavery.  

    Reagan was all talk.  He did nothing to end abortion.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YJ7G2ZDHJPIRYU2ULTHFJ7K76U Mike Corkel

    This has nothing to do with Ron Paul.  What a worthless article. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/jason.burns.mobile Jason Burns

    I am a born again (saved) Christian.  I support Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which would make all abortion into murder.  How is murder handled today?  By the states or by the federal government?  Does it matter? 

    Ron Paul wants to throw out Roe v. Wade.

    How much more clear can Ron Paul make it?

    How can a Christian say they support life, then go to war against people who didn’t attack us and kill their women and children?  How would you explain that to a living God?  How about the Americans who are killed in these wars against people who didn’t attack us?

    What about the attack on a 16 year old American school boy who hadn’t committed any crimes.  Yes, America assassinated a 16 year old American child who wasn’t guilty of anything.  If you support this, tell me how you would explain that to God. 

    Ron Paul is the ONLY one speaking out against these actions.  He is the only one standing up for what is right and lawful.  He votes 100% constitution 100% of the time. 

    Sure you are not going to like EVERYTHING about every candidate, but Ron Paul has most of the Christian principals a candidate should have, while still being humble, not wearing his religion on his sleeve to get votes and using it to his advantage. 

    It’s like that car that has the Jesus fish emblem on the back.  Just as you look up and notice it, it cuts you off and gives you the finger.  This is very dangerous.  Nothing against Jesus fish emblems, but if you wear your religion as a brand then misrepresent God, after all we are only human, you give Christians a bad name.  This is what George Bush did to Christians. Same goes for the “Christian” business man who rips you off.  It’s not good policy to use your religion as a brand for your corporation.  It can come back to hurt us Christians.

    If your issue is the morning after pill… let me explain a bit. The morning after pill is a difficult item to tackle. See, the issue is very complicated. The drug can be used in two ways. First, it can be used as a method of abortion. (which Ron Paul wants to make into murder) Second, it can be used as a method of birth control. (depending on whether or not you are really pregnant when you take it) See, just because you have unprotected sex, does not mean you are going to be pregnant. You can’t tell the morning after if you are or are not pregnant. How do you charge someone for murder if you don’t even know if you were pregnant? If you wait to find out, then it is no longer the morning after thus you can’t take a morning after pill.

    Ron Paul is right.  Steve, I don’t know if you hate Ron Paul because of these “so called Pro-life problems” or you are getting paid to smear him, or you get benefits from the federal reserve banking system in some way like much of the establishment, but if you are going to smear Ron Paul on his pro life stance, you need to come up with something better than what you have so far.  Abortion being called murder instead of abortion (the sanctity of life act) is good enough reason to support Ron Paul.

    How many other “pro-life” presidents have we had?  How many of them have made abortion illegal in the United States of America?  Considering Ron Paul’s honesty, track record, voting record, principal…  I honestly believe with all my heart that he will do what he said he would do.  He would define life at conception.  Call that what you will, but that is what this country needs.  If that ever happened, I would be the proudest American on this planet.  Ron Paul is the only one that has kept his promises.  Why would he not honor this one as well?  Think about it. 

    Ron Paul is the only one who has my vote.

    Jason Burns

  • Adam

    This article is intellectually dishonest and fallacious. So, Paul has to sign some silly pledge to prove himself? His consistent voting record to defend life doesn’t mean anything? Or are we too lazy to do the research, to read his books, etc? In case you haven’t done the research, here is a list of Paul’s sponsored bills outlawing abortion (and guess what! two of them are Constitutional Amendment bills!!!!): HR 15169, HR 7955, HR 392, HR 3691, HR 571, HR 3400, HR 2875, HR 3495, HR 3893, HR 1548, HR 938, HR 1545, HR 776, HR 4118, HR 4379, HR 5739, HR 2597, HR 1094, HR 300, HR 2533, HR 539, HR 958, HR 1096.

    Also, if we had read Paul’s book, Liberty Defined, we’d read on pg. 2 that under his 10th Amendment stance, if a state legalized abortion they could be prosecuted for not upholding a Republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution. Did you know Paul has written two full books against legal abortion? Check ‘em out, they are on Amazon.

    Lastly, the Feldkamp connection is nothing more than a guilt by associate smear tactic with lots of context being filled in without evidence. I suggest we watch this video series comparing Paul’s views to the Bible: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16 and I also suggest you retract this article if you wish to maintain any credibility.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=510380158 Blake Branson

    Operation Rescue President, Troy Newman, who is used in this article to attack Paul, endorses Ron Paul for President.

    Pic of PDF
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150715127255159&set=a.450342995158.234083.510380158&type=1&theater 

    Link to Local News Story
    http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Candidates-turn-to-Kansas-as-Super-Tuesday-ends/85QLEifebE23NRNGyWcd6Q.cspx 

  • Bobaloyd

    His vote in favor of gendercide abortions clears this up beautifully.  He is NOT pro-life, He is pro-abortion! End of discussion.  And he ended the discussion himself with his vote yesterday!