I’ve grown weary of hearing Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty” tout the eccentric Congressman as a pure constitutionalist, when he is nothing of the sort. Paul’s antics and extreme rhetoric have appealed to an anarchical fringe in American politics, who apparently know little about the Constitution they claim to defend. As an economic, social and national defense conservative, I’m truly troubled by Ron Paul’s libertarian anti-republican philosophy.
When I refer to Paul as “anti-republican,” I’m not speaking of his opposition to the GOP establishment, but his anti republican philosophy of government, which emphasizes extreme libertarianism at the expense of liberty in law. A republic is a nation of laws, and these laws are designed to check human ambition, which is often borne out of our fallen, self centered nature. The concept of natural, or unalienable, rights stems from the believe that God Himself is the Grantor of these basic liberties. Inherent with such a belief is the conviction that no government, group or individual can legitimately oppose or revoke such rights to some, without endangering their own. One such right is the inherent right to life that is the first right of all free people.
What does Ron Paul believe about this first right? He believes that it ought to be left up to the states to determine its validity as opposed to God, its Grantor. My friends, I’m a strong states’ rights advocate, but the U.S. Constitution was designed to ensure that ALL Americans in EVERY state were afforded certain basic liberties. Though the Constitution does not grant many powers to the Federal government, and favors a strong states’ rights position, it does enshrine and codify natural rights that constitute the cornerstone of our free republic, of our One Nation; therefore, Paul’s belief that abortion should be left to the states indicates that he believes a national pro-life law should not be adopted, and that he doesn’t actually support the Bill of Rights that guarantees the rights to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all Americans.
It appears that Ron Paul has gone so far right that he’s ended-up on the left. He does not support the unalienable right to life, he doesn’t believe that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and woman for life and he has even advocated for the legalization of heroin and other illicit drugs. This man isn’t a conservative, he’s hijacking the concept of constitutionalism to advance his radical agenda. Make no mistake, a candidate like Ron Paul does more damage to the conservative movement than good; his very premise undermines the foundation of constitutional republicanism.
Finally, Congressman Paul recently introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would suspend all foreign aide to Israel. Israel is America’s only true middle eastern ally, and is, arguably, our best friend in the world. They have voted with the United States 97% of the time at the United Nations, and have strong cultural ties, by virtue of Judeo-Christian Values, with the United States. Now, at a time when the world is descending upon them, Paul would pull the plug on military aide to our ally. That’s not only bad policy, its an unethical position. Though his supporters couch it as part of Paul’s overall opposition to foreign aide, that’s not what his bill stated.
The proposal Paul brought to the floor was really anti-Israel more than anti-foreign aide. I’ve long opposed foreign aide for nation building. Americans shouldn’t be funding the construction of bridges and roads in every nation on Earth, when we can’t even pay our bills at home; however, there’s a difference when we’re talking military aide to a military ally. America has a legitimate “dog in the fight” when it comes to Israel’s security. Our national security is closely correlated with theirs. The U.S. Constitution certainly enables the Federal government to defend American national security interests. This provision is yet another that Congressman Paul opposes.
One could read a list of Ron Paul’s proposals and get the sense that he’s more interested in his own political agenda than the U.S. Constitution. We’ve already examined his opposition to the Constitutional protection afforded natural rights, like the right to life, and his opposition to America’s defense of her military allies. Now, it’s time for true conservatives, who believe equally in faith and family values as well as free market economic principals, to make a choice. Do we sit idly by while Ron Paul’s short-sighted message of political self interest defies the very Constitutional values that preserve our natural rights, state rights and the very concept of Americanism?
Have you ever read the Constitution of anything Ron Paul has said, or do you just see the lable “libertarian” and you must naturally oppose it. Tell me where it is authorized in the Constitution for the government to take tax payer dollars and give it to another country? How is that moral or ethical? What is national defense to you? Nation building, dedicating thousands of troops to a mission that has had us bogged down in civil wars? Why should we provide military aid to a country who is well off enough andmilitarily equipped to defend themselves and have even told us not to intervene? Furthermore, how is our national security at all closely correlated with theirs and what right does another country have to obligate the intervention of another?
Congressman Ron Paul was also critical of Obama’s Israel policy, but from a different perspective: “While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations. Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs.” Wow doesn’tthat sound so anti-israel!!! NOT!
Paul added, “We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.”
This is not the first time Paul has taken this position.
When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan. Republicans condemned Israel’s actions in 1981 for two reasons: 1. The Reagan administration was making an ally of Saddam Hussein. 2. The Republican Party had not yet conflated Israel’s and America’s interests as identical.
Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of … reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade,” Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure.” He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court’s precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.
How can you, with a strait face, claim to be a conservative yet want all decision making powers to be at the federal level. What about the fact that the pro-life movement has accomplished more on a state by state basis than they ever have in the federal level? Government is not your minister.
As far as social issues, Ron Paul is pro-life, he does not support the governments role in the institution of marriage at all (and has Constitutional standing for that position), and is so radical that he believes in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. You set up a straw man to knock down.
As far as drugs go, how can you be against Obamacare and the government telling us what we can and cannot eat andbe in favor of the drug war? You are giving the government the power to tell grown adults what they can and cannot put into their body. Where does that end? Being against the drug war isnot the same as being pro drug use. Every survey, every study, and every statistic has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the War on drugs is a failure.
This sounds more like someone opposed to classical liberalism/libertarianism than anything of actual substance or perhaps of someone of the Christopher N. Malagisi mold. If you believe in the Constitution you cannot pick and choose which partsmatter and which don’t. Having the government act as a vessel to bring about cultural and social change is not only in violation of natural rights and negative liberties, but is also extremely dangerous. The shaping of culture and society is too important of a job to leave to the government and should be left to the church. Stop giving the government more and more power.
Ron Paul’s stated position in his new book “Liberty Defined” states the following:
“Finally, here is my program for pro-life MDs and medical personnel:
* Do not perform abortions for convenience or social reasons
* Do not be the agent of active euthanasia
* Do not participate in any manner—directly or indirectly—in torture
* Do not participate in human experimentation. I’m not referring to testing new drugs with the patient’s consent. I’m speaking of our long history of military participation in human experimentation. The Tuskegee experiment, in which black soldiers who had syphilis were deliberately mistreated, in one example.”
Satisifed?
Who cares about Israel? Ron Paul is running for President of the United States, not some Middle Eastern country. If you want to support the Middle East, you should donate some of your own money.
Prior to Roe v. Wade in the 1970s, abortion laws were made by the states, just like laws against murder and theft.
So were most drug laws, until the 20th century.
The Constitution grants limited powers to the Federal government and reserves the rest to the states and the people.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, not Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government to protect freedom of speech, press, to bear arms, jury trials, etc.
Paul is not against marriage. He has been married for over 50 years to his first and only wife. He is not in favor of abortion. He has never performed one, foregoing considerable income. As an Ob-Gyn, he could have made a pile of money performing abortions.
He left the Episcopal Church because of its liberal attitude on homosexuality.
He believes that drug laws, abortion laws, marriage laws, and homosexuality laws are properly left to the States under the Constitution. What’s so radical about that?
He thinks it unduly extravagant to have bases in 150 countries. He is not opposed to a strong national defense, but is opposed to our current policy of policing the world. Other countries do just fine without policing the world. We used to.
Israel may be our ally, but that does not mean it is always right. The Bible has many accounts of Israel acting wrongly and suffering for it.
It seems that “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is meaningless to him. Is this the same Paul who said “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty”. But of course this doesnt find a place in this article becasue it would be too inconvenient to do so in his painting Dr Paul.
Josh Kimbrel has zero understanding of federalism which our republic establishes. Abortion was never touched by the fedeal govt and never understood to be given thatpower until modern times. I believe it should be but I believe an amendment is needed. Paul is right on that until then the states do have a say in it. He has NEVER said that states can determine when life begins but only the law enforcemet mechanism.
You forgot to say that Ron Paul is a worshipper of satan.
Josh Kimbrel is no friend of our constituional republic. Courts should not be enforcing natural rights but the written text of the constitution. If we want to enshrine certain natural rights then we have an amendment process.
I could go on with this person’s absurd slanders but most of the comments have got it right. How anyone could take this website serioulsy is frightening, serioulsy frightening.