February 20, 2012 2:20 PM
Ron Paul: not a social conservative
I may make some enemies by being this frank, but I feel the time has come:If you are a true conservative, I would ask you to reconsider your allegiance to a libertarian who does not grasp the fact that you cannot fix our country's economic problems without addressing the social issues. Rick Santorum has been the first candidate ever to clearly articulate this connection, perhaps drawing on Pope John Paul II's Humanae Vitae.
I also would never feel comfortable with a president who felt no responsibility to stop an aggressor like Germany. Had Ron Paul been president during that era, I can only imagine Europe would belong to Germany and every Jew, Catholic and disabled person there would have been eliminated.
This is a serious election, folks. Too serious to play around with abstract ideas that may tickle your ears but which would leave huge holes in our country's conscience. The US has been a beacon of life, liberty and hope to people all over the globe. Whiel I don't agree with our far-flung forces, do you really believe that isolationism is the path God would have our country take?
We need a president who understands that the social issues are the foundation of all the ills that plague our nation, and who can articulate this in a fresh way that will give people hope - something that's been missing for decades. What we don't need is a loose cannon like Ron Paul who is threatening to split the party by taking his devotees out with him.
Please, listen, reflect and pray. Rick Santorum needs our support. I truly believe that he is our only hope this election. Rush has been running his clips from the Sunday shows and he sounds so full of truth and grace. We need that.
In the meantime, here's Ron Paul in his own words:
Ron Paul on Social Conservatism: 'I Think It's a Losing Position'
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (AP Photo/Cheryl Senter)
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas.), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that social conservatism is "a losing position" for the Republican Party.
Read more at CNS News
Posted in Rick Santorum | Permalink
Comments
Ron Paul believes in following the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to declare war. Under a Ron Paul presidency circa 1940s, a Congressional declaration of war would have been respected. It is untrue to describe his position as isolationist. He is a non-interventionist who believes in the Just War theory (a Catholic teaching dating back to Augustine). I am proud to support Ron Paul for president and believe that he IS a social conservative but the Constitution must be the basis of our government. A moral people may live under a Communist government, but that government will not succeed. We need a government that upholds and defends the Constitution regardless of the morality of the people. A government that does not bail out every company and individual who behaves badly will necessarily lead to a better behaved citizenry because the company or individual will face the natural consequences of its/her/his actions. A strong economy is what will allow a moral people to prosper.
Posted by: Jennifer | February 20, 2012 3:18 PM
Jennifer, I am glad you are proud, but if you are implying that I am not an upholder of the Constitution, critic of bailouts, etc, you are very wrong - so why you throw that into the mix, I don't know. It's simply a misrepresentation and distraction.
I am not here to argue, but to plead with conservatives to unite around someone who is *unashamed* to put social issues - meaning acknowledgement of the family as the primary building block of society - where it belongs: First.
Not to argue, but to plead.
Posted by: Barbara | February 20, 2012 4:04 PM
[Jennifer, I am making an editorial decision here not to allow Ron Paul supporters to fill up my comments with links to arguments by other people. As I just stated again - my purpose is not to argue but to plead for unity around a candidate who recognizes the importance of family and morality - as well as the Constitution.
Mine is not an argument, but a plea and a prayer.
Love,
Barbara]
Posted by: Jennifer | February 20, 2012 4:04 PM
Barbara, Thank you for posting this info about Santorum and Paul. I appreciate the info. I think it has helped me to get a better idea of which candidate I support now.
Posted by: Michelle | February 20, 2012 5:33 PM
Barbara, normally my eyes glaze over when you go "political" in the past, but I am actually interested now that this race is coming to where we have to make a decision. I live in Texas, and normally the whole thing is basically over with before the primary season reaches us. This year is different. I don't understand the landscape this year. I don't get why Ron Paul supporters are SO zealous - and I can't vote for him with his comments about 9-11. I don't know why Mitt Romney can't connect with the moderates that outnumber those on the farther left and right. I don't see how Santorum can get the organization and money together to beat Obama, and I can't vote for Gingrich who keeps changing his positions, religions, and spouses. Looking forward to your take on things.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2012 5:52 PM
Actually, Sue, Santorum is very very frugal with his money and he has managed to not only hang in there but to pull ahead of Romney with all of his money (and we know that that's a lot). If Santorum can do this on a budget against his Republican opponents, don't you think that (should he win the primary), there will be money pouring in to help him beat Obama.
Once the primary is decided, that's when the polarization of this country is really going to show.
I'm watching Santorum. There's no way I'm voting for Ron Paul unless he wins the primary. Then it's more of a vote against Obama than anything else. That will be a "grit my teeth and pull the lever" type of vote.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | February 20, 2012 8:18 PM
To the point that was made "a Congressional declaration of war would have been respected."
Not so fast.
We were already supporting the Allies and earned the name the "Aresenal of Democracy." Roosevelt used that term in 1940, nearly a year before Pearl Harbor and the US declaring war on Germany. There was however a respect for the Constitution because the Constitution allows the President to commander and chief of the Army and Navy.
Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Further, the term "declaration of war" does not appear in the Constitution. So we have to be careful that we accurately describe the powers of the branches of govenrment.
Article One Section 8 enumerates the powers to Congress and among them, "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning water and land. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;..."
Congress has the "power to declare war" but I could not find any where in the Constitution requires a "declaration of war" in order to go into battle. In fact, there are over 230 instances of military use without Congress declaring war.
The President had broad authority to command the troops and the declaration of war.
Congress passed the Lend Lease Act, prior to entering WWII and declaring war, and it was that law that allowed us to help Great Britain. It could be said that we "propped up" Great Britain. And if you want to take that side, okay. That's fair. But it was the law of the land and allowed.
And the War Powers Act also grants the President to act militarily with the direction of the President. This was also passed Congress and so even if you believed that all military action had to be approved by Congress some of their said authority Congress then delegated back to the President.
Congress was clearly comfortable with the sending of our ships to aid Great Britain without a formal "declaration of war" as you call it. So to today, there are places where we may not be in a declared war but the aiding of an ally might serve our needs as well as those of the ally. And that's where many people struggle with Paul and his stated position of "non-interventionist" policy." Which is actually isolationist because Paul wants to bring all our troops from every corner of the globe home.
Paul said in an interview with Wolf Blitzer,
"And just to be precise, you want to bring all the U.S. troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Germany, Japan, South Korea and everyplace else around the world. Is that right?
Ron Paul: Yea, because I believe in national defense and our first responsibility, and probably one of the major responsibilities of the federal government, is the national defense. And fighting these wars does not help us, I mean, getting bogged down in Afghanistan brought the Soviet Union to its knees, and is bringing us to our knees, too. We’ve been there for ten years and it’s contributing to this huge deficit that we have. Those wars over there have contributed 4 trillion dollars worth of debt in the last 10 years. So yea, I want to bring them home, and I think we’ll be stronger for it, I think we’ll have a stronger national defense and we’ll have a lot stronger economy. If we’re serious about straightening this mess up, we have to deal with foreign policy as well monetary policy and fiscal policy and tax policy."
I may see a need to bring SOME troops home but all in every nation is just not sane foreign policy with the enemy that is before us. But that brings us to another Paul problem he thinks we create our enemies. In fact he's gone so far as to say that the Taliban just wants to be left alone.
Ron Paul said, "I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come."
First off, the Taliban were not our allies when we were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. They were not even created yet tat didn't formally happen until 1994 after the Russians had ended their occupation and pulled out. .
Secondly, the Taliban has aided our enemy, Al-Qaeda. They provided safe-haven of protection for them while the Al-Qaeda went about the dirty business of killing us in the USS Cole. Thus they became an ally of Al-qaeda in an effort to hurt us. The Taliban according to Paul doesn't want foreigners but they are willing to tolerate Al-Qaeda and provide safe haven for them against us.
It's not all foreigners that the Taliban hate but those that are against their form of Islam. They tolerate Bin Laden, Arab jihadists, and others who seek to destroy us. That's not someone who just want foreigners out. They have been training youth since the early 90's in the spirit of jihad that guides many in the Middle East. We ignore them and just try to get along is the strategy of Obama who wants to "negotiate with them." Sorry but that's the strategy that allowed Hitler to move steadily through Europe. And not a strategy for the President. I want a leader who understands that Islam (Taliban included) have an internal belief that drives them to hate us. Not because we "occupy" their land but because we exist. And their goal is our elimination.
There's so much more I could write but I think that's good for starters.
Posted by: Spunky | February 20, 2012 9:13 PM
