Saturday, January 21, 2012

My Response to Ron Paul Supporters

I have some strong feeling about Ron Paul and his positions as I have been very much into politics since 2007.  I'm been involved in the political process here in Iowa and have come out and spoke at my precinct recently for Rick Santorum. There was a large majority of those in my precinct who supported Ron Paul in the caucus, and I wish I could have known and prepared my speech  better before that.  What I'm sharing below is very much in line with what I would have shared with them if I only knew how things would go.  I've also talked to a couple other Facebook friends that are supporters, one a Christian and the other an atheist.  The argument shared to me why I should support Ron Paul was basically we don't want the government to have the power to govern us morally because they may not support your values.  I'm not willing to concede that the US is no longer able to the nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and have the proper moral compass but I can see where they are coming from.  I'm curious how you came to support Ron Paul.  I'm going to share a bit of my research so you know where I'm coming from and I welcome you to respond.

I've listened to a lot of conservative and some Libertarian talk radio and I've determined that I can not be a Libertarian but am a conservative and a very strong conservative who believes is the social conservative issues most passionately.  Life, and the protection of innocent unborn children, is my chief passion with the others being religious, individual and family freedom, and the support of the Biblical role of government.  I'm in believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17).  Also the federal government has the duty to allow the citizen to prosper and they must protect its citizens from threats (foreign and domestic) to their life and liberty.  I also agree with John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”. I'm in belief that we need to have politicians that must understand this, support this basic conservative understanding, and through a proper fear of God, respect his endowed rights of life, liberty, and basic freedoms (as in the rights from God as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence). 

Ron Paul may have some good ideas in line with the founders, and have ideas to help fix the fiscal problems, but he doesn't seem to come out on much of my main concerns as I would.  While he says he personally agrees with social conservative views he only talks about states rights to do what they will... that must mean his Libertarianism trumps his private social conservatism.  In regards to Marriage this article explains it, for example: "Senator Rick Santorum has strongly challenged Paul, saying: “It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would actually say polygamous marriages are OK…We can’t have 50 marriage laws.” "Ron Paul: Personally opposed to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but…."

Regards to the sanctity of human life, it's the same exact thing, though this could have a positive effect in many states that do not want abortion, they could outlaw it.  I could see an executive order making it the states right to do as they will (that could only last for the term of Ron Paul), but I believe murder of life should be a federal issue and it should be illegal in the union.  Some states would probably still provide it and that would be a national tragedy, allowing murder of the most innocent.

What if states want legalizing prostitution, drugs, pedophilia... this all seems fine to him... in fact he has spoken about legalized drugs and prostitution ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes").  Where does this end?  This Biblical based article from Faith Facts says that it ends with anarchy ("The Bible and Government").

Now, in regards to providing a national defense, and specifically the threat of a nuclear Iran, this would cause me to probably keep me from voting against Barrack Obama if Ron Paul was nominated:  "Frankly, there isn't much daylight between Ron Paul's theory of foreign policy and that of the radical left.  As much as I agree with Paul on other issues, he's wrong on this one."
Read more: "Ron Paul Is Wrong about Iran"

To understand the threat of a Nuclear armed Iran see the FAQ at UNAI that says:
A nuclear Iran would be a major threat to American security interests, regional stability, and world peace. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the
West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat of the highest magnitude. Iran is led by radical Islamic clerics with history of hostile behavior including a willingness to wage war and to battle the United States and its allies. With a nuclear weapon, Iran would be able to project its power throughout the region, threaten key US allies as well as American troops, and share the technology or the weapons with terrorist groups that target the United States. 

In unusually blunt language, a February 2010 IAEA report suggested for the first time that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, corroborating suspicions long held by the U.S. and Western intelligence agencies. The report acknowledges that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon. A May 2010 IAEA Report stated that Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, which is enough material to construct two nuclear bombs. This is a frightening development, and it means that Iran now has a “possible breakout capacity.” According to nuclear experts, Iran is now capable of enriching its stockpile of low enriched uranium to a higher level, and could convert the material into a nuclear weapon within three to six months. The official American estimate is that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015. Whoever you believe, the point is clear that Iran is very close to creating a nuclear weapon.

Regarding his electability, there is no way that he would be able to survive Barrack Obama's campaign given these things and some of his other beliefs: ("Why Ron Paul Can Never Be President In 12 Quotes").  I'm sure I could make a better case but this seems quite adequate for the time being that Ron Paul is the worst of the candidates for president, and reinforces the others as being better, and definitely, to me, it's clear the best in these regards is Rick Santorum.