Video: Why We Support Ron Paul

This post may contain affiliate links. We only recommend products and services we wholeheartedly endorse. Thank you for supporting Traditional Cooking School by GNOWFGLINS with your purchases. Our family thanks you!

Don’t be shy — use the buttons above to spread this message!

Hi — my name is Harmon. I am a blogger, teacher, homemaker, homeschooling mom, traditional foods cook — and Ron Paul supporter.

I think Dr. Ron Paul is a really cool guy. He’s a Christian who’s been married for 55 years to his wife Carol. He gardens with his grandkids in Texas. He’s an obstetrician turned Texas congressman.

“But it is true, there was essentially 4000 babies that I delivered. And it’s a delightful thing to bring new life into the world.” –Ron Paul

He’s a champion for the unborn.

“You can’t very well defend liberty and personal choices if you don’t defend life.” –Ron Paul

He’s just very real and down-to-earth.

Ron Paul Cherishes Liberty

My family and I agree with Dr. Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but we primarily support him because he cherishes liberty.

“It’s most important that we understand where our life and liberty comes from. And for me, it comes from a Creator. It doesn’t come from our government.” –Ron Paul

Our Government is Taking Away Our Liberty, Bit by Bit

Our government should be protecting this, but instead is taking it away, bit by bit. We have body scans at airports. Difficulty selling or obtaining raw milk..

“I would like to restore your right to drink raw milk any time you [want] to.” –Ron Paul

Water supplies tainted with chemicals like fluoride and chlorine. Heavy taxation on the fruits of our labor.

“If  we have a natural right to our life and liberty, we should have a natural right to the fruits of our labor.” –Ron Paul

Liberty for All

If you’re willing to fight for your own liberty, you also have to be willing to fight for the liberty of others — others that may not choose to exercise their liberty the same way you do.

“You don’t have to be judgmental and say, ‘Oh, he’s using his freedom the wrong way. I want him to use his freedom the way I use my freedom.’ No, you can’t do that. You have to be tolerant. People say, ‘Oh, no, you can’t be tolerant. What if they do something that you don’t like?’ Tolerance does not mean endorsement.” –Ron Paul

“It’s wrong to assume that if you legalize liberty and freedom, that because somebody might do something wrong, you don’t want to legalize it. Liberty doesn’t mean libertine — it means you have choices.” –Ron Paul

Everyone gets the responsibility to make their own choices. It’s just like how God doesn’t force us to believe in Him. But, with government, if what we do hurts or trespasses on someone’s liberty, that’s when government steps in as a protector. And that’s how it should be.

“The easiest way for people to understand this is, we do understand pretty well in this country about religious liberty. We know that you have a right to practice your religion. We know that you have a right not to practice religion, if you don’t want. But, if we could translate that into all personal behavior, as well as all economic behavior — that it’s your life, you run your life, don’t hurt any body, don’t steal from every body, you suffer the consequences of the way you run your life. You can practice your religion as you see fit. You can run your intellectual life as you see fit. And you have the right to spend your money as you see fit.” –Ron Paul

Ron Paul Gets It

Ron Paul is the only politician who understands how important liberty is and how to protect it and uphold it. As President he’ll pull the meddling government out of our lives so we can decide for ourselves what to eat and how to educate our children. He’ll give the states back the power to protect the unborn. He’ll bring our troops home and he’ll stop sending all that money overseas. He wants to stop the Fed from printing money we don’t have and therefore bring our cost of living back under control. He’ll phase out the FDA and EPA.

“You can’t just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it. On regulations, no I don’t believe in any of these federal regulations. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it.” –Ron Paul

Please help put Dr. Ron Paul in the White House.

Your vote is a vote for Life, Prosperity, and Liberty.

Want More?

If you want to know more about Ron Paul and where he stands on issues of liberty and other important matters, visit or Ron Paul Flix featured my little ol’ video right here.

Like my free videos? Please use the buttons at the top of this post to share this video with others. And subscribe to the GNOWFGLINS Channel on YouTube — you can give this or any other video a thumbs-up!

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Why or why not? Your kind comments and observations welcomed!

Many thanks to Christopher Ouellette of for direction in the making of this video. The use of copyrighted media clips in this video constitutes “fair use” for the purposes of launching a discussion, as allowed in section 107 of US Copyright Law.

This post may contain affiliate links. We only recommend products and services we wholeheartedly endorse. Thank you for supporting Traditional Cooking School by GNOWFGLINS with your purchases. Our family thanks you!


  1. Carol says

    Well said, and I thank you for that. I went back and forth on supporting Ron Paul for a long time. Whenever I read what “conservative commentators” said about him, or about what he said, I rejected him, as he seemed too wacky, even scary. But when I read what he has said for myself, I understood him clearly, agree with him in most things, and firmly believe he is our best hope for the presidency!

  2. Arielle says

    “Everyone gets the responsibility to make their own choices.”

    Except if a woman chooses an abortion?
    Except if two people of the same gender choose to get married?

    This man does not support liberty, he supports hatred and fear. Shame on you.

    • says

      “If what we do hurts or trespasses on someone’s liberty, that’s when government steps in as a protector. And that’s how it should be.”

      A baby has a legal right to life and liberty, too, and it begins in the womb at conception. Abortions trespass against the baby’s life and liberty. The right and proper use of government in this case is to step in and protect the baby.

      • Arielle says

        Oh dear. That is not a baby, that is a fetus: a collection of cells incapable of thinking, feeling – or anything else that a baby can! I realize using the example of real science is pointless when talking to someone who believes Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, but facts are facts.

        • Carol says

          Arielle, you are not looking at actual science if you believe that babies in the womb are incapable of feeling. There is also evidence that they dream very early on. Science has already completely refuted what you say. I understand that you don’t want to know that, but it is quite true.
          I’m all in favor of science, but what you call “real” science is nothing of the kind. It is a religion.

          I don’t want to invade Wardee’s comment section with conflict, but I thought a refutation based on facts was in order. This is my last comment on this post.

        • says

          if/when you have the privilege to see your baby (or the baby of a loved one) on an ultrasound screen sucking his/her thumb, moving around and even “waving”, i think your mind will change.

          if babies could talk, i’m sure they would NOT request to be aborted. but the strong choose to overpower these weak ones, merely because they dont have a voice.

          also, in utero babies ARE capable of feeling- they recoil when being poked. furthermore, studies show that babies of mothers who are domestically abused are born with brain damage (from the stress of the abuse). even before they are born they are capable of these feelings.

        • JW says

          “That is not a baby, that is a fetus: a collection of cells incapable of thinking, feeling – or anything else that a baby can! ”

          This is one of the most ignorant, sad arguments I’ve heard time and again to argue for “Women’s Rights” (also known as abortion).

          Who the hell is fighting for the rights of the very tiny people who would undoubtedly like the chance to grow into women themselves?! I am a VERY strong proponent of individual liberty and I do NOT like the gov’t telling me what to do with my body, but when my body is the temporary home for someone ELSE’S body why should I have the right to KILL them? It is beyond comprehension to me how people don’t get this. A collection of cells???? That is just an unscientific and abhorrent thing to say. Shameful on every level.

        • Susan says

          Oh dear. You have fallen prey to the twisting of semantics. Why is it that people (sometimes the very same person, at different points in her life) call it a “fetus” when they don’t want the child, and a “baby” when they do? No one has a “Fetus Shower.” No one calls up their parents in excitement to deliver the news, “Guess what? We’re having a fetus!”
          And as others here have extensively pointed out, the science is not on your side.
          You support the killing of children for the sake of convenience. Shame on YOU.

        • says

          Hello Arielle,

          I don’t wish to start an argument here, but I would be more than happy to talk w/ you via email or on the phone about your thoughts about abortion. There is just so much information out there about life in the womb and I am concerned about what you said. Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a famous former abortionist who became convicted about what a pre-born baby felt when he saw his/her jerking reactions from pain in the womb.

          I think one of the most difficult things is that these days there is a lot of anger flying both ways across this debate. I do not wish to do so but I would like to encourage you to look into the facts. We are all humans from conception. A baby’s location (whether inside or outside of the womb) doesn’t determine whether or not it is a baby. Neither does its viability. Just because a human being needs life support doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a human.

          In any case – I really encourage you to think about what you are saying.

          I personally am not voting for Ron Paul, so that is not why I am writing here. I like a lot of what he says but I have some concerns about some extreme stances that he has. But I do applaud Wardee for being courageous. Let’s all be adult in the way we handle this type of conversation. We can all talk about difficult issues and learn from each other.

          Blessings and I mean it – please feel free to contact me a wholenewmom at gmail dot com. I promise not to yell :-).

      • Marie says

        I have been studying embryology the last few years and have been devouring articles about it in the last month or so specifically, so this is all fresh in my mind. In terms of embryology, what is truly mind blowing is that the so-called “collection of cells” is actually in fact a distinct, genetically unique entity from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. In fact, the ovum ceases to exist at that moment and chemically and electrically changes to the point that it is no longer just a sperm and an egg. By extension, it means that it is not a collection of cells because if it was, those cells would share the same DNA structure of the mother. Once the sperm is joined with the egg, it then has the full 46 chromosomes (23 from the egg and 23 from the sperm) that are required to constitute its existence as a human being. The DNA structure is thus different from that of the mother and the father and can no longer be thought of as a collection of cells of either the mother (egg) or the father (sperm). What has occured at conception is nothing short of miraculous, as a distinct unique individual has been created and exhibits all 46 chromosomes. In other words, this IS a human being. This human being is not part of the woman’s body by very nature that it no longer shares the same genetic makeup that her own cells contain. The ovum that once shared her genetic makeup no longer exists. In joining with the sperm from the father, a new person has been created. Call it a miracle or call it science, it is what it is–a human being. From the moment of fertilization, this brand new human being is biologically alive and distinct as an individual entity separate from the mother. Starting at fertilization, this genetically unique human being begins a rapid series of transformations that are nothing short of mind blowing in rapidity and complexity. It is internally transforming and growing itself. The mother’s body is not doing this. It is the work of the human being at fertilization that is now biologically alive. From this very moment, a new person has been created — a distinct, separate human being that is fully alive as it already shows the following capacities that indicate biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. There is so much more that blows my mind, but what is most amazing is in that beautiful first moment of creation, there is LIFE. And once there is human life, the mother’s body becomes the vessel whereby this life is nurtured and protected until it outgrows this vessel at birth. What is also fascinating to me is that the first 3 months after birth are really the completion of a full year cycle of human development, a fourth “trimester” if you will. The baby began its miraculous developmental stages of development from the very moment of fertilization when LIFE first begins. And every human being is entitled to the preservation of that life. And every human being’s life is sacred, precious, and to be protected at all costs. This is the very essence of liberty for every human being.

      • Shay says

        I have to agree with Arielle here. What about people that want to get married? Shouldn’t they have that liberty, regardless of their gender?

        And as for abortion? What if a woman was raped? What if she has a miscarriage? Some of these new laws would turn that poor woman into a criminal on top of what she’s already endured. That doesn’t sound like liberty to me.

        Does a woman lose all rights to HER liberty the moment that she gets pregnant? For something that may not even survive to term (regardless of what she does)? I can only imagine the resentment that someone might have toward that child if she is FORCED to carry it to term. She certainly won’t treat it with the care that all you loving mothers would. And after she’s fulfilled the obligation that you want set down in law, what do you think she will do with that baby? Will she raise it with the love and care that it deserves, as someone who wanted that child would?

        In fact, there is biblical support for the opposite of what you’re saying. In Lev 24:17 it says “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.” However, in Exodus 21:22 it says “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.” So an unborn child is not held on the same scale as a human life, even by the Bible.

        Now, I don’t like abortion either. But I believe in liberty, and that includes the liberty to allow other people to make choices I don’t like. We as a nation shouldn’t allow laws that force the religion of others onto those that don’t believe that particular religion.

          • Shay says

            Sorry, I should clarify when I quote something. An alternate reading could be “gives birth prematurely or has a miscarriage.” In the case of a miscarriage, then the only punishment is the mentioned fine. In which case, the life of the baby is not held on the same scale as the life of the mother.

        • says

          Shay, One of my adopted daughters was a product of rape. I thank God every day that her young (14) birthmother was courageous enough to carry her to term so we could raise the child she could not! Shay, you sell women short and do not give them credit if you make such a statement. I will never say rape is “no big deal” – it’s a life changer – but this young woman, because she chose life for her child – has been able to move forward and have a family of her own when she was ready. As for her adopted-out daughter, she has brought such joy into our lives!! And to imagine, she was originally schedule to be aborted! God can make ugly things into beauty if we will just trust in HIM!!

          • Shay says

            Amy, That’s a great story to hear. Very heartwarming, and I’m glad that both mother and child are alive and healthy. As I said before, I don’t like abortion. It’s not a choice that I don’t think I would ever choose for myself, and if I had a friend who was considering it, I would probably do my best to discourage them.

            However, I believe that the young woman in your story has/had the right to CHOOSE. And if she felt that it would have been healthier for her to not have that baby, that was her right and her CHOICE. And I feel that we should leave that option there for all women. If my hypothetical friend chooses to have an abortion, then all I can do is support her in that decision. It’s not our place to tell someone else what is healthier for her, physically or mentally. I certainly don’t think we should pass laws about it.

          • says

            That might be true if we were talking about something that only affects HER life, but once again the argument (or rather debate) comes down to whether or not it is a life in the womb. You have stated that you believe it is a fetus. Are you THAT sure? Because as technological advances are made we are finding that life is not only viable at an earlier age than previously thought, but life itself begins at a point earlier than we assumed. Why not err on the side of caution and life? Are we that selfish and weak as a human race that we can not make a sacrifice for the sake of a defenseless “fetus”? People will knock themselves out to defend animals, trees, and the environment ( and perhaps with good cause since we are to be good stewards of such), but why do we deny our own offspring and do backward flips to convince ourselves it’s just a glob of tissue? Let’s err on the side of life and pull up our boot straps and quit acting like we can’t make a sacrifice for the innocent, even if it hurts a bit.

          • Shay says

            Amy, Just to clarify, I’m not Arielle. I’m sure that there is science to support both sides of the issue, which is what makes it so sticky. I’m really not qualified enough to debate that. There’s also the issue that if you don’t allow abortion, does that mean you’ll support contraception for those who choose not to have children? I feel that to ban both would be to set back women’s rights 100 years.

            However, to me, it comes down to what you believe and what other people believe, and to what extent the law should support that. At the moment, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don’t believe we should make would-be mothers into slaves, forced to bear a child they may or may not want. If we ban abortion, than some women may cause harm to themselves or go to unsafe lengths because they don’t have a legal option, and feel they can’t have the child. I don’t think it will actually stop abortion, it will just change the manner in which it happens.

            Having children is a very personal choice, it causes a lot of physical and mental changes, and some women may not feel that it would be best for them to go through with that. In my mind, it’s their choice. I don’t get to dictate that. That’s what freedom means to me.

        • Colleen says

          Love all the comments and was blessed by the woman that explained so beautifully about what happens at the moment of conception.

          My comment is to Shay – you’ve quoted two Bible verses yet you seem to be confused? Am I understanding you correctly that you think the Bible teaches that abortion is okay? If so, I’d strongly encourage you to study that in context – as this is not what God’s Word is teaching. I’m troubled for you if this is what you believe.

          We have NO right to take ANY life – God is the Author and Creator of life and He is the ONLY One that can take it away.

          You mention rape, do you not think rape happened in Bible times? If God was okay with aborting a life because of rape He would have been very clear about that in His Word. Yet instead, He says to take care of widows and orphans – and says that He’s the Creator. Sadly, sin has marred everything and we are so very selfish – we justify what we want and then call it a “right”…

          There are so many women who would LOVE to have a child of their own – and to your question of what these woman would do to a child that was conceived by rape – some, by God’s healing grace, truly love these kids and raise them – others choose to put them up for adoption which then blesses other families waiting to love these kids – God ways are not our ways, He thoughts are not our thoughts – He’s the ONLY One who can bring beauty from ashes.

          Thankfully though, God sent His One and Only Son that by His grace, His perfect sinless life, death for our sins, burial and resurrection, we can be forgiven and be made right with our Creator again. And He’s returning and will make everything truly “right”. He will forgive anyone, even someone who has had an abortion if she repents and seeks His forgiveness and puts her trust in Him alone, because He’s that good.

          Thanks and God bless.

  3. Peggy says

    Four years of Democratic government growth and intrusion followed by eight years of Republicans doing the same. I’m fed up with non-change change and politicians owned by Monsanto and Seminis. I’m voting for Ron Paul because not only does he understand the framers’ intent, he has the courage to actually do what needs to be done. Great post, Wardee, thanks!

  4. says

    GREAT POST! I whole heartedly agree. You may take some flack for standing up for a political issue, but I think this goes past politics to a crisis our country is facing… erosion of liberty.

    Ron Paul is definitely getting my vote! Thank you for spreading the message!

  5. RobinP says

    We wanted a king like the nations…and we got it. An all pervasive, all encompassing state. Just as the children of Israel resisted their new-found freedom from hundreds of years of slavery to the Egyptians, we are resisting any notion of returning to the true liberty our founding fathers envisioned. Will we know what to do with it if we ever get it back? True liberty is only found when we take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. A 2 Chron. 7:14 liberty.

    Thanks, Wardee, for stepping out and standing on your convictions. We need more like you.

  6. Lili says

    Abortion should not be an issue when considering Ron Paul. His personal belief is of no consequence. His stance is to put the issue of abortion back at the state level NOT the federal government (where is doesn’t belong).

    I understand others concern about unwanted pregnancies in truly “unpreventable” circumstances and can see the debate as legitimate for those that are not spiritual. But the discussion about a woman’s bodily right when the majority of unwanted pregnancies are a product of carelessness and irresponsibility shouldn’t be. The attempt to separate sex from it’s intended biological purpose and the ease at which people enter into these relationships is not only a moral issue but an issue of responsibility and utter lack of regard for life.

    I’m not a fan of children being born to parents that don’t want them, won’t properly care for them and may endure a life of hardship, but this brings us back to the fundamental problem of morality, a reverence for life, personal responsibility. This doesn’t come from a government who does EVERYTHING to promote the opposite. It comes from a loving family, self respect and love, and a connection and understanding of the sanctity of earth, nature, and life….The true way to prevent abortion is to correct the attitudes toward sex and it’s purpose, toward life and the relationship with self, and the lack of personal responsibility and forethought. This all starts in the home. Just making it illegal won’t solve the true problem.

    A Utopia will never come from a government. It comes from the people, from family, from within.

  7. Jill says

    Ron Paul is our last hope for Freedom and Liberty, a vote for any other candidate and the NWO will be ushered in. We all now the NWO does happen because it is in scripture but it doesn’t have to happen on our watch!
    Ron Paul 2012!

  8. Shannon says

    I like and support the things that Ron Paul stands for as well… especially compared to the other candidates!! So for that reason he has my support. But I just can’t help but wondering how much of what this man says is genuinely true and to what degree he will uphold these ideals and follow through on his promises if he were to be elected. Sorry… but in my lifetime I’ve seen nothing but disappointment when it comes to candidates holding up their promised “end of the bargain”!

    • says

      i too worry about candidates following through on promises. the good news with paul is that he has been saying the same things and voting in congress the same way for 30 years. this gives me more hope that he will follow through!

  9. says

    LIBERTY people–you don’t all have to stand for the same beliefs. Keep on arguing, that’s what our current government wants! Wardee thank you for taking this “risk” to step out and support Ron Paul as an on line blogger. I hope others follow you and join in!!! We curently live in a state of tyranny–not much is real anymore, everything is controlled or in the process of becomming controlled. I too support Ron Paul! Thank you again! For people just awakening to the idea of liberty I also suggest educating yourself with Alex Jones, and

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
    US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 – 1790)

  10. Heidi says

    Wardee, I can’t even tell you how you changed my life. Before I read your blog I was searching for a different way of doing things… I was ready for drastic change. I’d been in the corporate world and I didn’t want any part of it. I’d made changes toward simple living, but my idea of simple living was to make my own pudding with corn starch! lol. I even think I added that post to your Simple Lives Thursdays! Wow! Since then, I’ve learned so much from you and my entire way of living is changing… and certainly, the way we eat!!! I even know the cows that provide our raw milk now! :)

    Once again, I’m learning something new! I really have been giving Ron Paul some notice. I do seem to agree with everything he says when I listen to YouTube videos. I still have some reservations, but those reservations have nothing to do with him or his views really… it would take too long to explain here.

    Anyway, I’m sorry you’re getting so many comments about the abortion issue. When I was younger, I always said I supported the right to choose, but I’d never be able to kill my baby… and I had my first child without any support at all – my mother wouldn’t even speak to me while I was pregnant (because I refused to get an abortion). The father of my son (who was 34 when I was 17 – yes, I guess some could even say that was a form of rape) kept pressuring me to do it. He dumped me when he found out I was pregnant and I was homeless for a short time (because I refused to kill my baby)… anyway, I thank you for being that voice who speaks up for those little ones. All of my grown children are blessings and are productive adults (commercial fisherman, Navy – submariner, and collage student). I’m grateful they were born.

    All of the young women I knew who had abortions are still a mess (and said they could never forgive themselves and wish they could take it back).

    A side note: I was given up at birth because my mother was only 18 and she didn’t have access to an abortion. As a result, she wore baggy clothes and stayed with her older sister until she could give birth without anyone knowing. If she had the choice, I would have been dead (along with my future children).

    I no longer think there should be a choice to murder a child.

    Thank you Wardee for all you’ve done for my family.

    Love and blessings, Heidi

  11. Jana says

    Thank you for reading about Ron Paul! If people actually researched him on their own rather than only listening to what Fox, CNN, MSNBC (and the like) said about him, I believe more people would support him. He’s the best!

  12. says

    Great post, and way to go for your boldness! One of my favorite things about Ron Paul is that he helps us remember that personal integrity and responsibility are the things that hold all this liberty business together. Do you think this nation still possesses enough personal responsibility to govern itself without extensive government intervention, or have we become so dependent on being “nannied” that we would struggle without all the interference we currently have?

    By the way, your blog and others like it are a great place to start to achieve personal liberty and responsibility, regardless of who is in office. Thank you for all you do!

  13. Shay says

    I wanted to write a separate post away from the debate above. I don’t normally get into internet debates, and so I apologize for hijacking the thread.

    Wardee, what I originally wanted to post about was something that I hope you are already aware of, at least now. Not all of your readers will automatically share your views (religious or political). For example, I am not Christian (not Atheist either, for what it’s worth), I support women’s rights, I support gay rights, and I want to learn about traditionally prepared healthy real food. These different things shouldn’t really be intersecting.

    I don’t mind that you’re Christian; that’s part of who you are and your perspective on the world. So I don’t mind when you mention God in your posts. I actually don’t mind that you’re voting for Ron Paul. If you feel he’s the best candidate for you, that’s great. That’s what our democratic process is all about, and the little ad in the sidebar is a nice way of showing your support. Who we vote for doesn’t make us good or bad people, it just makes us different. I don’t even mind posts about political issues most of the time. When there’s another law against raw milk, or a judge says we aren’t entitled to eat what we grow, or various other issues, I’m interested in those topics. They relate to what I want to learn about real food.

    What I don’t like is posts like this. This reads like political propaganda, and if I wanted to read this kind of thing, I’d go to Facebook or a political blog. I’m here to read about and learn about food, because I thought this was a food blog, and despite your welcoming attitude in other posts, in your lessons and in the forums, this post makes readers like me feel less welcome. I really just wanted to make you aware of this, if you weren’t already.

    • says

      Shay — I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thank you for sharing them. Some of these thoughts are addressed to you, and some more generally to those who have commented or read here.

      I am sorry you feel this post and video read like political propaganda. I didn’t intend it that way. The whole thing was from my heart — what I believe and what my family believe. I wrote it, filmed it, collected the clips, edited it and created it to express what I wanted to say. No one asked me to do it. I wanted to do it. From my point of view, it does relate to food. Our loss of liberty in our food choices is just a symptom of the general erosion of liberty in many areas of our life.

      As far the debates going here, I don’t have a problem with anything that’s been shared on either side. Everyone has been kind (for the most part — I didn’t appreciate the “shame on you” comment from Arielle, I have to admit). I had hoped to convey a main point that liberty, including expressing of ideas, is a good thing. That government should leave us alone for the most part and only step in when we’re harming another.

      It might surprise you to hear that I am not against gay rights. Or to put it more clearly, I don’t believe government should get involved in it or other personal matters. Our government should protect the liberty of every citizen, stepping in if we hurt one another. That same philosophy explains why I am pro-life, yet not anti-gay. I believe the unborn child is a citizen of this country like you are and like I am. If they’re harmed, I think our government should step in. Whether or not someone is gay is a personal matter, not a government matter. A gay person is a citizen, too, and his/her liberty should be protected — not because they’re gay. Not because I’m Christian. Not because you’re a woman. We’re all citizens and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      If a government is given the power to legislate or enforce moral matters, what happens when the wrong people get in power? And, your right could be my wrong and vice versa. We just end up flip-flopping between regimes. One moral compass is easily replaced by another depending on who is in power. I don’t think the government should have that power to legislate morality, no matter who is in charge. The Constitution doesn’t support that kind of government and neither do I. Morality should come through the family and the individual. When it spills out and hurts others, we have recourse through our government.

      I hope that you’ll stick around. I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate this post and I do take it seriously that you feel that way. Thanks again — and thank you to everyone who has taken time to share their opinions, too.

      • says

        Thank you; I agree completely! Many of our more conservative friends have criticized my husband and I for NOT being anti-gay. (Weird, huh?) I just don’t see how it’s my business who they’re attracted to, and I am not interested in policing who they sleep with. I believe in liberty for all choices that don’t harm others. Abortion, of course, doesn’t qualify because it hurts a baby. But people don’t always have to do what I think is right. If they will respect my right to drink raw milk, build a homestead, say/write/think what I want, I will respect their liberty to have the relationships they like or take the medications they like.

  14. says

    Hey Wardee, you lost me on this one. While I do agree with Ron Paul (and Senators Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich too) on issues of food freedom, the TSA, drug laws, and our wars in the Mideast, I otherwise think he is absolutely tin-foil hat crazy.

    As a former public school teacher, current environmental scientist, and a constitutional law buff and political junky, I find the doctor’s take on the Constitution to be a totally fringe view not accepted by the most revered and respected constitutional scholars in the country, living or dead. I also find the idea of abolishing the EPA or any other department completely abhorrent. And as a person of color, the idea of repealing federal civil rights laws and the 14th amendment, as Paul wants to do, is nothing short of IMMORAL.

    I’m old enough to remember what life was like before the Clean Air Act or before the EPA insisted that corporations quit setting our rivers on fire by dumping flammable carcinogens into them. History and current events tells us very, very clearly that large corporations are, by design, conscience-less, money-hoarders that are INCAPABLE of self-regulation EVER, and “the market” is NEVER informed or organized enough, by design, to provide pressure that might encourage good corporate citizenship on a constant basis.

    Agencies like the USDA, EPA or FDA are full of many, many good scientists (some of them friends) who really want to do their job of regulating industry and making sure we have clean air, water and food, as well as healthy small farms. But because corporations have paid for access to these department at the highest levels, and even WRITE THEIR OWN LEGISLATION!!!, these good scientists of conscience often find themselves hamstrung and frustrated again and again, watching their work be disregarded or even covered up in favor of what Big Ag, Big Pharma, etc. want to improve their bottom line–at our expense. This is not the fault of the agencies, but of the corporate corruption of our government–which started over 50 years ago. Even Lincoln warned us about the corrupting influence of corporations and banks in our government!

    Furthermore, while there are a few good ideas we can take from libertarianism (or any political philosophy), as a whole political package applied to the whole country, libertarianism and the Ayn Rand school of thought is nothing more than a grotesque, sociopathic nightmare.

    Ironically, Ayn Rand and libertarianism in general were/are extremely hostile to religion of any kind, and many libertarian ideas are blatantly anti-Christian. The Libertarian Party’s overt and arrogant lack of empathy, understanding and consideration for those who are less fortunate will destroy the Social Compact and what little safety net we have in favor of a false “every man for themselves; if I have it I must deserve it” selfishness I cannot ever, ever, ever stand for.

    History tells us what life was like before the EPA, DOE, FDA, Social Security and Medicare, and it was awfully barbaric, ignorant, filthy and dangerous compared to today. While they are not perfect, we created these institutions for very important reasons that have not gone away.

    I believe that as a president Ron Paul would have us go back to 1713 in many ways, not forward to 2013. We are all better off with Paul as a senior senator, fighting for ISSUES by introducing food freedom bills and fighting to end the Drug War from Congress, instead of driving our country to ruin with horrifying, socially-Darwinistic, Libertarian policies that are inappropriate for a large, diverse nation.

    Lastly, consider that real foodies tend to come in two general types: religious, very conservative, back-to-basics/prepper people, and non-religious, very liberal, back-to-basics, crunchy people. While we do have A LOT of overlap in how we live our lives, you may have quietly alienated the half of your readers who do not share your political views with this post. Most won’t say anything, so I will only speak for myself.

    Keep up the amazing work with food and family! In that realm, you have my utmost respect.

    • Holly says

      If Ron Paul takes positions that are “nothing short of IMMORAL” and stands for an ” ‘every man for himself; if I have it, I must deserve it’ selfishness”, why would anyone in their right mind support him?

      The most plausible explanations would be:

      A) the supporter is not in their right mind (and/or is feeble minded);
      B) the supporter is also immoral and selfish;
      C) the assumptions are incomplete;
      D) one or more of the assumptions is based on misinterpretation;
      E) one or more of the assumptions is in error.

      Wardee’s careful and measured presentation of her position–and her course of conduct on this website–weigh against A).

      You expressed your utmost respect for Wardee’s work with food and family, so I can’t believe that you’d think B) is the case.

      That leaves either you’ve missed something, you’ve misunderstood something, or you’ve gotten something wrong in understanding why Wardee has taken the position she has.

      Why *would* a serious person support a candidate that one considers ‘tinfoil hat crazy’?

      There is something to be gained from contemplating how a reasonable mind could honorably differ from one’s own.

      One last thought: No doubt that, as you alluded, a good number of Wardee’s readers disagree with her position, even to the point that some may choose to spend their online time elsewhere. I suspect Wardee knew that before she posted.

      Your comment that she may have *alienated* half her readership really stunned me, though. Have we become such a nation of wimps that, when a blogger posts on her own blog on a matter she feels is fundamental to what she blogs about, everyone with a different view would be offended to the point of alienation that she expressed herself?

      hmmmmm, more likely I misunderstood what you were trying to express. . . . you are a passionate writer, and in my field, alienation means complete separation.

      • says

        Dawn — I am sorry to hear you felt alienated. I did not intend that. I wanted to express my support of a candidate, who though not perfect or all-seeing (who of us is?), is my choice to lead our country in a different direction. I appreciate hearing why you cannot support Ron Paul, and I value the wisdom of your experience. I think we agree quite a bit, as you pointed out, and I’m glad for that. I respect your opinions, I am glad you shared them, and I will ponder them. I also hope you and I will continue to work together in the realm of real food.

        Holly — Thank you for speaking up for me. I am incredibly touched. I would add an F to your list — “you disagree with the supporter.” I think Dawn simply disagrees that Ron Paul’s proposed solutions are the answers to the problems we are facing. I’m okay with that. :)

  15. Rianna says

    Thanks for posting this Wardee. I have to admit, I liked Ron Paul but have not given him the thought and research he deserves. Thanks for enlightening me to dig further.

  16. Erin says

    Thank you for sharing and endorsing Ron Paul! I just discovered you from your butter blog post. I’m big into traditional foods and also a long-time Ron Paul supporter. I’ve had to fight and struggle to do basic things such as purchase raw milk and give birth at home. I’m watching my country’s economy collapsing in front of me. I’m seeing my child’s future mortgaged at record rates and a world full of violence and aggression. I applaud you for having the courage to speak publicly — it brings me to tears to see another person spread the message of Liberty. Not everyone will agree but as long as you do so with respect, and you did, a seed is planted. It won’t be long before more people realize that the EPA isn’t making the air more clean but rather protecting those who pollute the air. Private watch-groups have done more for our environment than the EPA ever has.

    “Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.”. ~George Washington

  17. says

    I completely agree with you. You might like my own blog post on the subject,

    I really feel this is our chance to turn things around a bit and leave a better place for our kids to live. Call me tin-foil-hat crazy, but I would rather go back to 1776 than live in a country where drones patrol the skies and we can be “indefinitely detained” for pretty much anything. All I want is the freedom to live in the way I believe best — and I am quite capable of campaigning on the state and local level to make sure I get it, so long as the federal government stays out of the way.

  18. says

    Irrespective of political opinion, Wardee’s readers should realize this is her blog, and she is entitled to say what she wishes, even if it alienates some of her readers: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” as Evelyn B. Hall famously wrote about Voltaire’s philosophy.

    Those who disagree will hopefully still find value in the driving message of this board – traditional food preparation. Those who support Ron Paul can enjoy another level of kinship with Wardee.

    The whole and traditional foods movement is a diverse tapestry in terms of race, religion,political affiliation, sexual orientation, heritage, and lifestyle. Working together in this venture, we learn about each other and, with luck, develop patience and tolerance for other perspectives, other ways of life and of thinking.

    I doubt very much this site will become more about politics than about food; Wardee’s political, religious, or moral views do not overshadow her expertise in the matters we all come her to read about – preparing traditional foods.

    Tolerance, patience, and compassion for those who choose other paths, while enjoying the fellowship of their company here.

  19. Nancy says

    Wardee, Imagine my delight when I saw that you are a fellow Ron Paul supporter!

    I see a few of you were not so impressed.

    There are however some among you that are wondering why Wardee feels so strongly that she’d go out on a limb and let everyone know how she feels politically when her site is about food. It is to you that I say–take the time to do your homework, study Ron Paul, you will most likely come to the same conclusion and be as passionate as Wardee is. Because of the media so many dismiss him or call him crazy. Don’t be fooled, Ron Paul is the only man of the four remaining Republican candidates that can make a difference that will turn our country around for the good.

    Do you know if our country was created a Democracy? Or was it a Republic?? What is the difference?
    Is the Federal Reserve really “Federal”?
    What does the Constitution really say?
    Educate yourself!

    If you foodies out their want to keep your choices for healthy food you had better get serious and do your homework.

  20. Candy says

    Lively discussion!

    While I do not agree with all of what Ron Paul thinks (I am fairly ‘liberal’), what I’ve thought all along is he is the only candidate who actually holds real views that are his own. He’s consistent. He’s views are not shaped by pollsters. Tolerance really is about knowing the next person is as entitled to his/her choices as you are to yours. And that is a core belief of his. More so than the rest of them!

    Wardee it was brave of you to take a stand. And, I do think he’s the candidate most likely to help us get our right back to drink raw milk (hard for me to find now). You are good role model for your children!

  21. Lori says

    I have looked into Ron Paul and like most all he stands for as I am a true Consitutionalist, meaning I believe in the actual context of the constitution as it was written and defined by the founding fathers (found in the Federalist Papers and in quotes).
    Wardee and others, I do not know how you can say that the government should not ‘legislate morality’ since the government already does legislate morality. It is against the law to steal, kill, maim, and other moral aspects of life. Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian laws which are moral laws. Up until about 20 years ago there were still laws against sodomy (open homosexuality) because they went against the judeo-Christian laws. No one was peeking inside people’s bedrooms and sending them to jail or hamstringing them in public. These laws were used to protect our nation against the immoral that would pervade our country as it has now.

