Mike Krieger On Why He Supports Ron Paul

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger of KAM LP

Why I Support Ron Paul

Now consider that an ideologue is not necessarily a fanatic.  What he does is adjust most of his ideas to circumstances, without recognizing the opportunism latent in such ideological adjustments.  The opportunism of a great statesman, on the other hand, rests on principles.  What John Morley once wrote about Edmund Burke may be applied to Churchill: “He changed his stand; but he never changed his ground.” Or what the aged Metternich once wrote: that an idea is like a fixed gun in a fortress, ready to fire and to hit error in one straight direction; but a principle is like a gun mounted on a fixed but revolving base, capable of firing at error in all directions. 

- John Lukacs in Churchill: Visionary, Statesman, Historian

Ron Paul

I hold a deeply held view of Ron Paul as an honorable, genuine and trustworthy American statesman.  In fact, I cannot really think of anyone else in the tepid cesspool of American politics today whom I could even remotely categorize as a statesman as opposed to a run of the mill politician (or ideologue as Mr. Lucas puts it).  Mr. Lucas moves on to explain that to an ideologue it is current ideas that matter, while to a statesman it is certain principles that matter.  He states that an ideologue’s view of the world and its inhabitants is political, while to a statesman it is historical.  These simple sentences are what I believe inherently separate Ron Paul at his very core  from everyone else currently running for president.  This is merely what separates the man’s character from the others.  This is reason enough to consider him, but not reason enough to vote for him.  His ideas about liberty, war and economics also separate him from the pack and it is his strongly held principles on these subjects that in my view make him the only one capable and with enough conviction to help heal this country’s wounds, get us back on the right and moral path and foster real change as opposed to a campaign slogan.

Why the Elite Establishment or TPTB Hate Ron Paul      

In case you have been asleep under a rock for the last few months let me fill you in.  The elite in this country that control all forms of mainstream communication in the United States as well as both fake political parties are having a panic attack in response to Ron Paul’s surging popularity.  There is a simple reason for this.  On the important issues, the issues that affect your freedom and economic future he does not tow the party line of TPTB.  As I have written about endlessly for almost five years now, the Federal Reserve is the mechanism of American empire and this institution’s policies are the primary reason the middle class in America is on the verge of being completely destroyed.  It is the mechanism for transferring wealth and power to a smaller and smaller faction of the population through persistent inflation.  As Keynes wrote: “Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” 

Remember, the Fed creates dollars out of thin air and then forces countries to accept this counterfeit, backed by nothing, and consistently devalued money for their resources.  While many people now understand this concept, what most U.S. citizens still do not seem to understand or want to accept is that it is not in the national interests of other countries to accept this certain to be vaporized currency for their hard produced goods.  Fortunately for us, there is a solution to that.  Support (or install via coup) if necessary despotic puppet regimes around the world to accept this monetary system.  Our Federal Reserve system and indeed our way of life is supported through the barrel of a gun pointed at every other “sovereign” nation on the planet.  If you step out of line you will be deemed a terrorist state and we will single you out and fight for sanctions on you and then if none of that makes you fall in line we will start bombing you.  We will say that you commit atrocities against your people and you probably do (although we were also probably your ally recently despite the atrocities).  Make no mistake about it.  Every country we every go after militarily relates to defending the Federal Reserve system.  Since oil being priced in dollars is the key to the system, we are always on the verge of invading oil producing countries that we do not already have under puppet control.  Israel is merely another U.S. colony.  We defend it so vociferously not because of the Jewish lobby but because they are a strategic asset in the oil rich Middle East that we use to defend the Federal Reserve system and the American empire.     

If you Attack the Federal Reserve you are Racist, Anti-Semitic and Possibly a Terrorist 

Let me fill you in on a little pattern that I have noticed.  In American politics you are allowed to criticize pretty much anything except the Federal Reserve system.  This is the third rail of American politics.  Why?  Because this is by far and away the most important issue on planet earth.  Republicans will run around yelling about cutting back on government and preserving “freedom” but they NEVER EVER attack the Federal Reserve.  The only time we have ever seen this in recent memory was this political season in the Republican primary and that is only because opportunists like Rick Perry saw it was a popular issue.  Ron Paul on the other hand means business when it comes to the Fed.  He has been criticizing it for decades and it is not just talking points.  He is the only one out there that actually understands how the monetary system works and how it is destroying this nation.

