Ron Paul, Race, & Life

The last few days have been a trying time for Ron Paul and his followers with regard to past newsletters. There is no denying that some of the content of these newsletters are particularly objectionable. Here is the now famous assertions about these newsletters which have come up in The New Republic. Of these reported newsletters, some, though not all the material is objectionable. The comments that deserve condemnation, are the characterizations of black people as "animals" and "fleet footed." These comments are racist and they violate the commandment that we shall "love our neighbor." There are also some objectionable and potentially slanderous comments about Dr. Martin Luther King. Without proof of these allegations about King, such comments violate the commandment to not bear false witness against our neighbors, which I think includes the dead.

Ron Paul has said in apology, "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

These past actions present an opportunity and should be seen as a blessing by the Ron Paul movement, as well as by the conservatives and libertarians who are advancing this small but growing political revolution. So let us take this opportunity to examine Ron Paul's consistent views on life and liberty and how they comport with a view of race that is rooted in agape, or love of fellow man. Of course, humanity itself does not exist without life, and as Paul has correctly explained, without life, there is no liberty. From the teaching of the Church, we know that life begins at conception. As such, Ron Paul has introduced Federal legislation recognizing this fundamental precept.

An ongoing discussion in the pro-life movement is the notion that the proliferation of abortion and contraception, originating in the Progressive Era of the 1900's, had a substantial eugenic motive to root out blacks, Catholics, and other minorities for the supremacy of the white race. Planned Parenthood foundress, Mary Margaret Sanger is often regarded as one such supremacist. In speaking about her Negro Project, Sanger states:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Enter pro-life advocate Dr. Alveda King. King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King and a victim of a forced abortion as well as one of her own choice. King reports that since 1973, 15 million black people have met the fate of abortion such that "[r]oughly one quarter of the black population is now missing."

“The great irony,” King said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Naturally, it makes sense that Sanger did her time with the evil Klan.


Which brings us back to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, a pro-life obstetrician, makes a natural ally with Dr. Alveda King. He offers a fresh approach to the federal pro-life strategy in seeking to eliminate all funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as eliminating Federal court jurisdiction to hear cases regarding sexual matters and abortion. By such elimination of judicial review of such cases, they can be remanded to the states, where at least some pro-life states can enforce the law against such a murderous act. The murder of so many which includes a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanics, is as King argues, genocide.

In giving her testimony to life, King says:

"So I want to remind you, that the babies are lights too, and they have life. And so as we choose life, then we're giving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people, and that is really the civil rights issue of the day."



Therefore, the Ron Paul Revolution would do well to heed the wisdom of the true heir to Martin Luther King's civil rights legacy, and speak out against the hard hearts which bring about the hatred which leads to both the evils of racism and abortion.

To that end, here are some more pro-life resources:

Priests for Life
National Black Pro-Life Union
Bioethics Defense Fund
==========================================

Update: Next Ron Paul Money Bomb is the day before the March for Life, Martin Luther King Day.

Clinton: health care a requirement before work

The Associated Press reports:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system. "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

...

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the [telivision] ad.

The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead."

The annual cost of this proposal? $110 billion a year.

... [Clinton] told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president."

I wonder if she would relish a debate with Ron Paul on this issue.

Here's what he had to say last year about requiring proof of health care before employment, and also what he thinks about universal health care initiatives (underlining is mine):

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

[Ron Paul then lists several bills he currently supports in Congress.]

Ron Paul has a reasonable critique, personal experience and offers a concrete solution to America's health care crisis.

Clinton is serving up the same proposals that she did in the early 1990's. Is she really relishing a debate with Ron Paul, or instead, the other republican candidates? Who is truly about change?