Santorum Rejects Goldwater, Small Government and American Conservatism 101

I want every talk radio host, rightwing pundit and Republican voter who thinks for one second that Rick Santorum is an actual conservative to watch this video, digest it and understand what a joke this guy really is.

For the last half century, being a conservative in the United States, first and foremost, meant adhering to the Goldwater-Reagan philosophy which views government in wholly negative terms. Barry Goldwater believed anything the Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to do, it should not do. Ronald Reagan said: “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

This is basic American conservatism 101. And it is basic American conservatism that Santorum rejects. Listen to him admit it:

The only candidate in this race who even talks about the proper role of government, the inherent evil of government, and the importance of it only performing its constitutional functions is Ron Paul.

Simply yelling at Democrats does not a conservative make. That so many in the Republican Party and the conservative media actually accept and promote Rick Santorum as a conservative reflects a party and a movement that is entirely ignorant of its own history. It is also the reason big government persists. If Santorum is the standard bearer for the GOP, conservatives no longer agree with Reagan that “government is the problem” only that Republicans can do a better job of managing big government. Mitt Romney undoubtedly believes this. Santorum obviously does too.

Ron Paul is the only conservative in this race.

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter.  Video by "jecarter4"

RNC Chairman and Co-Chairman Sharon Day Message Commemorating Presidents Day

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus and Co-Chairman Sharon Day released the following message commemorating Presidents Day:

 

“This Presidents Day, we pay tribute to the men who have served as America’s Commander-in-Chief for their leadership and their sacrifice,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “We honor especially the two pillars of the American presidency: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, whose birthdays we celebrate this month. Under George Washington’s command, our nation was born. Through Lincoln’s perseverance, our republic was saved.

 

“February is also the birth month of President Ronald Reagan, the conservative visionary who saved America from economic stagnation. Today, America is once again mired in a difficult economy. With families hurting and businesses struggling, it is time we embrace the principles of Ronald Reagan once again.”

 

“Reagan understood that a thriving free market offers opportunity to all Americans,” said RNC Co-Chairman Sharon Day. “He also understood the dangers of a heavy-handed federal government, famously observing that ‘government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.’

 

“When Americans go to the polls in November, they will be looking for a president who ensures government exists to preserve and protect freedom and opportunity. They will seek an individual who, like Lincoln and Washington, will serve selflessly and in the interests of all Americans. I’m confident that, like Reagan, our Republican candidate will do exactly that.”

Rand Paul: “Ron Paul’s the Only One Hearkening Back to the Reagan Platform”

Said Sen. Rand Paul in a recent interview with The Atlantic:

 

If you look historically, look at the people Republicans say they admire, the founding fathers believed in a very limited executive branch. They very much feared a king, and they wrote all kinds of rules to limit and disperse the power between the executive and the legislative. Most of the founders didn’t even believe in a standing army. They believed in nonintervention, they believed in a policy of neutrality for the most part. So I think maybe you find there’s a strong tradition. There definitely have been, even going back just to Reagan, people who believed certain things shouldn’t be done in Washington, but left to the states. We’ve lost that. Think about it: Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. That was part of our policy platform from 1980 to 2000, and then George Bush comes in and doubles the size of the Department of Education with No Child Left Behind. Santorum supported it, Gingrich supported it, they all supported it. Ron Paul’s the only one hearkening back to the Reagan platform for the Republican Party.

 

It’s also worth pointing out that even on foreign policy–something Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum cite specifically when calling themselves “Reagan Republicans”–Paul’s approach is actually closer to Reagan’s than the world policeman mentality the other presidential candidates promote. In June, Sen. Paul described what a conservative foreign policy would look like during a speech at John Hopkins University:

 

“If for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme… Likewise, if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world—well, that would be the other polar extreme… But what about a foreign policy of moderation? A foreign policy that argues that—maybe we could be somewhere some of the time?”

 

Sen. Paul added: “Reagan’s foreign policy was one in which we were somewhere, some of the time, in which the missions were clear and defined, and there was no prolonged military conflict—and this all took place during the Cold War.”

