In a letter to the Des Moines Register,
the son of GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul set forth his two goals for
striving to protect the "conservative movement" from being hampered by
the nomination of a candidate with "a different set of ideas and
values."
The first of Senator Paul's two goals is to "prevent the European debt
crisis from consuming America next." Although certainly a priority for
the Senator, the rest of the letter is devoted to details of his second
goal: electing a "constitutional[ly] conservative president in 2012."
An urgent issue for the Republican Party and the United States is the
election of a president who will remain faithful to his Oath of Office
from the moment his hand is placed on the Bible on Inauguration Day.
While Senator Paul admits that anyone on the current roster of
Republican candidates would be an improvement over Barack Obama, he
calls out the two men leading in the polls — Mitt Romney and Newt
Gingrich — for not representing "the tea party, the conservative
movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs...."
In his indictment of the former Governor of Massachusetts and the
former Speaker of the House, Paul's first charge against both is their
support for the $700-billion bank bailouts signed into law by President
George W. Bush in 2008.
Paul quotes the Obama Treasury Department as describing the bailouts,
officially called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as "one of
the most unpopular government programs in American history."
In a debate in October, Romney defended the bailouts
as necessary "to keep the entire currency of the country worth
something. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we
could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system,
wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be
taken."
As for current "frontrunner" Newt Gingrich, he claims to have changed his mind on TARP
after having his ear bent by a number of "very right wing" businessmen.
These unnamed advisors convinced Gingrich that the financial meltdown
was a "true crisis" and that the bailouts were necessary to prevent the
financial system from suffering a "heart attack."
Further evidence of the necessity for the bailout of financial
institutions was provided to Gingrich by the fact that the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury agreed "that the
global financial system was on the edge of total failure" and so
Gingrich changed his position and favored passage of the legislation.
The next charge leveled by Senator Paul at Romney and Gingrich is their
"outspoken and unapologetic" support for the individual mandate of
ObamaCare.
The individual mandate provision of the Obama health care requires that
all residents of the United States purchase a qualifying medical
insurance policy or face tax penalties and possible imprisonment. This
mandate is the first time in history that the Congress of the United
States has passed a law forcing citizens to purchase a commodity
regardless of personal preference or financial ability.
Neither candidate can run from their record as both have for years
ardently advocated the government-mandated purchase of health insurance.
As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed a health care plan into law that contains an individual mandate provision nearly identical to that included in the ObamaCare legislation.
In the case of Newt Gingrich, in an interview in 2005,
Gingrich said that if a person earning over $50,000 a year did not have
health insurance, then he was in favor of the government forcing that
person to either purchase a policy or post a bond.
While serving as a Congressman in 1993, Gingrich made similar comments advocating a national healthcare system
supported by an individual mandate. "I've said consistently we ought to
have some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a
bond or in some way indicate that you are going to be held accountable."
Senator Paul's letter is his way of making sure Gingrich, Romney, and
all of the potential Republican nominees are held accountable for their
policy positions and that they are truly dedicated to principles of
freedom as enunciated in the Constitution.
So seriously does Paul take the support of these two men for TARP and
the individual mandate that he argues that it "disqualifies" them from
receiving the support of the Tea Party.
Beyond their support for two programs that must be undone if the
American Republic is ever to return to within its proper, constitutional
bounds, Rand Paul points out that both men cannot sincerely commit to
accomplishing that critical goal in light of their irrefutable promotion
of expansive government intervention in the lives of citizens and of
corporate welfare.
Briefly, Paul describes Romney as a "moderate, northeastern,
don't-rock-the-boat Republican" and that everyone in the party gets
that.
As for Gingrich, however, Paul is concerned that the rank and file of
his party are "being sold a bill of goods" that doesn't represent the
truth about Newt Gingrich and his philosophy and policies.
Paul proposes that despite Gingrich's multiple "flip-flops," his heart
remains with the left wing of the Republican Party. Says Paul, "His
record features 'highlights' such as global warming commercials with
Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood,
and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception."
All those acts are certainly antithetical to the positions taken by the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
The list of sins against the Constitution for which Newt Gingrich has
never repented is long, according to Senator Paul's opinion piece.
Next, there is Gingrich's work as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac — one of
the agencies whose malfeasance precipitated the nation's economic
meltdown.
Gingrich, Paul says, "took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas...."
Then there is Gingrich's alleged capitulations on "right-to-work laws"
and the Second Amendment, both critical components of the conservative
agenda.
And, as opposed to calling for the abolition of the Department of Education, Gingrich actually voted to create it.
When push comes to shove, Paul warns, Gingrich will put party above
principle, as he did in the congressional race in New York in 2009 when
he supported the "liberal" Republican candidate who eventually lost and
threw her support behind the Democrat in the race.
So, Paul ably presents the case for the prosecution against the two men at the top of recent Iowa polls.
The conclusion drawn is that neither man is a conservative and that if
the Republican Party is to "continue the work [it] resolved in 2010 to
undertake" then it must not elect a nominee who has a track record of
advocating the expansion of government and the concomitant abandonment
of the Constitution and the small federal government of limited and
enumerated powers created by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment