46 votes

Santorum Supporters, Please Read This!

Last night I was having a discussion with a Rick Santorum supporter named Angie (username "faithfamilyfreedom2012"). I decided to write up a list of reasons why I'm a staunch supporter of Dr. Ron Paul and I leave this as an open letter to all voters, regardless of the candidate they support.

1) Consistency:

Dr. Paul's message has been consistent for *decades*. If you watch the first 1:32 of the YouTube video (below) from 1988, Dr. Paul mentions eliminating the income tax, the Federal Reserve system and several government departments. Dr. Paul talks about how he doesn't want a welfare state, doesn't want to police the world, doesn't want to send foreign aid and how all that stuff is paid for by money printing. Basically his small government principles are, and always were, core to his beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yka333KxnCk

2) Not a career politician:

Dr. Paul is an actual medical doctor. He has delivered over 4,000 babies into the world. The fact that he's a doctor shows me he has both intelligence and discipline. It also shows that he's not a "career politician" since he was successful prior to entering politics (and, in fact,continued to deliver babies twice a week while in congress, for many years). He also gave away free health care to patients who were on medicaid and medicare because he doesn't believe those programs are constitutional. In fact, when he took on a partner in his practice, he made the partner agree to 2 things - doing work for free when a patient has medicare/medicaid and never performing an abortion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

3) Family values:

Has been married to wife Carol for 55 years. He has 5 children. One of his sons is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is also both a physician and a politician.

In addition, I love the story about how Dr. Paul got elected in 1978 against democrat Robert Gammage. As Dr. Paul's wiki page says "Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: 'I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner.'" The only way they'd elect Dr. Paul is if they had a lot of faith and trust in him as a person. To me, that story says a lot.

Also, showing what a terrific role model Dr. Paul is, his son Rand also performed 4 free surgeries for the uninsured back in February:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/212071-rand-pau...

And I can't resist sending along one of my favorite pics of Dr. Paul (holding a baby):

http://www.bloggerfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/feb25...

4) Military veteran:

Unlike Romney (who protested *FOR* the Vietnam war while knowing he was ineligible) and Newt (who avoided war w/ deferments), Dr. Paul actually served in our military as a flight surgeon. He served in the US Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the US Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.

Below is a pic of Dr. Paul from years ago in his military days, with a young son named Rand. :)

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/paulson...

And here's a short article and very telling picture about Mitt protesting for a war he knew he wouldn't have to fight:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083002/Mitt-Romney-...

5) Humble:

One of the main complaints Dr. Paul's supporters have about him is that he *doesn't* brag about himself enough. For example, he predicted the housing crisis years in advance but I don't think he ever mentioned it in any of the GOP debates. Also, while Mitt Romney never misses a chance to puff out his chest saying that he made his money in "the private sector", Dr. Paul never brags about that despite the fact that he's a physician.

I think this shows that Dr. Paul is a legitimately humble person.

6) Moral and trustworthy:

Dr. Paul has always refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral". Basically he thinks that it shouldn't have existed in the first place (he doesn't believe that it's fair to take money from the taxpayers to fund his pension). To me, that's another very strong sign of both his morality and trustworthyness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

7) Constitutionalist:

Dr. Paul is Very serious about constitutional oath of office. Mitt even called Dr. Paul "our constitutionalist" in one of the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZEq6wOdnY

8) Civil liberties:

Dr. Paul was the only candidate in the GOP debates to make civil liberties a major issue.

He is against the National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"), which allows the president to indefinitely detain anyone (including American citizens) without a trial.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10608-ron-paul-int...

He denounced both SOPA and PIPA (laws so broad that they could easily be abused to censor free speech on the internet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-cNJxyg4Dc

Ron Paul, Civil Liberties Groups Decry Killing of American Militant Without a Trial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYSQMUaBuz0

9) Economics:

Dr. Paul is, BY FAR, the strongest candidate when it comes to understanding economics. I don't say that lightly either. The media portrays Mitt Romney as the strongest on economics since he made a lot of money in the financial world at Bain Capital. However, I can say UNEQUIVOCALLY and with FULL conviction that Dr. Paul has the deepest understanding of economics in the entire GOP field. Dr. Paul actually made the decision to get into politics after Richard Nixon took this country off of the gold standard back in 1971. Dr. Paul knew that this country was heading for disaster when that happened and decided that he needed to do something about it.

Dr. Paul also stood (on his own) for several decades trying to alert the public as to the dangers of the Federal Reserve system. In fact, the Fed was never a popular issue until Dr. Paul raised the public's awareness about its dangers.

As chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, Dr. Paul has had many memorable exchanges with Fed Chairman Bernanke, including this fairly recent one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXXB8ETjEVc

I have to give a quick background on this since it is one of the core platforms of Dr. Paul's campaign (and one I believe
in):

Dr. Paul believes in the importance of "sound money" (that is, money that doesn't lose, and possibly gains, value over time). I'm not sure if you're aware of this but since the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913, the US dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power. In other words, $1 today would only buy what 5 cents would've bought back in 1913.

The reason for that is that the supply of paper money has expanded (a.k.a. "inflation"). The Federal Reserve is printing up that money to help the government finance it's (mostly unconstitutional) spending. As the supply of money increases, those additional dollars are used to bid up prices (e.g. food, oil). Money printing was a big reason why we had a housing bubble (in the housing bubble, the additional dollars were used to bid up the price of houses).

Dr. Paul refers to this increase in prices as a "hidden tax". In other words, when the government wants to spend beyond its means (by running deficits), it doesn't have to actually raise taxes to get that money. Instead the Fed just prints the money. keep in mind that the Fed has a dual-mandate ("maintain both price stability and full employment"). To fulfill its "price stability" mandate, it should (and has the ability to) refuse to give in to the President's requests. Unfortunately, Bernanke is doing as bad a job as Greenspan did and merely "rubber-stamps" all these requests. That is part of the reason why Obama is the first president in history to have trillion-plus dollar deficits all 4 years in office. It's also a big part of the reason why gas prices are currently so expensive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasolin...

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the 2007 book "The Black Swan", which was described in a review by Sunday Times as one of the twelve most influential books since World War II, recently said on CNBC that "only one candidate - Ron Paul - seems to have grasped the issues and is offering the right remedies" (you can see that at the 46 second mark of the video below though I encourage you to watch the entire video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s8a6H7Qts

10) "434-1":

If you google "434-1", you'll see only 1 politician's name come up. What is "434-1"? Well, there are 435 members of congress and there's only one who has consistently stood up against the entire rest of congress in order to vote for his principles (which is to uphold his oath of office to defend the constitution)

LA Times comments on 434-1:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/02/business/la-fi-ron-p...

A list of Dr. Paul's 434-1 votes:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?227513-Where-Can...

11) Incorruptible:

As Bush/Cheney campaign strategist, Terry Holt, says in the video below, Dr. Paul is incorruptible and stands on his principles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1pY7oSfcmc

12) Deep understanding of the issues:

Dr. Paul understands the root causes of issues. So much so that he even predicted most of what is currently dragging down this country YEARS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Check out this absolutely remarkable video of his predictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

Joe Scarborough effusively praising Dr. Paul's remarkable predictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLm7Sw402xE

13) Loyal and enthusiastic supporters:

Check out crowds for Dr. Paul's speaking engagements:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561249_101506...

14) The ONLY true fiscal conservative in the GOP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-w...

The national debt would balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the campaigns.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

(skipping a few paragraphs)

Only Paul emerged as a fiscal conservative in the report. His policies would cut tax revenue by more than $5 trillion over the next decade, the report said, but the loss would be offset by more than $7 trillion in spending cuts, including deep reductions in defense and federal health programs.

15) Career highlights:

http://www.ronpaul.net/html/about.html

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

16) Electable:

Ron Paul Does Best Against Obama in New Poll:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/ron-paul-does-b...

Ron Paul Does Best Against Obama; Romney's Policies Hurt the Poor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIsvPgrQitA

Ron Paul gets the most military donations:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/military-ron-paul-gets...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank you for compiling this

As a former Santorum supporter, the thing that always stopped me from supporting Ron Paul was his decision to leave abortion to the states. Since unborn persons are human, I believe they deserve all of the protections of the Constitution granted to those humans located outside of the womb. However, I am willing to accept Paul's position, as if the issue were actually returned to the states abortion would be outlawed in many states. If Romney or Obama were elected, things will either not change or get worse for the unborn.

I completely agree with you on abortion, Merry Mom...

... and, if you did not see it earlier, I invite you to click on the following link, where I discuss Dr. Paul's position on abortion:

http://www.dailypaul.com/229966/requesting-help-answering-a-...

My understanding is that Dr. Paul believes that preborn children have God-given, inalienable rights just like the rest of us do, and that, as the Declatation of Independence affirms, it is the duty of government to safeguard these rights. It is true that Paul would rather have the states protect the preborn, since the states traditionally have jurisdiction over homicide; Paul would also say that, without a Constitutional amendment, the Federal government has no authority to regulate abortion. My understanding, though, is that, if it came down to it and there was no other way, Paul would favor an amendment outlawing abortion, just as we outlawed slavery after the Civil War.

I think much of the difference between Dr. Paul and Sen. Santorum on abortion is actually a matter of emphasis and tone. Santorum's approach emphasizes social issues, Christian values, and Godly government, while Paul's approach emphasizes economic and foreign policy, individual liberty, and limited, Constitutional government. It may be that a future candidate will be able to weave these two strands together into a coherent, compelling message, bringing the Liberty Movement and the traditional "Christian Coalition" movement together into one powerful, dynamic whole. Being both a Liberty supporter and a Bible-believing Christian, I think such an approach would have a lot of promise.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Then I may agree with him more than I thought

We shouldn't need an amendment to protect unborn people any more than we needed one to protect people with more melanin in their skin, if others would not be bigots and would just recognize both as being persons equal to white people outside the womb with the same Constitutional rights. We do need a Personhood amendment since these bigots exist, and some are powerful. I do agree that the Federal Government should not be in the business of regulating human slaughter. Has Ron Paul ever made a statement on a Personhood amendment?

