Ron Paul is radical, not mainstream and against many things. His constant expectation of his fellow Congressmen is for them to read the Constitution after all... by Gary Wood
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
There are two claims, he's radical and not mainstream, loudly professed by many who speak against the Presidential Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX). For those not familiar with Ron Paul he is a 10 term Congressman who is running for President in 2008. He has ignited a large grassroots following that raised over $18 million in the 4th quarter and set one day contribution records of more than $6 million on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party Dec. 16th and over $4 million on Nov. 5th. These impressive money raising campaigns were not from the campaign but from outside the campaign strictly produced by the volunteers across the country, and the brain child of Trevor Lyman, who have embraced Paul's message of liberty and freedom based on the original guidance of the U.S. Constitution as written and accepted by the 55 enlightened men over 220 years ago.
In the last Republican debate a question was asked of each candidate what New Year’s Resolution they would encourage one of the other candidates to set for themselves. His radical answer was, "My advice would be to reread the oath of office, take it seriously, obey the constitution. We can -- we are well defended against all enemies foreign. We should be much more careful about defending against the enemies domestic."
It is easy for opponents to point to Dr. Paul’s positions and claim he is radical and not in touch with mainstream America due to his focus on reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government to that which is granted in the U.S. Constitution. It is easy to call him radical when he speaks of ways to end the IRS and replace it with nothing. It is easy to confuse his foreign policy position of non-intervention as being somehow tied to isolationism or pacifism when neither is at all connected to Thomas Jefferson’s and the founders’ structure of non-intervention.
It is easy to scoff at him for wanting to end the Department of Education, even easier still to make a false claim he therefore must be against public education, which is far from the truth of his belief public education is better handled from the home, community and State levels rather than the inept ability of a Federal Bureaucracy. It is too easy to label his views radical and not in the mainstream since most don’t study in-depth what our U.S. Constitution truly allows for the Federal Government and many don’t understand the personal responsibilities our nation was founded upon. His opponents are hoping these labels will be enough for you to cast your vote away from Ron Paul but just what is radical and not mainstream?
As a noun mainstream is defined as ‘the prevailing current of thought.’ Those who claim Ron Paul is not mainstream are saying clearly the prevailing current of thought is against the enforcement and measurements set forth in the U.S. Constitution. If we are to accept Dr. Paul as being outside the mainstream then we must also accept the prevailing current of thought is more inclined to embrace the oligarchy corporatism prevalent in our current Federal Government. We must accept the many powerful lobby groups influencing our daily direction as acceptable thoughts or within the mainstream. We accept our current preemptive, interventionist foreign policy as mainstream. Also mainstream is the practice of income taxation and code manipulation, out of control welfare systems, poorly performing bureaucracy, and policies leading the citizens to less freedom in exchange for presumed security. Benjamin Franklin’s 1755 words, "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY," can also be considered not mainstream.
Two applicable definitions for radical are, "a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist; a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods." A simple study of Dr. Paul’s voting records shows the very reason he is known as Dr. No on Capital Hill (as well as showing why lobby groups avoid him).
He does hold strong convictions, his methods are often uncompromising. He is extreme in upholding his oath of office. For those wondering what the oath states it is, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
No where does it state a member of Congress will uphold the desire and direction of the party majority leader. It does not state anywhere to uphold the desires of powerful lobbying groups. There is no sentence in the oath to do as the person sees fit nor does it give any doubt the directives spelled out in the U.S. Constitution are the directives a Congressman is to follow. So, why is Ron Paul a radical extremist for taking his oath seriously? The question voters should be asking is; why don’t all Congressmen take their oath as serious as Dr. Paul?
Based on the definitions I would have to agree Ron Paul is radical and not mainstream. Most of the leading candidates taut proudly they are the one who shall bring change to Washington D.C. The media claims citizens of the United States are seeking true change, real dramatic changes to better the lives of the current and, more importantly, all future generations. The last time that level of change occurred it was by the hard, enlightened efforts of 55 men assembled to develop an unprecedented form of government. The document they produced was radical and not mainstream; it was merely the most brilliant attempt at governing a civil society based on liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility ever attempted.
When you listen to the candidates and the media ask yourself if there is any one among them that will take the Presidential Oath of Office and uphold it with strong conviction. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The oaths were developed to uphold Article VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
For real change, to truly set our course for a better future, perhaps you should seriously think of voting for a man that is considered by some to be radical and not mainstream.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 88
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I wonder if America is a serious country or just a bunch of adults addicted to Myspace, Walmart, cell phones and reality TV. I find it disgusting what we do with our freedom. I am a six time combat veteran to include Iraq and Afghanistan - what I do not understand is why we continue to fight this war. I have pulled a few dead Americans out of their vehicles following an IED strike. Why won't we wake up? Why doesn't the average American understand that we NEVER declared WAR in Iraq as required by the United States Constitution? I respect John McCain's service - what I do not respect his his jaunt to Iraq, having lunch with the "troops" and then claiming that he understands us - he doesn't. I will continue to donate money to the Paul campaign. He is the only one who understands that this was an unjust and unnecessary war! Ron Paul is not a radical unless you find the Constitution radical, getting rid of the IRS and income tax (show me a law stating that we have to pay - you can't, so move on...) radical or putting the good of the people ahead of the good of Congress, the military industrial complex and the others who rape the average American... Yes, I support Ron Paul - he is the only candidate who truly gives a damn about things that matter. Before you beat the man up dig behind the other candidates. Dig their past voting record up, dig up their criminal (yes, I said criminal - Clinton) past and make a decision based on information - not the internet child like banter you find on YouTube.
Posted By: Paul M. Green
Date: 2007-12-27 08:53:09
Here, Here!! Very well articulated. I've been trying to say the same thing for a while, but couldn't have ever put it better than that. Thanks for a great post.
If Ron Paul is a 'radical', then so are we, his millions of supporters - who have infused his campaign with humor, creativity, and a passionate belief in TRUTH.
Please register Republican (even if only temporarily) so you can vote for Dr. Paul. We MUST VOTE in the primaries to make him the Republican candidate for President !! (by the way the NYT says the 'chairs are empty' at NewHampshire rallies for the media-annointed, supposed top-tier candidates. No chance of that at Ron Paul rallies, no sir).
unfortunately, your hero appears to be a racist, and in print, too---if a reformed racist (for he surely knew about his newsletters, according to testimony from Renae Hathaway, his former secretary, who stated that he proofed each one) then we should be hearing about how he came to 'see the light", don't you think? More about his journey from racist and jew-baiter to enlightened constitutionalist? More troubling about the man is his enthusiastic support for the new Texas abortion law, which gives the government the authority to insert a sonogram probe into a woman's body WITHOUT her consent---yep, that's right---AGAINST her will. How's that for "small government" Dr. Paul? I don't get it. He not only endorses this, he has stated that he would like to see it implemented nationwide.
Supporters of Ron Paul overlook far too much about this man's past and even his present views in my opinion. Last of all, his decades in Washington amounted to nothing. He has accomplished very little. I fail to see anything about Ron Paul that suggests he is fit for high office, sorry.
