While I do not agree with Ron Paul on certain issues, the fact will remain that on the most important aspect of his life's work--upholding the United States Constitution--I concur with him completely. You see, in preserving the Constitution, Dr. Paul and I can disagree on other subjects, freely and with respectful debate. Without the Constitution, one or the other perspective may become the dominant one, with the result of vicious fascism we have seen abundantly worldwide for millennia. Moreover, I entirely understand Paul's viewpoint that these issues upon which he and I do not agree--e.g., abortion--are not truly Constitutional or federal matters, but should be left up to the individual states. (I am also aware that Paul is a fervent born-again Christian, which, obviously, does not jell with my perspective of reality, but, again, his focus on upholding the Constitution gives him high marks in my book, as I consider that document to be A Truly Sacred Scripture preventing the world from descending into barbarism.)
In this regard, I am glad that Ron Paul is having so much success in his campaign, although I am cynical that the Twiddle-Dee & Tweedle-Dum Republocrat political system will allow him to take charge of the United States government. It is extremely hopeful, however, that someone of his caliber of honesty and integrity has managed to attain to such a high political office in the first place. (By the way, I've been reading Ron Paul's writings since the late 90s, and I can attest that he has been consistent for all that time. Nor do I believe he is part of any governmental "psy-op.")
Since Ron Paul has been unfairly smeared, I thought it important to bring to the forefront a well-written retort from my pal David Bergland, who considers Dr. Paul to be a politician of the highest standards of character. Following is what David Bergland had to say about the vicious rumors regarding Paul's purported ties to "Nazis" and "white supremacists." I reproduce Mr. Bergland's remarks here with his permission.
Dear Acharya:
Since you asked, there are no ties to neo-nazis, nor has there ever been. One white
supremacist sent Ron a $500 contribution. His attackers want him to return it. His response is: it's already been spent promoting liberty; if I return it, the donor will spend it on his foolishness. Also, he made the contribution to Ron to support Ron's efforts on behalf of liberty, not the other way around. Oh yeah, there was also a story about Ron having lunch with neo-nazis at some local restaurant in Washington. That was crap and the rag that published it retracted the story later.
There was also a crap piece in The New Republic about some not so nice, allegedly racist, statements in a financial newsletter that Ron published (not edited) a couple decades ago. Ron did not write the material and does not know who did. He has stated that he failed to exercise sufficient control over the newsletter content and disavows the negative stuff. The TNR article is just one example of how Ron Paul's enemies consistently decline to take him on based on his positions on the issues (which he has held for his 20 years in Congress) and are reduced to digging back into ancient newsletters for ammunition. On the "racism" issue, here is an interesting anecdote.
A while back, Congress was planning to give a medal of honor to Rosa Parks. Ron opposed it because Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on such things. At the same time, he pulled a $100 bill out of his pocket and stated that he would contribute it to a voluntarily financed medal for Ms. Parks. He also invited all the other Congresscritters to do the same. Not a single one accepted the invitation! But they did spend your tax money for it.
Our political and economic system is truly sick. I know Ron Paul personally, and know him to be 100% straight, honest, tolerant and completely committed to limited constitutional government. That's why I've been so busy in the Ron Paul Revolution.
One last item: abortion. I am a pro-choicer, but respect Ron's position because it focuses on the federal government role as limited by the Constitution. He correctly contends that the federal government has no authority in this area at all. The issue should be left to the states. Some states will authorize it, some won't. That's federalism; we should not undermine that important constitutional principle on "our" issue because that opens the door for all others to destroy federalism and allow the feds to run everything. (Most people really don't understand how
important it is to stick to principle, do they?)
Warmest regards,
David Bergland
