Posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:35 AM PDT by 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.
Economics proper? None. Law and finance? A fair number (securities regulation, corporate law, 2 UCC classes, much of which was concerned with corporate contracts). Now, admittedly, much of my economics education has been from a self-described apologist for globalism, but I have had a little.
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?
I do very little "from the top of my head," and am not aware of the statistics at any rate. What I do know is that in the pre-Federal reserve days, there were all kinds of panics related to the cycle of inflation and deflation of even gold and silver-backed currency. (Anyone remember Williams Jennings Bryan? He ran on a platform of silver-backed currency).
According to the Bible, Monetary Debasement is ALWAYS Evil: Isaiah 1:22
That's well out of context. Isaiah 1 has in view how desperate things have gotten in Jerusalem without their reliance upon Yahweh. It does not have in view monetary policy, but the righteousness of a redeemed city.
God bless you and yours for a good post.
Going back to real life for a while but I shall return, as General MacArthur once said.
We haven't declared war again since June 5, 1942. So we have not fought any.
"GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
So there is no war.
I am basically saying the same thing, we are responding to Iraq's declaration of war.. the first time they fired on one of our planes, that could be considered a declaration of war.. this is just my opinion though..
What's your definition of a paleos? I'm not familiar with this nickname you have given here.
I get your line of logic and it is sound. Clinton did nothing to resolve Iraq, he just procrastinated the inevitable.
However when someone attacks us (as in shooting at our planes) we need to respond, if it's a state, we declare war, and act appropriately. Otherwise the President is hamstrung, he needs to go back to congress and ask for permission to continue. We never win this way.
If we declared war, it would have been over by now.
IMO
I'm not sure all that name-calling really helps you make your case, though. Terms like "paleowussy" fail to persuade...my heart and mind remain unmoved by your rhetoric. I'm more rational than passionate in any event, so that's probably why.
The only way to simplfy the tax code is to get rid of those who profit by making it complicated--the IRS. The flat tax doesn't do that. The Fair Tax is the only plan that eliminates the IRS and the ability of politicians to manipulate the tax code to benefit their campaign contributors.
Oh NO, it was my response in which I was mistaken, I am not externalizing anything.:) I can assure you.
Citation, please.
And, IF you're able to meet my request for that Citation, you'll nonetheless be forced to admit: The Catechism only recognizes the Civil Magistrate's temporal authority in applying the Morality of the Catechism. It remains the rightful province of the Priest -- up to and most importantly including the Pope himself -- to teach, preach, define and describe the Morality of the Catechism. For is not the Pope the Vicar of Christ in matters of Faith and Morals?
You are in waaaaaay over your head on matters Catholic.... 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.
At this point, OP picks up his personally-signed Copy of "Pope Fiction", and reflects upon the delightful debates he has enjoyed against Patrick Madrid and his appreciation for Patrick's promise to pray for OP and his family (OP will never turn down a Prayer from a fellow Trinitarian Christian)and feels compelled to respond...
No, Black Elk... respectfully, you're just wrong. Why, I bet you can't even precisely describe the difference between Supralapsarianism and hardshell Hyper-Calvinism, but I can find my way around Augustinian, Thomist, and Molinist Catholicism just fine. I can Tiptoe through TULIP with James Akin, and even locate the Flaws in his Argument; and I can be baptized in the Orthodox River of Fire and yet come away ever more devoted to Presbyterianism, the Church of Logic, as much as I appreciate the Orthodox and their many virtues.
No, I think I am hardly "over my head" in "matters Catholic"; rather, the problem for you is that you know I am entirely correct in saying that I am permitted by Catholic Theology to apply EVERY hateful thing you say against Congressman Ron Paul to the Bishop of Rome himself (and thenceforth to Jesus Himself):
The problem is, you seem to think that it's permissible to Bear False Witness and maliciously attack a "Separated Brother" Christian (Protestant Ron Paul) who happens to hold the exact same views on "Just War" and the "Consistent Life Ethic" as those preached by your own Holy Father, the Bishop Of Rome!
But you CAN'T. It's a SIN.
And you will be held to account.
No, we AREN'T!! The Bush administration is playing the same STUPID game of "He's Our Sonofabitch" YET AGAIN! It ALWAYS bites us in the ass because -- you know what? Okay, Parable of the Scorpion and the Frog. Heard it? A scorpion remains a scorpion. Why? Because it's a scorpion!
The ruling government of Iraq is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, of the Al Dawa Party, was the Bureau Chief of the Al Dawa Party's terrorist "Jihad Office" in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut, while parliament member Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his ruling coalition is one of the "Kuwait 17", still under a Kuwaiti death sentence (in absentia) for his direct involvement in the vicious attack on the US Embassy in Kuwait!
There's no such thing as a "Good Terrorist."
Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican candidate calling for an immediate END to all Military and Financial support for the criminal Islamic Terrorist thug-regime of Iraq.
'NUFF SAID!!
PaleoPauile was jealous of the intellect of Woodstock, Snoopy's little birdie friend and took it out on Schulz. But, but, OP tells us that Reagan was a BIG paleoPaulie fan! Not exactly, huh? God bless you and yours for a good post. ~~ BlackElk
Ron Paul could be well moved, if he were weak and fickle, as are you;
But he is constant as the Northern Star, of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no Fellow in the Firmament.
Despite being an Ardent Pro-Lifer himself, Ron Paul also opposed the Congressional Gold Medal for Cardinal O'Connor, and for the same reasons. His speech follows:
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O'Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O'Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian.
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O'Connor, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O'Connor. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather than that of the taxpayers."
For the Record -- Congressman Paul was the ONLY Congressman willing to put up $100 of his OWN money towards a Gold Medal honoring the great Pro-Life Cardinal. EVERY other Congressman preferred instead to steal the $30,000 required from the Taxpayers, thus defiling all the great works of Voluntary Charity championed by the great Cardinal.
Detractors of Ron Paul seek to besmirch him out of their own shame -- because, deep down, they know that they are ANTI-CHRISTIAN WHORES -- willing "Accusers" (which in the Hebrew Tongue is, "Satanists") against a Devout, Sincere, Faithful, and Charitable Man of God.
I'm an anti-Christian whore?
Wow!
It's not a good idea for politicians to think like surgeons, who need only make the right cuts to restore health. Politics isn't like that.
For starters, you can't always make those cuts. Beyond that, it's not easy to tell what the effects will be.
WOW! I'm glad this is remaining civil..
You derive personal pleasure from Attacking and Bearing False Witness against a Follower of Jesus Christ: Protestant Ron Paul.
Thereby, you declare yourself Anti-Christ, for "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me".
"He who is not with me is against me" -- Jesus Christ. Draw your own conclusions.
OP
Well, you just called me a liar, too. Although my statement about him is in the Congressional Record.
So, I'm calling you a liar. And a freaking embarrassment to this forum.
Draw your own conclusions.
Nope. Vote for whomsoever you wanna.
Just don't delight in Bearing False Witness.
THAT bugs me.
And, by speaking for God by measuring others 'Christianity' (after all, it is He, and He alone who judges one's salvation), aren't you committing Blasphemy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.