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.
I doubt it. Paul is a friend of FR and Jim even lets his Republican Liberty Caucus run their forum here at FR.
My Thoughts? Gee arent you special
I think I'm going to paste my picture in front of the American flag and run for President. I'd have as much of a chance of winning as Ron Paul.
Now that makes more sense
>>but acknowledged that may be impractical...
I missed that. Do you know if it was "impractical" in that he would push as hard as he could but dems might not pass it, or "impractical" in that it might not allow for enough government spending?
No, just it would just destroy certain large but unnatural economic structures which have evolved as a result of poor policy. And those are going to be destroyed soon enough by market forces, anyway - so it might be better if we actually took a hand in choosing how to destroy and replace them.
Not following Paul's recommendations amounts to a conscious decision to keep the floating crap game going for a few more years - or decades - but it guarantees that at some point the central bankers are going to lose control of the whole mess and deliver the USA into a Weimar Germany-like economic situation. But we are so far down that path now that it's probably too late, anyway.
Ron Paul supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Taliban in 2001 because there was clear evidence of their aggression against America. And, what is more, Ron Paul introduced a Congressional Declaration of War against Iraq prior to the Invasion, on the grounds that it was Constitutionally necessary.
Ron Paul warned us that without a proper Declaration of War, the Congress would blame President Bush for any setbacks: "A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress." -- Ron Paul
If we're going to fight a War, don't you think it should be done Constitutionally?
To each man his own desires, I guess...
I don't know much about Ron Paul, the the name sounds French. Ewww.
It's not flame throwing when it's the truth.
The candidacy is an exercise in futility.....and is perfectly legitimate.
Go for it!
No offense, but people have been saying this since the 'classical standard' was ended in the early 1900s and the Bretton Woods agreements collapsed in the early 70s.. at that, the heyday of the Gold Standard pretty much only existed from around 1901 to 1914. Moving away from the Gold Standard has yet to cause an economic collapse, at that, some even speculate that the Gold Standard caused the Great Depression, although I believe it's inflationary effects only played a small part.
I would suggest studying the Mundell Fleming models to look at the relationships of monetary policy interrelate.
Consider yourself Pinged. In National Polling of GOP Primary Voters, Ron Paul is now running 4th amongst all declared Republican Candidates.
Clinton, Giuliani lead in national polling (RON PAUL NOW UP TO 6% amongst Republican Women!)
In other words... PING!
Nice to have convictions, but it would help if they were grounded in the reality of the 21st. century, not the 1700s.
Actually, the name "Paul" was bestowed upon the former persecutor "Saul" by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as recorded in Acts 13:9.
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, just so you know, was not French. Happy to correct your misunderstanding.
A unit of exchange. I think you would call it fiat money.
Your argument could be used to justify tossing the Constitution entirely. From your point of view, why shouldn't we do exactly that?
Anybody but Fred Rudy McRomney. America needs someone who puts American citizens first.
Winning with a globalist RINO is a sure way for America to lose.
A more accurate example would be that Paul's convictions come from a 1901-1914 model (with a small resurrection in the '50s.)
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.