BREAKING: The Most Important Endorsement Goes to Ron Paul

By Roger F. Gay (seconded by Robert Bentley)

I endorse Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for the office of President of the United States and for the presidency. This is the most important endorsement that any candidate can receive; not just because it's mine, but because it's not given for political expediency or other personal reward. Over the decades that I have analyzed policy and politics, and written on the subject, I have never before endorsed a candidate. In this year's presidential race, there is only one candidate who is worthy of the office. There is only one that has the right ideas for the good of the country now and who we can trust to make the best of them. In the cold light of facts and logic:
There is no race at all. Ron Paul stands alone.

Let me reassure those whose only concern is to put a Republican in office in order to oust Barack Obama. Ron Paul has, in my view, the best chance of winning. For months, match-up polls have shown both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul tied with Barack Obama. (The other Republican candidates are far behind.) Romney has been promoted as the Republican “front-runner” and even the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican Party. His flaws have been both ignored and spun into assets. Ron Paul has been continuously marginalized by the establishment press and his ideas and character distorted beyond recognition. In other words, Mitt Romney has been granted an enormous handicap in order to stay in the game with Ron Paul. Of the two, only Ron Paul can, like Ronald Reagan, significantly expand his base outside the minority that votes in the Republican Party's primaries. (Remembering the “Reagan Democrats” who helped keep him in office for two terms.)

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, it's been quite popular for candidates to assert themselves as his natural heir. The sense of entitlement is so strong that candidates like Newt Gingrich for example, pretend to have played a more important role in the Reagan era and to have had a more substantial relationship with Reagan himself while promoting the same social policy agenda as Barack Obama, who also used the spirit of Reagan in his 2008 campaign. In 1976 Ron Paul led the Texas delegation in favor of Ronald Reagan for the GOP nomination and actively campaigned for Reagan in 1980. In 1978, while seeking re-election to Congress, Ron Paul's foreign policy was attacked (much as now) as “weak” and “isolationist.” Reagan responded with a glowing endorsement.

Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.

Ron Paul's national defense position has been the subject of a great deal of confusion. It's easy to spot someone who just hasn't fact checked against establishment propaganda. His views are not isolationist, nor are they weak on national defense. Along with an exponential growth in spending, we've been in a continuous period of increased military adventurism while ignoring Constitutional requirements on going to war. Like Ron Paul's assessment and predictions on economic bubbles and collapsing financial infrastructure, his views on our role as the World's Police are also factually and logically correct. It would be a great relief to have a president who insists on operating within Constitutional restraints in this regard, requiring a Declaration of War from Congress as a condition for starting or joining a war, as well as to have a president who would invoke consideration of the costs of the character of our military presence on the world stage. To this, we can add a greater and more enlightened understanding of the position and capabilities of the other world players. One can only logically conclude that the greater isolationists are those who insist that the US must continue to act as if no other country can successfully defend itself or effectively assist when a neighbor is in need; that we must therefore act nearly alone as the prominent international warlord group.

Ron Paul's understanding of economics and the role of government has received wide praise. Even the other candidates have given lip-service to his views. He has surpassed every president, living or dead, in his ability to diagnose and prescribe economic treatment. I have written several times on the dangers of electing politicians who view fiscal conservatism (or social conservatism) as the core of their conservative “values”. They are factually, logically, and historically insufficient to define a conservative (or classic liberal) political candidate. There may be nothing as obvious in support of Ron Paul than to state that he is the only political conservative running for president. Without political conservatism at the core, other claims to conservatism in the political arena are just a trick. Someone please explain that to the crazy uncles, Mitt, Newt, Rick, and Barack, who promise to reduce the size and cost of government while carrying Santa Claus bags filled with promises of new entitlements, government intrusions, and military excursions. No, continued expansionism does not make government more “efficient”. (Side-bar: Decline of the Roman Empire)

The character of the presidency has drifted so far as to have become an imminent threat to the nation. The office has now come to symbolize the position of the leader of a party and an agenda. It has become a pulpit from which to drive a particular view on expansionism and it matters little which view prevails. The office has been held by warlords, dictators, and representatives of organized criminal enterprises that seek to steal public funds and take advantage of power for personal gain. It has become a centralized point from which the American people are continuously lied to, cheated, and stripped of their rights and from which the sovereignty of the nation and the blood of our citizens are sold.

We need a president who will act like a president and who believes that is the proper way for presidents to act. We need a president who is an honest and capable man, a man who can be trusted to tell us the truth, to present the actual state of the nation, and the state of government. We need someone who understands that we need not and should not have a federal government that strives to buy into every aspect of personal life and who believes that integrity is more important than the next election. We need someone who will honestly point out the many large and expensive government programs created to extract pork, that serve neither the nation's interest nor the promotional cause for which they were started. We need someone who has not and will not sell himself, the nation, and all of us for political advantage or personal gain. We need someone who honestly believes that it is right to obey the Constitution.

We need a true president. There is only one candidate who qualifies, and I endorse him for the Republican nomination for the office of President of the United States and for the presidency.

Brian Doherty Discusses 'Ron Paul's Revolution'


Judge Napolitano's famous "What if?" commentary

.