photo credit: Gage Skidmore


You are a complicated man, you know that?

I know many people who think you are the embodiment of deception, seeking to lead an otherwise truth-seeking people off a cliff. To such people, I often stand up for you, noting that you do say some great things from time to time, and have, for example, referred many people to read good books by men far smarter than you or I. You’re not all bad, I say, though emphatically emphasizing that I disagree with you on many things.

Many things.

I try and give you the benefit of the doubt. As you often say, you’re learning as you go along, and progressing towards a libertarian viewpoint. Just the other day, as you have in the past, you told one of your guests that you consider yourself libertarian. So I think to myself: “okay, he’s slowly waking up, maybe he’ll continue to improve over time.”

But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.

Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.

But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.

This morning, however, you said something that cannot stand without a rebuttal. You attacked Ron Paul, which isn’t a surprise, but you brought our mutual religion (yours and mine, not mine and Dr. Paul’s) into the picture.

Here’s the four minute audio clip:

And now, the rebuttal.

Glenn, you stay true to form by within this very clip saying something reasonable and agreeable, before you spout some nonsense. In talking about the voting patterns of some Catholics voting for Santorum and some Mormons voting for Romney on the basis of their shared religion, you said: “Don’t vote for the guy who holds the card of your church. Vote for the guy whose principles you agree with….” This is fine, and I agree. Get past the labels, and support others on the basis of their policies, not their church membership.

It seems that in suggesting that we vote based on principles, that you were insinuating that we should vote for somebody who espouses the principles that are part of our church, and not necessarily the guy who “holds the card” of membership in that church. In other words, Catholics should vote for the candidate who best espouses principles compatible with their faith (which may not be Santorum), Mormons should vote for the guy who comes closest to the principles of their faith (which may not be Romney), etc.

With that as your lead-in, you then launched an attack on the idea that some Mormons support Ron Paul, apparently flabbergasted that a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might believe that this man best espouses the principles of our faith.

Mitt Romney just won in Arizona, getting 93% of the Mormon vote (based on exit polling) compared to Ron Paul getting a puny 3%. And yet the fact that Ron Paul attracted so few Mormon votes sent you into a near-apoplectic fit.

“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… Ron Paul?! Help me get my arms around this,” you pleaded. “How do you, if you’re somebody who is abiding by the principles taught by the [LDS] Church, how are you going for Ron Paul?”

Seriously, Glenn?

I have to assume here that you didn’t read the copy of my book (endorsed by Ron Paul, by the way) which I sent to your producer, who confirmed that you had received it. Had you read it, you would have gotten your answer. (Though I’m not entirely sure that your question is sincere.)

But that’s okay. You’re a busy man. I get it. So let me quickly spell it out for you.

Members of the LDS Church are often taught that the Constitution was an inspired document created by men raised up by God for that very purpose. Our scriptures command us to support good, honest, and wise men for public office, and to uphold the Constitution. Only Ron Paul has consistently abided by his oath of office to support and defend this document, consistently voting against bills that violate its provisions. No other candidate can claim this constitutional fidelity.

Church leaders have been no less emphatic in suggesting the need for Latter-day Saints to uphold the Constitution. Our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, called the Constitution a “glorious standard” and a “heavenly banner” by which we should stand. Ezra Taft Benson, a prophet whom you’ve quoted on your program, taught that Mormons “must be vigilant in doing our part to preserve the Constitution and safeguard the way of life it makes possible.” Another, Spencer W. Kimball, said that each member of the church “should sustain, honor, and obey” the Constitution.

Countless other quotes exist, all affirming the same idea: Mormons should support the Constitution. It is on this basis that some members of the LDS Church object to the candidacies of the non-Paul presidential contenders. Each has consistently and repeatedly voted and advocated for unconstitutional policies.

The other candidates want to “fix” and prop up unconstitutional federal welfare schemes, but Ron Paul wants to allow people to opt out, and push the programs down to the state level as is required by the Constitution.

