Tag Archives: ron paul

Golden Ruled Out

I’ve posted before about my stance on Ron Paul. I agree with just about all of his positions. However, his comment at the South Carolina debate was just off the chart – bad.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a war-monger and don’t believe we need to attack nations for no reason. I also don’t believe we need to be involved in nation-building. However…..

For Ron Paul to think (basically) that we can just leave the Muslims alone and they will leave us alone is just plain wrong. Has Ron forgotten the Barbary Pirates?

He is right – these people don’t hate us because of our freedom and liberty. They hate use because we are non-Muslim – and that is the point Ron Paul misses drastically.

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.  The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. — Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to Continental Congress, March 28, 1786

I’ve decided that while I support most of Ron Paul’s stances I simply cannot stand 100% behind a candidate who would definitely put the security of our country at risk by asserting the “Golden Rule.” This is dangerously close to Barack Obama’s foreign policy stance – at least when he was a candidate – and that rules him out.

The GOPers – Gun Stances

As most of you know, one of my first checks on a politician is their stance on gun control. Why? It relates directly to a politician’s stance on the 2nd Amendment – and that tells us how a candidate will treat other civil rights issues.

If a politician will abuse the 2nd Amendment, then he/she will certainly abuse others.

Just so I’m clear, I think the BATF should be disbanded and the NFA should be repealed. We already have plenty of draconian laws on the books to restrict honest citizens.

Let’s take a look at the main 2012 GOP candidates and their stance on gun rights and gun controls.

Ron Paul

“Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.” — Ron Paul 2008

“Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.” — Ron Paul 2008

Ron Paul is only GOP candidate who firmly stands behind the 2nd Amendment.

  • Quoted on the home page of Gun Owners of America
  • A+ Rating from GOA
  • Introduced legislation to repeal the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban

Mitt Romney

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” — Mitt Romney 2004

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” — Mitt Romney 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate

This is easy. He fails. Miserably.


 Newt Gingrich

“Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.” — Newt Gingrich 2007

Newt is kind of tricky. I don’t trust him.

He claims to be a staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, but claims they are a “political right”. No Newt. You aren’t always the smartest guy in the room. The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right.

By supporting gun-free zones in schools, he supports the rights of criminals to carry guns among unarmed citizens. If you understand Newt’s stance that the 2nd Amendment is a “political right” then you understand why he would support such legislation. A “political right” implies that you can keep arms to stand up to a tyrannical government. While that is true, it is only a part of a much deeper right.


To his credit he did vote against both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.


Ron Paul – the Good and the Bad

So far, I haven’t really weighed in on the GOP nomination candidates. Since 2012 is here, and the presidential race is drawing closer and closer, I figure I may as well start with Ron Paul.

I’m going to cover a few of the major issues here. To be clear, I am not confident that Ron Paul could defeat Barack Obama. We need to remember the voting base of Barack. However, many of the independents who voted against McCain in 2008 may go for Ron Paul. There is a CLEAR difference in stances between Ron Paul and everyone else.

The Bad – Muslim Stance

The is the one place where Ron has it wrong. His position is basically that Muslims who attack us do so because we are “invading” their land. The United States has bombed them so Muslims are annoyed.

Granted, that is part of the problem. However, Islam is NOT the religion of peace. One of the foundations of Islam is the war and violence that Muhammad himself waged.

Quran 9:123 “O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous.”

Keep in mind that the above verse takes place around 630 after a battle confronting the Byzantine Christians. It was a Muslim Crusade centuries before any of the Christian Crusades.

Now, one can argue that not all present-day Muslims are violent, but one cannot argue the history and context of the prophet Muhammad himself. That history and context is one of violence to non-believers.

Where Ron Paul has it wrong – Muslims would attack us anyway at some point. The “invading their lands” rhetoric is just a red herring. Anyone remember the Barbary Pirates?

The Bad – Newsletters

Actually, I don’t really care about the content of the newsletters themselves. I’m sure there is some content that I would actually agree. My concern is Ron Paul’s complete dismissal of them.

The facts are simple:

  • They ran for around 10 years.
  • Ron Paul’s name was the headliner.
  • Ron Paul profited from them.
He should have a much better response than basically saying “I didn’t know anything about them for 10 years.” That just sounds weak and stupid. Ron Paul should have handled that better.

The Good

Federal Debt

Trimming $1 Trillion the first year? He’s got my vote. No more needs to be said.

Iran and Nukes

Most “conservatives” that I know let the hairs on their neck stand on end at the thought of Iran and nuclear capabilities. While I agree that it would be a more dangerous world with a nuclear-armed Iran, nobody on the right (or the left) seems to have a clear answer for one simple question:

What EXACTLY do we do to stop Iran? Are we supposed to bomb them? Invade them? Assassinate their leaders?

Everyone seems hell-bent on the Iran and no nukes drumbeat; however, sanctions are not going to cut it. Neither is saying “pretty please” and neither is putting them in the Axis of Evil.

My stance is that Iran is a sovereign nation. As unpalatable as it may be, as true conservatives we should not stop them and cannot. Let Israel do it.

Foreign Aid

Ron advocates stopping all foreign aid. Sounds good to me.

Legalizing Drugs

I’ve come to realize that, yes, the entire War on Drugs is a big expensive effort in futility. One of the side effects is the massive expansion in police powers and federal powers that undermine our liberties.

Ron has a very valid stance on civil liberties. Would I personally start using heroine if it were legal? No, and I bet the majority of people would not either.

Prohibition did not work and served as a microcosm of what is going on now. Back then it gave rise to mob. Now we have the drug cartels and the Police State.

The Federal Reserve

Should be stopped completely. Easy enough.


He’s against abortion. So am I.