Friday, June 3, 2011

Ron Paul for President

OK, I’m not endorsing anyone yet, it's too early!

Ron Paul has consistently stood for small government, personal liberty, free markets and a sound dollar.  He also has the quaint habit of using the US Constitution as his guide.  If we had been following Dr. Paul's prescription for government, we would not be in the horrible mess we now find ourselves.

Ron Paul is the only candidate whose positions have not changed over the years, and his personal integrity is beyond reproach.  He's a pro-life, pro-family values Christian who does not exploit his faith for political gain.  He lives it!

Wes Messamore at The Humble Libertarian has made an excellent Ron Paul video.  It's only one minute long.  Please watch it.

Limited government, strong dollar, personal liberty...  Ron Paul was TEA Party 30 years before everyone else...
In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. (

In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice. Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. (
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record  (Taken verbatim from
  • He has never voted to raise taxes.
  • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  • He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
  • He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
  • He has never taken a government-paid junket.
  • He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
  • He voted against the Patriot Act.
  • He voted against regulating the Internet.
  • He voted against the Iraq war.
  • He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
  • He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Just Say No to Global Community Organizing

Ron Paul is not anti-military and his foreign policy ideas are not dangerous; they echo the ideas of the founders.  He is for a strong defense and secure borders. We are blowing too much money overseas and getting nothing but hatred in return.  He believes in a strong military for National Defense, not global community organizing.

Please go to Ron Paul - National Defense, and read what he believes.  There are two YouTube videos as well.   You won't agree with everything he says, but you will find his views logically coherent and far from the danger his political foes claim they are.


Anonymous said...

It's too early for me, as well, to endorse a specific candidate, but I find myself leaning more towards him.

Although I think he'd put up a hell of a campaign, and he would more than certainly best Obama in a debate about anything, ever, I'm not sure if he'd be a winning horse in the presidential election. Most people see him as a Libertarian nut, or at least portray him to be one.

Probably what I like most about him is the fact that although he is Christian and pro-life, he doesn't believe that should be imposed on anyone. He's a big state's rights kind of guy, and I can respect that.

And although I agree we should majorly pare down our military ventures, I don't share the sentiment that we should scale it back to the levels he proposes. I'd rather have our tenticles spread via military bases all over the world than not, as projection of power is a key element these days to national defense.

Silverfiddle said...

There's also the nagging racism and anti-Semitism charges. Never substantiated, but the guilt by association arguments are not entirely baseless.

If anyone is interested, go here and read Beamish's comments and follow the links:

Anonymous said...

Well of course, anyone who opposes social welfare programs is obviously racist.

And every Christian, especially Catholics, is obviously anti-Semitic.

Those charges are what the liberals throw out when their opposition makes too much damn sense.

The Born Again American said...

It seems that every time I start liking Ron Paul, he shoots himself in the foot with what's is in his heart, but not what is conducive to beating the smuck currenty holding the office...

He is popular among college age voters and we all know how Obama used the "usefull idiots" to win the last election...

Silverfiddle said...

Born Again: I don't believe Paul is racist. No one can produce anything he said or did, just guild by association stuff. I present it here a some balance for everyone's consideration.

TonyFernandez said...

Ron Paul or some libertarian nominee are the only people I could support voting as president. Everyone else has no problem restricting our rights and going against the Constitution. No one else is interested in eliminating the welfare state. Easy decision.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to admit why I don't support Ron Paul. The man bores me to death. He is about as excitng as watching pain dry.We need someone who can really motivate our base to get out the vote. I Don't see Ron Paul doing that. Now, his son Rand is a different story.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Lets be honest, he cannot muster enough people or votes to win the GOP nomination and even if he could their is no possible way he could garner a majority of electoral votes to enter the White House.

These perennial candidates for POTUS that don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning like Paul and Ralph Nader really drive me nuts. They continually test the water (while taking peoples money) and find that it is not welcoming.

At their ages one would think they would have learned by now?

Unknown said...

Thanks god Paul wasn't around after WWII or we'd have no European trading partners because they all would be under Soviet control, along with the entire middle east oils fields and a barrel of Oil would be about $500 right about now.
I think you get my point here about Paul’s national defense strategy. :)

I also agree with Christopher here, "don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning like Paul and Ralph Nader really drive me nuts. They continually test the water (while taking people’s money)"

Z said...

I just don't think he could win, SF...neither a primary or a national election. But, he does have good conservative thinking, that's for sure, on most subjects; not that I agree with him on everything.

Silverfiddle said...

Good points, all.

Z and Christopher: I agree he has electability issues, and he is in his late 70's I think.

Jersey McJones said...

"He voted against regulating the Internet"

What the ....???

What you mean here is that Ron Paul voted against Net Neutrality - a corporatist - sleazy, sleazy, sleazy corporatist - vote. Not the least bit libertarian at all.

Paul's logic - tier regulation is creating scarcity and higher prices - is WRONG. The internet is not a limited commodity like corn or oil.

We should have all the internet access we want, as long as we can pay for it. We have carriers - the wires, sattelites, towers, wifi - and we have providers - Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Why would a Libertarian allow carriers and providers to LIMIT ACCESS to the internet???

All carriers and providers have to do is is collect the bills, maintain the infrastructure, and try to improve service. That's it. That's the model. It's a fair and simple business model, it's very profitable, and it's been VERY GOOD for our country.

Why change that?

Is he crazy??? Stupid??? What???

Paul is wrong on that. Active internet users are completely against Paul on this. He lost a huge segment of the "nerd" vote on this.

He's also a Religious Right guy. Sooo... Yeeeaaahhh.....

He can't win. The above reasons are the least of his problems with winning the presidency. The GOP and the Democrats are essentially wholly owned by a cadre of powerful interests who would NEVER allow for a President Paul.

We all know that, right? It's not news or anything. Anyone here think the Pentagon would be happy with a President Paul?

It's a shame. Who knows? Maybe he'd shake things up a bit. Even liberal ol' Jersey McJones could be entertained by the thought of voting for Ron Paul.


Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: The only way your statist internet scheme makes sense is if it is treated as a public utility, which is where the progressives are taking it, so they can regulated it like the airwaves.

I'm glad to see you include both parties in this statement. I agree with you: The GOP and the Democrats are essentially wholly owned by a cadre of powerful interests who would NEVER allow for a President Paul.

In the fog of leftist bluster, as shining ray of lucidity!

Have you looked into left-libertarianism?

TonyFernandez said...

The airwaves should not be regulated either, by the way. Homesteading works just fine. Having licenses just opens up the system to corruption.

MathewK said...

I like the small and despised government side of him, but recently i read that he would not have taken out osama because it would be a breach of pakistani sovereignty, had he been president.


I'm all for strong beliefs, but if some piece of sh!t murdered a couple of thousand of my countrymen and was found in some other country, languishing with porn and many wives and that country wasn't going to hand him over on a silver platter, apple in his mouth, you put your beliefs aside temporarily and you take care of business yourself.

It is true that your nation spends too much blood and treasure looking after the rest of us, and you could do with scaling that back and telling some of us to grow the @#%& up. But withdrawing into America and refusing to leave your borders sends a message of weakness and cowardice that will be exploited.

A good leader has to do what's in the best interests of his country and it has to be grounded in reality, not force his country to bend to his will no matter what.

Silverfiddle said...

I didn't like that either MK. It's a principled stand, I understand it, but I don't like it.

And you are correct that we cannot become completely isolationist.

Anonymous said...


I've read all the comments and agree that while Ron Paul is scrupulously honest and has great ideas on restoring us to a sound currency and getting the economy back on track I do not see him as a viable candidate for president.

He's too old for one thing, and if he is, indeed, the isolationist some portray him to be, I don't think it would be feasible to follow that model. The world has changed too radically since the days of George Washington, who warned us against getting involved in "foreign entanglements," and the isolationist policies put forth in the Monroe Doctrine.

Industrialization, and the relentless march of science and technology gave us the Wright Brothers damnable invention among other things. That and ever-advancing methods of communication have produced the shrinking globe. Two world wars and increasing internationalization on all fronts have made a comfortable retreat behind our borders impossible.

I sympathize, however, with Ron Paul's ambition to end the Warfare-Welfare State. I believe we have deliberately lost every conflict since our victory over the Axis Powers in World War II, yet we continue to feed precious young American lives into the threshing machine of war on one obscure pretext after another.


Anonymous said...


Some have said this occurs because it best serves the interests of an elite cabal made up of the owners and suppliers of raw materials, the manufacturers of war materiel, power-hungry military commanders, international financiers and power brokers, and the captains of essential industries who know no allegiance to any particular nation, and work only to promote greater wealth, power and control for themselves. That may sound plausible to some, and merely fantastic to others, but could it be true?

I don't know enough to be sure, but I think it's worth considering and investigating. Personally, I believe we have allowed ourselves to be hamstrung by the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter both largely the product of leftist-progressive thinking. Because of our respect for these entities, we have imposed Rules of Engagement and absurdly limiting battlefield strategies that seem artfully designed always to ensure our defeat.

The UN has turned out to be a monster we helped create with apparent good intentions, but to all intents and purposes it has turned out to be a viper we have nursed in our bosom. I tend to believe the UN and those who ardently back it are working ceaselessly to destroy Western hegemony and particularly the dominant role America has enjoyed since dropping The Bomb on Hiroshima.

We have attracted a lot of ill will and resentment, despite the noble, generous and highly constructive policies we implemented towards our former enemies immediately after The Great War ended. Has any other nation in the history of the world ever before been so gracious and acted so altruistically to her enemies in defeat? I doubt it, and yet we are hated, and we have hatched a significant number of insidious, patently vicious anti-American forces within the ranks of our own citizenry. As a senior citizen who loves his country warts and all, I want to know how and why these forces emerged, and why they have been so frighteningly successful.

Could we possibly be as wicked as our enemies would have us believe, or are we just a victim of our own success?

Ron Paul has been vilified for not taking a vigorously partisan stance -- i.e. unswerving allegiance -- in support of Israel. These critics fail to note that Ron Paul is equally firm in his desire to eliminate -- or at severely limit -- the foreign aid we send to many other countries as well -- many of them sworn enemies of Israel.

Too many take the position that the slightest criticism of Israel or any show of a lack of unqualified enthusiasm for The Jewish State is inherently anti-Semitic.

Sorry, but I disagree. I'm not very fond of orange juice, but that doesn't make me anti-Citrus anymore than my preference for chocolate ice cream makes me anti-Vanilla. I don't like garlic breath either, but that doesn't make me anti-Italian, nor does my distaste for mariachi bands and enchiladas make me anti-Latino.

Ron Paul would like to see the Welfare State dismantled. That does not properly imply that he is a "racist." He would love to end the Federal Reserve. that does not mean he is an anarchist or that he wants to destroy the value of our currency.

The irresponsible assumptions of moral and intellectual superiority that drive most leftist policies are abhorrent in every case -- no less so in the movement to smear and destroy the credibility of Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul's presence in the debates is valuable because he is not afraid to address vitally important topics and air ideas other candidates regard as "the third rail" of American politics. If nothing else Dr. Paul is a significant force that drives the Republican primary campaign toward greater honesty and integrity. As such Dr. Paul deserves our gratitude and respect.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: Wise words my friend. I wish everyone could simply look at the world with eyes wide open as you do. No partisan agenda, just an examination of the facts as we see them. There is no pure good or pure evil in this world.

You speak from a wisdom earned through years of observation. For this same reason 70 year old Michael Savage is my favorite radio talker.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, SilverFiddle, for your positive feedback.

Like any candidate Ron Paul has flaws. Has there been a candidate how hasn't?

But could anyone of a conservative-libertarian disposition seriously claim that Ron Paul isn't the most honest, straight-thinking person currently competing for the nomination?

Is anyone else running about whom we could be genuinely enthusiastic?

I wish there were, but I don't think so.

We're in a melluvahess, aren't we?

~ FreeThinke