 

Former American Conservative Union Chairman (and current NRA President) David Keene has compared the conservative prudence of Reagan’s foreign policy with the hyper-interventionist, neoconservative vision that often dominates today:

 

“Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

Gingrich Condemned How Reagan Ended the Cold War

Newt says he helped Reagan defeat the Soviet Union.  Was that before or after he said this?

ReportsBBC:

In 1985… Mr Gingrich referred to a meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich”.

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

Ron Paul vs. Romney: A Quick Match Up

By Zach Foster

 

Before this spreads throughout the Internet, you saw it here first!

Which is the better, more conservative, more consistent, and more Constitutional candidate in this Republican race?

 

-RON PAUL served his country.  Romney did not.

-RON PAUL understands the Constitution. Romney: "Ask our Constitutionalist over here" (pointing to Ron Paul)

-RON PAUL predicted the recession and opposed TARP.  Romney supported TARP bailouts.

-RON PAUL as a doctor delivered 4000 babies and was always pro-life. Romney supported Roe v. Wade for YEARS before deciding that opposing it was more popular among Republicans.

-RON PAUL gets the majority of contributions from working moms and dads and ACTIVE MILITARY members. Romney gets the majority of his contributions from WALL STREET.

-RON PAUL believed Netanyahu when he told Congress that mighty Israel doesn't need the U.S.  Romney doesn't think Israel can fight their battles without the U.S., even though Israel has been winning wars since before the U.S. turned them into a client state.

-RON PAUL is for a completely free market and no government intervention. Romney is in favor of federal subsidies (hmm, wasn't Solyndra federally subsidized?)

-RON PAUL will NOT provide incentives for illegal immigration.  For years, Romney was in favor of path-to-citizenship programs for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. before figuring out Republicans don’t like that…

-As a doctor, RON PAUL rejected MediCare payments and simply treated the poor for free, as a voluntary act of kindness. Romney favors individual mandates.

-RON PAUL voted against ObamaCare.  Romney designed it.

-RON PAUL has preached the SAME message of sound money, Constitutional government, and freedom for DECADES.  Some of Romney's many flip flops are documented on video at WhichMitt.com, and for a full day's reading, one need only Google search "Romney flip flops."

-RON PAUL’s views on national defense were praised by Ronald Reagan.  Romney’s were not.

-RON PAUL is an honest man, a consistent idea man, and a true Constitutional conservative.  Romney is a flip flopping big government phony conservative whose many many flip flops show that he’ll say whatever it takes to get elected (we call this lying)

 

RON PAUL 2012!

President Obama: "I'm with Ronald Reagan"

President Barack Obama talks with

children during a tour of the Lab School's

early childhood education classrooms at

Eastfield College in Mesquite, Texas,

Oct. 4, 2011. (Official White House

Photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama spoke yesterday at Eastfield College in Mesquite, Texas, on how the American Jobs Act will put thousands of teachers back into schools and make sure that all Americans are paying their fair share.

The President noted a certain well-known Republican who agreed it was "crazy" that certain tax loopholes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary:

“You know who this guy was? Wasn’t a Democrat. Wasn’t some crazy socialist. It was Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan. Last time I checked, Republicans all thought Reagan made some sense. So, the next time you hear one of those Republicans in Congress accusing you of class warfare, you just tell them, I’m with Ronald Reagan.”

How Ron Paul Won the Debate

By Ben Smith

This Tuesday, Republican frontrunner Rick Perry sent out a statement questioning Rep. Ron Paul’s fealty to Ronald Reagan. On Wednesday, he attacked Paul from the stage. And on Thursday, photographs circulated of him jamming his finger into the mild-mannered libertarian’s face.

This may be the best thing that’s ever happened to a Paul presidential campaign, and it wasn’t entirely an accident. The Ron Paul campaign set out to bait Perry into a confrontation, a tactical move that’s part of a quiet but real shift from Paul’s earlier, inward-looking presidential campaigns toward an effort that has added a layer of experience and mainstream Republican strategy to the passionate, deep-pocketed, but limited Paul grassroots.

The crucial experience may have been Rand Paul’s 2010 Senate race, which introduced the Paul team to the Republican — and to the notion that a campaign can be more than a statement.

“There’s been a growth in general in the Ron Paul organization – and that includes the Ron Paul family and that includes Rand Paul,” said Paul’s campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, a longtime aide who’s married to Paul’s granddaughter, in an interview from Lake Jackson, Texas, where Paul is shooting ads today. “The fact that we were able to win in Rand’s campaign shows people what we can do and what it takes to win... (Read the full article)

Source: Politico, via the Ron Paul Campaign

The Left: Why Do They Attack Ron Paul?

By Zach Foster

Best read with the companion article The Right: Why Do They Attack Ron Paul?

“A nation that abandons the gold standard does not remain a great nation.”

—President Ronald Reagan

Why is it that people from across the political spectrum so passionately seek to vilify Ron Paul?  Ronald Reagan—blindly loved as an icon by conservatives and ultraconservative the way Lenin is loved by ultra-leftists—has become somewhat of a guiding light for modern Republicans, who use his tenures as Governor and President, his speeches, and his writings as their beacon for forming policy.  President Reagan clearly appreciated Ron Paul’s contributions to the House of Representatives as well as his contributions to public policy.

Many on the Left hate him for being such a capitalist.  He has repeatedly stated and made clear the need to re-implement the gold standard to restore America’s currency,[1] as well as fully auditing and then abolishing the Federal Reserve, lowering taxes, and leaving as much of society as possible to the free market.[2]  Leftists hate him passionately because those four little points, despite being the exact remedy needed to end the Second Great Depression and restore the economy to a state of stability and growth, go against EVERYTHING the Leftists believe in.

They don’t believe in the gold standard because they believe that slips of paper serve just fine as money and such is the way things ought to be; continuous spending and incurring of debt is acceptable to them.  They love the idea of bringing down the greedy banks, yet hate the idea of bringing down the biggest and most evil one—the Federal Reserve, center of monetary manipulation and inflation—because it would make their elected stooges live within their means, not having a permanently blank check with which to save the planet in all forms of philanthropy.

They hate the idea of lowering taxes for many reasons.  They think higher taxes on those greedy corporations will bring in more revenue to the government and save the economy[3][4]; they believe that pure profit creates jobs and lowering taxes has nothing to do with job creation.  They fail to see the direct connection with jobs created from profits and profits being sliced in the form of tax money owed.[5][6]  They fail as well to see how average workers keeping more of their money enables them to stimulate local economies.  They hate the idea of lowering taxes on common working men and women because along with providing roads, highways, and public schools, the nanny state ought also to provide the population with free college, free health care, and a fairy tale ending in life.

They buy into the utopian lie of Michael Moore’s Sicko that socialist Cuba is the model for health care[7] and Canada is at the top of education.  What they fail to realize is that the fancy hospital showcased in Sicko is the Party hospital where the high ranking cadres go—not the riff raff proletariat.[8]  They fail to see that free medical care and college in Canada is bankrupting the country, and there are obscene waits for getting into a clinic as well as a university.  It is easier for them to say that Ron Paul is in some corporation’s pocket, that he’s outdated and not up with the times (even though he’s always been ahead of his times), and they even like to say that he’s a racist.[9]  Amidst their cries of racism (ever weakening the effect of the race card by crying ‘wolf’), they fail to take into consideration his passionate belief that all men were created equal (‘men’ being an archaic term for people), and they disregard the hundreds or thousands of black and Hispanic babies he has delivered in his medical practice.

