Matthew R. Perry

This Blog Endorses for President …

In Politics, Ron Paul on October 21, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Dr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul, at first considered a second-tier candidate, has risen to the outer fringe of the first-tier and people are starting to take notice. As someone who is a Christian, pro-life (he’s delivered over 4,000 babies in his career), been married to the same person for over 50 years, he is a consistent Constitutionalist whose integrity and authenticity stand in refreshing contrast to many in the political realm.Though running for the Republican nomination, he is decidedly anti-war and decidedly small government. He believes in returning to the founders’ ideal of isolationism and doing what serves in the best interest of the sovereignty of the United States first.

To read more about him, click here.

To see a terrific video on his platform, watch this:

Powered by ScribeFire.

  1. I addmittingly know very little about politics and the constitution unfortunately. Could you compare Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee seems to have more media coverage and maybe more of a chance. Why should I support Paul over Huckabee?

  2. Thanks for the info. I must admit that I have really struggled this time with who to support. I am honestly not looking for a president to solve our nations problems but we need to do what we can to place people in governmental offices that will be ( or at least try to be) men of integrity. My conscience has really plagued me over this. Thanks for the post. I will check further into Mr. Paul.

  3. We too are trying to discern who to endorse this year. My wife likes Huckabee, (Shes from Texarkana area, and has family from Arkansas, and Huckabee has good reputation there) and his tax plan.

    I’ve been busy with schoolwork and havent seen any media coverage whatsover ( I swear). So, like Kenneth Clayton, tell me, why Ron Paul, and what is it you like about him more than Huckabee? (No, not a loaded question. I’m still looking)

    What say Ye, Sire Perry?

  4. Why Ron Paul? I like Huckabee on his domestic agenda, but I’m not convinced that he is up-to-speed on his foreign policy. Paul is an anti-war, anti-big government Constitutionalist who believes that we went to war unconstitutionally — there was no declaration of war, per the Constitution, and actually believes (correcty, IMO) that our occupation in Iraq has actually strengthened al Qaeda rather than weakened it.

    In the debates I’ve seen, Huckabee’s foreign policy seems to be lacking. Of course, he can certainly surround himself with those whose foreign policy is more solid. But the Founders of our country held to an isolationist mentality. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Commerce with all nations, alliances with none.” We left that mentality at the turn of the 20th century. Nowadays, to suggest such a thing is appalling to many… but the Founders understood something that we have forgotten — we must do what is in the best interest of the sovereignty of our country.

    I could support Huckabee — but I will vote for Ron Paul, even if he runs as an independent (I am currenty affiliated with the Constitution Party, although I do like the platform of the American Heritage Party).

    More later when time permits.

  5. Yeah, I wish I understood the issues more fully! I do wonder though why vote for a third tier canadite, if they won’t win, when you could cast your vote for someone who seems to have a chance, seemingly slim but a chance, and sees eye to eye with us on moral issues of abortion, “gay marriage” debate. Do you believe there is a chance for Paul? If it comes down to it, I reckon I’ll have to vote for Mohler/Piper ’08, lol.

  6. if we vote for paul and he loses and we take votes away from huckabee then someone none of us want gets elected I guess is my idea behind that.

  7. Matt,

    Glad to see you supporting Dr. Paul. I too support him and his stance on basically everything from the War in Iraq to his unbending dedication to the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution. What greater Christian ethic can their be than an adherence to the established laws, provided they submit to God’s law.

    One thing though, isolationists is not the correct term for Dr. Paul’s foreign policy, nor the founders. A more accurate description would be non-interventionist. IOW, Dr. Paul is for trading and keeping good relationships with other countries, including being anti-excessive trade tariffs and for true open trade borders, but against militarily forcing ourselves on other countries. The United States has no constitutional authority to “police the world”, but we have the obligation to set an example for the world to follow.

    Anyway, I think you have made an outstanding choice in Dr. Paul and thanks for blogging about him.


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: