Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Conservative Republicans for Ron Paul

Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008
By Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2007
This column is archived at
Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice
for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP
frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.
No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John
McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic
conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three
dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as
conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.
For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite
readers to visit this web page often:
The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the
GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This
fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election
should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush
has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As
they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.
On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders
above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very
important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to
so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second
Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however,
and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions
Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess
to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a
bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal.
However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions
Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but
they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said,
it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."
He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is
virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and
senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of
office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.
In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills
offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol
Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the
fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has
delivered more than four thousand babies.
If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes
on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the
Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always
ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or
either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few
congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does
it routinely.
See the Freedom Index here:
Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond
rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity
of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized
the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life
shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized
the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children.
In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade
decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In
plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is
more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet
politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's
pro-life bill.)
In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron
Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out
against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the
Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being
promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR).
Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is
always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue,
Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the
Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would
have the best friend they ever had.
For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on
the Second Amendment, go here:
Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a
traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert
Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran),
Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements
with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul
stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.
Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent
America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police
the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to
protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of
internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and
preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's
principled position.
In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's
preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical
conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape,
conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed
to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the
conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have
foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now,
was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a
Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."
Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He
authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a
constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the
authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors
who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to
only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited
authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the
practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in
blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not
have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1
trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which
there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr.
Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his
al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future
terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case
And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has
publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for
Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal
commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not
wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of
both parties).
Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who
is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact,
the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to
be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that
Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in
all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man,
but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for
the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving
Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?
Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost
certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense
ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say
that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats
nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members,
and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and
Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is
winning the Republican nomination.
Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the
international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul.
He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent
for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning
the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative,
and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.
Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008:
Ron Paul.
(c) Chuck Baldwin