Oh, sweet irony...

that Libertarians are choosing Guy Fawkes as the symbol of their movement. Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up Parliament so that he could replace the constitutional monarchy with a theocracy, centered on the Catholic church.

What a coincidence: Ron Paul wants a theocracy too:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers...The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." - Dr. Ron Paul

Wow. Do all of these people who are deriding Ron Paul and his supporters really believe that the government is looking out for their best interests when it comes to health care, education, the water supply, regulation of business? As a lifelong Democrat, feminist, midwife, mother, I find myself in the odd position of changing my party affiliation to vote for the only candidate who is even speaking about--let alone fighting for--health freedom and educational freedom, among other issues.

The public schools were created to keep people passive--read John Dewey, look at the history of how and why these schools were pushed on the people. In some areas they had to use armed men to get kids to the schools because the families DID NOT WANT THEM TO GO. We are such sheep now that we take our kids there willingly. And we put poisons in their bodies (vaccines, chlorine and fluoride, etc.) willingly as well. We actually believe that these things are positive! How many people have to suffer before we will acknowledge that the "treatment" is worse than the "cure."

All of these things are signs of a people that has forgotten how to think for itself. It doesn't take much digging to find the truth behind the garbage we are fed as dogma, but most people won't do it.

If I want to treat my kids who are ill at home, I don't want the gov't telling me it's child abuse. If I help a woman have a baby at home, I want to be safe from ridiculous laws that think normal birth is inherently dangerous. My homeschooled kids need to be safe from the truant officer (and busybodies who think that learning happens on worksheets instead of in real life). I want pure water, not forced medication.

Ron Paul may be personally anti-abortion, but I would rather let the states decide about abortion rights than have the mess we have in every other area of life under government as it is now. We have to make a radical change, and I think Ron Paul could help with that. Either that, or I have to move to a homestead, buy a cow, grow my own food--because I can't feed the crap that our government sanctions as food to my family. Oh--I can't do that, because our government/business leaders have driven most people off of the land and into dead end, stultifying, occupations in crowded cities with no hope of ever digging out of that hole. None of us can afford land, because it's too valuable for InstaMansions. The few farmers left are huge business operations propped up by subsidies for commodities that are making us all sick and fat.

What was that about the government protecting our health and food quality again?

On the pro-choice thing: First, it's not philosophically inconsistent IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception.

Correction: "...IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception, and END with conception -- for the woman who has conceived."

I find this troubling anyway, doubly so coming from an ob/gyn who should view patients as people with lives and plans and responsibilities, not mere incubators.

That said, his view of the role of government means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the question at all. That's a viewpoint that on the face of it should be acceptable to both sides. When you let the states deal with it, the people who live in the states are the ones that ultimately decide.

This is simply wrong. He calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion" and writes, "There cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected." From Paul's own website:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

The insistence that Paul regards abortion as a states' rights issue is clearly wrong according to the man's own words, yet this BS "states' rights" excuse is repeated over and over and over in forums like this one.

Also, whatever happened to contraception? Does it suddenly not exist?

"What happened to contraception" is that it doesn't always work, women will continue to need to end pregnancies safely, and their rights should trump any a blastocyst, embryo or fetus might enjoy. Unfortunately, post-born females are an afterthought to *Doctor* Paul.

Is it difficult to understand why pro-choicers are put off by his position and pro-choice women find it, coupled with his so-called libertarianism, insulting as hell?

After the mid-term elections, I was somehow I was able to predict that Ron Paul would vote against the Democrats legislative attempts to end the Iraq Occupation. I am not happy that I was correct.

Ron Paul voted against both appropriation bills that would have gotten us out of Iraq. One of them passed both houses but was vetoed by Bush. Both of the bills would have significantly curtailed Presidential authority.

So, Paul continues to do what he has always done. When it counts, he votes with the Republicans. He finds some lame excuse.

How many of his supporters are even aware of this? None that I talk to.

The Bill you reference does not list any penalties for abortions or practical consequences for obtaining an abortion. All that it would do, in actual terms, is undo Roe vs. Wade... which would automatically, according to the U.S. Constitution, shunt the issue straight back to the states, since the Constitution gives the federal government no powers in the issue. The federal government doesn't deal with murders... that's the prerogative of the states and state courts.

As such, that bill ONLY makes abortion a state's rights issue.

It's a subtle thing, I know, and requires an understanding of Constitutional government that I'll admit our current government tends to ignore. But that bill does not in any way make abortion illegal. It simple makes the states take a stance on it as an act of violence, with penalties that may range, depending on how the citizens of the states wanted them to, from absolutely nothing (have a nice right to your body!) to death for the doctor, the mother, the father, and any other family members deemed guilty (also known as, "this state legislature is going to go down in flames in the next statewide election."). Mind, that latter option probably wouldn't hold up in the courts.