DISCLAIMER: The title of this post will strike some as overly harsh. It is meant to be severe, because the consequences of the sort of ignorance exposed here are severe for our country and for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I DON'T mean to imply that principled opposition to Ron Paul is ignorance; but rather to remonstrate against those who, though DEMONSTRABLY ignorant about issues pertaining to Dr. Paul, insist on maligning the character, intelligence, faith, or patriotism of us who support him. Mr. Petrovic is representative of hundreds of such detractors I have conversed with over the last few years. To him and those of his ilk, who persist in misrepresenting their opponents, an admonition: "Thou shall not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.
The following letter was published in the March 14th, 2012 edition of the Taney County Times:
On March 17th the Taney County Republican Party will hold its Caucus to appoint delegates for Missouri's Presidential Delegation to the convention in Florida. [sic]
All registered voters from Taney County are invited and if you value your country you should make an effort to be there.I have been hearing that a 501c4group [READ: Tera Sukman told me Ron Paul supporters would be there] is planning to try a takeover of the Caucus to promote a candidate that would allow Israel to be thrown under the bus, allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, would legalize drugs and basically take the United States into isolationism.
Yes, our beloved country is in trouble but this is not the way to solve the problem.This man is not electable and would only insure [sic] that the real problem is re-elected!
Please if you value this country come out Saturday morning to the Forsyth High School between 8:30 and 10 a.m. and help us elect honorable, thinking patriotic delegates to represent Taney County and Missouri at the National Convention!
Bill Petrovic
Christian, Conservative, Life NRA Member
Rockaway Beach
I replied on Facebook, and invited Bill Petrovic to respond. My first post (edited for syntax):
Mr. Petrovic:Bill Petrovic's nonreply:
I'm a "true American Patriot" and supporter of Ron Paul. Also, a Christian, and served seven years in the U.S. Air Force.
Non-interventionism isn't isolationism. A strong advocate for free trade (like Dr. Paul) can't logically be an isolationist. Dropping bombs on countries, especially while ignoring the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by Congress - that's isolationism.
Abolishing the federal Drug Enforcement Agency doesn't legalize drugs - it removes the Federal Government from an area it has no authority to be in, constitutionally. Missouri's drug laws will be determined by Missourians, not by President Ron Paul.
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and would turn Tehran into a toxic waste dump if Iran somehow built a nuclear weapon and miraculously got it delivered. Far more dangerous is North Korea with nukes - whatever happened to that issue?
Due to America's long history of intervention in the mideast, Christians are now fearing for their lives in Egypt and Iraq, and Iran has more influence than they ever would've had we not foolishly overthrown their government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Predictably, Iranians finally succeeded in overthrowing our stooge, the Shah. So we backed Saddam Hussein in war against them. Hundreds of thousands died.
I can't for the life of me see why Iran would think of America as an enemy!
We also backed the future Taliban against the Soviets, and hobknobbed with Osama bin Laden.
So, yes, we have a very impressive record in foreign affairs - let's go to war with Iran, and see if we can start WW III.
And if I don't like the idea - I'm not a patriot?
We tolerate nukes in Pakistan - you know, our good friend to whom we gave $billions, and in return thay gave safe harbor to bin Laden.
And what about the nukes in China? And India? Oh, and Russia?
One nuke in Iran is not a good thing by any means. But compared to North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India...well I don't see the threat. What I see is Iran selling oil to other countries using currencies other than the dollar - which is not to be tolerated. Our government can't admit that the war it's started (REALITY CHECK: trade sanctions are acts of war, not diplomatic gestures) is about preserving the American Empire - hence the massive myth machine excretes copious helpings of fear and angst to the effect that Iran is capable of nuking Israel and threatening our shores. Sadly, Neoconned Christians help promulgate such nonsense with eschatological superstitions emanating more from televangelists' imaginations than from Scripture.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6a
By the way, the promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18). Israel achieved suzerainty over this area during the height of Solomon's rule (1 Kings 4:21),and actually God fulfilled His promise to Abraham four centuries earlier (Joshua 21:43-45). This I found when looking to Scripture rather than to John Hagee.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a prophetic restoration of NATIONAL Israel yet to come. In that case, it would involve a Christian Jewish group, not a secular movement like Zionism (cf. Romans 11:23), and it wouldn't be a little swath of land along the Mediterranean, but rather a large area extending from present day Egypt to Baghdad.
You characterize Ron Paul as anti-Israel; my guess is you are unaware of the following: "Ron Paul was one of the only Congressmen who voted against condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981. '[A]lmost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives. ' "
Other myths about Ron Paul's foreign policies are rebutted here: http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/foreign-policy.php
Please stop with the jingoism and pretending that other Christians aren't patriots if they don't share your eschatology.
Steve, I can't as a Christian support anyone who is pro choice which Paul is! He is also for Same Sex Marriage. And I've stated that I can't support him for his views on Iran. Let me ask you a question, Will you support whoever the Republican Party Nominates even if it isn't Paul????Note the complete failure to engage: all transmission, no reception. Bill didn't address even one (1) of my points, which were direct responses to claims made in his letter. This is very typical of Ron Paul's opponents. They freely report hearsay as fact, ignore all facts cited against their position, and then proceed to introduce yet more hearsay. In so doing, anti-Paulite Christians routinely bear false witness, apparently with no regard for God's word (Exodus 20:16). They ignore questions posed to them, but insist that their questions be answered.
This is a lamentable state of affairs in the Church purchased by Jesus Christ. Christians disagree about eschatology, a prime factor in ensuing disagreements over politics. This is no license to lie about each other.
Anyway, my response to Bill Petrovic, talebearer:
Bill,More thoughts came, that I hoped Bill would address, especially GOP complicity in the pernicious clause hidden in this year's Defense appropriation:
You're mistaken. Ron Paul is against both abortion and homosexual marriage.
As President, Paul would ask Congress to take abortion out of the jurisdiction of federal courts. Since the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, Roe v. Wade would be nullified. This is a different approach then conservatives have been using. Have you noticed that the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade by getting the right judges in office haven't worked?
Do you trust Santorum on the abortion issue? If so, do you know he voted for an appropriations bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you know that he supported Arlen Specter for President, when Specter's campaign started with a diatribe against pro-lifers in the Republican Party?
Do you believe that Romney was pro-choice when he ran for office in Massachusetts, but when he decided to run for President he became pro-life? Isn't that a bit much to swallow?
Do you believe Santorum is far more conservative than Romney? If so, why did Santorum endorse Romney in 2008, instead of say, Huckabee?
RE: homosexual marriage. Ron Paul believes marriage is a sacrament, and that the government should stay out of it. He would not interfere if states want to regulate it, or ban homosexual marriage, but he personally thinks the government should have nothing to do with marriage. If you think government is right to be in the marriage business, that is your opinion - it doesn't give you the right to misrepresent the views of Dr. Paul.
Will I support the Republican nominee? As of now, absolutely not! But I will reconsider when you address my points about our history of involvement with Iran, and explain to me why Billy Long and Roy Blunt voted to give President Obama power to have me arrested by the military with no right to habeas corpus, if Obama thinks I'm a threat. The "Tea Party Headquarters" in Branson supported both Long and Blunt. And Long and Blunt support Romney, as Santorum did in 2008. I want my kids to live in a free country, and vote accordingly.
Bill,Just as the crickets prepared to start their symphony, Bill Petrovic, caught VWI (voting while ignorant), issues another bit of hearsay, while carefully avoiding every point I raised:
Your letter also claimed that Ron Paul is unelectable.
Ron Paul is the most electable of the GOP candidates. That's because the others are very similar to Obama, who is smart enough to use that fact against them.
Imagine Santorum trying to denounce Obama's wild spending, and Obama comes right back and reminds everyone that Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, and supported "No Child Left Behind."
Imagine Barack Obama saying this to Rick Santorum:"Senator Santorum, I agree with you that spending needs to be reigned in, but how do the American people take you seriously when you voted for George Bush's unfunded prescription drug bill that now costs taxpayers $60 billion per year. And far, far worse than that plan projects $16 Trillion, that's trillion with a T, in unfunded liabilites, according to the ultra-conservative Club for Growth."
How's Santorum going to answer that?
How?
Now, imagine Ron Paul attacking Barack Obama for his wreckless spending.
Obama responds: "Yes, you've earned the name 'Dr. No', 'cuz you know how to say 'no.' But folks are hurting, and 'no' doesn't help the single mom who can't afford daycare so she can look for work, or the young woman who's birth control pills are going sky high because of cruel restrictions supported by Republicans."
Dr. Paul responds by sharing about the times he delivered babies for free, and then gives a short tutorial on the Constitution, and how irresponsible it is to promise to take care of people with unsustainable entitlement programs.
Then Dr. Paul points out the hypocrisy of Obama's airstrikes against Libya his push for war with Syria and Iran, after campaigning on opposition to Bush's wars.
Paul already polls competitively against Obama. If the American people had a chance to focus on the differences between them, they'd be much more enthused about Paul than anyone is about either Romney or Santorum. </>
Sorry Steve, I've heard with my own ears Paul say Same Sex Marriage is OK.Unsuccessful thus far in my attempts to get Bill off his script and into a dialogue, I go all provincial on him:
Bill,
This is Missouri. Show me!
Another appeal by me...
It would be nice if a Santorum supporter - Bill, anyone - would address some of the points of my first post in this thread....Results in an Edith Ann moment, courtesy of Bill:
Steve, you can't change my mind about Ron Paul. He can't win the nomination so don't push Him to me! Let Eric vote for him, I Won't..And that's the truth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I
