Conservatives Should Not Be Silent About The Dangers of The Ron Paul Revolution by Gregory Hilton

I am a conservative Republican who enthusiastically wants my party to win, but I am an American first. That is why I cannot ignore the clear and present danger the Ron Paul Revolution presents to our national security. Republicans made a mistake in 2008 by ignoring the Ron Paul challenge. Their response was understandable because everyone knew the Congressman would not win. He failed in every primary and did not carry one county. His own Congressional District rejected him. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani forcefully answered him in some of the debates, but the general policy was to smile at the Texan because the GOP did not want to alienate his libertarian supporters.
This attitude could be repeated in 2012, but it would be a mistake because over the past four years Ron Paul has been triumphant. Ron Paul will not win the 2012 GOP nomination. He knows that and we know that. The Ron Paul Revolution is not about the nomination. Its goal is fundamentally changing the Republican Party, and they have had considerable success.view Why am I focusing on Rep. Ron Paul Mike Chumbley of Salem, Oregon writes: “Is bashing Ron Paul in every post what I can expect in the future? Paul has no chance of election so why not move on to meatier issues?” You can expect far more Ron Paul criticism from me in the future. I have only just begun. I am a Republican and a conservative, but I am an American first. I want Republicans to win but I cannot ignore a clear and present danger to our national security. When confronted with such an obvious threat I cannot look the other way even if it results in a gain for my political party.

Their other option is the third party route. Libertarians have already cost the GOP three US Senate seats as well as operational control of the upper body. We could have repealed ObamaCare and reduced the deficit by $4 trillion without them. Tomorrow’s NY special election demonstrates the dangers of third parties. They are growing in popularity because people want easy answers and simple solutions. Conservatives are not doing an adequate job in answering this challenge.
In 2001, Ron Paul was all alone in opposing the Patriot Act. This year 27 misguided Republicans joined him. Paul could easily win 20% of the vote in the first five primaries. He could emerge as a kingmaker who could dictate significant changes in the GOP platform.
Republicans made a major mistake by ignoring the libertarians in the past because they were not going to win. Karl Rove has mentioned this. The GOP was also terribly wrong when it did not adequately respond to accusations regarding WMD stockpiles in Iraq, and the impact on Republican approval ratings was enormous.
Ron Paul is far worse than Barack Obama on foreign policy, national security, trade and international economic issues. Nevertheless, the Congressman is capturing the GOP youth vote.
I am going to do the best I can to expose the truth about the libertarians. I do not want Republicans to share the fate of the Dixie Democrats. In 1956, there were 136 southern Democratic Congressmen. There were some moderates but they were overwhelmingly conservative.They had enormous seniority and were a major power in Democratic ranks.
They were not effective in stopping the liberal challenge that began in the 1960s. Today there is only one moderate Democratic Congressman left in the entire cotton South. Conservatives were wiped out in the Democratic Party and it would be foolish for the right wing to ignore the dangerous libertarian challenge now facing Republicans.
If the libertarians do win, I have no interest in remaining a Republican. I have a strong commitment to the GOP, but I am an American first, and I do not want to damage our nation for some short term political gain.
Some conservatives want us to ignore Ron Paul because they claim there is a much greater threat to our national security. Wrong. Barack Obama is terrible on domestic issues but he is 100% better than Ron Paul when it comes to our nation’s security. I sincerely want Obama to be defeated but in defense, foreign policy and trade issues, Obama and Bush are in agreement and Ron Paul and Code Pink are on the other side.

  • Obama maintained Bush’s policy in Iraq, and repeated the success of his surge in Afghanistan. The Bush and Obama surges involve the same number of troops. Ron Paul was with the opposition.
  • Obama has increased the use of the Predator and Reaper drone program to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets by 80% over Bush. Ron Paul says these attacks are illegal.
  • Obama has not closed the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. He said he would do that on his first full day in office but he has changed his mind. Obama has learned from experience that what Bush did was appropriate. Ron Paul is on the other side.
  • Obama has been president for over two years and both rendition and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) are still legal and available for use. The authorization for EIT was withdrawn by the Bush administration and Obama formally ended the program, but he can bring it back at any time. Ron Paul says it is torture. Obama’s Attorney General says it is not torture. Ron Paul wants to completely ban rendition and EIT.
  • In May of 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder changed his mind and said waterboarding is not torture. No Bush administration officials were prosecuted for allowing torture. Ron Paul says it is torture.
  • Liberal Democrats use to claim Bush made end-runs around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to implement a “lawless” Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). Now the Obama Justice Department says the TSP can be used under the constitutional authority of the commander in chief. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all conducted similar surveillance by way of the same presidential and constitutional authority. Ron Paul is on the other side.
  • Ron Paul claims the Patriot Act is a violation of 4th amendment rights, and in 2007, Obama was part of the chorus criticizing the Patriot Act. It was set to expire in December of 2009 when Democratic super majorities existed in the House and Senate. Many people thought the Patriot Act would be repealed when Obama was elected, but he surprised us by enhancing it. Obama has done a great favor for conservatives. He has taken the Bush terrorism policies and had them codified in law. Obama has continued the core Bush terrorism policies, while Ron Paul is on the other side.
  • Ron Paul said the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens because of the NSA’s “warrantless surveillance.” The confirmation of former Bush NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden was opposed by then Sen. Obama because “he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program.” Now Obama no longer believes the program is illegal. Hayden has reacted by saying: “There’s been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president. I don’t think it’s even fair to call it Bush Lite. It’s Bush. It’s really, really hard to find a difference that’s meaningful and not atmospheric. . . You’ve got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram in Afghanistan, and although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.” Ron Paul is on the other side.
  • Ron Paul condemned Bush for using presidential signing statements, but Obama has continued the practice.

Once again, the Obama Administration has maintained, renewed or expanded many of Bush’s War on Terror policies. Now that Obama agrees with Bush on these issues, they are all forgotten by the left, but Ron Paul and the libertarians are still in opposition.
I greatly admire Bush but I have to admit Obama has changed his mind on many key national security programs. Obama has made some correct decisions. I could never support him, but he is far better than Ron Paul in keeping our nation safe.
I would be greatly disappointed but our nation would survive if the GOP lost the 2012 election. On the other hand, a Ron Paul presidency would put our nation in maximum peril. I am not going to look the other way, and I will not be silent. I will continue to speak out in opposition to a real and present danger.

8 responses to “Conservatives Should Not Be Silent About The Dangers of The Ron Paul Revolution by Gregory Hilton

  1. Thank you for voicing the threat that many of us involved in the GOP at the local level have seen since Ron Paul ran for president in 2008. Now the “Ron Paulians” are almost militant in their desire to take over the county level Executive Committees of the GOP. It is nearly impossible to distinguish between the Ron Paul followers and the Tea Party movement – both are trying to oust good, conservative incumbent precinct chairmen and legislators based solely in the fact that they are Republican. If you have a solution, please let us know – we can’t save the party on a national level if we fail on the local level.We are not losing the battle yet, but the 2012 elections aren’t in full swing. If Ron gets 20% of the vote – holy cow – we are in trouble.

  2. Ron Paul is the hero of America’s thinking youth (not just the GOP”s) because he points out the hypocrisy of the old Republican Establishment. When it comes right down to it, there’s no philosophical difference of significance between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both want to expand the scope and power of government, especially the imperial executive. In the process, they have proven more than willing to bankrupt the country and eviscerate the Bill of Rights. I thank God for Ron Paul, and so should you.

  3. Congratulations on a well written article. You articulated Paul’s goals and beliefs accurately. We ‘Paulites’ intend to overthrow the current republican status quo and reinstitute the constitutional republic that was designed at our founding. We have started by infultrating local government, and then working our way up through the political channels.

    Don’t be decieved: our goal is the reshaping of America. Our movement lies more along the lines of a social revolution turned political movement than simply a push to win a temporary election. We mean to shrink the size of government in all facets, including the military industrial complex and our global empire.

    As you noted, republicans have made a tactical error in ignoring Paul’s arguments. They have attacked him on the edges, but have always been leery of his understanding of foreign policy (most likely because his position can quickly become a populist position under the right circumstances). Paul is not just some blowhard…he can defend his beliefs through history.

    I look forward to your future articles, and hope we can have an educated debate on foreign policy. I once held your beliefs, and through an honest observation of history and careful introspection, I know I was wrong….as you are.

  4. All the things that you mentioned about Ron Paul is exactly why I am voting for him. You are right, the GOP is losing all the youth to the Ron Paul movement and it will continue to do so as long as it holds on to the misguided princples that you hold.

  5. lol, you bet your ass the neo-cons and ass hats like you better be concerned about the Ron Paul revolution!!!! hahaha suck it pal!

  6. Ron Paul is a threat to the facists in the GOP. He is a patriot and as a republican party member I will do everything possible to have him as our nominee.

  7. Wow. You actually support the (un)Patriot Act. You’ve got much bigger issues than worrying out Ron Paul.

  8. Big Trouble. President Ron Paul!

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 )

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