Why I'm for Ron Paul instead of Mitt Romney (Latter-day Saint)

Connor's Conundrums ^ | March 14, 2007 | Connor Boyack

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Why I’m For Ron Paul and Against Mitt Romney
A Latter-Day Saint speaks up
by Connor Boyack
March 14, 2007

Hooray! Ron Paul has formally announced his candidacy for the top spot in the nation!

Mentioning she’s ready to start investigating the candidates, my mother asked me yesterday why I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. My response to such a question (along with the response of why I plan to vote for Ron Paul) is as follows:

1. Romney is a political wolf in sheep’s clothing. Paul has a rock-solid conservative voting record.

As cited on my Masquerading Mitt post, we learn that Mitt is a politician in the very sense of the word (often antonymous with being a statesman):

Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he’s pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal – and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about politicians, is that they often say one thing and do another. In an attempt to win votes and appeal to a large voting bloc, they waver (or “flip flop”) on important issues as the social tide ebbs and flows back and forth. A strict value system is sacrificed in the name of political expediency.

Jesus said “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and that litmus test applies perfectly to our elected leaders. While Mitt truly may have changed, repented, and embraced new values, one cannot be certain and therefore should not trust the man based on what he says without being able to see evidence of those values.

Congressman Paul, on the other hand, has excellent “fruits” that consistently show he is a friend and defender of liberty. As cited on my Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? post, we learn:

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.
…
In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

Rep. Paul’s voting record is squeaky clean, showing his uncompromising conservative values. He is often referred to as “Dr. No”, as this article explains:

Paul, 70, has earned the nickname Dr. No for his habit of voting against just about anything that he sees as government overreach or that interferes with the free market.
…
There have been periods in history when the maverick congressman was not such a rare breed, but this is not one of those periods. Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years — when party leaders say “jump,” the savvy congressman had better inquire how high.

Mitt Romney 0, Ron Paul 1.

2. Mitt Romney does not promote Constitutional values. Ron Paul does.

Searching on google for “Mitt Romney” and “Constitution” turns up several pages dealing mainly with two issues: same-sex marriage and religion. These issues have been in the limelight of Mitt’s political career, seeing as how he was the governor of a state that legalized same-sex marriage and that he’s Mormon. But after looking through pages and pages of results, I was unable to find any speech, statement, or soundbyte by Romney discussing Constitutional principles, articles, sections, or history. None. He hasn’t talked about it. He doesn’t understand it. If elected, he would no doubt become like many of our recent presidents (especially the current one) who are ignorant as to what the Constitution really says, and hence subvert and ignore it whenever politically convenient.

Anybody who has read a single article written by Rep. Paul knows that he understands, believes in, abides by, and promotes the Constitution. How refreshing are his speeches and articles that teach true principles and seek to implement the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said:

In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. (via Quoty)

Here are just a few of the many instances of Rep. Paul discussing the Constitution:

Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place – particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9th and 10th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century. Activist courts enable activist government. (link)

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word. (link)

It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell Americans that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but it’s your freedom and your tax dollars at stake – not theirs. The history of the 20th century demonstrates that the Constitution is violated most egregiously during times of crisis. Many of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression, when the public was anxious and willing to view government as a savior and protector. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution – meaning break the law – in the name of law enforcement. (link)

Do not these quotes resonate with you? Do they not convey a thorough understanding of and willingness to defend the divinely inspired Constitution?

The President of our nation takes an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and out of the two of these men only Ron Paul has shown that he knows what the document even says, much less how to properly act in its defense and support.

3. Romney might be able to put a fiscal band-aid on the government, but Paul (a doctor by trade) realizes that there are gangrenous limbs that need to be amputated.

How good does a little Neosporin do on a festering, gangrenous wound? Hint: none.

Mitt Romney is widely known as a savvy businessman who saved the day in the 2002 Olympics, using his managerial experience to solve an impending crisis. Many speculate that such experience would be a refreshing presence in our government, known far and wide as being fiscally irresponsible (if not conspiratorial).

But all he would know how to use is a band-aid.

Ron Paul has been actively speaking for thirty years on economical principles. He is opposed to the “Federal Reserve” and knows exactly how to fix our economy and cut government spending. He knows and often speaks about the true nature of inflation, reckless government programs such as social security and medicare, and how our dollar hegemony is destroying our currency and economy.

This speech eloquently expresses Paul’s understanding of true economical principles as set forth in our nation’s founding documents (this one comes in a close second). Can Romney claim a knowledge of how the Federal Reserve was formed, why it’s destroying our nation, how to fix inflation, the history of the dollar, foreign markets diversifying into other currencies, and exorbitant deficit spending? It is wishful thinking to assume that he must know. We need fruits. Ron Paul provides them.

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, once said:

All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. (via Quoty)

That ignorance is widespread in our nation, and Mitt Romney, from what we know, is in the same camp.

If you haven’t yet, be sure to watch the half-hour announcement on CSPAN. The bulk of the time is spent answering callers’ questions. One caller asks about the Federal Reserve and economy, and you’ll hear straight from Rep. Paul how he proposes to diagnose the gangreen festering in our economy and diluting our dollar.

4. Romney is getting plenty of media attention, while Paul is almost completely ignored.

I think we can all agree that the mainstream media is conspiratorial in nature, presenting whatever they deem important and ignoring important issues and events either by commission or omission. If you disagree, you need to do your homework. One need only look at the media’s silence of the Military Commission Act and the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence.

Throughout the past year of my political and historical studies I have come to a upsetting realization that truth can no longer be found through the mainstream media. Thomas Jefferson explains how even in his day the establishment media was thwarting truth:

The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. (via Quoty)

Our media outlets are controlled by very few men, men who (like anybody else) have a vested interest in seeing their political aspirations succeed. As Bill Moyers said in 2001:

The Founders didn’t count on the rise of the mega-media. They didn’t count on huge private corporations that would own not only the means of journalism but also vast swaths of the territory that journalism should be covering. (via Quoty)

Ron Paul is a threat to such an establishment, and so by omission he is largely left untouched, making it harder for him to get his message to the masses who are glued to the TV. Such media blackouts are not uncommon; in fact, one might more easily learn the truth by initially disbelieving what is being paraded on the media for widespread acceptance. As the interviewer points out in his CSPAN announcement video, the internet (our true free press) has been crucial in communicating Rep. Paul’s intention of running for office.

5. Mitt Romney wants to be President. Ron Paul doesn’t.

In his book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, author Joseph J. Ellis describes the presidential campaigns of our early leaders:

…the very notion that a candidate should openly solicit votes violated the principled presumption that such behavior itself represented a confession of unworthiness for national office. (via Quoty)

Mitt Romney, like all other politicians in our day, seeks office. He volunteers himself as the right man for the job, and goes around the country stating why you should vote for him.

If you watched the announcement video, you were witness to a great act of political humility, something not often seen in Washington these days. Ron Paul, a man running for the office of the President, stated that he was reluctant to do so. He has full confidence in his message (as do I), but wasn’t sure how much support there would be, and if he’s even the right man for the job. Ron Paul doesn’t want you to vote for him so he can have the office, he wants you to vote for him so that his message can be heard and implemented and our nation diverted from the slippery slope to tyranny we are currently on.

That act of humility alone (which he has expressed in others video clips I have seen of him) speaks volumes about the man’s character and motive.

A lost vote?

Upon expressing my intent of voting for Rep. Paul, some have expressed to me the notion that I would be “wasting my vote”. I would ask such persons, what is the purpose of voting? Is it not to support and sustain the person I think most qualified for the office? In defense of voting “third party” in order to support he whom I think most worthy of and eligible for office, I offer the following three quotes:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. (John Quincy Adams, via Quoty)

We engage in the election the same as in any other principle: you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin: to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. (Hyrum Smith, via Quoty)

…we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgment. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us. (Joseph Smith, via Quoty)

And that’s why I’m for Ron Paul instead of Mitt Romney.

[ASH71]

Do as you like! I put it out there for everyone else not really for you. Since the link to the google search was simple "ron paul, 911" see what comes up yourself.

From what i have read so far the conspiracy people are all behind Rep. Paul as well.

[mysterio]

Because Romney is a statist and Ron Paul isn't? That's the reason I'm voting for Paul.

[John D]

Wanna guess how many posts until a Rudy supporter shoots a flame your way?

---

I am not a true Rudy supporter but I would rather have Rudy than a cut and run coward. The most important job of a president is to keep Americans safe. Paul's cut and run attitude only encourages terrorists.

[Dog Gone]

Ron Paul, a kook who voted against the award of the Congressional Gold Medal for Ronald Reagan and John Paul II.

He voted against giving it to Charles Schulz, the creator of the Peanuts cartoon, too. He's consistent.

Consistently wrong.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

He is opposed to the “Federal Reserve” and knows exactly how to fix our economy. ~~ Horrible idea. Absolutely horrible. Another reason why I would vote against Rep. Paul. The policies of the Fed are the main reason why the United States has been in an economic expansion almost continuously since Reagan. If it weren't for the Fed, 9/11 would have caused a depression rather than a recession.

Now, Jude... I respect the fact that your Legal studies have taken you, both in Theory and Praxis, far beyond what my limited Collegiate Debate experience can match in terms of Applied Argumentation. Bon Mot.... the Paduan has exceeded the old GRPL Yoda.

But let's be realistic. We both have our areas of specialization. How many Economics courses have you taken? If any, have any of your Macro professors ever begged you to switch Majors from Poli Sci, simply because you're one of the finest Economics students they've ever had the pleasure of teaching?