So isn’t it interesting that whenever a popular movement with anti-Fed elements comes out it is not attacked based on the ideas, but it is immediately categorized as racists or anti-Semitic.  Why?  Because TPTB want to be able to turn people off as quickly as possible.  They know that if people actually do a little research they will see the truth.  This is why the tea party was branded that way immediately by the mainstream media fake left.  This is also why Ron Paul is being attacked the same way.  They do not want to talk about the substance of ant-Fed arguments.  They want the whole thing to disappear as quickly as possible. 

What also has been very interesting to see is how the mainstream media fake right went after OWS.  OWS is a huge deal in American history because it was when elements on the other side of the political spectrum really started to attack the Fed and banking system for the first time.  Sure many, many of the ideals behind the tea parry and OWS are totally different, but what is far more important and dangerous to TPTB are the similarities.  Both are against bank bailouts and have anti-Federal Reserve elements.  Thus, the media had to attack them as well.  They used the “lazy, ignorant, imbecile meme” for these guys. 

Ok, so now we have their entire playbook. Any popular movement is not to be listened to.  If it comes from the heartland it is to be categorized as being dominated by “racists, anti-Semites and survivalists.”  If it emerges from the urban areas on the coasts it is to be deemed as being dominated by “ lazy, unemployed, morons who are probably high on drugs and want free stuff.”  Most important to TPTB is that these two groups remain separated and the goal is to create as much animosity between them as possible so they never realize they agree on the key issues.  Divide and conquer is being used on American citizens in America.  This tells me one thing.  The criminals in charge on Wall Street and Washington D.C. are afraid.  Very afraid.     

I am Jewish and I Support Ron Paul…There are MANY of us

When I saw this http://www.businessinsider.com/morning-joe-there-is-2011-12 the other day, where Joe Scarborough basically labeled Ron Paul supporters as anti-Semitic I became infuriated.  First of all, I have been a Ron Paul supporter for years and I am well connected to many of his key supporters all over the country.  I think I might have an idea as to whether they are anti-Semitic or not and they are certainly not.  Meanwhile Scarborough hasn’t been in the Ron Paul circles but yet…“On Morning Joe this morning Joe Scarborough revealed that he's always heard from friend who support Paul that there is an underlying strain of anti-semitism to Paul events, which some in the past have tied to Paul's anti-Wall Street, anti-Fed views.”  Huh?  This is journalism?  Some anonymous friend says Ron Paul rallies are anti-Semitic?  Who is this friend and why doesn’t he come out publicly?  This is like a middle school rumor-mill. Sadly, that is what the mainstream media has devolved to nowadays.   

When I saw this clip I felt the need to respond.  These sorts of tactics are going to backfire big time.  It got me so riled up it inspired me to write this email as well as to make the decision to dedicate much more of my time this year to politics rather than the markets.  2012 is a year to fight these guys in that realm and I plan on being relentless.  This clip was an insult to me as someone who is Jewish and to all of those Jews I know personally that support Mr. Paul.  What is so ironic about this whole anti-Semitic argument is that the guy that is seen as the most influential figure in Austrian economics (the economic perspective that Ron Paul adheres to) is Lugwig Von Mises.  Guess what?  He was Jewish.  How about Murray Rothbard, the economist that  popularized Austrian economics in the last couple of decades?  Also Jewish.  Then during Ron’s 2008 run his economic advisor was Peter Schiff.  Another Jew.  For an anti-Semite this guy sure surrounds himself with a lot of Jews.  To those that hear something on mainstream media or read one of the newsletters and become turned off I ask one thing.  Read his books.  They are short.  If you still feel turned off at least it is on the actual issues and then I can live with that conclusion.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views are “Dangerous.”  Dangerous to Who?

