To Paul or Not to Paul?

To Paul or Not to Paul?

As a far right-wing white male who is pushing 60 there are few topics about which I can claim to be ambivalent or undecided.  Ron Paul is such a topic.  Part of the problem may be that so many people seem to be rabidly for or against the man and both camps seem equally obnoxious.  My personal experience is that when I attempt to point out his positive qualities on the blogsites the Paul-hating “Republicans” descend with a viciousness I’ve only heard from unhinged liberals.  Just as often, when talk show folks point out his shortcomings, they get bombarded by legions of Paul fans.

Drifting in and out of politics since 1976, RP has been delivering a consistent message of strict adherence to our Constitution unlike any other.  This is what separates the conservatives from the libertarians and makes him a threat to many elites and groups who seem to prefer “selective constitutionalism”.  Few would admit that that is exactly what they want.  Strict adherence to our Founding documents would mean;

• The federal government could neither force us to put drugs into our bodies nor prevent us from putting them there…any drug or substance.
• The second amendment would be the only conceal/carry permit necessary.
• Our military troops would exist nowhere outside our borders where war has not been declared by congress…meaning nowhere at all.
• There would be no income tax, welfare, social security, medi-anything, food stamps, or the innumerable malevolent federal bureaucracies.
• No world-wide war on terror.
• No federal funding of any weapons systems, medical advances, ships, planes, laser guidance systems, or much of anything at all.
• Government-sponsored racism would stop.
• There would be no programs that currently have the federal government giving money or benefits to any private citizen, corporation or group. 
• Some would argue that there would be no national border and citizenship would become a states’ rights issue.

Certainly there are too many to list them all and there is no way one president could implement every constitutional concept without the consent of congress without violating the Constitution himself.  And I don’t believe Dr. Paul has any such plan. 

What detractors seem to fear the most is his withdrawal and cutting of our military.  They worry about his foreign policy and the effect it could have on us and our allies.  The possibility of his withdrawal of support to Israel, for example is unconscionable to some who feel such moves would leave Israel, and us, vulnerable.  How about his characterization of George Bush as being gleeful over the 9/11 atrocities; what sort of American, especially those who voted for Bush would NOT be offended by that?  Perhaps those who want to believe the president knew about it in advance. Paul’s following definitely contains its share of those. 

Maybe Ron Paul’s tent is too big or maybe it is who is in it that is so off-putting. Among his supporters one will find a, (dare I say) “liberal” sprinkling of crusaders of every conspiracy theory and government atrocity imaginable.  In his camp one finds all degrees of truthers, birthers, chem trailers, food poisoners, vacciners, HAARPers, global warmers, UFOers, micro-chippers, Fed enders, FEMA campers, Agenda 21ers, Bilderbergers, CFRers, Alex Jonesers, and seemingly anyone with an ax to grind with the government or corporations whether real, logical, possible, or otherwise.  I freely admit to falling into one or more of the above. With twenty first century government being more destructive to our way of life than any benefit it affords, it is easy to climb aboard anything that hints of taking the government down a peg or fifty.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I would much rather suffer the problems attending too little government than those attending too much government.”  Being governed according to the Constitution does not mean there will be no problems. It just means that the problems we encounter will be genuine rather than created for us by the government. Perhaps people have become too comfortable with candidates from the two main political parties being Siamese twins or clones of one another.  They certainly seem to feel “entitled” to the government Ponzi schemes they have been forced to pay into.  Maybe the congressman could suggest that the government stimulate the economy by giving back all the money Americans have paid into such schemes and let them decide for themselves what should be done with it.  So maybe that is the real issue the electorate and talking heads have with Ron Paul.  Maybe they are suffering the same dilemma facing prison inmates who become “institutionalized” and afraid of freedom after such a long incarceration.  Could Ron Paul represent more freedom, self-reliance, responsibility and liberty than they can handle?  Are conservatives simply being confronted with the possibility that it is really the individual’s right and responsibility to curb their own demons and those of their children rather than the state unconstitutionally stepping in? Perhaps they are simply choking on the enormous amount of liberty and personal responsibility that could await them with a constitutional Ron Paul administration.

© Bobby Florentz

yourpatriot@aol.com

19 December 2011

Distribute Widely