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.


Mike said...

Your John Adams quote is very interesting, but I think you took it out of context and perhaps you're misinterpreting it.

You wrote the following:

I 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). [...] 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.”

What you believe and what John Adams believed are actually contradictory. The form of government that I favor is actually closer to what John Adams is describing. The two sentences that preceded that Adams quote are helpful to understand the type of government that he is describing:

"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

He is basically saying that our Constitution does not legislate morality nor is it designed to legislate morality. Morals come from the people, not from our laws. Our Constitution has no means to stop "avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness", therefore our system of government is wholly dependent on the morals of the people to temper those human tendencies.

Our laws allow people to make either good or bad choices about their lives. That is what freedom is all about. The Constitution can not and should not stop people from making bad choices. It depends on a moral and religious people to use their freedom to make good choices.

Consider avarice (greed) for example. Jesus tells the rich that they should "go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor." (Matthew 10:21) Isn't that exactly what the Democrats, with their many social programs, are advocating? What would you think if Obama used these words of Jesus to justify a tax hike on the rich in order to give more money to the poor?

Isn't it preferable that the government keeps their hands out of our pockets, and instead let us decide on our own how much money we want to give away and to whom? That's what I prefer. And I think that's what John Adams preferred too, which is why he says that our chosen form of government "was made only for a moral and religious people." It should not be the responsibility of government to enforce morality. The government should protect our freedom to choose and it is up to the people to use these freedoms to do the right thing.

mitch52 said...

"I like Ron Paul, except for his Foreign Policy.
I Like Jesus, except for that Love Your Neighbor Stuff."

The Iran nuke problem is a fantasy. Our own State Department and DOD, in 2010 and again this year, said that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and seeks to do so for defensive purposes (I wonder why?). The notion that Iran would wipe out Israel with a nuclear weapon is absurd, Israel would turn them to glass in a heart beat. Where have we heard this weapons boogie man before? Iraq? Mission accomplished? 100,000 dead (4800 US military) 500,000 refugees, infrastructure destroyed, authoritarian pro Iranian government left in place, oil contracts going mostly to the Chinese, 2 billion in lifetime medical costs for wounded vets, etc etc etc...mission accomplished?

pgasper said...

The cheif role of the government is to protection our liberty. But right now the government is the chief abuser of liberty and the banks are using it to pillage this nation. Only Paul is not sold out to the bankers and only Paul can be trusted with the power of the president and to defend our liberty.

This isn't a matter of Paul's politics overriding his private views on abortion. Its just he has a different approach to dealing with the issue and has a correct understanding of the law. 60 million dead babies later the Santorum approach isn't working, maybe its time for a different strategy.

Under our form of government the several states are sovereign states which are members of a constitutional federation and not mere political subunits. The prosecution of crime (save treason and counterfeiting) is solely the relm of the states. This would include murder (such as abortion). Likewise any regulation of marriage is a state, not federal matter. The federal government is meant to deal mostly with interstate and international issues and things work best this way. If regulation of abortion were left to the states, then it would be illegal in many if not most of them right now and there would be a lot fewer babies dying. The federal government will not outlaw abortion until the morals of the country change. Once the people change the government will follow. But notice, until that happens, if abortion was left to the states, fewer babies would die. So your absolutist approach kills babies.

Come on now. Did we have anarchy in the first century of this countries existence when the fed's kept their nose out of the states business? Of course not. The states will always deal with local crime, thats not going to change. To the contrary, what we have now is actually anarchy because the banks have corrupted the federal government and the rule of law no longer matters. You can't claim to be for law and justice while being for federal involvement in these matters because that position violates the constitution and the 10th amendment. So if you want the federal government to prosecute murder or regulate marriage it can legally only be done via a Constitutional amendment and any attempt to ignore that and just pass a law is hypocrisy and a violation of the law. To pass a federal law on murder is just as much a violation of law (the constitution) as for someone to rape, rob, or murder.

"I'm in believe that the government should maintain moral laws in keeping with the Biblical role of government"
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The point Adam's as making was the constitution only works for a people who are moral and religious. This is the idea that we will either be ruled by our conscience or ruled by the government. The constitution assumed the former and did not try to force morality on the people. Which is good, because it doesn't work. The enforcement of laws against people on moral issues does not work in either the short or long term because the law can not change the heart. That is the realm of Christ.

pgasper said...

"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:"

So you would vote for Obama (in truth or by not voting) if Paul was nominated solely because he's insufficiently hawkish? Obama, the man who has suspended habeas corpus and is openly assassinating American citizens? Really?

We only care about Iran because they have oil and want to trade it in gold and not dollars. When was the last time you herd someone talking about invading Indonesia or Indonesian suicide bombers (the most populous Muslim country). The only reason Iran is against the US is because we're an empire that has been middling in their country for some 60 odd years and has turned the entire middle east into a protectorate. Going to war with Iran only makes us weaker and more vulnerable and does not benefit the common man, only the bankers and the international corporations. This is a modern version of pillaging.

In truth Paul is the only candidate to support if you want a strong national defense. We have bases in 130 some odd countries. That is an empire. There is nothing Christian about that. Our empire meddling in other countries business is weakening us and is making enemies. Ron Paul is a believer in the Christian Just War theory, not pagaan empire building. He would bring the troops home and stop trying to police the world or engage in nation building (two things that were prime conservative viewpoints before Bush). That would reduce aggressive military spending and leave more money for defensive spending on rebuilding our capabilities and keeping troops at home. The troopes would be at home to get the rest they need after all the wars and the money spend on that defense would go into our local economies instead of into blowing things up overseas.

Ron Paul would beat Obama in a presidential race. Oboma betrayed his base, hope change was a fraud. All the young people energy that was behind Obama is now going to Paul. Even back in 2008 the Paul supporters noticed that Oboma supporters are very easy to get to support Paul. In contrast Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and Obama are all part of the establishment and little different in truth. Obama governed much like Bush despite all his rhetoric and the same will be true of all the other non-Paul candidates.

Mike said...

Good stuff, Peter...very well stated.

Not only does Paul unite the young, he also unites Christians and Atheists! Everything that Paul believes in makes sense regardless of your religious background, and that’s the way government in a free country should work.

pgasper said...

Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran