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.

[BlackElk]

I do not always agree with David Frum but his article in National Review in April, 2004 (?) did it so much more accurately than I can. The "paleowhatevers" who have the nerve to call themselves conservatives or "paleoconservatives" are "blood and soil" types who think that there is more significance to artificial boundaries and ethnic derivation than ought to be accepted by actual conservatives. They are people who, if old enough, had little or nothing to do with the Post-WWII conservative movement (The New Right) which waged political war against radicalism and Marxism/Leninism, against antiwar nuts in the 1970s and today.

National Review is essential to that New Right or conservative movement. So was Ronald Reagan. The Fusionism of a Frank Meyer (seeking to combine tradional moral values with libertarian emphases in other matters cemented by interventionist foreign policy particularly against Marxism/Leninism.

The late L. Brent Bozell (father of the one still active with AIM) was an early part of the conservative movement. He went off the reservation of foreign policy urging unilateral disarmament through a traditionalist Catholic Magazine named Triumph (high quality on Faith, very low rent on foreign policy). Frank and Elsie Meyer, James Burnham, Wilmoore Kendall, Will Herberg, and other early editors of National Review are included. More rigid traditionalists of the Burkean sort like Russell Kirk were loosely associated but a bit alienated in various ways and bore some similarity to "paleos."

R. Emmett Tyrrell of American Spectator recruited actively among the actual neoconservatives to do college conferences explaining their defections from the left and commitment to the right. Some unofficial alliances on campus free speech, guns and foreign policy interventionism existed between YAF and (do not collapse in fright) the Young People's Socialist League (which was George Meany's/AFL-CIO's quite patriotic and pro-Vietnam War youth group).

Young Americans for Freedom, founded on September 11, 1960 at the Great Elm estate of Bill Buckley's family was the movement youth group. Look up YAF.ORG or YAF.COM for the Sharon Statement which has stood the test of time as the foundational ideological "mission" statement of YAF. Those who have become Older Americans for Freedom naturally are reluctant to consider ourselves OAFers. So my generation may be found in Young America's Foundation or in Congress in the cases of Dana Rohrbacher of California or Mark Souter of Indiana.

Political training was the forte of Morton Blackwell (former College Republican Executive Director) and his Leadership Institute. Many College Republicans and Young Republicans were of the New Right as few paleos ever were.

It would take a book or several to fully describe the movement. It had general irreverence toward political sacred cows (Nixon, Ford, Dole, and other dull and boring Brezhnev style GOP hacks and bureaucratic personalities.

It was not a movement that went around grumping about borders or about offenses to some ohhhh sooooo taciturn cultural mindset. YAFers were known to take a drink or two, to read von Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Burnham, Buckley, to celebrate AF General (Bombs Away With) Curt LeMay and the abolition of antitrust laws. YAFers thought first and then acted. Paleos think, grump, think some more but never seem to get around to action under any circumstances. Action might drain their precious bodily fluids or some such. And besides, they are not very good at it.

Paleos like Tom Fleming get the screaming meemies over the very idea of labor unions, any labor unions, all of which he claims to be communist. That would come as a great surprise to such men as the late William Green or the late George Meany. Or even Jimmy Hoffa. The New Right had the strategic flexibility to recruit Teamsters support against the United Farm Workers but, had Cesar Chavez lived long enough, we would have recruited the very Catholic and pro-life Chavez to go after abortion mills. Jews are much more common in the conservative movement and its leadership than among paleos who, if like many of them, are not anti-Semitic, are just not very comfortable with Jews, blacks or Hispanics. All those groups have long been recruitment targets for the New Right who are actually conservative.

To the extent that Barry Goldwater was a sort of voice crying in the wilderness before Ronaldus Maximus, BMG's influence faded when he repeatedly betrayed Reagan and because of his commitment to legal abortion and defense of homosexuality. As he aged, he faded to irrelevancy.

Actual conservatives had a lot of fun with our enemies. Paleos just grump.

The socially eccentric paleos finally figured out in about 1986 that Reagan was NEVER going to credential them or pay attentio to their eccentric views. They exploded in rage in about 1986, a rage that has been theirs ever since. That is what Frum was writing about. You really ought to read his article. Call NR. They can probably send you a copy if it cannot be accessd online.

All good things must come to an end as will this post. Feel free to ask questions.

[BlackElk]

Doesn't that anti-Christian whore stuff just make you want to run right out and vote for paleoPaulie?

[BlackElk]

TE: By forcing paleoPaulie to run 3rd Party, we split the antiwar/antiAmerican vote between the Demonrats and paleoPaulie.

[Dog Gone]

It's utter nonsense, and needlessly provocative. Some people may thing Ron Paul is a Prophet in the Wilderness, but I think he's a pain in the arse.

I seriously cannot wait until he retires and is no longer my congressman. I've even weighed the factors involved in running against him myself. I'm more in touch with the residents of his district than he is.

I've decided against it, because unseating an incumbent in the GOP primary is practically impossible. But I want to. He doesn't cast the same votes in Congress that I would.

[BlackElk]

I sure hope that we don't take a refund of that $3 million in gold to give the Louisiana Purchase back to France or a refund of our $7 million purchase of Alaska from Russia. Ron Paul is probably offended by Jefferson and Seward and their high handed actions exceeding constitutional authority!

[BlackElk]

Given your and your candidate's foreign policy of surrender to the terrorists, teach your children to speak Arabic and to quote the Koran as though it were Scripture. They will need it with the legacy you are leaving them.

[BlackElk]

We will see when I get my hands on a Catechism. Are you teaching YOUR children Araabic and the Koran in preparation for what you fantasize will be the inauguration of paleoPaulie the wonderwimp. They are going to need it under Sharia Law.

[BlackElk]

Wanna point out a post where I favored cross-dressing pro-abort Rudy for President????

[BlackElk]

Oh my, welcome to FR, Newbie! You look like you are going to be fun.

[mnehring]

Oh my, welcome to FR, Newbie! You look like you are going to be fun.

Very interesting, I didn't notice that.. anyone suppose we may have an HSW?

[Dog Gone]

I don't know what an HSW is, but it can't be good.

[RichRepublican]

This Ron Paul?

Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday [MP3 link] and had the following to say about 9/11:

"CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.

[mnehring]

Check your freepmail.

[mnehring]

Very interesting.. what I'm reading here is that RuPaul agrees with the caller that it wasn't really terrorists that were behind 9/11 and he 'trusts' the democrats to get to the bottom of the issue????????????????

[NCSteve]

He'll be luck to garner 1% when it's all said & done.

Wishful thinking. The Pajamas Media straw poll has Paul solidly in second place behind Fred Thompson, who isn't even running. No one else is even close.

[RichRepublican]

Yeah---that's kinda what it sounded like to me too!

[MHGinTN]

Congratulations, you appear to have made a successful stealthy infiltration at FR ... to help the Rodham-rodent get coronated to the center of power. Her only way to win the elction, even with 2 to 5 percent false votes added, is to have a third party as her degenerate husband had in Ross Perot. Most here probably do not recognize your siren song.

[The_Eaglet]

I support Ron Paul as the GOP choice in the primaries because he deserves the support based on his policies and actions.

Same here.

[LambSlave]

Ron Paul is a danger to the Republic. Whatever you think of his domestic policies, his foreign policies are dangerous.

The only threat to our republic are those who ignore the wisdom of the Founding fathers and who interpret the Consititution as a "living document". Isolationism from foreign entanglements was clearly their ideal, an American nation whose commercial strength brought the world to its knees, but who avoided disaster and enemies by removing itself from foreign affairs.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ... George Washington, Farewell address after presidency.

How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated. In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don't live in George Washington's times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy... Ron Paul, 16 April 2002

[Peach]

So now you're calling a freeper Satan because they don't like Ron Paul?

Everytime I think Free Republic has jumped the shark, along comes a post like yours.

Earlier in the week a freeper thought that Rudy Giuliani would cause an international incident to bolster his failing (ahem)poll numbers. Oh, and he's gay.