I DO still have my areas of specialization; Theology and Economics. Just off the top of your head, what was the totality of depreciation experienced by the US Price Index between 1800 and 1900 (BEFORE the advent of the Federal Reserve), and was it a BAD thing, overall, for the growth of GDP and the average Wage or Net Asset growth of the Individual?

The Fed is NOT a "Good Invention", any more than was Roman debasement of the Denarius (which itself illustrates that the Fed is neither Good, nor an Invention).

According to the Bible, Monetary Debasement is ALWAYS Evil:

Isaiah 1:22 ~~ Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

I could describe the Reasons for this in detail, but I'm curious if you can. The more I've studied the Bible, the more I have become convinced that it is ALWAYS Correct.

You wanna claim that the Fed is a "Good" idea? There is an old saying, from Dillingham Jacob: "Show me your Power". You'd best prove it to me, 'cause you're up against the Bible.

best, OP

[CJ Wolf]

Ron Paul bump!

[John D]

Consider yourself Pinged. In National Polling of GOP Primary Voters, Ron Paul is now running 4th amongst all declared Republican Candidates.

---

2008 GOP Primary Straw Poll Results
GOP Straw Polls ^ | March 30, 2007 | Vanity

Posted on 03/30/2007 9:57:46 AM PDT by Sturm Ruger

First Choice:

F. Thompson 3400 (39%) Giuliani 1381 (15.9%) Romney 1086 (12.5%) Gingrich 975 (11.2%) Hunter 449 (5.2%) Tancredo 416 (4.8%) (none) 358 (4.1%) McCain 240 (2.8%) Brownback 198 (2.3%) Huckabee 97 (1.1%) T. Thompson 62 (0.7%) Gilmore 28 (0.3%) Pataki 17 (0.2%)

He may be in 4th place of declared Republican Voters. (I was not aware there had only been four that declared their candidacy), but he he nowhere near that of possible candidates. The only candidate that would be worse than Paul would be McCrazy.

[CJ Wolf]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that believes we have a republic and not a democracy.

[Oberon]

Consider yourself Pinged.

Pung?

[BlackElk]

That was eighteen words that did not explain whether you prefer Shi'ite or Sunni masters when Sharia law is imposed as a consequence of paleopantywaistism.

Give me nine SCOTUS justices and 6,000 warheads and abortion will end, lavender "marriage" will not get started, and the Islamofascisti will not survive within their own gates.

Pope Benedict XVI makes foreign policy pronouncements in his capacity as monarch of Vatican City. No one expects the Vatican to be a player in terms of sending the Swiss Guard into battle. While it is true that Stalin once asked: "How many divisions has the pope?", that question was answered a few decades later by John Paul the Great who cooperated with Solidarity, Maggie Thatcher and Ronaldus Maximus in putting an end to the Iron Curtain and dealing a death blow to the soviet union. Pope Benedict XVI, like JP the Great before him is allied with Islamic powers in restraining UN efforts to mandate permissive abortion everywhere. Like beauty queens, popes and other Christian religious leaders are expected to get misty eyed over whirled peas when the best popes launched crusades and burned those in need of burning. Joseph Ratzinger's military experience is limited to being briefly a 16-year old POW at the end of WWII. Karol Wojtlywa had less than that unless you count participation in the Underground.

The Catechism reserves to those who lead nation's in their decisions as to war, conceding that only those leaders have access to the relevant information to determine the justice of such wars. We were attacked by Islamofascisti. Their motive was not their nationality but their perverted and warped version of their religion which is certainly NOT a "religion of peace." We attacked Iraq, a repository of WMDs led by a madman and his mad sons, a nation which harbored Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas and many others. The 9/11 (mostly Saudi) hijackers hung out at striptease joints in Florida. We need not attack Florida. That Afghanistan was a site where there were training camps for these cockroaches justified our action there.

You are in waaaaaay over your head on matters Catholic. The rosary would have worked very well for Benedict XVI as it did for Pius V (the, ummmmm, maximum anti-reformation pope of Trent) or whoever was pope at the time of Lepanto and of the siege of Vienna. AND, even SSPX, whatever its multitude of crimes against pope and papacy and Church is still not sedevacantist (at least not yet).

No pope is charged with the conduct of American foreign policy. No infallibility attaches. Pius IX supported the Confederacy in the Civil War but it was not dogma, though I certainly agree with him on that. Paul VI made a secular policy fool of himself opposing the Vietnam War as "an exercise in racist genocide" when kissing up to the United Nations. That is not the Catholic Faith of most of his predecessors and successors (Pius XI, John Paul I, John Paul II or Benedict XVI.

You are not in a position to intelligently parse the acts of popes any more than I am in a position to understand Calvinism or its proponents. Catholicism is none of your beeswax as Presbyterianism is none of mine. You are not my ally. You are my enemy for reasons of politics having nothing whatever to do with your religion or mine. WE may agree on abortion or other issues. None of it will matter if the paleopantywaists arrange the surrender of our nation.

If anything, Sharia law will make ten year old boys quite vulnerable and unborn infants safer. I don't think Planned barrenhood operated under the Taliban or in any other serious part of multinational Islamofasciststan.

Oh, and there is no worry that paleoPaulie will ever be compared in seriousness to John Paul the Great or Benedict XVI. Coimpare him to Jean Cauvin or John Knox if you please but that is none of my business.

In any event, I look forward to paleoPaulie being crushed next winter/spring in the unlikely event that his campaign lasts that long.

Would it have been justified to assassinate Hitler in 1925 to prevent the concentration camps and the Holocaust? To eliminate Lenin while he was in German custody before being sent into Russia to enslave that nation? Why is it that the decisions are made by the Sodamn Insanes, the Lenins, the Hitlers but the dying is done en masse by those without the option of decision-making in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Israel, and (eventually) in Teheran and Damascus and various other fleabag Islamofaciststan burgs?

[BlackElk]

Well, you give paleopantywaist Paulie that second look while the rest of us nominate the next president who, as you well know, will NOT be paleoPaulie or any other candidate of the GOP better characterized as a backstabbing wussie, Congressional or otherwise. See the link to his crawling antiAmerican cowardice at #65 from "antiwar.com"

[CJ Wolf]

Why did we declare on Germany?

Might have something to do with them declaring war on us first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

It's much better when congress actually declares war. Then there is none of this pussification of our Country and it's ability to finish a fight.

[dread78645]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that believes we have a republic ...

"A Republic, if you can keep it." bump.

[BlackElk]

Smearing????

Once upon a time, a communist appearing before a Congressional committee took the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked his name. The Chairman pressed and pressed for the witness to give his name but the witness continued to take the 5th Amendment and refuise to answer. The Chairman then said: It must be an awful burden to go through life with such a name as yours must be.

Likewise, Ron Paul's record of paleowussyism must be a terrible burden if naming it is a "smear."

[Oberon]

Likewise, Ron Paul's record of paleowussyism must be a terrible burden if naming it is a "smear."

Keep talking. There is no bad press...there's only press.

The fact that he is the topic of this discussion makes him significant.

[mnehring]

Might have something to do with them declaring war on us first.

Bingo! ..and by breaking their cessation of action treaty from the 91 Gulf War, especially by the firing on our aircraft, that constitutes a declaration of war. Technically, we didn't need the new resolution as Iraq broke the terms of the Gulf War treaty. The very first time they fired on one of our aircraft, that would be a declaration of war (or a declaration of the resumption of war).. but we had an entire laundry list to go by.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am not a true Rudy supporter but I would rather have Rudy than a cut and run coward. The most important job of a president is to keep Americans safe. Paul's cut and run attitude only encourages terrorists.

Okay, then...

Let's say you've got a choice between Two Presidential Candidates; let's call them "Ron" and "Rudy":

Candidate RON

• Supports your Right to Bear Arms to Defend Yourself.
• Strongly supports Border and Port Security to Defend America.
• Opposes Abortionism and Homosexualism which degrade our Culture's population base and Morality.
• Opposes Military and Financial Support for an Iraqi Government which HARBORS TERRORISTS

VERSUS...

Candidate RUDY

• Thinks you should be Licensed to own a Self-Defensive Firearm. Trust the Government.
• Wants to throw open America's Borders; don't worry, Rudy knows best. Trust the Government.
• Supports Abortionism and Homosexualism. Don't you worry about our Culture's population base and Morality; Trust the Government.
• SUPPORTS Military and Financial Support for an Iraqi Government which HARBORS TERRORISTS. But it's okay, 'cause Rudy can sort out the "Good Terrorists" from the "Bad Terrorists". You should Trust the Government.

Yes, Rudy is certainly the Best Candidate to "keep Americans safe". And you know what else? I'VE GOT A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU.

Verax, I think you've got a nice Graphic which might illustrate the point. As for me, here's mine:

In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN. I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

"The greatest champion of conservative principles we have seen in Congress in the past quarter century."
(David T. Pyne, Esq., Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies)

[mnehring]

Let's say you've got a choice between Two Presidential Candidates; let's call them "Ron" and "Rudy":

:-> That's why we have the primaries first.. a lot of folks are trying to fight the general election now.. my real problem is that I'm concerned there will be no voters left as our attacks against each other for our preferences at this time has become so vicious.

[BlackElk]

There is no press so inpot or so effective as to enshrine cowardice or the indifference of Cain as the foreign policy of the GOP. You like paleoPaulie??? Vote for him as few will.

[BlackElk]

And no press so inept for that matter as to enshrine, etc.