    What people do in private is their business, but I don’t want ‘civil rights’ or protected rights for a class of people whose life is based on sexual orientation. As it is now, kids are being indoctrinated into homosexuality from kindergarten up in our public school system and this is wrong. Homosexuality is considered perversion and an abomination by God and should not be legalized as a legitimate lifestyle. I do not believe that homosexuals should be beat up or bullied, but neither should they be held up as positive role models and as ‘normal’.

    I say this and had a brother (now deceased) and a brother-in-law who are homosexual, and though I love both, I do not condone or like their lifestyle and would never support it. My brother was chaste the last 10 years of his life as he worried about AIDS and he also wrestled with his sexuality as he knew it was wrong from a godly point of view and he wanted to live his life to please God. My brother-in-law is a radical homosexual who goes to the Gay Rights Parades and has surrounded himself with other homosexuals and lesbians who are also radical. I see him only on family outings (2-4 times per year) and he and I have agreed to disagree and we don’t discuss his lifestyle as he thinks I am ‘behind the times” and I think he is living a life in rebellion to God, and so we don’t have a common ground. But we still love one another and would be there for each other, if needed. I do believe this is true tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance, it means you tolerate others and allow them to be who they are.

    Anyway, a government without moral laws would be in anarchy as everyone would do what they wanted to do without restraint. We are now seeing what a world without moral laws and a moral compass has to offer: Homosexuality deemed as ‘normal’, single moms without fathers involved with their children, or women who have multiple kids with multiple dads, state governments who rely on gambling for revenue. and other acts that were once considered immoral or shady. Our country is not what it once was, and we will never be the greatness we once were because we have debased ourselves and fallen out of favor with God because we have turned away from Him. Over and over in the Old Testament whenever Israel or any other government turned away from God, He brought judgment on them, and we are seeing this happening to the USA.

    My 23 year old daughter (one of my 8 kids) is a staunch Ron Paul supporter as she has looked deeply into him and what he stands for. People are sick of the status-quo.

    • says

      “Wardee and others, I do not know how you can say that the government should not ‘legislate morality’ since the government already does legislate morality. It is against the law to steal, kill, maim, and other moral aspects of life. ”

      Lori, you confuse liberty and morality. Every example you cited is an issue of infringing on someone’s liberty. The basis of morality is God-given liberty, not the other way around.

    • says

      Ok. I can’t shut up. The problem with subjecting one’s child to many unconstitutional ideals and/or the current admin’s idea of what is moral and what is not stems from subjecting children to the state’s indoctrination day camps. We avoided the issue altogether by homeschooling. Ron Paul will close down the DOE and leave a state’s education up to the state. He is also a staunch supporter of homeschooling, choice in vaccination, medical choice solely to parents.

  22. esther says

    Although Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist I would fear having him as President. Besides not liking his history of publishing a newsletter and claiming he knew nothing about the racist contents, I and many others would not sleep very well at night knowing Paul was so out of touch with the looming threat of radical Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.

    • says

      I must confess that I am concerned about the same thing. He continues to insinuate that we just need to talk to those people. While I am not a “war monger”, talking is not going to work w/ people who are happy to kill us for eternal rewards.

      I personally am supporting Mitt Romney. I have researched him for 4+ years. He has come from being pro choice to being pro life (one thing many do not know is that his wife has MS and he is opposed to embryonic stem cell research), he is a fiscal conservative, has been faithful in his marriage, and has the business acumen to turn our economic ship around. I could go into more, but if anyone would like to talk about it you can feel free to contact me through my blog.

      I like Mr. Santorum, but his giving record is appalling (2-3%), and his record of voting shows him to not be fiscally conservative. Additionally, I think his rhetoric in the “cultural realm” is problematic. I agree w/ his stands, but his verbalization of them is inflammatory and not Presidential. Kind of like a milder version of Gingrich. I am worried that he could cause a larger rift as President.

      Blessings as we all sort through this.

  23. says

    Wardee, thank you for sharing. It took courage to share what could be, and obviously was, a controversial subject. We too are Ron Paul supporters. One of the things we appreciate most is that he is so consistent in what he says and how he votes. He is not perfect. He is only a man. We do not agree 100% with him but it would be so refreshing to at least know what you were getting when voting for him. This nation was built on liberty and not regulations. I love all things natural and “green” but “green” can go too far when it takes away liberties. Likewise, government can go too far when trying to protect everybody from everything (raw milk, seat belt issues, gun rights …). We will only be free when we are responsible, but most people will only be responsible when there is not somebody coming behind them and cleaning up the mess they made.

  24. Charity S. says

    Hi Wardee, I was thrilled to see your very well done post on Ron Paul! My family and I are huge supporters of him as well, and we will definitely be voting for him in the upcoming Michigan primary!

    Thank you for helping to spread the truth about Dr. Paul!

  25. says

    Wardee, how lovely to read that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I have been very happy supporting Ron Paul since 2007, writing him in in 2008. Farm Food Freedom is my thing and Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands individual rights. None of the other candidates, including Obama, have a clue about individual rights.

    I appreciate those in the “real food” blogosphere who blog about the real issues defining our world today and shaping our children’s future. I love a good recipe but I’m really interested in change: helping people change how they see food, medicine, healing. Without the freedom to eat what we want and heal ourselves as we see fit, none of the other stuff is worth talking about!

    I’d like to clear up a couple of misconceptions I’ve read in the comments.

    Re. gay marriage. Dr. Paul believes as I do that none of us should need a marriage license, gay or straight. A marriage is a private contract between individuals and the state should not be involved in this in any way. He personally supports marriage between a man and a woman, but he will not legislate his personal beliefs. He will legislate according to the Constitution which demands that we protect the individual civil rights of all of us. Dr. Paul is not homophobic. He is a gracious, loving and kind person. Too many gays and blacks support Paul because they know where he stands with them. They don’t listen to the propaganda put out by the biased MSM. They listen to him.

    Re. the Civil Rights Act. It’s only Title II that needs to be repealed. This is the title that requires a private business to serve anyone regardless of that business owner’s personal beliefs. Paul would end government meddling in private business. Does anyone imagine this section cured racists? No. It just drove them underground. As the mother of a black child and an Hispanic child, I’d much prefer restaurant owners who could hang a sign stating, “No blacks, gays or Mexicans.” As it is, I am probably supporting all manner of closet homophobic racists and don’t even know it!

    Re. corporations. Under Dr. Paul’s presidency, corporations would cease to exist. A corporate entity is a creature of the state. It was created as a way for the state to give a little, get a little, and is the foundation upon which crony capitalism was built. Paul would end it.

    The lobbyists don’t stop by Paul’s office in the House. Waste of their time because he can’t be bought.

    He’s never taken a salary. He won’t take a pension.

    Iran attack us? Not even Israel is afraid of Iran. Let Iran hate us. The reality is that they are harmless to us. They don’t have a bomb and there is no evidence they are making one. Even the MSM is finally admitting that. Even if they could make one, one is all they’d get. They have no way to get it here so we are safe. If they ever shot off the one, they would be toast in a matter of minutes. What would this get them?

    The other fact is we started it. They hate us for a reason. Our continued bombing and sanctions is driving Iran into the arms of China. That is something to fear.

    Anyone who is interested in Ron Paul can find tons of good CONSISTENT information at Listen to his words. He’s been saying the same thing for 30 years. And not just talking the talk, but walking the walk.

    Thank you again, Wardee. You were the first real food blogger I started following. If we want food freedom for our children and future generations, we can’t ignore what’s happening around us. Peace!

    • says

      I am really concerned about these comments about Ron Paul. If this is all true about marriage licenses and corporations then this is seriously disconcerting.

      And Iran is a real threat. They are very close to a nuclear bomb and they have missiles aimed at Israel. Please get real news from a real source about what the threat is.

      My husband used to live in China. There are certain countries whose leadership you just cannot trust. China is one of them. Iran is another. Any man who says that the Holocaust did not exist and then threatens to blow Israel off the face of the map is a crazy man and needs to be regarded as such. How anyone can believe that they are not developing nuclear weapons in order to use them on Israel and on is is truly beyond me.

      Please avail yourself of more realistic based news services.

      • says

        Adrienne, please read a full translated transcript of his comments. When you do, you’ll see that Ahmadinejad did not threaten to ‘blow Israel off the face of the map.’ Ahmadinejad was quoting a man who died in 1989 (Khomeini) and Khomeini was talking about ending the then-current regime in Israel, not destroying the country itself. The Persian language has no ‘blow off the face of the map’ idiom. It’s a mis-quote any way you look at it.

  26. Valerie says

    Hi, Wardee! I appreciate hearing your (and others) remarks about Ron Paul, as I have not really followed him. I, personally prefer Mitt Romney, and most likely will cast my vote there if able. He is a good person with a good heart, (closing down Bain Capital & using the entire staff & other resources to find a business associates missing 14 year old daughter in NYC), a man who supports family values, a business man who has turned losing battles into successes time and again, and a man who loves the America the Constitution supports. I think he will do good things for our country, which is now on a very dangerous path. I would also like to address the pro-choice discussion. What most people seem to neglect in their considerations is the fact that every choice has consequences. A woman has the choice to be or not to be, (unless in the case of rape), involved in a relationship that could result in a pregnancy. That is the first choice. What follows are the consequences. Pregnancy is one consequence, other health issues are consequences as well. If a woman feels she cannot handle such consequences, she should make choices that will not put her in circumstances to have to deal with them. As one of the posters above stated, there are many families very willing and desperately wanting to adopt a child if a woman finds herself in a situation where she is expecting a child she can not or does not want to take responsibility for. I think we should all encourage each other and the young women of today to think first before making that first choice what the consequences truly are. I feel that abortion these days, many times is being used as birth control without a second thought, which is a sad state of affairs. I have had personal experiences that have proved to me (which scientific evidence now backs up), that a baby is a real human being from the moment of conception. I have 3 live children, and have had 3 miscarriages. Women need to take personal responsibility for their bodies and their choices, without putting another’s life at risk. I know this is an unpopular view in today’s modern society, but that’s my two cents. :)

    • Leah says

      Valerie wrote: (Romney) a man who supports family values, a business man who has turned losing battles into successes time and again, and a man who loves the America the Constitution supports.

      Uhh…Valerie, I’m not sure you are describing the right person in your sentence above…were you aware that Romney stated he would have supported the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that essentially gives the government the right to detain American citizens without due process and a trial? And, how can people forget that he created a healthcare scheme in Massachusetts? And, how can people not see that he is a war monger just waiting to get in on the game a little closer with the rest of the Washington crew (minus a few good fellows)? I would recommend looking a little closer at Romney’s values before you place a precious vote in his favor.

      • says

        Leah, there are a lot of true conservatives behind Romney, myself included. I have a few things that I would like to point out.

        First of all, there are a lot of things that I like about Paul – I am only concerned about his libertarian views w/o an apparent basis in morality. I honestly can’t make sense of what he truly thinks.

        In particular, his views on marriage and his lack of apparent awareness of the seriousness of radical Islam I find to be particularly disconcerting.

        By the way, it does seem to be more and more apparent that he and Mr. Romney respect each other so it might be a good idea to dig more into Mr. Romney’s apparent path towards conservativism and keep an open mind.

        I might be wrong, but I myself have been impressed by what seems to be Romney’s consistent move to the right.

        Here is a link to his stand on the issues – it was this site that made me take a second look at him in ’08. And believe me, my husband and I have spent tireless hours pouring into the candidates to try to make the best decision that we could.

        I think that any conservative would be hard pressed to read that list and not be impressed. The media clearly has a bias against this man and works very hard to paint him to be a liar and a cheat.

        Finally, a number of very conservative politicians supported NDAA. I am not a fan of the legislation, but it appears that there is confusion about it and I think it needs to be brought up again. Marco Rubio is one.

        The healthcare issue is very complicated. I am not thrilled w/ fines / taxes on those who don’t have healthcare, but then again, how else are we supposed to pay for the “free” services that those w/o insurance get? I was a health insurance agent for many years. I had many people (who could more than afford it) turn down health insurance. They said that they would just go to the ER and negotiate their bills down if they needed care.

        One particular family was earning about 75,000 about 11 years ago and the bonuses from the husband’s job included freebies from wealthy customers including free clothing, computers, even a Volvo. Free food often came home from his place of employment. They lived in a high cost of living area, but still….They turned down coverage saying that they’d rather not pay for it.

        There needs to be a way to pay for these bills or we just need to start turning people away. Again, I am not for single payer. However, I don’t fault Romney for trying to find a way to deal with the freeloading.

        I am very open to talk about issues w/ Romney. I think Paul supporters (and Santorum supporters as well) need to be open to the fact that there are real issues w/ their candidate as well.

  27. says

    Why exactly is it so disconcerting that one would not need to pay a tax to the state for permission to marry? I love the idea!!! When my gay friends lobby for the “right to marry” and I explain that we all are ENDOWED with the right to marry and that marriage is a private contract already protected by the Constitution and that a license is just a tax… when that lightbulb goes off, it’s a lovely moment!

    It’s a sad state of affairs when we have to lobby to pass laws to do what we already have the right to do. We are doing that here in KY: lobbying for a law that will confirm our right to privately contract with our farmers for foods we choose. We already have that right — as our Senator who spoke on the Senate floor when the bill came up for a vote (and passed!) said: “Everything in this bill is already legal.” We need the bill so that overzealous regulatory agencies (who are owned by the very corporations the agencies were created to control!) keep their hands off our farmers.

    Why would it be disconcerting to end the corporate legal entity? That entity exists to form an unholy alliance between the state and a business. They scratch each others’ backs for profit and at the expense of everyone else.

    Iran hates us, on that we agree. It has no bomb. It has no air force. It has no means to hurt us. Even if it did, it would be toast in a matter of minutes. How exactly is it a threat? I suggest you get your news from a source that is not owned by one of the six war-profiteering corporations that own ALL of the MSM news outlets. They beat the war drums for profit.

    You also need to read a good translation of what Ahmadinejad actually said.

