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.

[Oberon]

Teh ytook a vote that gave Congressional authorization. Was he the only one who didnt notice that?

Typing errors aside, did that vote constitute an honest-to-God declaration of war?

If so, cite for me the resolution that passed, and cite it in a way that I can independently verify, and I'll apologize to you for my error.

[Dog Gone]

He's my congressman, and I had to hold my nose to vote for him last October in the general election.

To his credit, he did send me a nice form email when I yelled at him for voting with the Democrats to oppose the surge in Iraq.

He's not going to win the Texas primary next year. I predict he won't even carry his own district. We'll see how much guts he has and whether he'll be also running for re-election to his House seat at the same time.

[mnehring]

The dollar (US) is a unit of currency whose value comes from a relationship in the changing of a federal interest rate set by a central bank (Federal Reserve in our case). In other words, the dollar is now a currency that is valued based on the value of the entire American domestic product market (need more detail on how the Federal Reserve relates this to interest rates?)

Yes, I know your next question, the value of the dollar is an abstract. Technically, however, so is the value of Gold (or anything else for that matter.) in that the value is purely related to demand, demand comes from a perceived value.)

[Oberon]

The dollar (US) is a unit of currency whose value comes from a relationship in the changing of a federal interest rate set by a central bank (Federal Reserve in our case). In other words, the dollar is now a currency that is valued based on the value of the entire American domestic product market (need more detail on how the Federal Reserve relates this to interest rates?)

No, thank you. What your answer tells me that is of interest, however, is that the actual value of today's dollar is based on a number of complex factors and a set of information to which not everyone has access, very few people fully understand, and which nearly nobody can actually verify.

In other words, the average Joe has got to take somebody's word for it, even he's a pretty smart Joe with an MBA. That makes today's dollar different from the gold-standard dollar. Everybody in command of a good high-school education understands the straight market value of a simple commodity.

What your definition also does, incidentally, is make the modern dollar subject to manipulation on the part of those who determine its value. Do you suppose this power has never been used?

[WOSG]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, ON multiple resolutions and votes. Look it up.

He is posting now on left-wing sites telling people to defund the war in Iraq NOW:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10708

"Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home."

[italianquaker]

Yeah but you might not get the code pink vote like he will

[LeGrande]

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.

This is the problem. A gold standard is an idea whose time has come and gone. I know that it feels good to have money that is actually worth something, but as history has shown that is a bad idea. A little inflation (devaluation of the currency) is actually a very good idea. It promotes growth and investment. A currency that increases or maintains its value is very harmful to the economy, because hoarding becomes a viable option and the economy comes to a grinding halt.

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).

That isn't what I got out of reading some of his stuff, but if that is the case, I agree 100%. Like I said, I am inclined to vote for him, bad fiscal policy and all.

[traviskicks]

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

heh heh...

[WOSG]

"I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq."

If RON PAUL knew what he was voting against!
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html

Saying it was not a formal declaration of war is more a semantic argument about the process Congress should go through than an argument about the preferred policy. It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was an authorization for the President to use force; a declaration in all but name.

[Oberon]

It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was an authorization for the President to use force; a declaration in all but name.

Sorry. A declaration of war isn't just a formality.

[WOSG]

"In other words, the average Joe has got to take somebody's word for it,"

That's how any credit economy works, btw, even if the unit of money is based on gold.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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?

"Impractical" in the sense that Giuliani thinks that "Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions" and so all Giuliani really wants is a Tax Code which "Kind of levelled out the rates a little so there weren't as many":

Here's Mr. Giuliani on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," Monday:

I think it [the federal tax code] needs a massive simplification. If we were doing income tax for the first time, in other words, we were starting off new back at the beginning of the last century, then probably we should go with a -- we probably should've gone with a flat tax, or maybe two levels of tax, but really simple. Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions and industries have grown up around that, and so I don't know exactly how much you can simplify it, but you sure have to make a stab at it. And I thought Reagan got it right. I thought that what Reagan did was -- I kind of think of it as, like, cleaning out the forest. You know, you got -- the tax code was this big, he got it down to a simple code, reduced the top rates. Kind of levelled out the rates a little so there weren't as many. The tax code needs a simplification, in addition to lowering your sum taxes.
http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/03/rudy-and-the-flat-tax.html

I love Steve Forbes... I mean, I really do. He was "my guy" in 2000.

But I'm sorry, Forbes has sold his endorsement to a guy who is so utterly WEAK (dare I say... disingenuous?) on the Flat Tax that he admits that, even if he could totally start the whole thing over, he still might have "maybe two levels of tax" (as in, a Higher Tax Rate to Punish the Productive).

WE CAN DO BETTER. Ron Paul has already stated his willingness to Vote for the NRST FairTax and the total abolition of the Income Tax; and, thanks to a little "OrthodoxPresbyterian" networking, Ron Paul's senior staffers will be talking to the FairTax folks over the next few days in order to co-ordinate our Total Opposition to Income Taxation.

The Flat Tax isn't good enough, and Giuliani's castratori "endorsement" of the Flat tax (or kinda Flat, or maybe a little Flatter, etc.) certainly isn't good enough.

This is no time to "settle".

This is when we go for the Brass Ring.

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.)

[WOSG]

Again - It is unquestionable that the Oct 2002 vote was a Congressional authorization for the President to use force.
In simple terms, that is known as war.

[TheKidster]

true, I'm ashamed to say I've been caught up in this as well. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to practice more grace as some of the old timers here do. I just love my guns too much :>)

[logician2u]

ROn Paul voted with the Democrats on "defeat and retreat" in Iraq, ON multiple resolutions and votes. Look it up.

I did.

Most recently, the supplementary spending on the war in Iraq vote of last Friday. Two Republicans joined the Democrats in support of the "timetable" for withdrawal - or what some call "defeat and retreat."

Congressman Paul voted in the minority, as he often does, joining 197 other Republicans in voting against the resolution.

He is posting now on left-wing sites . .

Antiwar.com?

LMAO

[New Perspective]

You're interested in Ru Paul? To each man his own desires, I guess...

Not only NO, but &#%* $NO!

[TheKidster]

I don't mean by the site itself but many of our FRiends posting and commenting on the site, who don't quite get that the return to a constitutional republic, i.e. a free republic is more important than the WOT.

[LeGrande]

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

I will jump to the chase :) A dollar has no intrinsic value. Its value is determined by supply and demand. The supply is determined by the reserve rate and the demand is determined by the GDP and interest rate.

Your analogy to units of temperature fails because those are measurements. Your analogy would be more appropriate to the interest rate determining the value.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This is the problem. A gold standard is an idea whose time has come and gone. I know that it feels good to have money that is actually worth something, but as history has shown that is a bad idea. A little inflation (devaluation of the currency) is actually a very good idea. It promotes growth and investment. A currency that increases or maintains its value is very harmful to the economy, because hoarding becomes a viable option and the economy comes to a grinding halt.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. Would you OBJECT to Ron's initial proposal for a total elimination of all Sales and Capital Gains Taxes on the exchange of Gold? If you're right, and Gold is no longer suitable as Money but only as an Investment -- he's proposing a 100% Tax-Free Investment Commodity. Surely a Savvy Trader could make use of that where appropriate.

That isn't what I got out of reading some of his stuff, but if that is the case, I agree 100%. Like I said, I am inclined to vote for him, bad fiscal policy and all.

Ron Paul has ALWAYS supported Free Trade, and openly declares himself a "Free Trader". He believes that US workers and industries are perfectly able to compete if tax and regulatory burdens are reduced domestically, and he opposes Protectionism. His beliefs are Constitutional; he opposes Multinational "Trade Authorities" which can infringe upon US Sovereignty. That is his position.

[mnehring]

What your definition also does, incidentally, is make the modern dollar subject to manipulation on the part of those who determine its value. Do you suppose this power has never been used?

Actually, I am confident this 'power' is used on a daily basis. The question is, what standard isn't effected by manipulation and what manipulation generally is the safest for our country.

The problem with with many pro-gold standard supporters is they believe that the price of gold isn't subject to (as greatly) manipulation. I would argue that because it is a single source base, it is far more prone to external manipulation. For example, if we had a gold standard, China could one day, bid for mass quantity on the market, radically inflating the price. The next day, they could dump their holdings at a radically deflated price- a new way to fight an economic war.

Our messy, overly complex standard spreads the weight of valuation across a lot of economic standards, thus creating somewhat of a hedge in valuation from a major shift in any one area. The federal reserve itself has a vested interest in the power and stability of the dollar. Sure, this is an artificial value setting agency, but it is internal, not external.

Sure, some may attempt to manipulate the market for short term gains (see how Soros attempts to effect elections around the world to make money in currency speculations.) With a highly diverse valuation, it lessens the impact of individual manipulation attempts.

Now, imagine if Soros took his entire capital value (and that of his companies, around 100 Billion US) and purchased gold at the current rate, and hedged it with a non-gold standard currency such as the Euro. Then he flooded the market back with this gold with puts at pennies on the dollar. He would successfully collapse the value of currency based on the gold standard while vastly increasing the value of his non-gold standard currency.