Ron Paul: Our Next President?

 David Alan Black  

We are living in a day when those in high places seem to put far more value on political expediency than they do on fundamentals. In recent years we have witnessed federal departments and agencies encroaching on the Bill of Rights to advance political policies to a degree matched only by that of the Lincolnian era. The United States has converted itself into an international Santa Claus who scatters untold billions of dollars of the patrimony of our people among multitudes of foreign nations in the pious hope that America can thereby purchase friends and peace in the international world and induce foreign nations to reform their internal affairs in ways pleasing to the dispensers of our largess.

It is my conviction that the time has come for a new kind of leader in America. If I had my way, what would our next president be like?

He would be a man of devotion to good government, which by definition is limited constitutional government, and to the freedoms of individuals as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and secured to them by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

He would be a man who unquestioningly supports the Constitution—a document that William Gladstone once described as the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man—which protects all American citizens from tyranny on the one hand and anarchy on the other.

He would be a man who recognizes that a government that is not a government of laws is a despotism; that occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it; and that the Founders desired above all else to secure to the people in a written Constitution every right that they had wrested from autocratic rulers while they were struggling for the right of self-rule and freedom.

He would be a man who recognizes that rights come from God Himself and are therefore unalienable, i.e., they cannot be taken away; that the possession of these rights is absolutely necessary for a free society; and that violation of these rights by government is nothing less than tyranny.

He would be a man who understands that the supreme duty of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers is to defend the Constitution and to oppose all enactments that violate the supreme law of the land; that it is therefore improper to approve funds for any federal agency, program, or activity that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution; and that it is time to reduce the size of the federal government by abolishing or returning to the states all departments, agencies, or programs lacking constitutionally-granted authority.

He would be a man who believes that the pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image and that the first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.

He would be a man who understands that it is not the proper role of government to take money from one wage earner and transfer that wealth to another.

He would be a man who understands that all teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man; that education cannot be separated from religious faith; that God’s law assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents; and that education should therefore be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans.

He would be a man who understands that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense conferred on the individual and the community by God to safeguard life, liberty, and property; that this right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and that it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

He would be a man who recognizes that the Constitution speaks with finality, and that the oath of Supreme Court Justices to support it is worse than mockery if they do not discharge their duties agreeably to the Constitution.

He would be a man who recognizes that the most serious threat to good government and freedom in America is not posed by evil-minded men and women but by legislative and judicial activists who are bent on remaking America in the image of their own New World thinking.

He would be a man who teaches that earth yields nothing to man except the products of his own labor, and that free men cannot be induced to provide goods or services of value unless they are allowed to retain a fair share of the fruits of their labor for themselves, their families, and the causes they hold dear.

He would be a man who believes in a strong national defense but who will never sacrifice freedom or violate the Constitution for so-called “security.”

He would be a man who recognizes that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war.

He would be a man whose predominant characteristics are his personal integrity and humility.

He would be a man who remembers the injunction of Exodus 23:2: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.”

Two centuries ago, George Washington was the inevitable and unchallenged choice for president of the newly founded republic. He did not seek the office and was reluctant to accept it. He was uncertain of his ability to discharge the duties that would devolve upon him and was more than ready to retire to his beloved Mount Vernon after the exertions of the Revolutionary War. But the unanimous call of his countrymen was hardly less than a command to a man of his character and love of country.

Whether a new George Washington awaits us beyond the stormy horizon I cannot tell. Time will tell if America will ever decide to return to her roots. But I fervently hope and pray that she does.

Meantime, I have concluded that no current politician comes closer to my ideal of a good president than Mr. Constitution himself, Ron Paul. If you haven’t yet considered his credentials, you can start here.

November 1, 2007

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline