|
Conservative Republicans Have
Only One Choice in 2008
Chuck Baldwin
Lew Rockwell.com
Wednesday Aug 29, 2007
Let's cut
to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for
President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP
frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.
No real conservative
could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson,
or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles,
each of these men is as phony as a three-dollar bill. That they
are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more
than laughable: it is downright hilarious.
For an ongoing
review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to
visit this
web page often.
The more
that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP's
"top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them.
This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election
should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W.
Bush has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils"
philosophy. As they say here in the south, "That dog won't
hunt." Not anymore.
(Article continues below)
On the whole,
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the
aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on
the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed
to so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both
pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive
war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military
Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment.
I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man
and was a bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens
proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military
Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on
the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother
issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole
package."
He has a
twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually
unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators
in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office
to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's
support.
In fact,
Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered
by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol
Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no"
votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN
physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.
If one wants
a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative,
constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index
in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as
the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either
party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few
congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul
does it routinely.
See the
Freedom Index here.
Ron Paul's
commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric.
He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity
of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have
recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that
"human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."
The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect
the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have
removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby
nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding
for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have
ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that
none of the Religious Right's pet politicians, including George
W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)
In addition
to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul
is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against
the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the
Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are
being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Another critical
issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is always a
critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron
Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution,
he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners
would have the best friend they ever had.
For a comprehensive
review of the presidential contenders' records on the Second Amendment,
go here.
Regarding
the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional
conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft.
Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran),
Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements
with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy,
Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American
statesman.
Unlike his
neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America.
He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police
the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound
to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests
of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and
preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr.
Paul's principled position.
In fact,
those conservatives who have followed President Bush's preemptive
war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative
principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives,
especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine's
"just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the
conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives
have foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory,
which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not
so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to "just
war."
Of course,
Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored
H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According
to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional
tool specifically designed to give the president the authority
to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who
wage war against the United States while limiting his authority
to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such
a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just
war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing
the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
If the United
States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have
lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1
trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from
which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened
to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would
most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable
to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable,
which is the case today.
And speaking
of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has publicly
acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul,
this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment.
This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear
his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of
both parties).
Just recently,
Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who is
comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In
fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season
I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely
confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek
His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms
come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects
my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed
by a loving Creator."
Could conservative
Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?
Should Ron
Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly
win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals
would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say
that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats
nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members,
and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq
and Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge
is winning the Republican nomination.
Face it:
the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international
bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too
honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for
their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning
the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative,
and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.
Conservative
Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
