This revision of a previous widely read post is written to address the current political realities of the 2012 presidential campaign. Justice, truth, liberty, and victory are chosen deliberately–although more important concepts could easily be added.
Justice is chosen because it is hoped that Republicans desire a just party and a just nation. Do Republicans care if their party officials play fair and follow their own rules? Is the Republican Party the tool of the well-to-do, intrenched in control, or is it open to the grass roots members eager to be involved? If you wonder why such a question is even asked, you need to read this revealing article: How The Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul. From what you may have heard in the media, you may think it was Ron Paul supporters who were not playing fair. But check out the links included in the article to document the facts. And read the rest of this post, including the all-important links, to help you find the truth.
Truth is chosen because I believe there is such a thing as truth. Although there are important subjective and cultural aspects to life, all is not relative, multi-cultural, and up-for-grabs. I believe that, for the most part, Ron Paul’s policies reflect truth in a compassionate and realistic way. This is the case for both foreign and domestic policy. Truth and justice go hand-in-hand. Is our foreign policy truly just? I address this question especially to Christians, who form a major block of support for our aggressive foreign policy. I challenge Christians to think deeply on these serious questions. The reasons for my position will be presented as his policy positions are carefully examined. I submit that the Republican party cannot reject the majority of Ron Paul’s positions without opposing truth, justice–and our own Constitution.
Liberty is chosen because the current policy positions of either Romney or Obama will not preserve our Constitutional liberties. This will also be examined carefully.
Finally, victory is chosen because even if the Republican Party should win the 2012 election, it is still set on a losing course with the tactics and policies it currently espouses. Even defeating Obama will not change this direction. Before continuing with this post, I would suggest Pat Buchanan’s recent column on the future of the Republican Party: In the Long Run, Is the GOP Dead?. Again, note how Buchanan sees the importance of Christians in the current Republican Party. Christians, and other conservatives, need to look seriously at all the policies promoted by the Republican Party and see if they comport with “truth, justice, and the American way.” It may turn out that victory will actually come by following truth and principle!
The Hope: A True Conservative Republican Candidate Who Can Defeat Barack Obama
Christians, social conservatives, economic conservatives, and others sought to find a candidate to rally behind as an alternative to Mitt Romney. Candidates took turns rising to the top, only to eventually fall back for one reason or another. There was little in the national media to suggest that Romney had anyone still competing with him for the Republican nomination. Yet Dr. Ron Paul was still in contention to become that elusive solid conservative Republican presidential candidate–if conservatives had seizedthe opportunity to rally around him. To do so, they needed to (1) become aware of the window of opportunity before them, (2) be convinced that Ron Paul is a genuine conservative who supports Christian and constitutional values (3) know that Ron Paul is the best candidate to defeat President Obama, and (4) understand that Dr. Paul still has a shot at capturing the Republican nomination.
Recent Ron Paul Victories and Advances
Before proceeding further in this article, I urge a look at this three-minute video which powerfully unfolds why Ron Paul’s principled stances on issues should have been seriously considered by all conservative Republicans–if they had become aware. Then, because it is scriptural and wise to listen to contending points of view and to examine the teachings of even the most trusted leaders (Acts 17:11), please use the links in the text below to get a broader view of any points on which you have misgivings about Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul victories in Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, and Nevada got barely any notice in the mainstream press. However, despite questionable tactics by the party establishment in Georgia, Missouri, Alaska, Nevada, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Louisiana, and elsewhere, Rachel Maddow and FOX News reported Ron Paul’s Iowa and Minnesota victories and essentially “inevitable” wins in a minimum of five states needed to put his name into nomination. Later party tactics may have erased the “inevitable,” but Dr. Paul even had major delegate wins in Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts. During a month when the media had asked “Where is Ron Paul?” and did not report on his massive rallies, Dr. Paul was consistently drawing thousands upon thousands to rallies at Urbana-Champaign, IL, Madison, WI, University of Maryland, Columbia, MO, Chico, CA, UCLA, Berkely, CA, Texas A&M, Fort Worth, TX, San Antonio, TX, Ithaca, NY, University of Rhode Island, University of Pittsburg, Philadelphia, PA, Houston, TX, El Paso, TX, Austin, TX. Fullerton, CA, Davis, CA, and San Diego, CA.
For accurate updates on the status of the Ron Paul campaign, which the mainstream media seldom give, a good source is Doug Wead The Blog. Mr. Wead is a Presidential historian and senior adviser to the Ron Paul campaign. Reporter Ben Swann does a superb job of seeking the truth on these issues in his Reality Check program.
Who can defeat Barack Obama?
Ron Paul often polled as well or better than Mitt Romney against President Obama. Not long ago, a Rasmussen poll had Ron Paul defeating President Obama, while Romney tied. A recent Public Policy Polling survey also found Ron Paul more electable than Mitt Romney when pitted against Barack Obama. Recent polling often has Romney trailing Obama in a general election match up. Remember that everything Ron Paul accomplished was without media assistance and without the financial backing of big bankers and government-favored corporations. Besides his competitiveness with Obama (although the media constantly said, “Ron Paul can’t win.”), did you ever hear anything in the media about Ron Paul polling second nationally to Romney, ahead of Gingrich and Santorum, as recently as February of this year? If you believe the media is biased, perhaps you should wonder why Dr. Paul never benefited from a media boost and is consistently ignored or misrepresented.
Unify to Strengthen Romney?
Some fear that examination of Romney’s weaknesses will hurt Republican chances to defeat Obama. Bear in mind that any criticism of Romney from conservative opponents will be insignificant compared to the barrage of advertising President Obama will unleash with his massive political war chest which will approach $1 billion. If Romney cannot stand up to scrutiny from his own party, how will he fare against a ruthless, well-funded media blitz? Look at this ad produced by Democrats before Romney won the nomination for a taste of what was to come.
What happens even if Romney does win? Will that mean 4, 8, or even 12 years of conservative compromise and a further erosion of conservative principles in the Republican party? There is some serious food for thought in The Twelve-Year Conservative Compromise. And consider the tendency of Republicans to support their president even if he waters down conservative values. Sadly, the Republican party seems to stand up for principle much better when it is opposing a Democrat than when it has a “moderate,” or even “conservative,” Republican president in office.
Will Romney’s minimal changes in fundamental economic policy be enough? Or will it insure further economic collapse and a great swing to the Democrats in four years. If Republicans are running neck and neck with Obama now–with all his negatives–what would happen facing a different Democrat in four years, if Romney does not have the boldness to tackle the root of our economic problems?
For a solid critique of Mitt Romney from an evangelical viewpoint, Steve Baldwin’s post The Case Against Mitt Romney is substantial. Here is one small selection:
Thanks to stupidity, naiveté and conflicts of interest on the right, we have created the Romney monster and given him the credibility he does not deserve. The chances are Romney will win the GOP nomination, but this could be disastrous since there’s a large block of Christian right and Tea Party voters who will not vote for Romney, thus increasing the chance of an Obama victory. They believe, with good reason, that a worldview-free President Romney will just swing with the wind and not make the bold decisions necessary to save America. Many also believe that a Romney Presidency will do so much damage to the Republican brand — by governing as a “lets-make-big-government-work-more-efficiently” technocrat – that it may be better if Obama won reelection with both houses hopefully controlled by Republicans willing to shut his agenda down.
For one of the most complete and well-documented sites regarding Mitt Romney’s positions, go to The Mitt Romney Report by a Massachusetts pro-family group which has closely followed Mitt Romney’s record on a range of issues over the years as a Presidential candidate (2007-present), Governor of Massachusetts (Jan. 2003 – Jan. 2007), candidate for US Senate (1994), and businessman. This report includes many videos of Romney in his own words on abortion, “gay” rights, stimulus, illegal immigration, getting money from DC, identifying himself as a “progressive,” guns, and more.
Romney and Obama Similarities
Perhaps, therefore, an even more important question is “How different is Mitt Romney from Barack Obama?” Although there is some humor in this story, watch the video that follows it and ask yourself, “Do Romney and Obama have the same speech writer?” Watch here: Scientists reveal Romney and Obama are actually clones. Here is a similar compilation: Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama First Debate Preview.