    There are holocaust deniers in the U.S. and all over the world. Many of them think Israel should lay off Palestine. Some going so far as to say we should bomb Israel on behalf of Palestine… Should we kill all of them, too?

    • says

      Sally – I am sorry, to disagree, but it is not a “right” for homosexuals to marry. The problem with this assertion is that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman and it was set up that way from the beginning. That is what it was set up to be. Just because 2 people have sexual feelings toward one another does not mean that they can violate the sacred definition of marriage.

      I am so saddened by the debate about our nation not being based on Judeo Christian values. It just was. Our founding fathers did that for a reason and we can’t have it any other way.

      Here are a bunch of quotes from our founding fathers on the reason we MUST have morality (which was a Judeo Christian based legal system) in order to have our republic work. Most people would be shocked to read how our country was founded. The writings on the Separation of Church and state are particularly fascinating.

      Marriage was set up so that the human race would continue and to reflect the character of God and the relationship of Christ to the church. It is not to be a manifestation of one’s sexual feelings. Furthermore, if one redefines marriage, the framework of the family will fall apart. If you look at the writings of those behind the push for homosexual marriage you will see the clear reasons for the push. I am happy to provide quotes if anyone would like to see them. They are quite disconcerting.

      I would finally like to add that I have friends who are homosexual. I love them dearly. But that does not mean that I think that they have a “right” to marry. Feelings are one thing. Acting on them is another.

      I know this is going to make a lot of people angry, but this is the truth and I mean it with all the grace in my heart. My feelings do not make truth. We need another source of truth or we have chaos. Our morality must come from somewhere. Without it, man with all his flaws, determines laws and it becomes a society of the survival of the fittest.

      A nightmare.

      Unfortunately, as our country has drifted from our moral moorings, this kind of reasoning has become unpopular. But it doesn’t make it any less true.

      Thanks for reading. I’d be happy to dialogue more with anyone who is interested and I promise to listen to you no matter how much we disagree.

      • says

        The Founders were Christians. The Constitution does not mention God or Jesus anywhere and they were careful about that. Freedom of religion was important to them, obviously.

        Their moral code was based on the idea that individuals are endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator, not privileges given by their government. One of these rights is ownership of one’s body.

        Marriage is not Christian, it is not religious. Marriage is a private contract between people. Please research it: it has traditionally been an agreement between a husband and a wife’s parents… but “private” is the watchword here.

        It is not a creation of the state and the state has no business getting in the middle of it. I understand that some people don’t like the idea of gay people marrying or having children. I happen to have lived in Key West for almost 30 years and know plenty of these lovely happy families. Our kids were raised together, we partied together, worked together. They are as normal as the rest of us. But that is not the point either: the point is that marriage is a private contract. Whether gay or straight or multiple wives, whatever: we own our bodies, we own the right to do with it as we please.

        If you don’t like it and want to legislate morality, remember that, once that door is open, you will at some point have your unalienable rights legislated away as well: the right to homeschool, the right to choice in vaccination, in raw milk legislation, in food choice… you cannot have it both ways. Either we own our bodies or the state does. Be very careful on what you’d like to legislate.

        You may live a moral life by any code you choose. Just don’t force me to live by your rules as long as I don’t hurt anyone else.

  28. says

    I’m done with the topic here, too, Wardee. I know from Facebook experience that this could go on forever!!! Thank you again for the courage to step out. This “thread” shows exactly why one needs courage. I’ve written about Ron Paul on my blog as well but I don’t have the readership and most of mine is pro-Ron Paul. Hopefully we will meet at a WAPF conference. Peace!

  29. Jana says

    Adrienne et al –

    Please take 45 seconds to watch this video (Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, in his own words at about the 14 second mark):

    Iran is NOT a threat to the US or Israel (notice the funny title to this link!).  Please read the super short verbiage written above and below the map.  Like this guy says…ever wonder why the US hasn’t gone after North Korea or Pakistan (both have nuclear weapons…so does China…can you actually see us going after them)?  North Korea and Pakistan don’t have oil.  There are dozens of “experts” in agreement with this guy (don’t trust me, do your own research).  After seeing this map, do you blame Iran for wanting to protect themselves?  And can you imagine how we would feel if we had a foreign military surrounding us?

    Also, take a few minutes to research the term “blowback”.  The CIA even confirms that blowback is real.  The US is the bully of the modern world and there are consequences to our actions.  And before anyone has the chance to state it’s un-American to make this comment…give me a break.  We stick our nose in just about everywhere it doesn’t belong.  No one can deny this. If we kept our nose in our own business and stopped trying to police the world, we’d have a great deal more prosperity…and peace. 

    This is one of my favorites (please watch it through to the end to hear what RP says).  In my opinion this should be required viewing. :)  Very powerful watch.  It’s only a bit over 3 minutes long.

    It’s quite easy for people to say let’s go bomb Iran when they and their children/loved ones won’t be the collateral damage.  If people truly thought through this and realized that there are tons of innocent men, women, and children being victimized and killed, the quickness to get on the war bandwagon would diminish.  I don’t care what their religion is.  Most people (yes, even Muslims) are decent human beings and want peace just like we do.  And being a so called pro-lifer but being willing to cheer on these unjust wars is incredibly hypocritical.

    Please recheck your sources to see what Ahmadinejad actually said…


    10.  ^ Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud (2005-10-26). “(speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 26 October 2005)”. The President’s Office (Iran). Archived from the original on 2006-06-25. Retrieved 2010-08-29.)
    11.  ^ Arash Norouzi Explains the “Wiped Off the Map” Controversy,, January 19, 2007
    12.  ^ Cole, Juan (May 3, 2006). “Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, “We don’t Want Your Stinking War!”. Retrieved 2006-05-04.
    13.  ^ a b Bronner, Ethan (June 11, 2006). “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?”. The New York Times. Retrieved November 10, 2010.
    14.  ^ “Special Dispatch Series – No. 1013”. MEMRI. October 28, 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-03.

    The American mainstream media has brainwashed this country.  MSM is full of propaganda and much of it should be considered entertainment only.  That’s why doing your own research is paramount.

    My few “rants” above aren’t directed at anyone specifically so please don’t take offense. I’m just tired of the American people as a whole living in the dark as to what’s really going on.  Please…I beg people to stop watching TV news and do their own research!

    One other thing that some don’t know…Ron Paul has the most financial donations from military personnel than any other candidate combined. That speaks volumes.

    Blessings all!

    • says

      @Jana – Thank you for sharing! I am a Ron Paul supporter, however I did not agree with his stance on Israel and now after reading your post, my mind has been opened.

      @Wardee – Thank you for your courage and expressing your freedom of choice. Wither someone agrees with you or not we must support our freedom of choice.

  30. Jana says

    Let me try this again regarding Ahmadinejad’s comments (the sources posted but not the meat of article). Wardee…if it does’t post, I’ll type it out.

    Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that “Israel must be wiped off the map”,[5][6] an English idiom which means to “cause a place to stop existing”,[7] or to “obliterate totally”,[8] or “destroy completely”.[9]
    Ahmadinejad’s phrase was “???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website.[10]
    The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement “wiped off the map” was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the “regime occupying Jerusalem”. Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, “the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as, “the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian.” Instead, “he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as “this regime” must be “eliminated from the pages of history.”[14]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.