Furthermore, God FORBID he should support those greedy capitalists when they build private schools and private hospitals!  Even though it would result in a burden being lifted off the government’s shoulders, a reduction of crowding at and waiting to get into public schools and public health clinics, and more of the tax revenues being spent on fewer people (perhaps the neediest)...  [By the way, private institutions are not private “clubs” that operate on an invitation-only basis.]  The word “private” denotes private ownership and governing of such institutions independent of the local, state, or federal governments.  Anyone can get into a privately-run clinic or hospital, just like anyone can get into a public clinic.  Any high school or community college student can apply to a private-run institution (like Harvard, Azusa Pacific University, Stanford, etc.) just like they can also apply to a state university.

As a matter of fact, the author of this article—a student at a state university—fervently hopes that more private universities will open in the area, thus drawing students away to these better institutions, lowering tuition and fees (allegedly a response to being overburdened with students), and making it easier to get into classes that would otherwise be full, with students fighting to the death like the Children of the Corn just to get an adding authorization code for a full class.

After these analyses, the only logical answer to the question of why so many groups attack Ron Paul is that he fails to meet the criteria for a statist political party stuffed shirt whose existence is dedicated to satisfying special interests at the expense of the general coffers, the Constitution, and personal liberties.

The artwork used is the work of the author.  The image was compiled and edited from various open source images from Wikimedia Commons.

---

[1] Paul, Ron and Rockwell Jr., Llewellyn. The Case For Gold, 2^nd Edition. Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 2007.

[2] Paul, Ron. End The Fed. Grand Central Publishing. September 2010.

[3] Spitzer, Eliot. Sorry Republicans, Higher Taxes Will NOT Kill the Economy. Business Insider. February 2010. http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-get-over-the-idea-that-high-income-tax-rates-reduce-gdp-2010-2

[4] Higher taxes big sacrifice, but better roads. The Parthenon. February 2011. http://www.marshallparthenon.com/opinion/higher-taxes-big-sacrifice-but-better-roads-1.2485119

[5] Shuster, Bill. Lower taxes will create more jobs. Altoona Mirror. February 2009. http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/515879.html?nav=737

[6] Roskam, Peter. Higher taxes have consequences. The Daily Caller. March 2011. http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/higher-taxes-have-consequences/

[7] Moore, Michael. Viva Wikileaks! SICKO Was Not Banned In Cuba! OpenMike. December 2010. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/viva-wikileaks

[8] This Is the Famous ‘Great and Free Health Care’ That Regular Cubans Receive. The Real Cuba. http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

[9] Ron Paul’s Race Problem. Free Republic. May 2006. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts

The Right: Why Do They Attack Ron Paul?

By Zach Foster
Best read with companion article The Left: Why Do They Attack Ron Paul?

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

—President Ronald Reagan

Why is it that people from across the political spectrum so passionately seek to vilify Ron Paul?  Ronald Reagan—blindly loved as an icon by conservatives and ultraconservative the way Lenin is loved by ultra-leftists—has become somewhat of a guiding light for modern Republicans, who use his tenures as Governor and President, his speeches, and his writings as their beacon for forming policy.  President Reagan clearly appreciated Ron Paul’s contributions to the House of Representatives as well as his contributions to public policy.

Congressman Paul represents the basic pillars of conservatism: the practice of religion unhindered by government, family ties and the role of families in society, strong national defense, lower taxes, property rights, and sound money.  Furthermore, Congressman Paul’s voting record in Congress shows he is consistent in voting according to his values for which his constituency elected him.

One reason many conservatives distrust him and ultraconservatives openly hate him is his opposition to a global empire established through military force, coupled with his opposition to getting entangled in foreign affairs and especially foreign alliances.  He would see a quick end to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and an immediate end to the bombing campaigns in the Libyan Civil War and Yemeni Uprising (two undeclared wars which the GOP is smashing President Obama[1]).  What the ultraconservatives translate this into is an idea that he is completely against Israel.[2]  In reality, he isn’t against Israel, he is simply against giving huge amounts of aid and advice to a country that is often at war.  He has no double standards and would apply this principle to every other country the United States has dealings with.

But why is this such a bad thing?  If trillions of dollars were not being squandered as “gifts” for foreign assistance[3] (to countries most likely unable to properly manage that aid money or put it to good use), then the trillions or hundreds of billions could stay at home and substitute for the high taxes Americans are burdened with.  In regards to Israel, he knows that many militants who hate Israel also hate this country, as they perceive Israel to be a puppet state and the United States to be the puppet master.  This is a far cry from the truth, but it’s not completely irrational, since Israel goes out of its way to consult with the Executive Branch on many of its internal matters, especially in regards to dealing with terrorism from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO, and even asks for monetary aid.[4]  Ron Paul knows that in order for Israel to be a free country, its population needs to be free to run its own country without “getting permission.”  Though he is sympathetic to the political plight of the Palestinians in having their own State, he knows that it’s not the U.S.’ job to be the world police.  If the U.S. were the designated mediator in Israel/Palestine, then it would only be right to also mediate in the various civil wars occurring in Africa and even Asia and Latin America.

Nonetheless, the pro-Israel-at-all-costs cult sees Congressman Paul as the Antichrist[5][6] trying to destroy Zion.[7]  This is a false portrayal, since Congressman Paul is a Christian and, unlike many Conservative “Christians” in the Congress, Ron Paul has actually lived up to the ideals of a Christian lifestyle through worshipping God, being absolutely faithful to his wife of over fifty years, providing for his family and teaching his children the importance of hard work, and those who know him can testify that he is true to his word.

Other ultraconservatives portray Ron Paul as being anti-military.[8]  This is also false; he spent over five years in the Air Force and Air National Guard and has repeatedly advocated having a strong military for the purpose of national DEFENSE—just the way the Founding Fathers wanted.  President Ronald Reagan even commended Congressman Paul for being an excellent advocate of national defense.[9]

When Paul says he wants to scale back the size of the military, he refers not to the amount of troops at Fort Hood, Fort Irwin, or Naval Base San Diego, but rather the amount of overseas personnel and installations overseas in over one hundred countries[10] (this does not count simple embassy garrisons).  He has repeatedly said that he was all in favor of finding Osama Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda, just not at the cost of invading other countries, toppling regimes, and spending thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on nation building.  This is not a farfetched vision of fighting terrorism…  After all, the CIA and Navy SEALs found Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan (NOT Afghanistan) and took him out.  This victory was possible without American troops fighting insurgents or government troops in Islamabad.

After these analyses, the only logical answer to the question of why so many groups attack Ron Paul is that he fails to meet the criteria for a statist political party stuffed shirt whose existence is dedicated to satisfying special interests at the expense of the general coffers, the Constitution, and personal liberties.

Continued in: Why THE LEFT Attacks Ron Paul

The image used in this blog is the artwork and property of the author, edited and compiled from open source images from Wikimedia Commons.

---

[1] Libya and Republicans. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576399863429920534.html

[2] Geller, Pamela. Victory! Ron Paul Pulls His Vile Anti-Israel Amendment. Atlas Shrugs blog. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/victory-ron-paul-pulls-his-vile-anti-israel-amendment.html

[3] State Department Executive Budget Summary FY 2012. pp. 20-21. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156214.pdf

[4] Israel Seeks U.S. aid for Iron Dome. UPI. May 2010. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/04/Israel-seeks-US-aid-for-Iron-Dome/UPI-51851272998979/

[5] Ron Paul Is the Antichrist. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/937729/ron_paul_is_the_antichrist/

[6] Is Ron Paul Anti-Christian? http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message476781/pg1

[7] Jameson, Jane. Ron Paul: Anti-Semite: Case Closed. Uncoverage.net. July 2010. http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/07/ron-paul-anti-semite-case-closed/

[8] Kincaid, Cliff. Ron Paul Helps Obama Slash National Defense. Accuracy In Media. July 2010. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ron-paul-helps-obama-slash-national-defense/

[9] A Strong National Defense. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/RP-Defense-SJim.jpg

[10] Johnson, Chalmers. 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire. AlterNet. February 2007. http://www.alternet.org/story/47998