Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice in 2008

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

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 today.

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 Creator."

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.

See
the Ron Paul File

August
29, 2007

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail
] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare