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.

[Graybeard58]

RuPaul

[WOSG]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, and compalined about our involvement in Afhganistan .... NOT committed to winning the GWOT, committed to isolationism, a very pre-9/11 concept.

[LeGrande]

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.

What unnatural economic structures?

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.

I am taking a shot in the dark here, but do you believe that we have an actual trade deficit? Not just on products but on the monetary side as well?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Having said that, his fiscal and trade policies are idiotic. If he actually got us back on the gold standard and put his trade restrictions in place it would destroy our country.

Actually, Ron Paul does not propose an immediate transition to the Gold Standard. He believes that a return to monetary solvency must be accomplished incrementally, and his opening salvo would simply be the elimination of all Sales or Capital Gains Taxes on Gold and allowing Payment in Gold as Legal Tender in Satisfaction of Debts. In other words, allowing Gold to (at least in a minimal way) compete with Federal Reserve Notes as "Money", and moving forward from there as appropriate UNTIL a full restoration of the Gold Standard is monetarily possible.

And Ron Paul proposes NO restrictions on Trade. He's one of the most ardent Free-Traders in Congress. Rather, he proposes the abolition of Multinational Trade Authorities which infringe on US Sovereignty, and the reduction of Tax and Regulatory burdens on US Industry (so that American Workers can better compete).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

RuPaul

I'm confused. What does your dream-girl have to do with Ron Paul, the subject of this thread?

[WOSG]

You are right IMHO that with Guliani as president we will not see major tax reform.

OTOH, no matter who is President, it is the Congress that sets the tax reform agenda, and it wont happen without a major increase in conservative and Republican representation anyway.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I'm Voting for RON PAUL! ~~ My Thoughts? Gee arent you special

Not really. There's more and more Republicans saying the same every day. I hardly feel unique any more.

Best, OP

[Oberon]

So what is a dollar, exactly? A unit of exchange. I think you would call it fiat money.

Well, that's correct, so far as it goes...but it wasn't quite what I was looking for.

You see, you can say (for example) that one degree Celsius is "a unit of temperature," but to be specific you say that one degree Celsius is "one one-hundredth of the difference in temperature between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water at sea level." Likewise, one gram is the weight of a cubic centimeter of water, and one milliliter is the volume of that quantity of water. A liter of water is the volume of water that weighs one kilogram. The units are defined in terms of measurable quantities of real materials with fixed properties.

In other words, the units used to measure things are defined in terms that allow us to quickly understand their meaning. When we were on the gold standard, the dollar was also like this. Instead of saying that a dollar was "a unit of fiat currency," you could say that it was "a unit of currency equal in value to X weight of gold."

Since we're off the gold standard, that's no longer a valid definition...X isn't fixed any more. So what's a dollar? It used to be influenced, if not controlled, by the relative abundance or scarcity of the physical paper notes that represent dollars. Now, however, we don't even remotely have enough paper notes to represent all the dollar transactions that occur in a given day. A number in my bank's "ledger" goes down, a number in my utility company's "books" goes up, and no paper notes are involved.

So what's a dollar again? How is it defined? What determines its value?

[Irontank]

But he doesn't understand the threat posed by Islamofascism against the United States

What Ron Paul understands is that (1) that Congress should have declared war against Iraq...or refused to do so...so that Democrats could not now try to offer weasely explanations as to why they supported a resolution giving the President the sole authority to decide if, when and how we would attack Iraq AND (2) the action in Iraq has made the threat of Islamofacism worse...at least accrding to the Presdident's own Intelligence Estimate last year

Ron Paul deserves praise for consistently standing against this hare-brained scheme in Iraq that has, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American troops' lives, done nothing but made a kingmaker out of Iran in that area and increased the recruitment of jihadists around the world (again, according the Presdident's own Intelligence Estimate last year)

As for voting with the Democrats...my opinions won't be influenced by what the contemptible, opportunitistic Democrats think or do...I frankly couldn't care less how they vote...I'm only interested (and I believe Ron Paul is only interested) in the interested in what is best for America...and, on Iraq, Ron Paul was right...its time for some of my holdout conservative compatriot brothers to recognize this

[Oberon]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, and compalined about our involvement in Afhganistan .... NOT committed to winning the GWOT, committed to isolationism, a very pre-9/11 concept.

I think he'd be pro-war, provided it was actually a declared WAR and not arbitrary action on the part of the executive branch.

Expecting that wars should be declared before they are fought is hardly an un-American position.

[TheBridge]

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

Then why would we vote for him?

Look, I'm sure both men are good people, but I don't think either one
has any chance at winning the nomination.
I believe Rudy will be our next President. Fred could also pull a surprise.

[MHGinTN]

It was so appealing, until the entry of 'voting third party' arose. Voting for Paul in the primaries is well defended, on the other hand.

[LeGrande]

Nice to have convictions, but it would help if they were grounded in the reality of the 21st. century, not the 1700s.

What is really frightening is that so few people understand our economic system. If Ron Paul actually got elected he might have enough support to destroy our economy.

I believe Ron Pauls heart is in the right place, but like the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

You know what I think is "dangerous"?

Two Islamic terrorists with AK-47s and IED's slipping over the border with Mexico and driving up to some Day-Care or Kindergarten in middle Texas. I think that's MORE "dangerous" than Two Hundred Islamic Terrorists in Iraq, most of which belong to radically-opposed factions who want to kill eachother.

So, I'm voting for the candidate who believes in REAL BORDER SECURITY rather than the Globalist RINOs who want to try and Referee an Islamic Civil War 7,000 miles away.

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.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Do you think that Ron Paul is a Protectionist?

He's not. He's one of the most ardent Free-Traders in all of Congress.

[Balding_Eagle]

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

LOL! Yes, THAT will make him a good candidate.

Will you willingly fly into a severe storm on a plane piloted by man who never wanted to be a pilot? Of course not, only a fool would do so.

[mnehring]

What unnatural economic structures?

A lot of monetarists believe that a currency must be based on a tangible (natural) object that has a stable value, such as gold. The underlying flaw with this theory is that with things like gold, there is a finite supply, and shifts in market demand could/would create wild fluctuations with the value of said currency. You could actually see daily inflationary or deflationary changes in prices simply because of the change in purchasing power of said currency. We haven't seen much of this trend in the price recently (albeit, we are running a reverse correlation of the price of gold and inflation lately) but imagine what would happen if we go back to a gold based currency how the demand of the commodity would effect price. It would actually hurt gold investors too because the rise in gold would be directly reflected in the purchasing power of their dollar, and thus, would make an increase flat with their purchase.

[WOSG]

Um, no he wouldnt be for involvement in Iraq, and if it was a matter of the formalisms, he's just pretending cluelessness.
Teh ytook a vote that gave Congressional authorization. Was he the only one who didnt notice that?

He knows, or should know, what is at stake with his votes.
He's opposed 'regime change' against Iraq from the get-go.

[logician2u]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq . .

When?

[Irontank]

So what is a dollar, exactly?

unit of exchange. I think you would call it fiat money

Well...its not what it used to be...when the money supply is increased as rapidly as the supply of US dollars is...its causes inflation...which is just another tax...this one on savings...to support out-of-control government spending

That's why the most important argument that the Federalists made in support of the US Constitution (and the argument the Anti-Federalists could not really counter) was that the Constitution would rid the country of the scourge of worthless paper money by giving the feds the power to coin money (precious metal money) and prohibiting the states from "emitting bills of credit" (paper or fiat currency)

Of course...hidden taxes like inflation aren't recognized by most Americans and the Constitution is now ignored as a relic or an inconvenience...even by so-called "conservatives"