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

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):

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:

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:

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:

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

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).

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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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.

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:

OP: I have no interest whatsoever in debating the Roman Catholic faith with you. There are plenty of Catholics here willing to do so. I do not regard Catholicism as any of your business unless and until you cross the Tiber. I am also not interested in debating Calvinism with you. I recognize that you need desperately to find a hook, any hook, to get people to pay attention to paleoPaulie. You will have to look elsewhere.

Meanwhile, only because I said I would do so, excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church mostly on the question of just war. Accept them or reject them. I really don't care. I do know that paleoPaulie, paleoDuncan and paleoJones are irrelevancies who won't be on anyone's GOP national ticket next year or any year. Nor paleoHagel, Ted the Driver, George McGovern or any other of their foreign policy soulmates in surrendermonkeyism. If you are not even more delusional than is already apparent, you know that too.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (NYC: Doubleday/Image Books Edition, 1995); Indexed sections under "war" are asterisked (*):

"Peace:

2304: Respect for and development of human life require peace. PEACE IS NOT MERELY THE ABSENCE OF WAR (emphasis mine), and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. PEACE CANNOT BE ATTAINED ON EARTH WITHOUT SAFEGUARDING THE GOODS OF PERSONS, FREE COMMUNICATION AMONG MEN, RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS AND PEOPLES, AND THE ASSIDUOUS PRACTICE OF FRATERNITY. (emphasis mine) Peace is 'tranquility of order.' [St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 19, 13, 1; J. P. Migne, editor, Patrologia Latina (Paris: 1841-1855)41, 640) Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity [Cf. Isaiah 32:17; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 78, Sections 1-2]

2306: Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, PROVIDED THEY DO SO WITHOUT HARMING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER MEN AND SOCIETIES. (emphasis mine) They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks or recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Gaudium et Spes, 78, Section 5].

Avoiding War:

2307: The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Gaudium et Spes, 81, Section 4]*

2308: All citizens and all governments are obliged tyo work for the avoidance of war. However, 'as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.' [Gaudium et Spes, 79, Section 4]*

2309: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by miltary force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: ---the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; ---all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; --- there must be serious prospects of success; ---the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition; These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine. THE EVALUATION OF THESE CONDITIONS FOR MORAL LEGITIMACY BELONGS TO THE PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT OF THOSE WHO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMON GOOD.* (emphasis mine since this is the answer to the bottom line question)

2312: The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. 'The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.' [Gaudium et Spes, 79 Section 4]*

2313: No-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus, the extermnation of a people, nation or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. *

2314: 'Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.' [Gaudium et Spes, 80, Section 3] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons---especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons---to commit such crimes. *

2315: The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversariesfrom war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; [cf. Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 53] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation. *

2317: Injustice, excessive economic or social inequality, envy, distriust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war: 'Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: 'they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' [Gaudium et Spes, 78, Section 6; cf Isaiah, 2:4]*

2321: The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

2327: Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it,we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. The Church prays: 'From famine, pestilence and war, O Lord, deliver us.' *

2328: The Church and human reason assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts. Practices deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes. *

2329: 'The arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race and the harm it inflicts on the poor is more than can be endured' [Gaudium et Spes, 81, Section 3] *

Note particularly the language I highlighted in #2309 which specifically notes that it is the government leaders and NOT Church leaders who have the responsibility for making the moral decisions on war.

For several years, we Catholics have been afflicted with an essentially renegade Euroweenie Renato Cardinal Martino who has been spending much of his time at the United Nations and is a reflexive knee-jerk antiAmerican and full blown internationalist wussie. He leads people to believe that his antiAmerican sniveling represents the pope. I would find that unlikely despite the offices that Martino has held. There is a reflexive favor among beauty queens and religious leaders for whirled peas that is hardly dogmatic unless peace is uderstood in the context of #2304 which does not protect the Islamofascisti in blowing up Orthodox Jewish school children, or using Islamic kids as bomb carriers or deciding which gang of Islamocriminals will be able to torture, murder and attaint which others. IEDs are not "the tranquillity of order. (2304).

Your question as to the pope is impertinent and, of course, irrelevant as to whether the US has the right to make war upon its Islamofascist enemies, but the pope is certainly qualified to teach on any matter Catholic. The catechism speaks for itself and reserves warmaking decisions to national leaders such as Dubya. On what basis do admitted Calvinist heretics presume to comment on matters of schism of those baptized Catholic who later apostasize into schism such as SSPX? Worry about your own in house squabbles among the Calvinists. Catholic questions are not your business even if you are allowed to post on them.

The language from 2304 and 2306 on "peace" are included as necessary context.

The verbiage about the applicability of international law to anything will change soon enough when Renato Cardinal Martino's false idol of a United Nations decides for whatever reasons that abortion and free ranging homosexual perversion is required of every nation. In any event, that is what I promised you. That is what you have gotten. If you want to continue to pose as an expert on matters Catholic, you will have to continue the discussion with Catholics who care what you may think, imagine or hallucinate.

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.