Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Why I am supporting Ron Paul for 2012

I have chosen to support Ron Paul in the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

This is a departure from my typical, very "mainstream" political views. I supported Fred Thompson in the last caucus and supported President George W. Bush while he was in office. Below I will share my reasoning for supporting Ron Paul. By the way, I'm just raising a young family and working full time, so I don't claim to be an expert. But none the less, I will share my unsolicited opinion.

1. The country needs a dramatic shift and challenge to our long accepted assumptions. There are many good people running for President in this election. However, ask yourself, "How long will my candidate preserve the American experiment in representative democracy?" I trust no one but Ron Paul to make a drastic enough change from our current direction to actually extend the life of our republic. Some, like Mitt Romney, will only shift who the federal government empowers by shifting funding and his agenda to reward those whom he believes are worth rewarding. Some, like Rick Santorum, have a spot on Christian worldview which I share, but I am convinced could only move the ball 5 yards down the field for conservatism, which could quickly be undone by the next administration. I fear no one but Ron Paul would actually preserve America as the founders intended.

2. During this election cycle, I have stopped asking myself "Who holds my beliefs?" to "Who holds the beliefs of the founding fathers?" I like our military running all over the world and killing terrorists. But is this what our founders intended? Is this consistent with small government which is subject to the people? There's no question that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum most mirror my lifestyle and beliefs. But is that the measure of a President? Are we just hiring the person who we most like personally? Or are we hiring the person who will serve us, the entire nation, best? Ron Paul has been consistent in supporting and upholding the Constitution.

3. We can not have a small, frugal, Constitutional government if that government is powerful enough and big enough to wage 5 or 6 undeclared, undefined foreign wars simultaneously. Did you ever consider that the only reason the actual attack on the Twin Towers happened because we failed to secure our homeland, not because we were policing ever cave on earth trying to eliminate any Muslim Jihadist? It's time we took a healthy interest in our country alone, strongly securing the borders and its security, and focusing on building up and empowering the people of this nation. Some candidates appear as if they would like to have active military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and anywhere else that a radical wants to kill off people who are free. If we engage in war with every nation that tolerates or shelters Jihadic Muslims, we will be at war indefinitely. We aren't the first to try military might against Jihadists, considering stopping Muslim Jihad by war has only been going on since the Middle Ages. In addition, the cold war wasn't won by waging war. It's time for this nation to start looking after itself as the Constitution intended, instead of misapplying Matthew 5:14. The church is to be the shining city on a hill, the light of the world, not the U.S. Let's make sure the United States is "safe for democracy" (safe from tyrant bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, and judges) before we worry about the rest of the world.

4. The same means by which the federal government uses to enforce pro-family policies can be used to enforce anti-family policies. If we leave our national morality to the government, and then allow 9 unelected tyrants to be the final authority on everything, pro-family advocates must win every election and appoint every judge. How has that been working out for the past 40 years? That has been pro-family advocates modus operandi for a generation, and at best we have kept things at status quo. If pro-family politicians lose ground, the same techniques can be used against us, to codify homosexual marriage, hate speech legislation, and protect abortion on demand. The reason why Ron Paul has made some of the statements on homosexual marriage he has is because it simply isn't the federal governments role to define marriage. Marriage has already been defined by God's law, and is clearly evidenced in natural law. Again, what I want (marriage defined as only between a man & a woman by the federal government) and what the we should do Constitutionally may be at odds.

5. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands monetary policy, will audit the Fed, and will take us back to a commodity based currency instead of a fiat currency. In terms of preserving our country, this may be the most important point, but it's also extremely complex and something I don't know a lot about.

6. Beyond all this are some of his campaign talking points: Cutting 1 trillion dollars in spending year one. Him taking a salary as president of $39K, the median income in the US. Eliminating unconstitutional & wasteful federal departments, etc.

No comments:

Post a Comment