I am unsure about whether Dr. Paul...

... has ever supported a Personhood Amendment, but, as I linked to above, he has introduced in each of the last 4 Congresses personhood legislation (the "Sanctity of Life Act," which would define legal personhood as beginning at conception). It could be that, while Dr. Paul favors the Federal Government defining the preborn as persons for Federal purposes, he does not want the Feds forcing that definition upon the states unless there is no other way to protect the preborn. (If I am not mistaken, don't at least some versions of the Personhood Amendment force the states to recognize fetal personhood?)

As a practical matter, here we are nearly 40 years after Roe v. Wade, and we are nowhere close to having the 2/3 of each house of Congress and the 3/4 of the states that we would need to pass a Personhood Amendment. So, what keeps happening to the pro-life legislation Dr. Paul introduces in every Congress? It gets sent to the Judiciary Committee, where it sits, bottled up, until the end of the session, when it expires without ever receiving a floor vote. I don't want to malign anyone without reason, but I can't help but wonder whether the House GOP leaders are not more interested in abortion as a political issue than they are in actually saving preborn babies...

The emphasis on Federalism is a distinctive of the Liberty Movement. This is why, even though he opposes gay marriage, Dr. Paul also opposes the idea of a Federal Marriage Amendment: Among other things, at least one version of this amendment would declare that state constitutions could not be interpreted to support gay marriage. In other words: The Federal Government would dare to tell the states how to interpret their own constitutions! A Federal Government that is powerful enough to do that... is just too powerful.

Thank you for reading, Merry Mom; I look forward to reading any feedback you may have.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Sanctity of Life Act--Wow!

Thanks for redirecting me to this--can't believe I missed it before. I am seriously dumbfouded that this is not more widely known--that Congressman Paul introduced an Act that would define life from the moment of conception. And yet a bunch of pro-life groups have endorsed Romney, who is clearly pro-abortion by his actions reagardless of what comes out of his mouth. I will spread this information about the Sanctity of Life Act.

I was amazed when I found out what the Sancitity of Life Act was

It basically overturns Roe v. Wade, immediately! No need to wait and hope for a judge to retire during the right administration. You never hear about this approach in pro-life circles, and I can never figure out why. If each state has their own murder laws, each state should have their own abortion laws...consititutionally speaking.

Regarding pro-life groups, I see two issues...

Similar to the concerns you had, some pro-life groups fault Dr. Paul for his state-oriented approach, preferring instead a national focus:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275684/pro-life-ron-p...

However, the more pragmatic pro-life groups, such as National Right to Life, are not intending to oppose Dr. Paul when they endorse Gov. Romney. They think that Romney will be the GOP nominee, and they think (or at least hope) that a President Romney will be better on abortion than a reelected President Obama. As to why they are endorsing Romney now, rather than after the Convention, I suspect that they do not want to be "the last person on the train," and hope that an earlier endorsement will garner favor (and, later, influence) with the Romney team. They didn't want Romney in the first place, but now they are trying to play their cards the best that they can.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

wonderful list

u might add the audio of Jack Abramoff also saying that Dr.Paul cannot be bought by lobbyists !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nolt50xuibI

----------------------------
Dr.Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

nice work

truly a wonderful post. thank you.

Thank you!

Very well done!

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Biography from Carol Paul

Here's some additional info that was written by Carol Paul back in 2007:

http://www.dailypaul.com/53/the-american-dream-through-the-e...

BUMP!!!!

BUMP!!!!!

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."~Mahatma Gandhi
Quick Humorous Satire course on Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_65316&...

Wow

Very impressive nice letter

Nicely Done!! This should be

Nicely Done!! This should be sent to anyone who supports Romney as well :)

"Great Men Do Not Seek Power, They Have Great Power Thrust Upon Them"
www.campaignforliberty.com
www.downsizedc.org
www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://scarecro.users.sonic.net/blog/

Feel free to add your points too.

And feel free to re-post this elsewhere if you'd like.

optimystic's picture

A couple of suggestions

to your fine piece!

For the sake of accuracy I am wondering where the 6,000 babies delivered comes from? I have always heard the figure of 4,000.

May I suggest you rephrase "including deep reductions in defense and federal health programs" to "deep reductions in overseas military spending and federal programs".

I believe it would be less threatening sounding to the average reader who wants a strong defense (like me!)and further, regarding health programs, they are not the only areas to be reduced.

Again, great article!

It might be 4,000 rather than 6,000

I'll change that.

As far as rephrasing that line about the military, I was only cutting and pasting from that article about how Mitt/Rick/Newt didn't cut spending but Dr. Paul did.