The other candidates have said that they would have signed the recent National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the President to indefinitely detain American citizens, but Ron Paul rightly called it an “egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas.”

The other candidates want to send our soldiers into more immoral, unjust, offensive wars without any constitutional declaration, but Ron Paul abides by the specific, war-related provisions of the Constitution and understands the Christian just war theory.

The other candidates want to maintain and increasingly empower the torture-enabling detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and elsewhere, escalate our current wars, and lead us into another with Iran—saying, as Romney has about our supposed enemies, that “we go anywhere they are, and we kill them”—but Ron Paul instead suggested that we consider applying the golden rule, as taught by Jesus Christ, to our foreign policy.

The other candidates have supported unconstitutional bailouts which violate the law of the harvest, while Ron Paul, after voting against TARP, said that such bailouts are “exactly the wrong thing to do.”

The other candidates have supported the unconstitutional intervention of government into the economy in the form of “stimulus packages” while Ron Paul has consistently argued that “it makes no sense whatsoever.”

On these benchmarks alone, the other candidates fail in contrast to Ron Paul, the self-described (and generally recognized) “champion of the Constitution.” I agree with your previous point, that we should judge a candidate based on principle, not religion. Doing so yields one clear answer: Constitution-loving Mormons, along with those of all or no faith, should vote for Ron Paul.

But in your predictable smear (you’ve made a name for yourself of helping torpedo good candidates just prior to elections), you did list a few specific objections—ones which you apparently feel disqualify Ron Paul from being the candidate who most closely matches the principles of your fellow Mormons.

You stated that the legalization of prostitution and drugs, and “not standing up for Israel,” were the gross sins of Representative Ron Paul. Are you kidding me? Are you that much of a fool, Glenn, that you believe that these objections of yours to Ron Paul, the closest thing we’ve got to a founding father, are sufficient to speculate as to why any God-fearing Mormon would ever consider voting for the guy?

You’ve hit a new low.

First off, there is a difference between legalizing something and decriminalizing it. Second, Ron Paul as President would have no power to decriminalize drugs or prostitution around the country. He would only be able to encourage federal legislation which he could sign, that would correctly (and constitutionally) leave the issue to the states. So, again, another point for Ron Paul.

Then there’s your Israel fetish. You think that Ron Paul is “not standing up for Israel.” Allow me to clarify. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and almost the entire Congress voted in support of a resolution condemning the act, who was one of the very few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself? Ron Paul. Keep in mind that this was the Reagan party, with some of the most hawkish anti-Communists and the staunchest Christian conservatives. Was Ron Paul not standing up for Israel then, Glenn?

Ron Paul strongly supports Israel’s right to self-determination. As President, he would be the only one who would seek to eliminate the billions of dollars in aid sent by our government to Israel’s enemies. He believes and repeatedly says that we should be friendly with and supportive of Israel, but that we should not be their master. Only he advocates that we should “refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.”

Ron Paul is very supportive of Israel, and rightly recognizes that they have sufficient military strength to deal with their enemies. Guess who agrees with Ron Paul? Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Glenn, you’re wrong. You’re contradicting yourself. You’re saying things that simply aren’t true.

In fact, there are plenty of reasons why a faithful Mormon might vote for Ron Paul. Open the copy of Latter-day Liberty sitting on your bookshelf, and you might realize why Ron Paul endorsed a book written by a Mormon, which helps fellow Church members (including you) understand why the very principles of liberty that Ron Paul happens to support are so compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“How do you, if you’re somebody who is abiding by the principles taught by the [LDS] Church, how are you going for Ron Paul?” you asked. If you’re really interested in learning the answer to your question, read the book. It shouldn’t be too hard for a Mormon and self-described libertarian such as yourself to put two and two together. If you’ve got sincere questions, I’m happy to answer.

Until then, stop saying stupid things. Please?


Related Posts (automatically generated)

Continue reading at the original source →