Endorsement: Ron Paul Deserves GOP Nod For President

Ron Paul

Presidential candidate Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul deserves the Republican Party nomination for president because he would prove to be the most dramatic contrast with Barack Obama and right now the nation would benefit by a clear distinction between the philosophy offered by Democrats and that of the GOP.

Ron Paul advocates peace and prosperity through a genuine philosophy of smaller government and lower taxes, with a strong defense for America instead of an imperial military occupation of the entire world. He is the real Republican, blending the best ideas of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater with those of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller, but with the most contemporary foundation for the 21st Century.

Receiving more than 11 times as many campaign contributions from soldiers, sailors and marines as his leading Republican rival, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul is the choice of veterans and active duty military personnel.

All of the other GOP presidential aspirants are washed up politicians: Mitt Romney hasn’t been governor of Massachusetts for five years, Rick Santorum lost his Senate seat in 2006 and Newt Gingrich left Congress in disgrace in 1999. Ron Paul, a medical doctor and Texas congressman who was first elected in 1976, is the most honest of the Republican field.

His appeal is reasoned and responsible, not emotional like self-righteous Santorum, fake like Romney, conniving like Gingrich, stupid like Sarah Palin or bombastic like New Jersey’s own Governor Chris Christie. There are fatal flaws in each of the other Republican hopefuls:

Rick Santorum says he objects to the separation of church and state, and that makes him a threat to religious liberty and other fundamentals of this republican democracy.

Mitt Romney is a liar. His recent factual misrepresentations on American military strength pale in comparison to his chameleon-like flip-flopping on issues and pandering.

Newt Gingrich is personally to blame for much of the disintegration of civility in politics and he is immoral in more ways than we care to list.

His opposition to freedom of choice on abortion, as one example, shows that Ron Paul has not strictly abided by the libertarian code with which he is associated, his positions have been consistent for many decades. Whether you agree or disagree with him on issues — and his proposals are among the most revolutionary since Ronald Reagan gave us supply side economics — Ron Paul is a man of character and conviction with a solid vision for America that is based on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution.

NJTODAY.NET ~ New Jersey’s oldest weekly newspaper ~ endorses Congressman Ron Paul’s quest for the Republican Party nomination for president.

Connect with NJTODAY.NET

Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!
Email ads@njtoday.net for advertising information Send stuff to NJTODAY.NET Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Download this week's issue of NJTODAY.NET
Print Friendly

7 comments for “Endorsement: Ron Paul Deserves GOP Nod For President

  1. Mavid
    March 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Not only does Paul deserve the endorsement, most people truly believe he has honestly been winning the straw polls and is being fraudulently cheated of his just victories by a system in which the average American voter has almost completely given up on as a complete sham for corporate insiders and lobbyists. The idea that we need to go to war in Iran, to back up CIA Al Qaeda terrorist operations there because IRAN is somehow a threat to US is laughable and absurd and smacks of Nazi claims on the Sudetenland, Poland, and Soviet territories, not of a Freedom loving Republic, like our Forefathers founded here. At a time when Corporate and Government interests are almost indistinguishable from those in WWII Nazi Germany, Americans have a clear choice between breaking with the ideals upon which this country was founded, or continuing the ideals of our Revolution. Ron Paul is the ONLY CHOICE.

  2. Geeza
    March 1, 2012 at 5:59 am

    Dr Ron Pauls approach to the abortion issue would be the best solution by far and which to some extent should satisfy both the pro-choice and pro-life supporters as the abortion debate will never end.

    The key thing to remember is that there are significant supporters to the issue on both sides who have equally strong feelings and the most unfair position to adopt is for a blanket nationwide law that overrides one group or another. What if a bible-bashing pro-life president like Santorum backed by a right-wing congress managed to pass legislation banning abortion outright. Either way, one side imposes its will completely over the other.

    If the law was decided at state level, the worst case scenario is that you would have to lobby your position at state level to overturn the law which is far easier to do. Or if you felt that strongly about the issue, you could choose to live in a state that supported your stance.

    A state by state solution would go a long way to reducing tensions on both sides and would take this issue out of the national debate. It does not make any sense that a President who might possibly have a credible economic plan and foreign policy might then be voted against because of his views on abortion.

    On a personal level Dr Ron Paul is pro-life, on a policy level he is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. He says that it is for the states to decide.

    Makes a damn lot of sense to me.

    • trutherator
      March 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      Pro-life is most emphatically a libertarian position to have. What kind of “libertarianism” is it that regards the life of a human being itself as being free game? Prenatal infanticide two minutes and two inches before birth kills the same baby as post-partum infanticide two minutes and two inches later.

  3. odinkitty
    February 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I have to correct you about the abortion issue. He is Pro-Life and wants to get Roe VS Wade repealed because it simply shouldn’t be a federal issue to begin with but rather is a state issue. He believes that people who oppose abortions should not be forced to fund programs that supply abortion services with the taxes they pay to federal government. He does adhere to his Libertarian priciples in a sense that if a certain state’s constituents decide that they will provide abortion services he is not going to interfere because that is their right under the constitution to decide just as it is a states decision to have the death penalty or not. So, he DOES actually adhere to his Libertarian side because he is a strict Constitutionalist. You also forgot to mention that he not only predicted the housing crisis 5 years before it happened, he predicted terror attacks resulting from our foreign policy decisions several times BEFORE 911 and was absolutely correct. His common sense is his greatest asset. He has a sterling record for fiscal conservatism and an actual plan to revalue our dollar and cut spending. He is for a STRONG National Defense but has a non-intervention foreign policy that includes trade with other countries.

    • fntsmk
      February 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm


      Very well stated. Most women mistake Dr. Paul’s intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. They think of Roe v. Wade as a “Right to have an abortion,” as if it were in the Bill of Rights. Well of course abortion is NOT in the Bill of Rights and therefore should not be a Federal issue. As you correctly stated, Dr. Paul would leave the issue to the States to decide.

      In this whole argument it often goes unnoticed that Dr. Paul has provided irrefutable evidence at when life begins. Dr. Paul has correctly stated that from the moment a Dr. discovers a heartbeat through an Ultrasound procedure (about 8 weeks), he is responsible for TWO patients, not one. What do you think would happen to any Doctor who, for whatever reason, malisciously gave a pregnant woman a medication which would force a miscarriage of her fetus? Certainly the Dr. would be charged with homicide, no? If we discern this to be the case, then the Gov’t actually protect homicide through Roe v. Wade, does it not?

      Ironically, Dr. Paul is in favor of women using the “Morning After” pill to guard against unwanted pregnancy and stated “…where a patient wouldn’t even know if she were pregnant or not.” Every woman who has had an abortion legal or otherwise probably feels at least some “stigma” or mental anguish for having the procedure. Wouldn’t taking the “Morning After Pill,” the morning after…, take the stigma out of having an abortion but accomplish the same result? In that regard, isn’t Dr. Paul actually “Pro-Choice?”

      • ogunden
        May 13, 2012 at 10:04 am

        I don’t think Dr. Paul is “in favor” of the morning after pill. He’s just opposed to having the government try and regulate or outlaw it.

        “Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if you legalize birth control pills, you really can’t separate the two. They’re all basically the same, hormonally.” – Ron Paul

        He’s an OB doctor.


  4. libertybell
    February 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    NJ Today, you absolutely rock! Ron Paul should be getting these kind of endorsements everywhere!!!

Leave a Reply