Hey, Ron Paul, now I’m starting to think you want to kill me

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2012

You would think that after touting the endorsement of one Christian reconstructionist who favors executing gays – and being called on it – you’d be careful before you starting talking about another. Unless, I guess, you agree with them.

But today there’s another preacher, Voddie Baucham, Pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church, who is one the front page of Ron Paul’s website singing Ron’s praises:

While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible… I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.

Unlike, I guess, the Mormon and the Catholic options.

Now some of what Baucham says makes sense. He, like me, has no desire to elect a Pastor in Chief. And he notes that when you send a guy to change the moral standards to be to your liking, then the next guy is free to change them to his liking and “How’s that workin’ for ya?”

But what isn’t mentioned is Baucham’s other writings, like – for example – this response to President Obama’s 2009 statement of support for LGBT Pride Month that Dr. Warren Throckmorton found:

As I have noted elsewhere, President Obama is committed to a radical pro-homosexual agenda. Since day one of his administration, he has made no secret of his intent to move the ball forward on the full acceptance of homosexuality and the criminalization of all disapproval thereof. Just this week he appointed the founder of GLSEN to a post in the Department of Education. Then, in another brazen act, the Obama administration took another bold step forward as he declared June LGBT Pride Month. In a statement on the White House website he wrote:

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Hence, sodomites, who who are in large part responsible for the introduction and spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic are praised for responding to this plague in an attempt to avoid annihilation (by the way, I know you don’t have to engage in sodomy to get HIV, but that doesn’t change the facts… see the book, And the Band Played On for an honest look at this issue). This is revisionism at its worst.

The President goes on to celebrate the fact that this abomination (Lev 18:22) worthy of the death penalty (Lev 20:13) is now being celebrated in the open. He writes, “Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before.” This is a clear sign of the devolution of culture. As Paul writes in Romans, “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom 1:32 ESV)

So what’s going on here, Ron Paul? Why is it that you keep talking up the endorsements you get from people who want to execute me?

Once is an error. Twice… well, twice means that you need to start explaining in terms that leave no doubt.

Non-Idiot

January 17th, 2012

So….it’s completely impossible for someone to have personal views and professional ones? I love how you quote this loser, but not Ron Paul himself. And, of course, that is because Ron Paul doesn’t want to legislate morality. You’ve reached an all-time low, Timmy. But hey, go ahead and vote for Obama, at least then you’ll be able to complain for four more years about how he treats gays.

Ryan

January 17th, 2012

“Non-idiot”,
if you tout someone with “personal views” that include putting gay people to death on your “professional” website, then you need to explain yourself. After all these newsletters, I find it remarkable that anyone at all is still attempting claim that Paul isn’t homophobic, or will in some way be better for gays than Obama. He is and he won’t. It’s irrelevant, anyway, as Paul will not win the nomination. Any non-idiot could tell you that.

Jim Burroway

January 17th, 2012

Um, Non-Idiot;

You do realize that it is Ron Paul’s website itself that is bragging that it bagged Baucham’s endorsement, don’t you? On the front page as of this evening. Ron Paul’s campaign is tickled to have Baucham’s endorsement from “from a Christian perspective” — in the campaign’s own words. If Paul thinks Baucham provides a “Christian perspective,” it is certainly worth looking at exactly what that perspective is.

Or you could stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s not there. Either way.

TomTallis

January 17th, 2012

The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul is nothing but a slick Rick Perry.

As an aside, isn’t it strange that every time a gay blogger posts anything critical of Ron Paul, it’s always a Ron Paul supporter who’s johnny-on-the-spot posting either the first or second response. Hmmmmmm…

Hunter

January 18th, 2012

Don’t kid yourself — “Pastor in Chief” is exactly what this clown is after. If the “foundational ideology” is biblical, what else are you going to wind up with?

Priya Lynn

January 18th, 2012

“Non”-idiot, it should occurr to you that if Ron Paul features someone on his web-site that wants to kill gays its obvious Ron Paul isn’t at all troubled by such desires – that’s a bad thing.

Blake

January 18th, 2012

@TomTallis: its true that Paul’s trolls often do more harm than good for their candidate.

@Non-idiot – if you were trying to be persuasive you failed.

Paul’s libertarian philosophy has a funny way of making everyone think he’s going to be an advocate for their pet cause. Be they Rabidly Anti-gay Pastors as cited above or some gay friends of mine. But were Paul elected I have a suspicion both groups would be disappointed by his policies in action.

While I don’t believe Paul to be a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States; and while I agree with Tim that his newsletters disqualify him from holding major office; I still think supporting & voting for him in the primary could have good consequences for both the Republican Party and for the United States.

I am going to be voting for Ron Paul in the 2012 republican primary because:

1. My state has an open & proportional primary

2. I want the republican party to adopt more libertarian planks. (so that, someday, I can have the option of voting for a Republican Presidential Candidate who is not opposed to equality).

3. There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Ron Paul can win the nomination.

That being said, barring some sort of miracle in Tampa(Draft Olympia Snowe!!); I will voting for Obama in the G.E.

Mark F.

January 18th, 2012

“…and while I agree with Tim that his newsletters disqualify him from holding major office…”

Well, your priorities are straight (no pun intended). 20 year old newsletters which do not reflect Paul’s views and which he has apologized for disqualifies him for office. But Obama can order anyone thrown into prison idefinately without trial on his say so, drop bombs on foreign countries which kill and maim innocents, throw pwople into prison for victimless drug crimes and flush a trillion dollars down the military drain, and that does not disqualify him.

I do agree that Paul’s campaign (you can’t POSSIBLY believe he personally is looking over everything on his website.)is very sloppy about checking out some of their endorsers.

Timothy Kincaid

January 18th, 2012

If by “Tim” you mean me, I never said that his newsletters disqualify him from holding major office.

Mark F.

January 18th, 2012

“Hey, Ron Paul, now I’m starting to think you want to kill me.”

Then you are a real fool. The obvious explaination is that Ron Paul’s campaign, in its zeal to rack up endorsements, is very sloppy about checking out their endorsers.

Rob in San Diego

January 19th, 2012

If none of you think Ron Paul is electable, (and I know none of you do from past conversations)and since he is not in 1st place, why are there no articles about Mitt Romney?

To Tim and Jim, do you support the Bush doctrine that it is in America’s best interest to strike first against an enemy? Do you believe that we should go to war with Iran ASAP? And if so why?

Blake

January 19th, 2012

I meant Jim. My bad Tim.

Blake

January 19th, 2012

Mark, while I would like government to move in a direction where it ceases all the problematic behavoir you pointed out above, I do not think a President Paul facing-down a hostile congress could. The political reality is that a President Paul could accomplish little if elected. Congress would simply trample the Presidency & override him at every turn. I doubt he would go 6 months without being impeached on some flimsy charge or another. A Paul administration would resemble an Andrew Johnson administration.

But if he racks up a significant portion of the vote then he can change the other parties in the same way that the last great statesman in American politics did: William Jennings Bryan. Already the Democratic Party seems to be taking the decriminalization of marijuana more seriously. Perhaps as Bryan found a home for his populism in the Democratic party of the time, Paul can find a home for his within one of the parties (although, to continue the analogy, a SoS Paul would be a nightmare; can you imagine the speech he’d give at the UN as the US SoS?).

Regarding the controversial endorsements; they don’t bother me because Paul is a biggest-tent-imaginable-libertarian. But I think libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is more appealing on a State Level (especially here in GA where one party dominates politics & insists on meddling in both business & personal lives all the damn time); whereas on a Federal Level it would just result in a transfer of power to the state governments as each then decides their own abortion policies, gay rights policies, drug policies, etc. So a Federal Libertarian Government would be a decentralized government, but one that, for better or worse, allows the states to deny liberty to their constituents (be it Liberty over their own bodies, or equal treatment before the laws). This is how Paul can be, at the same time, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-legalization-of-drugs, Anti-Abortion, Pro-individual-liberty, Isolationist, Pro-states-rights, and Democratically Populist all at the same time.

Do Libertarian politics have a place at the table? Sure. But is a completely hands-off Federal Government really what we want? Maybe for you; but I want a Federal Government who will intervene in the states when the state governments start violating clauses of the Constitution which have been incorporated to the states (a position which is anathema to Paul’s vision of a libertarian Federal Government). I certainly don’t think Paul’s version of Federalism would be popular. & his vision is not executable by a President acting alone; he would have to have a supportive Congress & a Supreme Court which agrees with his assertions (like overturning Roe v Wade or ending incorporation).

And finally, Mark, in building a case for your candidate I suggest stepping outside of the whinny: “Well Obama does…”. Yes Paul is different, but he scares a lot of people because he is so damned different. Stop pointing out the opponent’s flaws & Start articulating where & how Paul is an appealing candidate. He’s got great mass appeal, but you’d never know it with all the indignant whining coming out of his supporters. I want Paul to do well in the Primaries, but Paul supporters are the worst! I guess that’s why he can raise $6M in one day, but not win a nomination.

And Tim, in my defense, I do also confuse Charise & Chanel at my office, & I see them everyday! SO in an effort to prevent further confusion in my pathetic little mind, you shall henceforth be Timothy & Jim shall be Jimbo or Bubba ;-).

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1948: "Homosexual Ring Broken Up" At Mizzou

Today In History, 1960: Daughters of Bilitis Hold First National Convention

Today In History, 1969: "One Profession Frowned Upon In Hollywood"

Today In History, 1993: Russia Decriminalizes Homosexuality

Born On This Day, 1927: Marijane Meaker

House GOP Caucus Heard "Homosexuals Worthy Of Death" Verse Before Spending Bill Vote

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.