January 13, 2012
First, I must state that I deeply appreciate and applaud the passion and energy of the Ron Paul campaign and their undying loyalty to the concepts that his supporters believe Ron represents. No campaign is as focused and energetic as the Ron Paul campaign which actually began all the way back in 2008 and has persisted ever since.
What I don’t appreciate is the vicious and venomous nature of the average Paul supporter or their scorched-earth methods aimed at insulting or intimidating voters into supporting “their guy.” If it was my aim to destroy Ron Paul, all I’d have to do is publish a selection from hundreds of comments received from Paul supporters, full of F-bombs, insults, bold-faced lies and threats.
Fact is the Paul supporters’ behaviors are largely responsible for Ron Paul’s unelectable status. Leftists are easily fooled, intimidated and offended by childish insults and pre-school name-calling techniques like “neocon,” a term first used by Communists who coined the phrase decades ago to insult “greedy capitalist pigs,” later picked up by David Duke and the White Supremacist movement as a negative reference to Jews or so-called “Zionists.” But conservatives and true constitutionalists are not so easily fooled, intimidated or offended…
As if they can’t do simple math, Paul supporters find themselves in a very dangerous position, unable to achieve their stated goal of turning this country around by electing Ron Paul, but able to make things much worse.
The inescapable reality of the 2012 GOP race
• Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina all allow non-republican voters to vote in their primaries and still, Ron Paul was unable to win these states with his cross-party supporters.
• Ron Paul is popular with some Independents and Democrats, but is not popular with most Republicans, or as Paul supporters call them, “neocons.” He can’t win the GOP nomination without the support of GOP voters, whom they can’t seem to stop insulting.
• Every poll shows that Ron Paul is the least capable candidate in the race, in terms of defeating Obama in November and removing Obama and Clinton from office in 2012, the single highest priority in America today.
• Barring a late surge by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina or Florida, Mitt Romney is going to win the GOP nomination whether I like it or not. McCain won South Carolina with 33% support because six candidates went to South Carolina in 2008. 2012 also has six GOP candidates in South Carolina, at least three of them, not really in the running.
But Ron Paul’s biggest problem is Ron Paul. What his fans call “constitutional” is nothing more than a tightrope high-wire act of non-interventionism. Paul is the only candidate with no need to flip-flop because he has never actually taken a real position on anything. He has chosen not to intervene on any subject, and this, Paul supporters have misinterpreted as a constitutional stance.
To be sure, Ron Paul’s strongest point is his Tenth Amendment position on every issue. I too, believe firmly in individual and states’ rights, smaller less intrusive government and much lower taxation. That’s the easy stuff…. Most Americans get this stuff right, including all GOP candidates.
Paul’s positions fall apart when you ask one question however…. How?
I’ll demonstrate using a few issues based upon Ron Paul’s campaign talking points from his campaign site. You don’t have to believe me -- you can read Paul’s official positions for yourself. I’m just helping you see through the rhetoric, to the reality.
Abortion – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to abortion. He is also on record as opposed to outlawing abortion, which of course allows abortions to continue. His reasoning is that abortion is not a federal issue, but rather a state issue. - Really?
Most of what our federal government engages in today is not a federal issue assigned to D.C. via the constitution, abortion included. However, a true constitutionalist does not use a Tenth Amendment argument to run from constitutional reality and responsibility.
Every true constitutionalist knows that the Declaration of Independence established the fundamental foundational principles upon which all else was erected, and that LIFE is the very first “unalienable right” in our Declaration of Independence. This means that protecting the sanctity of innocent life is indeed a matter of utmost constitutional concern and authority.
Constitutionalists also know that the authority to make law was given exclusively to congress, not the courts, and thus, that Roe vs. Wade actually has no bearing on the legal status of abortion, as it could not “make law.” Abortion is the taking of innocent life, not in self-defense, which also happens to be the definition of murder. As congress has made no law legalizing murder, including in the form of abortion, Ron Paul’s position that this is not an issue for the federal government is incorrect and unconstitutional.
Paul is right to say that government’s first job is to protect the people’s rights. As a doctor, Paul confirms that life begins at conception. Abortion is a constitutional matter because LIFE is an unalienable constitutional Right. Why is Paul focused on liberty as a fundamental right, but not life, without which there can be no liberty or happiness? The protection of innocent LIFE is of utmost constitutional concern and authority and every true constitutionalist knows it.
Immigration – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to amnesty for millions of illegal migrants currently living in America and ongoing illegal immigration. He is reportedly for securing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws. So am I…
But Paul is also on record as opposed to deporting illegal invaders, which means they stay, in some form of amnesty, aka reform. Constitutionalists concerned with the equal enforcement of our laws understand that capturing and deporting illegals is the only way to enforce our immigration laws.
Paul says that our immigration laws are unfair. Apparently, he is not aware of the fact that America has the most lenient immigration laws on earth and that if we used Mexico’s immigration laws, we wouldn’t have an immigration problem.
Paul says that as president, he will eliminate all taxpayer-funded freebies for illegals. That means public schooling, health care, food stamps, welfare, government housing and college grants, all of it. However, many of these freebies are offered by the states, as in California. How will Paul use the Oval Office to mandate California policies regarding state benefits for illegal immigrants, keeping Paul’s firm pro-Tenth Amendment status in mind?
Once again, Paul attempts to walk a tightrope between appearing concerned with illegal immigration without actually addressing true enforcement of our immigration laws, opposing amnesty while insuring that millions of illegal invaders will remain in America under some form of amnesty, under the guise of reform.
The Economy – Paul is on record for smaller government and less taxation. So are all the other GOP candidates and most Americans. This is an easy one for everyone, until you ask the question, how?
Nowhere in Paul’s campaign does he address the reality that it is largely government employee labor unions that are bankrupting both Federal and State governments, with huge unfunded benefits and pensions that no other American taxpayer enjoys. Nowhere does Paul talk about all of the European nations currently folding under the weight of excessive government labor unions, or the well-known socialist international labor stranglehold on America, including in education.
But Paul does attack evil corporate America, private sector industry responsible for private sector employment and the private productivity that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. What is Paul’s idea of economic liberty?
Paul says he will eliminate all federal income, capital gains and death taxes, which account for roughly 60% of the federal revenue stream -- while not mentioning payroll taxes, which account for about 36% of federal revenues and fail to fund the related 60% of the federal budget which is social spending.
Not one penny of social spending is “constitutional.” Paul assaults national security and military spending, but not the social spending responsible for our economic demise, now representing 60% of all federal spending.
Constitutionally speaking, only about 7% of the current federal revenue stream was constitutional prior to 1913. I’m in favor of repealing all 1913 Amendments. Is Ron Paul?
Paul says “end the Federal Reserve,” which was also formed in 1913. But he does not say what we should replace it with -- A Soviet-style government banking system?
He says the dollar is a “fiat currency,” which is technically true in that every government sanctioned currency is a fiat currency. That’s the definition of fiat currency, an official currency sanctioned by government as a means of exchange. Contrary to Paul’s use of the term, it is not a dirty word.
He says we should return to a gold standard, knowing that America does not have the gold to back up even 30% of the currency currently in circulation and not recognizing why we left the gold standard to begin with. It was not stable… Is there any faster way to crash the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy? Even Obama will crash it slower than that.
He says we don’t know who owns the Federal Reserve, but we do. It is owned by its member banks, about 3000 of our nation’s 8000 private banks.
He says we don’t know who runs it, but we do. It is run by a government appointed Board of Governors.
He would refuse to raise the debt ceiling again, but has not addressed how to end deficit spending and until we do that, the debt ceiling will continue to rise.
National Security – First, Paul doesn’t call it “national security,” he calls it national defense, indicating his non-interventionist belief that America can defend itself without engaging an increasingly dangerous world, or using preventative measures.
Paul does not recognize the threat of Radical Islam that has existed in this world for centuries and now exists on our soil. When he has been forced to address the threat of Radical Islam, he blames America for the terrorist operations that have been part of Islam much longer than America has existed.
Paul takes a solidly passive view of national security, promising to respond to attacks rather than prevent attacks on the United States. Explain that policy to those left behind after the attack.
Paul opposes The Patriot Act put in place to deal with the fact that we have allowed terrorists to live among us. But he does not address what to do about the terrorists living among us or discuss how he will prevent an event worse than 9/11. He doesn’t even acknowledge the very real threat that exists at terror training camps on our soil today.
I am not in favor of the Patriot Act either, but I am also not for allowing terrorists to live among us, another reason why we should be deporting illegal invaders instead of opposing amnesty while also opposing deportation.
Despite the fact that Iran is currently producing nuclear power and long-range missiles, Paul does not see Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Despite Iran’s repeated promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Paul thinks Israel is the problem and should be left to defend itself alone.
I can keep going here, issue after issue and in the end, I can use reality to debunk the constitutional-sounding rhetoric used to promote Ron Paul. So can every other true constitutionalist or conservative in this country and that’s why Ron Paul only resonates with those who have heard his campaign slogans and not asked any questions.
The simple truth is Ron Paul is just as dangerous to America’s future as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, and that’s why Ron Paul is unelectable… His vicious supporters only make his odds of winning even worse, thank God.
He won’t win the GOP nomination, so he will have no chance to win the Presidential election. Take that to the bank!
What he and his loyal followers CAN do is make sure that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton win re-election in 2012. In some cases, this may be the actual goal as some Paul supporters have explained that allowing Obama to finish off our country might be the best thing for this country. Interesting logic…
It doesn’t require a scientist, a lawyer or a math professor to figure any of this out. Common sense and a grasp of reality are all that’s required. Not a common trait among most of the Paul supporters I have heard from over the years, with rare exception.
My goal is not to stop Ron Paul from being nominated because he will not be nominated whether I write about Ron Paul or not. If Paul supporters think that my column has the power to influence the outcome of the GOP nomination, they give me far too much credit and they are not reading the tea leaves as Romney marches towards the nomination.
My goal is to get Paul supporters to channel all that passion for freedom and liberty somewhere they can actually make a positive, rather than a negative difference. There are many things they could do to help save this nation and helping Obama win re-election isn’t one of them.
Based upon communications received from Paul supporters over the last four years, I don’t expect that they will be able to accept reality and act on it in the best interest of our country. Only a few who have written me have demonstrated such abilities.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
But the rest of the pro-American freedom and liberty voters can feel completely confident and justified in dismissing the Ron Paul campaign. They had better find some voters to replace the Paul voters though, or no GOP candidate will be able to defeat Obama and Clinton come November.
Most of the Paul supporters are committed to “voting their conscience” – which apparently includes helping Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain in power. I call it their “greater evil strategy.”
My conscience calls me to do all that I can to keep that from happening. Based on the polling data in the GOP race, I’d say most American’s share the goal of defeating Obama at any cost. They will have to do it without Paul supporters, who seem to have a very different kind of moral compass.