Issues of Importance to Christians
Although Dr. Paul is careful to avoid any appearance of exploiting his faith for political gain, he has publicly professed Jesus Christ as his Savior and lived a life consistent with his faith. But are the policies Ron Paul promoted with such integrity actually in harmony with biblical principles? We need to now look at issues of importance to Christians.
When Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich suspended their campaigns, Christians who hadn’t previously should have taken a serious look at Ron Paul. But, of course, the media were not generally conducive to any serious consideration of Dr. Paul. But consider this letter to fellow Christian leaders by Justin Machacek, an Emmy award winning television producer, independent faith-based filmmaker, and promotional creative. He serves as the president of Reel Deal Productions, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas, and as the Senior On Air Producer for Daystar, one of the largest Christian media networks in the world. Justin has worked closely with many of the most prominent Christian ministries and faith-based media organizations in America. Mr. Machacek recently participated in a conference call with Ron Paul and concerned Christian leaders. One Christian businessman who participated said, “There can be little doubt that if evangelicals were made aware of his views and heard first hand his explanations on abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, our monetary system, defense etc… that the move towards the RP camp would be dramatic.”
Pastor Voddie Baucham of Grace Family Baptist Church had an excellent post “Why Ron Paul?” as did Michael Eversden in “A Biblical Case for Ron Paul on Four Issues of Importance to Christians“. Both are important articles for Christians newly considering Ron Paul positions. The Evangelicals for Ron Paul Blog is a thoughtful site, as well.
Let’s examine some of these issues.
Although Dr. Paul is a strongly pro-life physician who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies without performing an abortion, some had the impression that a candidate such is Rick Santorum was more staunchly pro-life than Ron Paul. Of course, Mr. Santorum himself encouraged that impression when he stated in debate that Ron Paul only had a 50% pro-life voting record–about the same as Democrat Harry Reid. Mr. Santorum did not lie, but neither did he explain that he was speaking of Dr. Paul’s 55% National Right to Life rating in 2005/2006. During this period Dr. Paul agreed with NRTL on 5 of 6 issues. However, the one issue he disagreed on was voted on 4 times, and every time was counted as a separate vote–thus giving him a 5 of 9 record instead of 5 of 6. Dr. Paul explained in detail why he voted as he did on that one issue.
For those who want more detail on Ron Paul’s stellar pro-life position, I recommend Lori Stacey’s posts Ron Paul, Champion of the Pro-Life movement: Not pro-life enough??? and Personhood USA insults the only true champion of life, Dr. Ron Paul. To hear Dr. Paul in person, and in detail, I strongly suggest Ron Paul by Satellite at Prolife Forum Greenville SC 01/18/12. After digesting these, you may begin to wonder if millions of children could already have been saved if pro-life conservatives had followed Ron Paul’s approach when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. What will they do now?
This isn’t even a contest. Santorum and Gingrich will be included in some of these comparisons, as well, to demonstrate that Dr. Paul deserved more consideration even before they dropped out. Here’s Gun Owners of America’s evaluation of Republican presidential candidates: Dr. Paul A+, Santorum B-, Gingrich C, Romney D-. GOA says, “Guts. That is the one word which describes Rep. Ron Paul of Texas best. Perhaps the most consistent vote in the Congress, he can be expected to oppose any unconstitutional expansion of government, no matter how politically difficult that vote might be.”
Our Monetary System and the Federal Reserve System
Although many people still do not see the Federal Reserve System as much of an issue, Dr. Ron Paul has fought, almost alone, for years to make the immorality and failure of our central banking system a fundamental political issue. To get some concept of the relationship of “millions” to “trillions” (it’s jaw-dropping!) look at this graphic depiction in $100 bills. To understand the magnitude of this issue that has been hushed up for decades, just try to fathom that $16 trillion was secretly loaned at no interest to big banks and their cronies. That’s about 20 times the amount of the TARP bail outs voted by Congress! Do you suppose it is truly David vs. Goliath when private bankers have the legal right to create such sums essentially out of thin air and secretly distribute them? And $5 trillion went to foreign banks. That’s more than the U.S. budget (including deficit spending!) for an entire year! No wonder Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
Steve Forbes has gone so far as to say Ron Paul should be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
For more on this tremendously important issue, which Ron Paul has the rare courage and knowledge to tackle, refer to The Official Counterfeiter:
As “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10, NIV), it would be wise to scrutinize the current monetary system of the United States, which is presently the reserve currency of the world.
Vic Lockman, a former Disney cartoonist with economic and biblical insight, has given his permission to put his 1969 booklet The Official Counterfeiter on line. Although it is dated, I think you will find all the essential facts still very relevant to today. With evangelical voters exerting a major influence on Republican presidential politics, Mr. Lockman’s work can go a long way towards educating us about a very fundamental, but (before Ron Paul) misunderstood and unnoticed issue.
This unique work makes a major contribution to making sound, biblical economics comprehensible to a non-technical audience. It is a great tool for learning to discern what “just weights and balances” are in the modern world (Lev. 19:36; Proverbs 11:1, 16:11; Ezek. 45:10). This is a crash course in economics for everyone. We do well to understand how the world really works so we can make biblically and economically informed decisions in casting our votes for national leaders. Download the free PDF here.
Significantly, The Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, chaired by Rep. Ron Paul, held a hearing to examine six legislative proposals that either reform or abolish the Federal Reserve System.
Of immense importance is the July 25,2012, overwhelming passage of Dr. Paul’s “Audit the Fed” legislation in the House. Popular pressure is now needed to compel Senator Harry Reid (who supported such a bill for many years) to allow the bill to come before the U.S. Senate. Will Romney and the Republican Party get solidly behind this monumental and vital measure to pass it in the Senate?
Also worthy of note is the Federal Reserve’s recent change in policy to allow China to purchase U.S. banks. Ron Paul is recently chaired subcommittee hearings on currency competition. Listen here to one frank presentation to this committee which tells the unvarnished truth with boldness.
Many Christians believe that God blesses those who bless Israel. Hearing the claim that Ron Paul advocates cessation of aid to Israel, they believe he opposes Israel. However, Ron Paul wants to halt U.S. aid to all countries, not just Israel. He believes it wrong to borrow money we do not have (largely from China) to give to other countries. He also points out that we give at least four times more aid to potentially hostile nations surrounding Israel. Cutting aid to all countries would be to Israel’s distinct advantage. Not only would cessation of all foreign aid help Israel more than its foes, but it would also allow Israel to make its own defense decisions without U.S. approval. In line with supporting Israel’s right to it’s own self-determination, Ron Paul also supports Israel’s right to designate Jerusalem as its capital.
In 1981, when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear reactor, Ron Paul was one of the only congressmen to refuse to condemn Israel for doing so. Dr. Paul believes Israel, not the U.S.A., should determine what is best for Israel.
A well-written article on Ron Paul’s relation to Israel is Ron Paul and the Israel Question. Another very informative article is Ron Paul on Israel by the former vice president of Christian and Jews United for Israel–who is now a senior adviser to the Ron Paul campaign. For those who want some “let’s get real” talk from a Baptist pastor and former Constitution Party presidential candidate, I also recommend Chuck Baldwin on Ron Paul’s Israel Problem.
Connected with the Israel question is the claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons which it would use to attack Israel and the U.S.A. However, it is doubtful that Iran ever threatened either country with nuclear destruction. U.S. intelligence continues to find no evidence that Iran is developing, or even wants to develop, nuclear weapons. Even if it should turn out that Iran did possess nuclear weapons, ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan spoke out against a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities anytime soon. He says the Iranian regime is rational in its own way.
Please understand clearly that Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of the military defense of our country. As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government. President Ronald Reagan said of Ron Paul, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” However, he feels the greater danger now, with no solid evidence that Iran even wants a nuclear weapon, is over-reaction. A pre-emptive strike on another country is not the prerogative of the president. War should be declared by congress, not decided by the president, unless the president is forced to act in self-defense with no time for consultation. Ron Paul adheres to the Christian just war concept.
Let’s use Iran as a stepping stone to the larger question of national defense. In one of the debates Ron Paul said our problems with Iran went back farther than 1979 (Santorum) to 1953 when our CIA helped overthrown Iran’s democratically elected leader and installed the Shah. Dr. Paul said our foreign policy often causes “blowback” when factions within other countries, rightly or wrongly, react to our interference in their internal affairs. So who is correct on their history and foreign policy? Dr. Paul reminds us that “America created Al Qaeda, to ‘combat the Russians in Afghanistan‘. Israel created Hamas, to ‘combat Yasser Arafat in Palestine’.” Dr. Paul correctly predicted that Al-Qaeda would end up in Libya after Qaddafi. Even Hillary Clinton acknowledges our foreign policy interventions in other countries create many unintended consequences. Here are several short videos on Iran/U.S. relations: The Secret Government (CIA Overthrow of Mossadeq), History of U.S. Intervention in Iran – 1953 Until Present, and Ron Paul’s speech after the imposition of sanctions on Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia are Greater Threats than Iran, and Sanctions on Iran are Sanctions on You.
It has been sometimes mentioned, but often forgotten, that our national debt is a major national security issue. Ron Paul is the only candidate who seriously confronts the debt issue. As the Bible says, the borrower is a slave to the lender, and we are becoming increasingly dependent on other countries such as China. Christians must also be primarily concerned with the justness of our policies. With righteous policies, we can trust in God’s providential care. But if we are unjust, trusting in military might alone will eventually fail. “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.” (Psalm 20:7, NIV)
Other candidates talk of cutting the debt–while increasing military spending and maintaining Social Security, Medicare, and a host of federal agencies and programs. The fact that maintaining both at current levels is unsustainable is confirmed by conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint. Realistically, if Ron Paul is not correct about the fact that we can actually strengthen our defense by reducing morally questionable, budget-busting, counterproductive meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, then our national defense is destined for a severe blown when our economy eventually collapses due to deficit spending. Fortunately, as Douglas A. Macgregor, Ph.D. Colonel (ret), U.S. Army, says, more money does not necessarily mean better defense. Romney’s willingness to spend far more than our national deficit on just military alone does not bode well for anyone wanting to save this country from imminent bankruptcy.
Perhaps it is sometimes forgotten that U.S. foreign policy may have an indirect but very substantial effect on Christian communities and missions overseas. A thought-provoking article on this influence is “Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy.”
Iraq and Afghanistan
It is frequently said, “I like Ron Paul except for his views on defense.” Some are under the impression that Dr. Paul “blames American” for 9-11. Actually, Ron Paul blames the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks, and he voted to pursue Bin Laden and submitted a bill to go after terrorists themselves, rather than invading whole countries. He believes that to properly deal with a problem you must understand its causes. Although the 9-11 attacks on innocent Americans were reprehensible and unjust, we should still examine the motives of those perpetrating the crime if we want to understand and combat them. Just as most Americans were unaware of the CIA overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1953, most were unaware of any U.S. actions that may have provoked the terrorists to strike against us. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in a 60 minutes interview that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. economic sanctions was worth it. Seventeen of the nineteen terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq, but we invaded Iraq. Regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy before 9-11. Ron Paul first began speaking against it in 1998. Former CIA Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer said that Ron Paul’s correct position on the reason’s for 9-11 would have worried Bin Laden and his allies, but Al-Qaeda thrived under the view held by all other candidates. It is often said that good theories can be tested by their ability to predict. Everyone should watch Ron Paul’s famous “Predictions” speech from April 24, 2002, to understand his wisdom. In this five-minute speech you will see a decade of history predicted with amazing precision! Then, if you want to hear Ron Paul speaking candidly about foreign policy, go to this national defense page.
Col. Macgregor recently granted a detailed interview on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which is comprehensive and enlightening. Here is a small excerpt:
Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters and anyone who asserts otherwise is misinformed. I recently met with someone who is an advocate for Mitt Romney and he was unhappy with me because I pointed out that the differences between Governor Romney and President Obama are marginal at best. He was trying to demonstrate how profoundly different they were. He was unsuccessful but one of the things he insisted on was that Obama had somehow or another sacrificed our great gains in Iraq. I looked at him and said, “You can’t be serious.” He said, “What do you mean?” He seemed to be completely unaware, as many Americans are, that Iraq is effectively a satellite for Iran. That the United States Army and it’s generals did a brilliant job of consolidating the power and influence of Iran inside Iraq, by backing Mr. Maliki who is always Tehran’s chosen candidate and utterly destroying the Sunni Arab population’s influence and power.
