“Today I announce with God’s help, with the help of liberty lovers everywhere, that I am putting myself forward as a candidate for President of the United States of America.” – Rand Paul
The two most conservative candidates, in my estimation, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have announced they are going to run for president. Rand Paul’s announcement today has drawn remarkable coverage from the left and the right.
I speak as only one member of the KC community, but as it stands, my vote is with the Kentucky Senator. Here are five reasons I stand with Rand:
First, Rand Paul is already being attacked by hawkish, neo-conservative ads. According to the neo-cons, there is no room for diplomacy. We need sanctions and more sanctions. This line of reasoning is both archaic and a proven failure. What is it that makes Rand so unique in this field? The National Journal observes:
Despite being from the party often thought of as the home of defense hawks and ballooning defense budgets, Paul has spent most of his tenure in the Senate challenging foreign-aid disbursements, the U.S. spy apparatus, and—in a defining 13-hour filibuster—where to draw the line on overseas drone strikes.
Rand Paul’s constitutional principles mean that he will always seek congressional approval before voting in favor of war; a principle very few have followed. In this sense, Rand Paul’s skepticism of America’s foreign ventures makes him an excellent candidate, in my estimation.a
Second, Rand Paul opposes the government’s continual abuse of power by spying on millions of Americans. While many politicians are willing to give the government a carte blanche, Paul wants to constrain surveillance.
Third, Rand follows, at least in part, some of the Austrian school of economics as it relates to the Federal Reserve’s role in setting interest rates and its affect on the national economy. Who controls the money controls the country. Rand Paul, like his father before him, “wants a full review of the financial records of America’s central bank — and its decision making.” As Paul has stated in a recent op-ed piece:
“If the Federal Reserve was a real bank, without extraordinary powers, it would be insolvent.”b
Fourth, Rand Paul appears to be pro-life. The reason I say “appears,” is because I do not trust politicians’ claims until they are truly tested during the campaign. Paul’s position seems to be in principle pro-life. Life News reports:
When it comes to pro-life issues, there is little doubt Paul is pro-life and, on 10 votes on pro-life issues cast in the Senate during his tenure, Paul has a 100% pro-life voting record — voting against Obamacare, to stop abortion funding with taxpayer dollars, and protecting the conscience rights of pro-life people. Paul has said “personal religious belief” is that life begins at conception.
On his campaign web site, Paul makes his pro-life views very clear.
“I strongly believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Under the 14th Amendment, it is the government’s duty to protect life as defined in our Constitution,” he says. “As a physician, one of the first things we learn is to ‘Do no harm.’ Since Roe v. Wade decision, over 50 million children have been killed in abortion procedures. As President, I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade, in an effort to stop harming the lives of the unborn.”
Paul continues: “Our government should not be responsible for funding abortions, and as President, I will attempt to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion. I believe we may be able to save millions of lives, and do no harm, by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. By giving this power to the states, I sincerely believe we would save hundreds of thousands of lives.”
I will be closely monitoring his claims throughout the campaign, since the life issue is of tremendous importance to the flourishing of any society.
Finally, and this is the elephant in the room, I am thrilled about Rand Paul’s candidacy for president because he is Ron Paul’s son. I was a staunch supporter of Ron Paul’s platform, though not a strong supporter of Ron Paul as rhetorician and strategist. I think the elder Paul made some strategic blunders that I hope his son avoids. Rand needs to avoid spending time with Alex Jones and some of the media outlets that are too conspiratorial and hyper-libertarian for the general public. These interviews will simply distract people from seeing Rand as an authentic candidate that is not easily blown by every wind of doctrine.
Rand is much more capable of following his father’s footsteps and ideals with an irenic spirit. He is a reconciler, a compromiser in the healthiest of sense, and someone who can clearly work across the aisle. And in politics, you need to do that.
For these reasons, and certainly many others, I stand with Rand on this first day of his candidacy.
-
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: [The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (back)
- For more information, get Ron Paul’s wonderful book “End the Fed” http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul-ebook/dp/B002N0ADQG (back)
Many have attached the hermeneutic of interpretive maximalism (Hence IMax.) to James Jordan’s theology. In his 1990 article What is Interpretive Maximalism, Jordan affirms that this hermeneutic contrasts with the minimalist interpreter. David Chilton is his famous Revelation commentary was the first to apply directly the rich nature of Jim’s theology to John’s inspired account. Jordan himself had already given a clear example of that hermeneutic in his Judges commentary, which Chilton references.
