The Day I Lost Some Respect for Ron Paul

On September 22, 2008, Congressman Ron Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for the 2008 Presidential race. He did this in response to a written statement from Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.

What Barr said in his statement was that he took issue with Dr Paul’s neutral stance and not endorsing any particular candidate. I can understand that and he may have felt betrayed by Dr Paul in that Ron Paul is himself a member of the Libertarian Party and was once their Presidential candidate. That I can understand. But, I think Barr might have taken Paul’s endorsement for granted, citing his party affiliation and history. But, I took immediate issue with  Dr Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin.

Mr Baldwin seems like a nice enough guy on the surface, but his agenda is as unAmerican as you can get.

  1. Baldwin believes that the South was right in the Civil War. This flies in the face of the historical fact that, within the Confedserate constitution, slavery was a protected institution. In fact, there was an article (Article 1, Section 9, Subsection4) in it which forbade any state from abolishing or limiting black slavery. It reads, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” The same was never stated in the US Constituion. Prior to the Civil War, one of the largest anti-slavery organizations in the South was the Manumission Society of North Carolina. So, if the people of North Carolina wanted to abolish slavery within the borders, they wouldn’t have been able to. So much for “States Rights”.  It also completely ignores the fact that the Union Army had little trouble recruiting soldiers in the portions of the Confederate States that they occupied and that there were armed resistance groups operating within the Confederacy during the war, but nothing similar existed in Union States. Mr Baldwin believes that the were not neccesarily racist leaders, despite the protections for slavery in the  constitution and its resistance in recruiting blacks to serve in their army. While Americans, historically have backed the underdog in any war, the Truth is that during the American Civil War, the underdog Confederacy was wrong and the Union was right. While there was racism in the North, the Confederacy was built on racist foundations from the beginning.
  2. Baldwin condemns the Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for pandering to “the market of fear, trying to convince everybody that anyone with a gun, any person who wants to own a gun and anyone who would consider themselves part of a citizen militia is a threat to our government and to our society”. Not quite right. The SPLC takes issue with racist organizations who use violence and the threat of violence to further their agendas. Organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis and certain militant black groups are considered dangerous for their rhetoric and the SPLC monitors them. The days of the Ku Klux Klan being able to escape criminal and civil liability for their illegal actions are over, thanks in large part to Morris Dees and the SPLC.
  3. Baldwin wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and outlaw abortion. So, in the name of Freedom, we’re going to take away a woman’s right to control her own body? You can believe that life begins at conception if you want – and as Ron Paul does – but not everyone believes that. Keeping abortion legal is the best way to give everyone the right to choose. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. A very simple and very American concept.
  4. Baldwin claims that Mexico is deliberately trying to undermine American society. Never mind that Mexicans have lived in the United States from the time of the Mexican War – Mexican-Americans are referred to as “Tejanos” (Spanish for “Texans”) –  and that the US is one of Mexicos biggest trading partners. Let’s ignore the fact that the US has blatently intervened in Mexico’s internal affairs in the past, that the US is one of the biggest markets for illegal drugs which fuels the Latin American drug cartels and destabilizes governments in Latin America and that American corporations illegaly hire Mexican immigrants in order to save money on labor costs and increase their own profits. If I were Mexican, I’d think it was the US that was trying to undermine Mexico! Seriously, if life in America wasn’t better than life in Mexico and that there were job opportunities in Mexico, they wouldn’t be trying to sneak into our country in the first place. I wonder if Balwin has ever met and spoken with any of the Mexican immigrants and asked them why they left behind their homes and families to come live in the USA. People immigrate because they have to, seldom because they want to. Mexico’s problems are many and complicated. Allowing their people to emigrate simply serves as a safety valve which allows people to leave the country and go to the US where job opportunities are better and the political environment is less corrupt. If Mexico could or would address their own problems, I feel that less of the citizne would make the dangerous trip to the north and would stay home. But, they either can’t or won’t. Besides, it’s not like American companies are refusing to hire illegal Mexican labor. The price of food would skyrocket if the agribusinesses had to pay American-style wages and how many American would choose to pay those higher prices?

Those are just four of the problems I have with Mr Baldwin and, due to his endorsement of Baldwin, with Dr Ron Paul. I can assume that Dr Paul would endorse a candidate whose opinions most closely match his own and if Dr Paul shares those opinions with Mr Baldwin, I will lose most of the respect I have had for Dr Paul in the past.

Mr Baldwin and Dr Paul are free to believe whatever they wish, as I am. However, when the person he endorses has beliefs which I find offensive, I can no longer support Ron Paul wholeheartedly. Dr Paul could have endorsed Ralph Nader, a man who has stood-up to corporate power and corrupt government, but Nader’s unwillingness to join the anti-Federal Reserve/New World Order bandwagon that Dr Paul is traveling on made him less appealing to the Texas Congressman, I guess.

I will abstain from making a complete break from the Campaign for Liberty until I know Dr Paul’s opinions on these matters for certain.



Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “The Day I Lost Some Respect for Ron Paul”

  1. Optionism Says:

    It’s not required that you are a carbon copy of Ron Paul. You dont have to follow him like he is Jesus Crist. =P

  2. doucementgently Says:

    I am by no means a historian, but the more I read about it, the more I am starting to believe that if you take the slavery issue away from the Civil War (which, of course, you can’t), the Confederate States had a point with respect to “States Rights.” The Federal Government (including the office of the President) started grabbing more power after the Civil War.

    I’m all for women having the right to do anything they like with their body. I’m just not for killing an innocent human being in the process. The problem with abortion is that you have to kill a person to carry it out. Murder is murder. Medical facts show life begins at conception. It isn’t an “opinion” anymore.

    By the way, I would pay the sky high prices necessary for companies to pay all their (legal citizen) employees fair and just wages.

    FWIW, I voted for Chuck Baldwin because his positions were closer than any other candidate on the ballet to my own. I’m glad to have had the choice to vote for someone other than just the two “major party” candidates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: