I’ve been guilty of overlooking something. That is, for years I felt safe voting for the GOP nominee for president of the USA. Anyone familiar with my writings here, knows that I no longer have such focus. In fact, far from that, if we end up with the GOP Establishment’s pick for President as the Republican nominee in the next election, I simply will not vote for that person. I’ve come to understand that the GOP Establishment and Democrats are the same thing, with very minor differences, and those differences are for the most part just a matter of personal style and approach. With that understanding, I’ll spare myself the insult of having to vote for a person I know is not good for the nation. (The lesser of two evils? Who's to say when neither is any good?)
Because of that past focus, however, I have always dismissed Ron Paul out of hand. I never took the time to research him and although I never said anything bad about him, I didn’t give much notice to other conservatives who rejected him, sometimes amid a torrent of slurs. I also have to admit that because of all the negative press, I thought that there was probably something “off” about the guy. No matter, I didn’t care, as the “mainstream” candidate was my focus and if my conservative pick didn’t win the nomination, well, what the heck, I’d vote for the Establishment guy, thinking it was better than getting a Democrat.
Now I know better. ( If I needed any further proof of GOP Establishment treachery, which I do not, I just read that Boehner’s primary challenger was just fired from his college post following a campaign ad critical of Boehner. John McCain also just finished lauding Hillary Clinton’s qualifications to be president.) I like Rand Paul and I like Ted Cruz. Both are anti-Establishment and vocally so. They are also pro-common sense, pro-constitutional governing. Then there’s Ron Paul, who comes into the picture because so many people vilify his son, Rand, simply for being his son. Some people here, one would presume “conservatives”, call Paul’s followers “Paulbots”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but I’m certain it isn’t meant as flattery. It piqued my curiosity.
Asking around, I heard people describe Paul as “looney”, “nuts”, “wacko” and etc. So I did a little research. Here’s what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul There’s a lot of reading there, but tell me, what is not sensible and what is not striking at the core of what ails our nation here? For starters, Paul clearly understands that if we want our nation back, it’s about far more than mere “tax cuts”. But on the subject of tax cuts, he also understands that if you want them, you have to eliminate government employees, which means eliminating government agencies. Merely enacting tax cuts without eliminating budget areas only guarantees that the budget shortfall will be replaced by more borrowing and new, hidden taxes.
Common criticism of Paul, other than the reflexive, assumptive name-calling, is that his Foreign Policy views are crazy, isolationist. Well, they’re not as it turns out. They are instead very much in line with the Founders and they are in congruence with our constitution. They make a great deal of sense. Paul is a free trade advocate, which is in no way “isolationist”. He does want borders closed to illegal entry. That’s hardly the definition of “isolationist”. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/ And who is it who is saying that he's "isolationist"? Isn't it the Globalist GOP and Democrat Establishments who want the UN running the USA? Consider too, what weapons dealers, ammunition manufacturers and others who deal in supplying the armed forces might think of such a change in foreign policy? Might they lobby against such things? Might they tend to fund Establishment candidates?
I’ve heard detractors say that Paul favors abortion. Not according to him. But even so, understand that the president cannot banish abortion anyway. Neither can he introduce legislation. So why is it always a presidential debate issue? (A. It's introduced into the debate by Democrats and RINOs to kill off conservative candidates, of course). Here’s what Paul says about it: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ . Do you think that as president, Paul would veto an anti-abortion bill coming to his desk? That would seem very unlikely.
I’ve come to realize that when the Left, their press and the GOP Establishment figures start to vilify or ridicule a political figure, there might be something very worthwhile about that person. He must threaten the structure which permits their rule and their continued rule over us. This includes some supposed “conservative” pundits, too. Ann Coulter comes to mind or Peggy Noonan. Because Ron Paul seems the embodiment of the solutions to most of that which we discuss day in and day out here at TPN, those things we profess to want, yet at the same time he is constantly written about by other "conservatives" in denigrating terms, I have to believe that there is something larger at work in the background. Media and people within the GOP must be orchestrating a slur campaign. Having read about him and his history, now I know why: He's for everything which taken as a group, conservatives want, which would rip out the underpinnings of the Establishment and end their rule.
I am not here to endorse Ron Paul for president of the United States, but neither can I find a single reason why he would not make a very good one, other than he’s getting a bit up there in age. I have to say that based on some admittedly limited research, he looks like exactly what we conservatives need and if his son is anything like that – and I believe that he is – that is a very good thing for America.