There is one issue where the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) will actually engage Ron Paul on the issues and that is foreign policy.  They try to portray him as an “isolationist” but in reality he is Anti-Empire.  He believes in strong national defense he just doesn’t believe in constant preemptive war.  He also points out that it is hypocritical to support one totalitarian regime while bombing another.  For these rational views he is attacked vehemently by the likes of Gingrich.  The dirty little secret however is that some of Ron Paul’s strongest support emanates from the U.S. military.  This makes sense.  At the end of the day, most of these war mongers in both the Republican and Democrat party have never fought in a war and they know their kids would never be sent overseas to die, yet are such tough guys and war mongers with OTHER PEOPLE’S KIDS.

The fact that the military is strongly supportive of Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so terrifying to the elite cowards in this nation that CNN resorted to outright censorship the other day. When this active duty soldier who has been serving his country for the last ten years in war time started to discuss his criticism of American war mongering he was immediately cut off.  See this incredible clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSxm2V8aVQ&feature=g-all-u&context=G2989....

Oh so you think this guy is a one off?  Nope.  Check this out.    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012  The armed forces are Ron Paul’s three biggest supporters.  Look at who is backing Romney.  Wall Street has clearly made a bet on who its next puppet will be.

Why Ron Must Run Third Party

I support Ron’s attempt to get the Republican nomination even though I recognize that hell will freeze over before the Republican establishment allows him be chosen.  Nevertheless, it is a smart move as he is exposing the lack of ideas amongst the Republican field and exposing them as the empty suits that they are.  Other than him, they will all be puppets of TPTB just like Obama.  I think that simply his running is changing the debate and converting more people to his perspective.   

So the big question is what should he do after the Republicans choose their new Wall Street puppet Romney.  In my opinion, he must run as a third party candidate.  No matter what he will not be returning to Congress so this is really his last shot and I actually think he can win as a third party candidate.  Just imagine a debate between Romney, Obama and Paul.  How will they respond to Paul’s strong defense of civil liberties.  Or his attacks on the Federal Reserve system.  Or his anti-preemptive war stance?  They can’t and it will expose Romney and Obama to be the same guy on the important issues at play today.  They will be shown once and for all as the empty suits that they are.  Even if he doesn’t win, turning this whole thing around will not happen overnight.  It is a process and him running as a third party candidate will further expose the two party system as the sham that it is and further accelerate the demise of both parties.  In fact, I already think that by 2016 the Democratic party will be essentially a shadow of its former self and the Republicans may be as well if they continue on the path they are on much longer.  To paraphrase Shakespeare.  The tides in the affairs of men are changing.  Neither political party can comprehend it.  

Finally, let’s remember that it is both bought and paid for parties that hate Ron Paul and that is because he is the only genuine threat to the establishment.  As soon as this man topped the polls in Iowa the mainstream media went into total freak out mode.  Watch this clip that shows how both the fake right and fake left media portrayed the Iowa caucus in 2008 and now 2012.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA&feature=watch_response

Finally, Jon Stewart several months ago joked about how the media systematically ignores Ron Paul.  http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-scolds-media-for-ignoring-rep-ron-pa...

Welcome Aboard    

In conclusion, I want to welcome the hundreds of new people on my email list.  Those that are joining come from all over planet earth, in every field imaginable and I believe represent key players in helping to create a new and better world.  So welcome all of you to the list and feel free to forward this and every other email I write to as many people as possible.  We have a moment right here and right now.  Let’s do some good.

Peace and wisdom,

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
malalingua's picture

Ron Paul has my support, money and vote.

Robot Traders Mom's picture

I posted below, but want to make sure the intelligent minds of ZH are paying close attention to Justin Amash (R-MI) to fill the void left by RP, in the house. He has a nearly identical voting record to Dr. Paul and is our next keeper of liberty.


Ron Paul 2012. Justin Amash 2020.

Haywood Jablowme's picture

Meanwhile, US Troops being deployed to Israel....


h/t Max Keiser


Ohhhh say can you see, by the dawn's early light......

Don't forget those squat thrusts and push ups!  Proper form ladies.  Proper form....


Goldilocks's picture

Who is honorable anymore?

Ya’ll seen this (below)? Whew!!! (the game just changed (at least, from my perspective, anyway ;-) )…


The Truth EXPOSED Full Video.flv

widget's picture

Whacky! Some comparisons where convincing but other where not (maybe a closer inspection of more video material for each person would have made a difference).

Scary stuff. If the truth movement profiles like Adam Kokesh and the raw foods people are involved that is pretty disturbing. I did find the police brutality during OWS a bit odd and un-natural since I just don't think police in a public area would be that stupid.


It certainly make your head spin. Then again... if the mainstream media reporters are all paid off actors - why wouldn't the people they inverview be also?

Hugh G Rection's picture


Goyim, goyim, please deploy em,

fight our wars, be our whores,

we are the learned elders of Zion!

whstlblwr's picture

Jews for Ron Paul! Good post from Krieger sending to wife's nervous parents.

How do we get on email list?

Temporalist's picture

You can look here, it's TFMetals (ZH's very own Turn Ferguson) interview with Mike.


I didn't want to be too direct and post too much.

Max Hunter's picture

Great post Mike.. as usual.. And thank you very much for not allowing TPTB to brand lovers of freedom and insightful people as anti-semetic.  We really need the Jews of this country to stand up and call bull shit.. We know damn well the neo-cons and ultra left wingers aren't going to do it.

Hugh G Rection's picture

I don't hate Jews because I think Israel was involved in 9/11, as I do not hate Christians et al because criminals in our own government were involved.


Worrying about ADL SPLC branding doesn't concern me. Israel was involved and people need to know it.


Max Hunter's picture

I worry about it beause it is too easy to marginalize people that speak the truth.  Notice RP has not allowed them to do that to him.  TPTB are trying with all their might to brand him and it's just not sticking.. But when someone (like you) posts things with offensive tones, it makes it so easy to dismiss them regardless of how accurate their claim is.. In other words, it's counter productive.

israhole's picture

Well, I don' worry about it.  Let the good Jews start getting with what's right, instead of the agenda of pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, pro-Jew at all and anybody's cost.   The ones that continue on with this approach are going down with the rest of us DUMB GOYIM.  

Hugh G Rection's picture

Ya.  They are marching us to WW3 and exponentially more death, but hey, let's not upset anybodies tender sensibilities.

Dr. Sabrosky (former Head of Studies at the Army War College) has been very outspoken on Israel's involvement, and he has Jewish ancestry.  Just because someone goes to temple instead of church makes no difference to me, I just want the illegal wars over with, and the responsible parties swinging from the gallows.

Hugh G Rection's picture

I could care less if the truth has an "offensive tone".

I just had an argument with my idiot brother because he still subscribes to the zionist brainwashing "Israel is our greatest ally, God's chosen people blah blah.."

It just illustrates how sick our society has become, where speaking the truth discredits your argument.  If your wife was fucking your best friend, would you prefer to ignore the truth because it might end your marriage?

Only after confronting the truth can we have reconciliation, and begin the process of healing.  I see what you're saying about RP needing to avoid issues where the majority of the public is still completely ignorant, but it just makes me angry.

Perhaps if a serious candidate for president fielded a 9/11 question, and was lucid, honest, and cited all the evidence, he may ruin his campaign, but it would help plant the seed.

akak's picture

If Israel is "our greatest ally", then that statement presupposes that our relationship with them makes us stronger and more secure as a result; an alliance is supposed to be a two-way relationship, to the benefit of both parties. Yet I fail to see how the USA's ties to the state of Israel have ANY positive impact on our nation's security --- quite the opposite, in fact.  When does an "ally" become, in reality, a parasite?

Hugh G Rection's picture

Just found this, was our greatest "ally" tasked with counting the Iowa Caucus votes?

The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies The Iowa Caucus
By Christopher Bollyn

The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation’s attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.


In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.

The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida. (Yellow flag goes up in the mind of those familiar with Orlando and electronic vote fraud history

smlbizman's picture

time to get all johovah witness on the sheep until they get it.....

The Heart's picture

Good reporting.

Yes, the troops are going there to learn urban isreally-terrorists tactics & control of protestors and rather upset Americans when they get all unruly after a bank devaluation and or economic crash. They will be coming back to the US after they get the royal-rothschids-isaraelly-insane training and borganian-mindest-chip to arrest and kill free thinking americans or anyone else with brown skin now that they think they have a new NDAA law that sez they can do this.


...who profits in war and times of chaos daddy?

tankster's picture

Is a misogynist/bigot the best we can do?

tankster's picture

I'll bet he doesn't get Reggies vote

kaiserhoff's picture

Thanks, RTM.  There aren't that many good guys.  We should help them as and when we can.

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Thanks. Amash has been the lone 'no' vote numerous times and is identical, idealogically.

Temporalist's picture

I think Gary Johnson is a good one, and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are both generally good but don't see the bigger picture although they can learn I'd guess.  Also, while people may laugh, Jesse Ventura, Navy Seal, Governor, Patriot, is one of the good guys and he's been speaking out for a long time now.

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Don't be afraid to drop Gov Ventura's name on here.

He gets "it" and we get "it."

Temporalist's picture

True.  I love your son incidentally although your good looks don't run in the family.

malalingua's picture

I like that he explains how he votes on his fb page too. Good guy!

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Exactly, very open with his votes and explaining every bill.


We need to get behind him and help him to carry the torch!

kito's picture

@robomom, the next keeper of liberty cannot wait until 2020. if ron paul fails to procure the republican nomination, send your support to GARY JOHNSON, who just left the republican party to run under the libertarian party. as a former governor of new mexico, his nickname became governor veto, as he set records for vetoing bloated budgets.


Robot Traders Mom's picture

Agreed, love Gary Johnson and taking nothing away from him.


Amash is a young, good looking kid that has a solid head on his shoulders that can attract many people as well.


The way I figure it, the more people that support liberty, the better!

FMR Bankster's picture

Gary Johnson is a solid guy and doing the right thing going after the libertarian Party nomination. With RP in the Republican race there just wasn't enough air for both of them and RP had built up the movement in 2008. RP isn't going to go third party this year as he's built up the Taft wing of the party, we're electing like minded people, (including his son)and he wants to go to the convention with a block of votes. Since the convention is around Labor day no time for a third party bid. Johnson will give us a decent option to vote for.

Socratic Dog's picture

Umm, why should I give a fuck that he's "good looking".

Leave that mindset for the sheeple, robo.

Cathartes Aura's picture

did a very quick check on Gary Johnson - good for him leaving the Repubs and stating his platform, evolves the discourse.


whstlblwr's picture

Would suck if he takes votes away from RP

Cathartes Aura's picture

in a perfect world, politicians compete for being the best representative of the people electing them - if he "takes votes" from RP, then maybe some tweeking of RP's platform is in order.

I realise this is doubtful, but in the end - the president is a figurehead, nothing more - RP is doing a good service by getting more people interested in such things as "End the Fed" - but he's got some beliefs that don't belong enshrined in laws.

akak's picture

... but he's got some beliefs that don't belong enshrined in laws.

And that is, in essence, what differs between the other, pro-status-quo, statist candidates and Ron Paul (or any good libertarian): his personal beliefs are NOT enshrined in law, because he recognizes that they are precisely that --- personal --- and do not belong in the political sphere.

Now then, were you talking about more than just the abortion question, or precisely what OTHER "beliefs" does Ron Paul hold that you believe he wants to enshrine in law?  And have you yet acknowledged that one can legitimately argue against abortion from a consistent pro-liberty position, taking the rights of the unborn child into account and not just those of the mother?  Until you can bring yourself, not necessarily to agree with, but to simply ACKNOWLEDGE that such an argument can logically be held, then you have absolutely no grounds on which to stand in criticizing the supposed hypocrisy of Ron Paul's abortion position.

Given your generally thoughtful, intelligent and insightful comments here, I find your insistence to continually divert any discussion of Ron Paul onto this relatively trivial wedge issue most annoying and distasteful.

Shell Game's picture

Well said.  Can't green you, so I + you...  

Cathartes Aura's picture

we're not talking about "children" here akak, we're talking about zygotes.

All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Mammalian zygotes eventually develop into a blastocyst, after which they are more generally termed an embryo, and then a fetus.

RPaul has been diligently pushing for a Constitutional Amendment that defines "life" as the moment the sperm enters the egg:

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.


including in cases of rape or incest.

And have you yet acknowledged that one can legitimately argue against abortion from a consistent pro-liberty position, taking the rights of the unborn child into account and not just those of the mother?

I genuinely look forward to reading such arguments, but only if they stay on point - as in, a Constitutional Amendment defining a zygote as a "human being" with full rights to life for which a female could be prosecuted for murder by the State she resides in should she not desire, for reasons of her own wisdom and choice, to carry the zygote to full term. 

I would also hope to be able to participate in the discussion - ie, that it might be here, in thread, so that we can all "discuss" from a "consistent pro-liberty position" how all these newborn children enforced by the State will be supported, by whom, whether by welfare through taxes, charity or abandonment - I'd like to see some logical answers to an emotive topic, believe it or not.  I'd like to know that others have at least considered how these precious zygotes lives might unfold given their enforced beginnings, and the genuine poverty already felt by many, and how desperate things will be going forward. I think there are more important things for a President to deal with right now than removing a female's right to make decisions about her own body.

As to my "continually diverting any discussion of Ron Paul" - how are my points "diverting" a "discussion" when so few will even answer them with anything other than a vote down?  how is a discussion diverted by a genuine question?  most of the posts "discussing" Paul are "fuck yeah!" posts, hardly "discussing."

I know you and others think I'm petulantly trolling - either against Paul or for "wimmin" - when in fact, I'm appalled that so few here "know" the full agenda of the man they're dead set on "electing."    I've seen this movie before   *nods*

akak's picture

Cathartes, I think I should re-emphasize that I was NOT making the stereotypical "pro-life" argument, or indeed taking ANY side in the abortion debate at all in my prior posts --- merely pointing out that there is an undeniable logical consistency, and validity, in that argument, as indeed there is also in your own.  That is the conundrum that I cannot, personally, get past in this whole debate, and why I have never been able to take a side in it; both sides seem to me to have more or less equal merit.

As I stated in the past, no matter at what point one chooses to define "life", that choice seems to me rather if not almost entirely arbitrary.  In fact, choosing the points of fertilization, and of birth, both seem to me to be the least arbitrary points, with the former seeming, on first blush, to be the most logical of all.  Yet I also cannot get past the idea of a microscopic agglomeration of a few cells having all the same rights of you or me; as others have also pointed it, a zygote is in no way a sentient being.  But, for that matter, is a newborn infant a sentient being either?  The entire topic makes my head spin!

(What if we just defined "life" as existing, in the case of the fetus, at the moment at which brain activity is first detected?  That would be a medically verifiable instant, I presume, and is still far short of birth or, indeed, viability outside the womb.)

Again, I was not trying to be dismissive or confrontational with you, merely pointing out that the usual debate over abortion, with both sides talking past each other and refusing to address the other's arguments, serves no purpose whatsoever, and is tedious in the extreme.

Cathartes Aura's picture

you know akak, it IS a tough subject, which is yet another reason I believe government has no place in making laws on the issue.  and I'm sorry, but particularly Christian men in government positions.

choosing the points of fertilization, and of birth, both seem to me to be the least arbitrary points, with the former seeming, on first blush, to be the most logical of all.

I gave this a lot of thought years ago, and, apart from deciding if it wasn't my situation, it wasn't my decision - I decided, for me, in general, that at the time a foetus could be viable, could exist outside the womb even with medical assistance, then it could be considered a "life." 

I also believe that if the State wants to make laws about the "right to life" then it needs to take responsibility for those laws and describe in legal terms exactly how this sacred life will be taken care of once it has been born from the womb.  no cop outs!  if you enforce "life" because it's "sacred" then you make provisions to keep that "sacred" life alive with support.  because that's something a woman might take into consideration - whether she can support a life, particularly if she's alone.

I really appreciate your spending time and thought on this, even if it was to just growl at me at first, heh - I wish this shit wasn't important, but so many "laws" are being passed right now that are shoving our faces in the reality of how fucked we are as humans, being - I can only imagine how the people of Iran, etc. are feeling as the game pieces are getting put in place, while amrkns watch their Bowl games, teevee, and shop the discount sales.  so few are awake that even arguing this topic is redundant. . . I'll most probably let it go after a while, because I know in my heart that even if Ron Paul is allowed to be "elected" a President only has the "power" he's allowed. . .

I have nothing against Paul, he's furthering the education of many on such things as the Federal Reserve, precious metals, etc. - but the Christian agenda, which his son is very big on as well, is the same as always - control over females, particularly their reproduction rights.  it's a centuries old story that most aren't even aware of, and many young people take for granted as a "given" even now.

bleuch!  I'm done, peace to your spinnin' head akak, take care!

akak's picture

Thanks for the response, Cathartes, and I am sorry if I initially jumped out of the gate growling --- it can sometimes be rather jarring to hop from blasting a troll in one comment to responding to an intelligent, sincere poster in another.

I have actually spent a GREAT deal of time thinking about this topic over the years, and to be honest, I feel rather like a failure in never having come to any firm decision over it after all that time and thought invested in it.  The best conclusion I can arrive at is that, somehow, the whole debate is being improperly framed, with a possible false dichotomy being presented as the only conceivable (no pun intended) two solutions to the question.

The abortion question actually has a rather personal relevance to me, as my mother had an unusual double uterus that the doctors told her would almost certainly prevent her from ever becoming pregnant, or carrying a baby to anywhere close to full term if she did.  Well, after 10 years of trying she did become pregnant with me, but her doctors at one point tried to convince her that an abortion would be advisable for her own safety.  In the end, I was born over 2 1/2 months early (this in the early 1960s), with severe complications for my mother, and it was only as the result of a radical and never-before-tried experimental technique that I even survived my own first few weeks --- and even then just barely.  So whenever I hear abortion being discussed, I can never help but think "There but for the grace of God go I ....."

Cathartes Aura's picture

ha, no worries at all akak - I struggle with my *snark* voice every time I post here - it gets more exercise than my *calm argument* voice, by virtue of the majority of replies here often being for entertainment purposes only (which I'm down with, for the most part).  I've read, and enjoyed, your posts for ages, so I take everything in aggregate. . .

this post though, very rich with the storyline behind your thoughts, and I appreciate your sharing it, being personal to you. . . how could you not have a strong re-action to the subject?  and mixed thoughts, of course.

I'd like to make an observation:  your mother has/had a unique personal twist on the "every body is the same and can be judged accordingly" - in that her unique circumstances needed to be responded to on their own terms, not with cookie-cutter laws. . . your mother made space for you first in her heart/mind, and eventually her womb - it was her intention to give birth, and you are the fruits of her intention/desire. . . this means you were strongly wanted in her life, and despite anything that happened after, she chose to birth you - even when presented with alternatives by the medical profession.

this is my most important point - the unique circumstances of desire/choice, and the variables inherent in each human.  contrasting your life story with the possibility of mandatory infants, and the obvious psychological damage to the woman, passed to the infant, and then the culture. . .

we live in times where "choices" are being eroded daily - having the State enforce its choice is endgame.

again, really appreciate your sharing your story - your mother, your family - intentional love.  *smiles*

akak's picture

Much thanks, Cathartes.

I very rarely share such personal information in anonymous online forums --- not sure entirely what prompted me to do so this time.  But I am glad that you read it, and appreciated the story.  It can be all too easy to metaphorically flip-off others in these forums, and forget that all these comments and faceless voices really do have real people behind them, with all their infinitely complex personalities, backgrounds and emotions.

YHC-FTSE's picture

I almost missed this thread. Thank you both for a most interesting read. It may or may not interest you to know that I'm on Cathartes side on the issue of choice - I can't imagine a worse fate for a baby than being born as an unwanted burden by forcing a pregnant woman to full term as though she was nothing but a sow. That would be the imposition of the group on an individual on a level so personal, it defies all sense. Coversely, I am very glad akak's mother chose to oppose the will of the medical group at personal risk to have her bundle of joy. Both experiences, I can see are all about personal choice. Imo, the ability to defy the group on personal matters of one's body is a right that should be protected at all costs.


As for defining human life, that's another dillema I've thought about on sleepless nights, especially because of my personal stance on choice and my catholic upbringing. No doubt it will cause more sleepless nights, but for now, I think viability is a good reference point for considering the right to life of a foetus, with emphasis on the choice of an individual on a case by case basis. As for the good Dr.Paul, I don't have a single problem with his views because it would be impossible for him to be libertarian and impose anti-choice legislation as a federal law at the same time. I trust that gentleman to be true to his political convictions, over his personal ones.

Chump's picture

A few points.

- Simply because you can name a stage of human development does not render a human in that stage non-human. An adult human's right to life is not more or less sacrosanct than an infant's, and an infant's is not more or less sacrosanct than a zygote's.  Part of being a mature adult, I would hope, is the ability to recognize that human life = human life, whether it is an adolescent or adult or what amounts in base minds to a blob of cells.

- There is not much need to answer your question of, "what about the children?" a negation of existing abortion laws would create.  Although their numbers have been declining, over half of all abortions are performed on white, middle class women who simply don't want to be inconvenienced by a baby, I presume in the same way they didn't want to be inconvenienced by taking approximately 11 seconds to unroll a condom on the cock of their "choice."  This point is vapid, however, as we live in an era where the mechanics of baby makin' are well understood by the thickest of the thick.  This idea that a life should be ended because someone was too lazy to take easy, incredibly simple measures literally makes me gag.

- Sort of a continuation of the last point: we don't kill people for convenience.  Let's allow that more children will be born into dire circumstances should abortion be outlawed.  And?  Are you shooting for new quotables?  "Tis better to be dismembered and sucked out of the womb than to ever have experienced life outside of it."  We put dogs out of their misery, not people, unless they choose to end their own lives.  Oh, that's illegal?  Funny, that.

It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment to respect life, but it does take an over-reaching view of the power of the federal government to agree that Congress can legalize murder for the sake of convenience and "for the children, who would suffer if we let them live."

Thank you for alerting me to Dr. Paul's views on this subject.  It gives me yet another reason to vote for him.

Cathartes Aura's picture

apt name Chump.

I'm glad you've got another reason to vote for your man, it's good to be convinced of your choices.  I completely disagree with your "arguments" of course, but that's a given, eh!

simply don't want to be inconvenienced by a baby, I presume in the same way they didn't want to be inconvenienced by taking approximately 11 seconds to unroll a condom on the cock of their "choice."

this observation is of course, hilarious, as the reason most cocks are UNcondomed is the MAN's reluctance to use 'em - you make men sound like blow up dolls firing fertile bullets that women need to suit up for - rather than sentient beings responsible for their fertility - is the responsibility for fucking solely a woman's?  guess so in your world.

all good tho' - those feckless white middle class women can donate their kids as cannon fodder - a time honoured tradition for nationstates.


CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Each of us is responsible for our own actions. Killing kids for convenience's sake does not make a man a better man or a woman a better woman.

Chump's picture

C'mon, this could've been a decent discussion.

Men don't want to wear condoms, women are apparently powerless to stop them in your world, therefore we should grant women the privilege to kill inconvenient babies?  Sorry, not a spec of logic or reason there, just a hateful view of men, women, and life in general.

Your most salient point now that you've abandoned the rest is that my chosen username is indeed apt.

Cathartes Aura's picture

my reply to you was in an appropriate tone to your post - I've posted enough times over the past week or so, should you wish to get my stance on the subject - I'm not so very interested in repeating my points right now - but maybe you & Crockett can explore your opinions.

signed, hateful view.

flattrader's picture

>>>In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act,<<<

Libertarianism for less than 50% of the population.  Facism for the majority...that have wombs.

He is dangerous to personal freedom.

Urban Redneck's picture

Nowhere near as dangerous as the Patriot Act or the NDDA are to personal freedom. 

Single issue voters are the useful idiots of the two party system.

With any two party or two choice limited option set, anyone who isn't chosing between the lesser of two evils isn't thinking, or can't see the situation for what it actually is.