Conservative Hideout 2.0 Rotating Header Image

Ron Paul: Why you Should Give him a Second Look


Many of you have read or heard the following comments about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is out of touch and doesn’t have a clue about the threats against the United States. Ron Paul is an idiot. He’s a moron. I would be embarrassed to be a Ron Paul supporter. It would be a dangerous thing if Ron Paul became President.The list goes on and on about how Ron Paul is just a crazy nut whose foreign policy and national defense strategy is unrealistic and would do more harm to America than good.  We have all witnessed first-hand him going toe-top-toe on this topic with his fellow Republicans on a national stage.  Trusted conservative talk show host from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity have called him out and stated they cannot support such a candidate. I was one of those conservatives three years ago.  I thought and said everything that I just wrote about Ron Paul.  It wasn’t until I took off my GOP goggles and started reading and learning about the origin of the Republican Party and a brand conservatism long forgotten did I begin to understand the error of my ways.

You see the brand of conservatism that bombards the airwaves and fills up a cable time slots is really a establishment brand sold to us as true conservatism. These so-called conservative authorities many us place so much trust in are nothing more than establishment promoting hacks.  Oh sure they talk about the evils of the establishment and claim they support electing the most conservative candidate and yet they continue to steer us towards Gingrich or Romney while chastising Paul.  They use his foreign policy position as a club and then proceed to beat him over the head with it ignoring the fact that Paul’s position aligns more with the founding fathers than any other candidate.  In fact Paul’s position is pretty close to what the Republican Party of old promoted. Take a look at the foreign policy and national defense platform of the Republican Party in 1936.

Foreign Affairs 1936

We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.

Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.

We shall promote, as the best means of securing and maintaining peace by the pacific settlement of disputes, the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals, which shall determine such disputes in accordance with law, equity and justice.

National Defense 1936

We favor an army and navy, including air forces, adequate for our National Defense.

We will cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments and control of tragic in arms.

It gets even better. In the election year of 1940 while Europe and the Pacific were at war the Republican Party’s National Defense platform was one of preparation and non-intervention.

National Defense 1940

The Republican Party is firmly opposed to involving this Nation in foreign war.

We are still suffering from the ill effects of the last World War: a war which cost us a twenty-four billion dollar increase in our national debt, billions of uncollectible foreign debts, and the complete upset of our economic system, in addition to the loss of human life and irreparable damage to the health of thousands of our boys.

The present National Administration has already spent for all purposes more than fifty-four billion dollars;—has boosted the national debt and current federal taxes to an all-time high; and yet by the President’s own admission we are still wholly unprepared to defend our country, its institutions and our individual liberties in a war that threatens to engulf the whole world; and this in spite of the fact that foreign wars have been in progress for two years or more and that military information concerning these wars and the re-armament programs of the warring nations has been at all times available to the National Administration through its diplomatic and other channels.

The Republican Party stands for Americanism, preparedness and peace. We accordingly fasten upon the New Deal full responsibility for our un-preparedness and for the consequent danger of involvement in war.

We declare for the prompt, orderly and realistic building of our national defense to the point at which we shall be able not only to defend the United States, its possessions, and essential outposts from foreign attack, but also efficiently to uphold in war the Monroe Doctrine. To this task the Republican party pledges itself when entrusted with national authority. In the meantime we shall support all necessary and proper defense measures proposed by the Administration in its belated effort to make up for lost time; but we deplore explosive utterances by the President directed at other governments which serve to imperil our peace; and we condemn all executive acts and proceedings which might lead to war without the authorization of the Congress of the United States.

Our sympathies have been profoundly stirred by invasion of unoffending countries and by disaster to nations whole ideals most closely resemble our own. We favor the extension to all peoples fighting for liberty, or whose liberty is threatened, of such aid as shall not be in violation of international law or inconsistent with the requirements of our own national defense.

We believe that the spirit which should animate our entire defensive policy is determination to preserve not our material interests merely, but those liberties which are the priceless heritage of America

So during a time period when the world was literally on fire with war in the 1940s, the Republican Party sought to avoid war if possible. So what is Ron Paul’s platform in regards to national defense.  The below is his position pulled directly from his website.

Ron Paul’s national defense platform:

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

Now does this sound like a man who will not defend America? I am absolutely confident he would defend America and her interest if threatened or attacked by outside forces.  He would just get the permission of Congress first.  That’s how it suppose to work under the constitution.  I’m also absolutely confident he would continue to hunt down terrorists that are plotting against America.  He would just do it in a manner that followed the constitution.  His platform is very similar to the platforms of the 1936 and 1940 Republican Party and yet he’s called crazy and out of touch.  Does this make any sense?  Now the real hang up for many conservatives is his views on the middle east.  I ask you to do me a favor an watch the below  video.  It’s 13 minutes long, but I believe it will clear up of a numbers of things about his position and why he feels the way he does.

That says it all. Ron Paul is being attacked by the establishment on all fronts because he scares the heck out of them.  But not for the reasons you were led to believe.  He scares the heck out of them because he wants to return the power back to the people.  And this is something that will definitely shake the establishment foundation in Washington.  If you want more of the same then cast your vote for one of the establishment candidates because that’s all they’re offering.  In a few years from now, America will be in more debt and nothing will have changed and we’ll all be writing about in our blogs.  I say give the man an honest look and stop listening to establishment, who in the end wants you to vote for Romney or Gingrich.  A vote for either of them doesn’t change anything and that’s exactly what the establishment wants.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

  • Don

    A very thoughtful post John, as your posts always are. I admire your passion and desire to heal our republic.

    I only ask that before you continue to use the argument that Founding Fathers were isolationists, you take the time to listen to this audio:

  • John Carey

    Thank you for the comments. I want to let you know that I never said he founding fathers were isolationists. They were non-interventionists unless it directly had an impact on free trade and commerce. This is why the founders believed it was very important to have a strong navy. They believed that an order to protect our interests and keep trade routes open, America should have a robust navy that could respond anywhere at anytime. However what they weren’t for was the interceding in the affairs of other nations, even to promote our own national and strategic interests. Friends with all, entangling alliances with none. Merry Christmas my friend.

    • Don

      Merry Christmas John! I apologize for saying you referred to our Founders as isolationists. I was thinking of another person that I was discussing RP with.

      You make your points eloquently, sir. I just cannot get behind someone who thinks it is “natural,” “understandable” and “okay” if Iran gets nukes.

      But it is the differences that we have that makes us stronger.

      • John Carey

        We might not always agree Don, but we are all on the same team and the big picture includes making Obama a one term President.

  • Chakam

    However what they weren’t for was the interceding in the affairs of other nations, even to promote our own national and strategic interests. Friends with all, entangling alliances with none.

    Nicely said, John. And this is why I personally support Ron Paul. It is what happened when I was able to separate my version of Conservatism from the US Constitution and from what I believe would be the mindset of our Founders. In other words, I needed to face reality and realize that my Conservatism ideal of ‘might is right’ does not mean we should be The World’s Police, or seek to establish democracy whenever and wherever we felt we should.

    • John Carey

      Thanks for the kind words. I really struggled with my conservative journey. When I finally took my partisan goggles off and learned about true conservatism I felt embarrassed. I too drank from the neo-con kool-aid for may years.

  • Jackie Durkee

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul seem to have the same thoughts in many areas since both are libertarians. If someone is on the fence between the two, what is the main thing about Ron Paul that should sway our vote his way? Just wondering.

    • John Carey

      Well first off is Gary Johnson has been pretty much locked out by the establishment. He can’t even get into the debates. Additionally Gary Johnson has failed to get on a number of state primary ballots. He has a slim to zero chance of winning the nomination because of this.

  • Matt

    Thanks for encouraging a healthy debate John. I think many of the adverse reactions to Congressman Paul are kneejerk. Debate and facts will help us stay on the actual issues.

    • John Carey

      Thanks Matt. I think we need to keep an open mind and not be so quick to think the other candidates are carrying the conservative banner…they’re not. Debate is a healthy thing and helps us work through these differences.

  • Don

    Is it politically incorrect if I don’t like Ron Paul because he has two first names???

    • Matt


    • John Carey