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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, it was your post. I guess I just figured you were externalizing your appetites...

[LeGrande]

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.

I agree completely, it bears repeating.

[Oberon]

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.

That's like saying that shacking up is the same as getting married. You can say it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.

[TheKidster]

and, on Iraq, Ron Paul was right...its time for some of my holdout conservative compatriot brothers to recognize this

I do, but I think it's too late now, we have to see this through, plus that oil money should be ours until our cost of this war has been paid back. I think that's a very fair trade for funding the Iraqi people's revolution.

[Oberon]

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

My analogy was to clarify the intent of my question...I already knew that the dollar was fiat money, just as I knew that a degree Celsius is a measure of temperature. What I wanted to know is how the value of the dollar is determined. In short, my question was 'What's a dollar?' but not in the 'it's a unit of fiat money' sense.

[LeGrande]

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

I don't think we disagree too much. Inflation is a tax. In fact in a very old post I proposed the abolishment of taxes and suggested that the government be allowed to create money based on GDP growth. It would work if the government was much, much smaller : )

A little inflation is a good thing.

[ASH71]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html

You mean the Ron Paul who is a 911 Trooother?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Ron Paul is a friend of FR and Jim even lets his Republican Liberty Caucus run their forum here at FR.

In fairness to Jim Robinson -- while he has welcomed the Republican Liberty Caucus to his Forum, he has also stated that his own personal Political Philosophy is closer to the Decentralized-Federalism of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, than the exuberant Libertarianism of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Thus, note my principle Endorsement of Ron Paul (underneath the OP blurb):

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)

[Revenge of Sith]

"If we're going to fight a War, don't you think it should be done Constitutionally?"

The Constitution doesn't prescribe a specific manner how war should be declared. John Adams during the Quasi War, Thomas Jefferson during the First Barbary War and James Madison during the Second Barbary War, all used military force with Congressional authorization, but not a formal declaration of war.

[LeGrande]

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.

I actually like the idea of taking the taxes off of gold. Basically it is the same idea as taking the capital gains taxes off of our houses and yes it would provide some nice hedging opportunities.

Less taxation is always a good idea :)

[Revenge of Sith]

In 2002, Ron Paul said in no uncertain terms that he was against going to war in Iraq. He also gave a speech two weeks after 9/11 which blamed US foreign policy for terrorism.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You mean the Ron Paul who is a 911 Trooother?

I assume by "911 Trooother", you mean that Ron Paul publicly declares the fact that the 9/11 Atrocity was primarily commited by Islamic Terrorists from Saudi Arabia (NOT IRAQ):

"Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?" -- Ron Paul, September 10, 2002

That is what you meant, right?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

Too late for that. We're already in 4th place amongst the Declared GOP Candidates -- well past 1%... and rising.

Clinton, Giuliani lead in national polling (RON PAUL NOW UP TO 6% amongst Republican Women!)

[ASH71]

No actually i meant this:

The 9-11 Commission Charade
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

or

The Lessons of 9/11
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Now he does not go as far as a troother, but he sure gives them lots of ammo.

Which is what i linked not a quote from 2002. nor did i state anything about Iraq, of course they had nothing to do with 9/11 same as Afghanistan itself had nothing to do with, they were just harboring the people who did.
Click this link and check all the interviews with Conspiracy websites
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul%2C+911&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The candidacy is an exercise in futility.....and is perfectly legitimate. Go for it!

Disagreement, but in a spirit of Charity. Good on ya!

I hope you're wrong, you hope I'm wrong, and we can get along anyway.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

Mitt Romney practically destroyed the GOP in Massachusetts (from what I have read). Romney himself did fine... but The Party was Toast.

At least with Ron Paul we won't lose any. If Ron Paul is the Nominee, the Rudybots and McCainiacs and all the other factions will still vote faithfully GOP, you can bet on it.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No actually i meant this: The 9-11 Commission Charade by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Link it; I'll read it.

Don't Link it; I won't read it. I'm not going to waste my time on scurrilous mudslinging.

[BlackElk]

Feel the excitement! Advocacy of Neville Chamberlainesque cowardice and paleowimpery is not yet dead! Most Americans thought it died out on December 7, 1941 or at least on September 11, 2001, but nooooooo, not so fast folks, AND, it's not just for Demonrats, Socialists, Communists, and your local neighborhood crackpots and Islamofascist imams any more! Now Republicans (yes Republicans, or so they say, like paleoPaulie and Weepy Walter Jones!) can join in the AntiAmerican fun and frivolity by voting in Congress to stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funds, just like Dennis Cuckoocinich, Paul Abercrumble, BaaBaa Boxer, John the Traitor Murtha, or even FaceLift Nancy Pelosi, the Congresscritter representing Dikes on Bikes and, to America's enemies, a San Francisco treat.

One might argue that paleoPaulie is just a useful idjit but never underestimate the agitprop value of faux "bipartisanship" in the cause of teaching those military folks to avoid service since, sooner or later, they will be backstabbed by a "bipartisan" corps of surrender monkeys consisting of 2 or 3 sorry excuses for GOP Congreescritters (Paul, Jones and maybe Duncan) and a Senator Chuckie Hagel or two in league with the usual gang of Demonrat traitors. As Republicans, these clowns are to politics what the bearded lady and the three-headed snake were to the traveling circuses in days of yore. Strictly sideshow attractions.

Oh well, since even long-marginalized Bircher types need candidates too, they give us paleoPaulie. That is an embarrassment to the more sensible wing of Birchers.

By the way when paleoPaulie is trailing Rudy McRomney (all three of him) and has only 1/3 the support level of unannounced former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson even in the Zogby poll (the same John Zogby whose brother James Zogby is the head of the Demonrat Palestinian outreach effort) I wouldn't be bragging if I were you.

Ancient quotes from Ronaldus Maximus from the 1970s are hardly applicable to backstabber Paulie in 2007 and fool no one. To go along with a strengthened Coast Guard, will paleoPaulie be advocating a barbed wire and Iron Curtain around America, concentration camps and the whole nine yards?

It is a very good thing that the paleoPaulies were not in charge of resisting Islam at Lepanto or Vienna or we would be living under Sharia Law already. Do you paleoguys favor Shi'ite or Sunni masters if your foreign policy should ever become that of the USA, however temporarily? Please explain your preference in 25 words or less so that the rest of us can get back to reloading.

[ASH71]

The 1st link i put up was it! The second link was a google search of both titles as well as other conspiracy sites/ alex jones stuff. have fun

[BlackElk]

Voting to cut off funds to troops in combat is most certainly an antiAmerican position as it was in the days of McGovern, George and Cooper, John Sherman and Church, Frank and Fonda, Jane.