Ron Paul Victory at the Values Voter Summit

Economic historian Tom DiLorenzo writes:

“After Ron Paul’s decisive victory in the Value Voters straw poll in which his nearest competitor was eleven percentage points behind, Faux News had this running headline on the screen to announce the results:

“Herman Cain Comes in Second in Value Voters Straw Poll.” The anchorette did manage to mention that Ron Paul “also did well” without mentioning any details about the vote totals”.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul’s speech was powerful and worth reading. It reminds us of the biblical view of big government and of how the state undermines the family. He certainly deserved this latest victory.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Thank you. Thank you. So early in the morning, too. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for coming.

And I appreciate very much this opportunity to visit with you to talk about families. Obviously family values are very, very important. And, as was mentioned in the introduction, I have delivered a few babies. And that does contribute to family, let me tell you. (Laughs.)

But also I’m from a rather large family. I have four brothers. But we have five children and 18 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren as well. (Cheers, applause.)

But, you know, the one thing that is fascinating to me when we bring new life into the world or a new baby comes into the family has always been the reaction of the siblings – maybe one, two, or three, four years old. I’m always fascinated with the intrigue of the siblings looking at a small baby. And I thought, well, that was natural and good and really symbolizes what the family is all about.

Unfortunately, our families have been under attack. And I have a few ideas about why that has occurred and what we might do about it. But the value of the family was something that was early described in the Bible. And there’s one reference to the family that I thought was very important. That was in Samuel, 1 Samuel, chapter eight. And this is when the people, not the elders, came to Samuel when he was very old and they knew he would be passing on, so the people came and said to Samuel, what we need is a king. We need a king to take care of us. We want to be safe and secure.

And Samuel, although he knew he wasn’t going to be around long, he advised the people of Israel not to accept the king, because the king, he warned, would not be generous. He would undermine their liberties. There would be more wars. There would be more taxes. And besides, accepting the notion of a king would reject the notion that, up until that time, since they had left Egypt, their true king was their God and the guidance from their God.

But the governing body was the family. And they did not have kings, but they had judges. And that’s what Samuel was. But this was the time there was a shift away from the judges and the family into a king. And I think a lot of that has happened to us in this country. We have too often relied on our king in Washington, and we have to change that. (Cheers, applause.)

Samuel warned that the king would want to make servants of the people. And he even talked about taxes going up and he talked about the use of young men being drafted and he talked about the women and young women being used by the king. And the warning was not heeded, as Samuel didn’t expect it to be heeded. But he also said that if you depend on the king, the morality of the people will be rejected, the emphasis on the people themselves; the morality should come from the people and not from the king. And generally it doesn’t work that way.

You know, morality of the people or the lack of morality of the people can be reflected in the law. But the law never can change the morality of the people. And that is very important. (Cheers, applause.)

In the 1960s and the 1970s, there were dramatic changes in our country. During the Vietnam War there was a lot of antiwar sentiment. There were a lot of drugs. This was the decade that abortion was done flagrantly against the law. And, lo and behold, the laws got changed after the morality changed.

But it was also – about the time we had Roe versus Wade, we also had the breakdown of our monetary system, the rejection of the biblical admonition that we have honest weights and measures and honest money. And not to have honest weights and measures meant we were counterfeiting the money and destroying the value of the money, which implies, even in biblical times, they weren’t looking for a central bank that was going to counterfeit our currency. (Cheers, applause.)

But the culture certainly changed. The work ethics changed. The welfare state grew. And it wasn’t only for the poor who were looking to be taken care of, but we finally ended up with a system where the lobbyists were from the rich corporations and the banks that would come to Washington and expect to get their benefits. And the whole idea of a moral society changed.

But, you know, biblically there’s a lot of admonitions about what the family should be in charge of. Certainly the 10th commandment tells us something about honoring our parents and caring for them. It didn’t say work out a system where the government will take care of us from cradle to grave. No, it was an admonition for us to honor our parents and be responsible for them, not put them into a nursing home and say the federal government can take care of them. Besides, sometimes that leads to bankruptcies and the government can’t do it anyway. So that responsibility really falls on us.

In the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Christ was recognized to be the prince of peace. He was never to be recognized as the promoter of war. And he even said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.” He never said blessed are the war makers. It was the peacemakers that we must honor and protect. (Cheers, applause.)

Christ was very, very clear on how we should treat our enemies. And some days I think we quite frequently forget about that. Early in the history of Christianity, they struggled with the issue of war and peace, because Christ taught about peace. Did that mean Christ was advocating pacifism? The early church struggled with this and came to the conclusion, at least in those early years, that Christ was not a pacifist, but he was not a war promoter.

And this is when they came up with the just-war principles, saying, yes, war could be necessary, but only under dire circumstances, and it should be done with great caution. All other efforts should be exhausted before we go to war, and always under the proper authority. And today I think the proper authority is not the U.N. or the NATO forces to take us to war. (Cheers, applause.)

We are taught in the New Testament about caring for the poor and caring for our families and our neighbors and friends. But never did Christ say, you know, let’s go and lobby Rome to make sure we’re taken care of. It was a personal responsibility for us. Christ was confronted at one time by a prostitute, but he didn’t call for the centurions. He didn’t call for more laws. But he was very direct and thought that stoning was not the solution to the problem of prostitution.

So do laws take care of these things, or do we need a better understanding of our Christian values and our moral principles?

Life is most precious. I talk about life and liberty. I defend liberty to the nth degree, as long people aren’t hurting and killing each other and stealing and robbing. But you cannot defend liberty unless you have a clear understanding of life. And believe me, as an experienced physician and knowing the responsibility of taking care of life, from the earliest sign of life – I know, legally and morally, I have a responsibility to take care of two lives. And therefore you cannot be a great defender of liberty if you do not defend and understand what life is all about and where it comes from. (Cheers, applause.)

You know, many great religions, and especially both the Old and New Testament, talks about a golden rule. And I think it’s an important rule. We want to treat – we should treat other people the way we want to be treated. And I would like to suggest that possibly we should be thinking about having a foreign policy of the golden rule and not treat other countries any way other than the way we want to be treated. (Cheers, applause.)

There were great dreams by Isaiah in the Old Testament about the time that would come when the swords would be bent into plowshares and spears into pruning forks, the dream of ending the wars and to the point where peace is prosperous. And I have come to a strong conviction that one of the most greatest threats to the family is war. It undermines the family. (Cheers, applause.)

Just in our last decade, an undeclared war that we’re dealing with, we’ve lost over 80,000 – 8,500 men and women in our armed services. We have 40,000 who have returned, many of them with severe amputations. And it’s, in essence, forgotten by the general population of this country. We have literally hundreds of thousands begging and pleading for help.

I talked to a young man the other day and he was telling me about losing all his buddies and his frustration with the war and not having a goal of winning the war and not knowing when it would end. And yet his conclusion was – almost in tears he said to me, he says, I lost my buddies over there, but now I’m losing many of them to suicide.

And when you think of this, of what the consequences of war, the death and destruction, what does it do to the families? What does it do to the husbands and the wives and the mothers and the daughters who have to deal with these problems? So, yes, it is very, very damaging. War costs a lot of money. It causes a lot of poverty. Poverty and the economic crisis in this country is undermining the family. But $4 trillion of debt has been added in the last 10 years to fight a war that seems to have no end.

Wars generally lead to inflation, the destruction of money. We don’t honor the biblical principles of honest money. We invite this idea that we can spend endlessly and we can print the money, and literally it undermines the family and undermines the economic system. When you lose a job, it’s harder to keep the family together.

Divorce rates are very, very high among the military, because these young men are being sent back two and three and four times. And there was one story told me about a little boy, a little boy who was 10 years old, and his dad was getting ready to go back again. He was screaming, I hate you, daddy, I hate you, daddy, because he was leaving him.

So this is why, in the early church, they talk about being very careful about going into war, and also to be thinking about the admonition that peace is far superior to war. That should be our goal. (Cheers, applause.)

The goal of a free society, from my viewpoint, is to seek virtue and excellence. And only we as individuals can do that. When we turn this over to the government, when we seek our king and depend on our king, it can only be done at the sacrifice of liberty. And that means eventually all liberties – our personal liberties, our civil liberties, our religious liberties, our right to teach our children and our responsibility to teach our children, whether it’s home schooling or religious school – it’s always under attack.

The more we turn it over to the government – it was a sad day in this country when we went this full measure about acknowledging the authority of the federal government to educate our children. There was a time when the Republican Party said that we shouldn’t even have a Department of Education. And I believe it should go back to the family, not the federal government. (Cheers, applause.)

If we – if we do not get our moral values from our government, which I think it’s impossible to get it from them, where does it come from? First, it comes from us as individuals. We have the responsibility for dealing with our eternity and salvation. But we have our responsibility to ourselves to do the best we can with our own lives.

But then our next step is our families; you know, our children and our parents, and then our neighbors and our churches. That’s where the moral values should come from. And, quite frankly, that is where I think we have slipped. So you can pass all the laws that you want. You can fight more wars than ever that’s going to bring us peace and prosperity. But if the basic morality of the people does not change, it will not matter. We must change our hearts if we expect to change our family and treat our family values as they should be. (Applause.)

We have been blessed in this country by having the freest and the most prosperous. We’ve had a good Constitution, far from perfect. But today we are living way beyond our means. We are living in debt. And debt is not a biblical principle, whether it’s personal debt or whether it’s a national debt. We owe $3 trillion to people overseas. We are suffering from a mountain of debt because we have accepted this idea that we have this responsibility to mold the world, mold the people and mold the economy.

Government is incapable of doing that. The responsibility of the government is to provide the environment which is proper to allow us to thrive, for us to work hard and have the incentive. If we have our right to – (applause) – if we have a right to our life and liberty, why is it that we don’t fight for the right to keep the fruits of our labor? (Cheers, applause.)

If we accepted that, there would be no demands for the king. The people – the early Israelites demanded the king to be taken care of. But we have too, and we have accepted this notion as a country and as a whole that the king will take care of us.

But I prefer the different king, the original king, the instruction that comes from our creator, not from our government. Our government should be strictly limited to the protection of the liberties that allow us to thrive. (Cheers, applause.) And our liberties and our economy, they are under attack today. There is no doubt about it.

So we will have to meet up and make these decisions. To me, the most important decision that we have to ask, just as they asked, you know, in biblical times, as well as at the time of our founding of this country, what should be government like? What should the role of government be? It isn’t, you know, where do you cut this penny or this penny, and what do we do here and there, and tinker around the edges. It should be what should the role of government be? The founders said the role of government ought to be the protection of liberty. That is what the role of government ought to be. (Cheers, applause.)

But the experiment is about to end unless we reverse this trend. I would say that we have gone downhill nearly for 100 years, especially for the last 10, and especially for the last four, when we think of our economy. But the real challenge is, are we going to transition from the republic to the empire and to dictatorship? And there are so many signs that we are, you know, transforming into empire and dictatorship. And just think of the bearing down on our personal liberties today. Think about what happens when we go to the airports. Think about now you have no privacy whatsoever. Now the government can look into every single thing.

So we are living in an age when government is way too big. And it’s time this government act properly, and that is to protect our freedoms. (Cheers, applause.) The – if you read the Constitution carefully, you will find out that the Constitution is directed at the government. There aren’t restraints placed in the Constitution on you. The restraints are that you don’t hurt and kill people, that you fulfill your promise that you’re honest and you fulfill your moral obligation. The restraints are placed on the federal government.

