Category Archives: GOP Race

Why I am Voting For Ron Paul

Posted on by
Reply

With the presidential race well underway and Super Tuesday looming ever nearer, I felt it appropriate to share what has been on my mind for several months. First, I am a personal supporter of Ron Paul. I am not alone in this. A lot of people have come to see the reason in his ideas. However, many Americans will not cast a vote for Ron Paul, simply because they do not wish to “waste” their vote. Again, they agree with his message. The media has just convinced them that he is unelectable and they have accepted it.

This is not a sufficient reason to go against principle. Many who believe in Ron Paul’s message feel as passionate about the defense of the Constitution as they do towards their religious beliefs. Indeed, they are nearly inseparable. Our rights are God-given and protected by our governing document. Furthermore, if we are to preserve our religious freedom, it must be through the preservation of our Constitution. We have a government that is daring enough to suspend the right to trial and mandate that churches pay for medication that is diametrically opposed to that church’s beliefs. They seem to be backing off the Catholic church for now, but what assurance do we have that they wont try again? Religious freedom (or any freedom for that matter) can only be had by the promotion of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. If that is the case, we can only support freedom by supporting the Constitution.

Perhaps you do not see this situation as I do–a time to either support the Constitution, or to abandon it and admit that there may be another way to save this nation. I am very much an absolutist. However, examining the other three candidates, I could not justify casting my vote for them even if I knew for certain that my first choice could not win the nomination. Most people feel that Romney is most likely to win. If voter fraud is any indication, the Republican party is certainly doing all they can to make him the candidate. But if he became the candidate and even won the presidency, what have we gained? I have yet to find a significant issue where Romney is at odds with President Obama. He told us all to our faces he would have signed away our right to trial with the NDAA (See my earlier article, “Romney’s Latest Opponent:Liberty.”). He has shown himself to be in favor of socialized medicine and he seems to support just as much war as the current administration.

Santorum claims to oppose socialized medicine and is more likely to do something about Obamacare than Romney. His voting record is pro-big government, though. He’s voted for bailouts, tax increases, etc. In terms of foreign policy, he is just as much a hawk as Romney.

Gingrich appears to have very little chance of winning the nomination at this point. His one good attribute is that he can debate well. If you are interested in his record, see “The Real Newt Gingrich” in the Current Issues tab.

Ultimately, there are three candidates that are very similar to our current administration. Ron Paul represents what many of us want, but we are told he can’t win–just like Reagan couldn’t win. Isn’t it worth the risk of “wasting” your vote to give it to the candidate that isn’t going to simply pick up where Obama left off? The greater risk is certainly giving it to the one the Republican party has chosen for you and hope he has your best interests at heart.

(Thomas Woods wrote a similar article to this. “26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying.”)

Romney’s Latest Opponent:Liberty

Posted on by
2

In the recent GOP debate held in South Carolina, we saw a few interesting events. The one I found most disturbing was Governor Romney’s answer to the question:

“When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. Military custody. … Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?”

Romney replied, without hesitation that he would have and that he believes that it is “appropriate in our nation to have the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of Al-Qaeda….”

He went on to acknowledge that this power could be abused, but that he would not abuse it and does not believe that President Obama will abuse it.

Well, that’s comforting. Our current president, supposedly, will not abuse it and neither will one of the presidential candidates. What about after that? I was sort of hoping that America would still be around after that. We cannot give away rights like Habeas Corpus and simply trust that they will come back. Nor can we give such powers to a government that has shown itself to have little, or no regard for the Constitution.

It is appalling that a presidential candidate, claiming to be conservative, can tell the American people that Indefinite Detention is “appropriate.” First Romneycare and now this. Aside from the fiscal policy that we are all assured is conservative, what has he done to show us that he isn’t as much of a nightmare as Obama?

The Right to Fire

Posted on by
Reply

You’ve probably heard about Mitt Romney’s recent “gaff” about firing people. In fact, you may have heard about it from one of his opponents who pounced on the remark and quickly demonized him for it. Jon Huntsman, in his version of the attack, implied that Romney was anti-jobs. But was his statement really the ruthless remark his opponents are calling it, or is he right?

Posed another way, imagine you hire someone to cut your grass on a regular basis. They come out with their lawn mower and they miss several patches and neglect to edge it and maybe even chop a few flowers with the weed eater. Your are displeased with their work and decide to find someone else to cut the grass for you. Isn’t that your right? Don’t you get to decide who cuts your grass and who doesn’t? After getting a terrible haircut, haven’t you complimented “firing” your barber?

I don’t understand why the right to fire people is such a depraved notion. It’s the basic idea for how capitalism functions. If Walmart sells bad produce, go to Publix, or Safeway. Fire them as your produce provider. Pretty soon, Walmart may get the hint and get better produce.

I like having the right to fire people, too! To hear Ron Pauls reaction, go to the Red White and Blog Facebook page and watch his interview on the subject. What are your thoughts?

What’s So Bad About Ron Paul?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the past months, we’ve been hearing all the dirt there is to hear on every GOP candidate in the race. They have now started taking Ron Paul seriously and, as a result, have begun to attack. Interestingly, there is very little dirt to find on the consistent, principled congressman. All they can find are some articles written under his name, though not by him. Ron Paul has denied responsibility for this repeatedly and I really don’t feel it is very relevant. The only somewhat valid point against him is his foreign policy. He would stop policing the world and cut the defense budget considerably.

This has many Republican pundits shaking in their boots. What about Iran? What about Israel? They fear a non-hawk in the White House. But is there really anything to fear? Wouldn’t a strong defense be even more effective than having our entire army spread over the globe? Ron Paul gets his foreign policy from the Constitution and the men who wrote it had just experienced a war. General Washington had waged it. Shouldn’t they know what they’re talking about? All I hear is “What about Iran and Israel?” I’ve never heard any reason beyond that. I found an excellent explanation of his plan here. Check this out for further understanding.

The GOP Debates: Is There a Point to This?

Posted on by
2

I’m trying to keep up with the debates these days. I feel like I should watch them and see what the hopefuls are saying about themselves, about the issues, about each other. Lots of arguing and lots of “you said this” and “No, I didn’t.” After this past debate, I started wondering how helpful they really are.

Until recently, Romney shone in each debate as he cleverly evaded every stab at his political past. Perry is still bringing up what he wrote in his book and then deleted. Still, the most that the debates could tell us for sure is that Romney is an excellent debater and Perry…well, I really feel for the guy. Gingrich has since replaced Romney as star of the debates even in spite of his massive and frequent flip-flops. In fact, they may be helping him more than hurting him as every pointed question allows him to brandish that silver tongue of his. It really is quite impressive. He can take those questions and turn them to his benefit, or not answer them at all. He’s good.

But, through this, all he’s shown is that he can talk. Nice. Our president can do that to, but three years with him haven’t exactly been a picnic. I don’t care if he can talk!And that brings me back to the relevance of the debates. If everyone who watched them went home and looked up the issues and the records of each candidate, then they might do some good. However, most people don’t do that. Most people see Gingrich on stage making everyone else look foolish and think, “Hey, I like that guy.”

Gingrich can talk. Romney can talk. Each candidate is impressive in his, or her own way. Good, now check their records. Look at what they’ve done in the past. How do their past actions line up with the Constitution? This November, we need voters standing in the booths who have done their research and know the candidates. This November, don’t vote for a candidate, vote for the Constitution.