Who did the troops overwhelmingly vote for with their campaign contributions–Ron Paul or Mitt Romney?
National Defense Authorization Act
The NDAA authorizes indefinite imprisonment, without charges, and without the right to a lawyer solely on the secret determination that a U.S. citizen is suspected of a terrorist threat or has had some indefinite connection to a terrorist. This essentially removes Bill of Rights protections from every U.S. citizen. There’s not much more to say, but read it again until it sinks in! For more details, read this Forbes article. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul all answered a question about NDAA in a debate .
War on Drugs
Voters often do not realize that Ron Paul acknowledges the right of states and localities to pass laws regulating the use and possession of drugs. Ron Paul conscientiously adheres to his oath to defend the Constitution. To enact federal prohibition of alcohol required an amendment to the Constitution. His position is that the federal War on Drugs is unconstitutional, and, in fact, is a failure that exacerbates the problem–just as prohibition did with alcohol. Drug prohibition increases the price of drugs on the black market, creating the climate conducive for the formation of drug lords, cartels, and the resulting increase in violence. The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world both in number and percentage, and the drug war is a major cause. Dr. Paul points that imprisonment of minorities for drug offenses has affected minorities greatly disproportional to their percentage of conviction of drug crimes. Many countries, groups, and noted individuals agree with Dr. Paul on the failure of the War on Drugs, including Britain, Latin American, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, law enforcement groups, Pat Robertson, Judge Jim Gray, Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman, and 500 U.S. economists. I strongly recommend Milton Friedman’s short video interview for those particularly interested in the moral questions involved. The experience of countries who have tried drug decriminalization demonstrates the soundness of this approach.
Marijuana itself may not even be the main factor in its criminalization. There are far bigger economics and politics involved than the smoking of marijuana. One such factor may be the competition hemp poses to the oil industry.
Ron Paul points out that the federal government is overriding state laws that allow medical use of marijuana. The different views of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are contrasted in a short video of their responses to a medical marijuana user, whose five doctors affirm it is his only relief.
Recently, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 6342, the “Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act” to allow terminally ill patients access to drugs, treatments, and devices not yet approved by the FDA.
Health and Nutrition Freedoms
What many conservatives seem to overlook is that federal laws and regulations are among the most serious threats to our cherished freedoms. Again, bear in mind that saying federal (national) legislation in a given area is unconstitutional does not mean that states and localities cannot legislate on these matters. It is their proper and intended jurisdiction. Thus, while it may sound conservative and moral to fight drugs at the federal level, this also opens the door to other federal legislation that can remove our most fundamental liberties. Federal legislation is a sharp, two-edged sword that is to be feared if wielded unconstitutionally.
As Milton Friedman said above, if the federal government can criminalize marijuana because it is deemed bad for one’s health, why not raw milk (Amish farmers have been arrested at gunpoint for selling it), free speech in nutritional information, nutritional products, not eating a federally prescribed diet (yes, a girl was not allowed to eat her sack lunch because it did not meet federal diet “guidelines”), selling raw almonds, etc. Besides what the federal government can prohibit, there are also concerns over what it can fund or mandate–psychiatric screenings of children, for example. Granted, there may be some arguments for and against many of these issues. But federalizing issues leaves no room for error. If a state makes a mistake, other states are not forced into the same mold, but federal laws affect the whole country and stifle the creativity inherent in multiple individual state approaches. There is a growing protest of state and federal regulations that restrict what appear to many as basic rights in the area of food and nutrition.
Also, however well-intended, centralized government agencies will naturally be targets of special interests who can buy influence to favor their products or protect themselves from competition by placing sympathetic personnel in government regulatory agencies. True, money will always seek to buy influence; but centralizing regulatory and funding powers at the federal level makes them far bigger targets for favoritism and corruption–with greatly multiplied consequences. Ron Paul talks of this when he says the FDA and drug companies are in bed together. The award-winning Burzynski movie is a real eye-opener for anyone places total confidence in the capability of the federal FDA to protect and promote our best health interests. One can look at a site like Natural News for a critical look at many federal health initiatives, if only to be aware that there is often a credible alternative viewpoint that may receive scant positive news coverage.
Local Control of Education
Education is an area that receives far less attention than it deserves from Christians and conservatives. There has been a recent movement in the nation’s largest protestant denomination, The Southern Baptist Convention, to consider alternatives to public schooling. “Dr. Morris H. Chapman, president and chief executive officer of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, criticizes the public school system for increasing secularism and moral erosion….” saying, “All Christians should note this sea-change in sentiment within the SBC. The spiritual, moral, and intellectual pathologies of the government school system are now obvious even to casual observers. Christian parents and pastors need to ask themselves just how much longer they intend to render our children to Caesar’s spiritually dark, morally decaying, and physically dangerous government schools.”
Whether spiritually, morally, politically, culturally, safety, or educationally speaking, it would seem parental and local control over what our children are being taught is of prime importance. While Mitt Romney may talk of block grants and “reforming” the Department of Education, Ron Paul’s record indicates he is serious about its abolition. Ron Paul is a strong advocate of freedom of education under parental control, including the option to home school. Dr. Paul sees no Constitutional authority for a federal role in education.
Prayer in schools, creation vs. evolution, abortion, sex education, history, politics, math and reading strategies, religion, sexual orientation, marriage, and other issues that can provoke strong differences of opinion are best decided at a local level and ultimately left in the hands of parents who have the right to chose the school their children attend–or teach them at home.
Dr. Paul says such issues cannot be discussed on their merits in an educational environment where each side attempts to use the force of law and imposed curriculum to impose its views on all. Dr. Paul would be a strong advocate for Christians’ rights of free speech and association. Individual creativity, the free market, competition, and parental choice, will produce results far superior to a centralized, bureaucratic, top-down educational system.
Of course without the educational freedom and parental control Dr. Paul so strongly advocates, religious freedom is actually a fading entity. If a government school’s “neutral” education denies any speech about God or Christian values to be spoken, children will by default receive a secular education. Likewise, churches under federal tax rules are steered away from any political speech or any moral pronouncements that could be considered discriminatory to individuals practicing acts that Christians may deem sinful. Ron Paul believes that the Constitution grants the federal government no authority to legislative on moral issues which are not directly connect to constitutional federal functions. Otherwise, such legislation touching on moral issues is to be left with the states, localities, and individuals. Ron Paul would defend Christians from federal imposition upon their rights of free speech and association. Christians and churches, like other faiths, could promote their biblical morality and freely choose to associate or not associate in their churches. Christians would not be accused of hate speech or discrimination for preaching biblical teachings. They would not be forced by federal intrusion to hire or retain personnel deemed immoral by their standards. They would be free to proclaim and practice their teachings and win converts through example and persuasion. Rather than engaging in the legislative battle to impose moral values through federal legislation (the states do have authority to take up such matters), Ron Paul would strive instead to preserve the freedoms of speech and association for everyone–and also prohibit the federal government from imposing one state’s standards upon another state.
Marriage and Gay Rights
Ron Paul’s position on the issue of marriage (he has been married to his wife, Carol, for 55 years) is consistent with his Constitutional approach. He says, in opposing a constitutional marriage amendment, and endorsing The Defense of Marriage Act,
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
I suggest Christians and conservatives look more closely at Dr. Paul’s Constitutional reasoning, rather than making quick judgments that he’s against marriage. His positions are decidedly constitutional, and would most often have yielded superior short-term and long-term practical results. His position on gay rights is reasoned similarly.
Ron Paul proposed cutting $1 trillion dollars his first year, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would essentially abolish five federal agencies, eliminating them by attrition and transfer rather than abrupt cuts. All others claim they aim to eventually balance the budget sometime beyond the end of their term (usually many years beyond). Dr. Paul says the only budget we can really control is this year’s–refreshing candor and truth. No more kicking the can down the road. It is called his Plan to Restore America.
Many conservatives, for example Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, endorsed Ron Paul’s economic plan and recognized his economic expertise and solid track record in this area. There really is no peer to Dr. Paul in knowledge and consistency in economic matters among any of the candidates who have run in this year’s race. Dr. Paul has been praised by David Stockman (Ronald Reagan’s former Director of the Office of Management and Budget), the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Nassim Taleb (“Black Swan” author), Dr. Iris Mack (celebrated Harvard alum), The Club for Growth, and many others.
How about a 0% federal income tax? Some wonder what the federal government would run on. But the income tax only provides a portion of federal revenues. Wall Street Journal editorial board director Stephen Moore explains why Rep. Ron Paul’s ideas on economics are correct and must be accepted in the mainstream GOP platform. Mr. Moore says, “…you would see the most insourcing of jobs into America in the history of the world.”
Although Rick Santorum made some comments based on creative interpretations of data in a debate, the independent and respected National Taxpayers Union (NTU) issued a press release to clarify its presidential candidate ratings. For Mitt Romney’s evaluation compare the NTU evaluation of candidate budget proposals. Between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, NTU said Ron Paul’s proposal dwarfed others’ proposals in deficit reduction.
Social Security and Medicare
Related to the deficit situation is the funding of Social Security and Medicare. Christians and conservatives generally find it morally unjustified to pass on immense debt to their children and grandchildren. However, senior citizens are rightly concerned about whether the funds they have been contributing to throughout their lives will remain sound into their retirement years. Ron Paul submitted bills for many years that would have kept Social Security taxes from being transferred to general spending funds. When Ron Paul is asked why more of his bills were not passed, perhaps it becomes apparent that presidents and congresses preferred to raid Social Security instead of grappling with moral and fiscally responsible solutions to federal programs.
In our current dilemma brought on by decades of fiscal irresponsibility, Ron Paul’s proposed cuts in overseas spending offer the only plan to cut our deficit and balance the budget while not cutting Social Security and Medicare for those who will be dependent on it. Other candidates’ plans to maintain Social Security and Medicare, increase military spending, and balance the budget do not compute. Note well that those seniors on fixed retirement incomes and those dependent on savings that are earning artificially low interest rates are hurt tremendously by the inflationary Federal Reserve policies that cause the value of the dollar to fall and, therefore, the prices of goods to rise. The dollar has lost about 98% of its value since the Federal Reserve System was instituted in 1913. The dramatic rise in the price of gas, food, and other goods is due in large part to this devaluation of our currency. Dr. Paul and others call this the inflation tax.
For more on this, including some interesting and relevant light on Newt Gingrich’s claims to have helped balance the budget four times, see Dr. Ron Paul: Champion of the Senior Citizen!
For those who have not looked seriously at Ron Paul’s policies previously, here is a recent comparison of Ron Paul with Mitt Romney, a comparison of Ron Paul with Barack Obama, and some bullet points highlighting his consistent record over twelve terms in the U.S. House of Representatives:
- He has never taken a government junket
- He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program
- He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every year
- He has never voted to raise taxes
- He has never voted for an unbalanced budget
- He voted no to the bankster bailout
- He always voted no on raising the debt ceiling
- He warned us against The “Super Congress” legislation that resembles both an “Enabling Act” and a “Politburo”
- He has never voted to restrict gun ownership
- He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay
- President Paul will take a yearly salary of $39,336, the average US worker’s salary, instead of the President’s $400,000 salary
- He will cut One Trillion Dollars from the budget in the first year and balance the budget in three years
- He will Return Power to the States as set down in the 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution
- He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power
- He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic
- He will audit and eventually end the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System
- He will phase out the unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately
- He will secure the borders
- He will limit Big Government in your private affairs
- He will stop Illegal immigration and birthright citizenship, grant no amnesty, and defend our borders
- He will protect internet freedom and our Bill of Rights
Ron Paul is a man of unusual personal integrity. His record of abiding by what the Constitution says even when he stood alone won intense support–not only from many Republicans, but also Democrats and independents who recognized the genuine article when they saw it. But Ron Paul is not the only person who can fight for justice, truth, liberty, and principled victory. If it so chooses, the Republican Party can raise up many more who will consistently and successfully uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.