So as long as we allow the federal government to grow and we don’t obey those restraints, things will get worse. But the good news is there’s a whole generation of Americans right now rising up and saying we were on the right track at the right time. Let’s get back on that track. Let’s restore liberty to this country and prosperity and peace. (Cheers, applause.)

Thank you.




About Cranky Notions
Reactionary. That fella from the Norris scandal.

7 Responses to Ron Paul Victory at the Values Voter Summit

  1. Rob says:

    I’m not opposed to Ron Paul on ideological grounds as Obama’s efforts to spend their way out of recession was a disaster but in certain respects he represents the views of far-right conspiracists which is why these people also big him up. A key indicator of this is his foreign policy stance. Its one thing not supporting Israel, and being critical of the war in Iraq. Its quite another actually speaking up for Islamist enemies of the US like US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki the high profile recruiter for al Qaeda whose sermons were explicitly intended to incite terrorism/jihad against the US. As such al-Awlaki disavowed any responsibilities that his citizenship carried by openly becoming an enemy combatant.

    • I would have preferred Anwar Al-Awlaki to be captured and tried and afforded his full rights as an American citizen. I’m not losing any sleep over his timely death, however. I was always against the Iraq War, and I don’t believe in nation-building in Afghanistan now. I’m no dove, though. I believe in assassinating and putting bounties on all members of Al Qaeda and similar Islamist groups. Ron Paul also supports this approach, but as a strict Constitutionalist he does have to speak up for Awlaki’s rights even if it may not be popular. Ron Paul may see abortion as an evil, but he does want to leave the question of its legality to the individual states.

      Clearly if you go over to an enemy army you can’t expect special treatment under your own country’s laws when you fight on the battlefield. You catch a bullet, its your own fault. This is a harder case, as the US has not declared war on Yemen, Al-Awlaki was not really mixed in with an army and didn’t actually engage in life-threatening combat, and the possibility of capture might have remained a viable option.

      I have sparred with Ron Paul supporters on Israel as many have rather nasty views (many more do not). There are some crazy anti-Semites out there who believe Jews/Zionists/the Rothschild family etc. are pulling the strings behind the scenes and are attracted to Ron Paul because they see him as the man who will shrink or destroy the ‘ZOG’. Paul clearly does not share their views and can’t really be blamed for this, though he has written some silly, naive and incorrect things about Israel and Jewish history in the Land of Israel in his most recent book. Still, I suspect that if Ron Paul were standing for election in Europe he would probably be called an Islamophobe given he’d advocate ending assistance to the Palestinians!

  2. Rob says:

    It would have been better if Anwar Al-Awlaki was captured and afforded his rights as an American citizen. However, I don’t think there is reason to lambast the US administration as Ron Paul has done because this individual reneged on his responsibilities in a very public fashion and for an extended period of time by colluding with an avowed enemy of the US, further endangering other US citizens which the administration also has an obligation to protect. His incitement of violence was a key feature in recruiting for al Qaeda. At a moral level I see him in roughly the same light as a bank robber holding people hostage, he can be taken out at any time regardless of whether he is a US citizen or not if he doesn’t come willingly. If capturing him was a difficult prospect on foreign territory, and he was aware he was on the CIA hitlist but didn’t surrender to face trial then I feel it was right to choose this option.

    I was against the Iraq war too. The Afghanistan war was more justified. However the tone of Ron Paul’s criticism is troubling. You probably disagree but it raises questions about his intent.

    Unfortunately far-right anti-Semitic conspiracists are increasingly visible. Their attraction to Ron Paul is because they see him as a kindred spirit, and many strongly promote him all over the web. The stuff about Israel and Jewish history has been a long feature of his opinion, and seems to go along with some conspiracism about Israel. IMO it’s a red-flag about his views and explains why they like him so much.

    • I understand those who are disturbed by content on (unofficial) websites like the DailyPaul and so on. I am too. Back in 2008, the man who runs the world’s largest anti-Semitic website ‘Jew Watch’ spammed for Ron Paul endlessly on YouTube. However, a Ron Paul cabinet would never include such people. It would more likely include such luminaries with high regard for Jews and concern for Israel like the brilliant economist Thomas Sowell, and intelligent, tolerant men like Judge Andrew Napolitano.

      My problem with Paul’s stuff on Israel was not conspiracism, he just had some bad facts. He claimed Jews before the destruction of the Temple only controlled Jerusalem for 160 years, a common myth based often peddled in Islamist/Arabist circles (it ignores the Hasmonean dynasty, the era as capitol of the Kingdom of Judah after the split, under Ezra and Nehemiah after the decree of Cyrus the Great, etc).

      However, Paul is not rabidly anti-Israel, he just does not want to get involved. Israel will thrive without US assistance, as I’ve stated here many times before, so that does not bother me so much. There are plenty of politicians in Ireland and Europe, however, who are very anti-Israel, want to stick their nose in to that country’s business and use a lot of taxpayer money to do it. This is far more problematic. Ron Paul wants free trade with Israel, but in the Irish Senate David Norris once demanded that Ireland cease all trade with Israel! After my role in the Norris/Nawi Affair, it became much clearer to me because of the threats and reactions I received (including death threats) that David Norris probably has a higher proportion of support from anti-Semitic Israel-bashers than Ron Paul or any current Republican candidate. Goodness, not to mention Martin McGuinness and others in the Irish left. You probably saw yourself some of the classic anti-Semitic lingo that came out of that.

      • Rob says:

        Whilst I agree that Ron Paul or any other candidate shouldn’t automatically be defined by a contingent of his support base, I think it’s a worry doesn’t seemingly distance himself from such far-right supporters who are a very vocal bunch.

        Where we would differ is over the level of Ron Paul’s anti-Israel sentiment. Its fine if the US does not want to give assistance but the fact that he peddles those myths as he also blames Israel for the creation of Hamas means he swallows quite extreme pro-Palestinian mythmaking. The greatest contribution the US gives to Israel is their vetoing of countless highly damaging UN resolutions against it. With Ron Paul at the helm that would be lost and effectively Israel would be at the mercy of the UN.

        I take your point about the anti-Semitic content of support for Mick D. Higgins and McGuinness who BTW described the actions of the Palestinians as “resistance” on the Prime Time debate tonight..

      • Well, I’ve always felt Israel should simply never have joined the United Nations, much like Switzerland didn’t until 2002, particularly to avoid being compelled to vote in a way that might jeopardize Jews in another country as well as to affirm its historic national uniqueness. Israel was, for instance, forced into the Western bloc at the UN during the Cold War and thus earned ire from the Soviet Union, and it may even have worsened the situation of Soviet Jewry.

        Ron Paul would like the United States to leave the UN also. If this happened, the UN would become an irrelevant playground of nations trying to promote left-wing and Islamic interests, with absolutely no teeth that can bite. The funding for UNRWA, which has had a huge role in perpetuating the conflict, would mostly vanish. To me, Israel and America’s departure could bring only positive developments.

  3. Rob says:

    You’re right about Ron Paul wanting to leave the UN. However, I believe that would be a bad idea considering the fact that the US is not the dominant power that it once was. The US leaving and loosing its veto in the process would turn it into a complete mad-house under the complete control of Russia/China and the OIC, whilst many nations in the West would probably still proclaim it is the only body with international legitimacy. BTW I would like a body like the League of Nations to be established.

    Your idea that Israel’s placement in the UN earned the ire of the USSR is an interesting one but maybe its too late to turn back the clock as Israel is essentialy deligitimised at this stage. AFAIK if it left the it would still be subject to the scruteny of the UN.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: