Ron Paul Campaign Hits 40,000 Meetup Group Members
Ron Paul had an extra reason to smile as the impressive figure of 40,000 volunteers had been met, which is a substantial amount more than Barack Obama, the candidate with the second best Meetup organization who has 5,801 members.
~September 5th, 2007 by Ryan of Product Reviews Net
Click to read article

Why is Ron Paul so much more popular than Barack Obama?

Ron Paul, like Obama, enjoys popularity because he has voiced an anti-war position with regard to the former socialist dictatorship in Iraq from the very beginning. But the huge difference is Obama is a dedicated Marxist whose anti-war sentiments rise from his left-wing hate-the-heroic-individualism-of-America state of consciousness, whereas Ron Paul is a genuine American hero whose anti-war sentiments rise from his unflinching integrity in defense of Constitutional process.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates play left field shaded so far to the left that they are in foul territory. Ron Paul plays in center field and says only "let's play by the rules." Barack Obama would say it's better for America to lose wars if winning would give freedom-loving Republicans any credit. Ron Paul says it's better for America to win any war it fights, but America can only win if Congress seems 100% behind the effort.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats have done everything possible to assure an American loss and an American embarassment because they are fundamentially anti-capitalist, which means anti-freedom. Ron Paul says America can only win and not be embarassed if most Americans are pulling in the same direction ... but without a Congressional Declaration of War, there was never any hope of most Americans pulling in the same direction.

Barack Obama wants us to believe all wars are evil ... unless of course initiated by a Democrat, a socialist government, or a radical Islamist group. Ron Paul says we must not be afraid to fight in our defense, or to fight for right, but there must be a proper Constitutional process so the entire country is united behind the effort.

Barack Obama pretends to be anti-war. But put him or Clinton or Edwards in the White House, and they will escalate their Marxist war against American free-enterprise and individual freedom. Ron Paul says governments start wars, not free citizens. He understands that individual freedom and free enterprise, not socialism, is the only way to assure world peace.

Big difference! See also: A Brand New Republican Party?

The device which prepares libertarians for success, A Course in Miracles, has much to say about world peace starting with each individual:

How is peace possible in this world? Certainly peace seems to be impossible here. Yet the Word of God has promised peace. God gave the Holy Spirit to you, and gave Him the mission to remove all doubt, and every trace of guilt. Thus He is your Guide in choosing. He is in the part of your mind that always speaks for the right choice. He separates the true from the false by His ability to perceive totally rather than selectively. The Holy Spirit is the way in which God's Will is done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Available free of charge online:
Course in Political Miracles

Technorati tags:
, , , , ,
, , , , ,,,, ,

  1. Tex September 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM  

    I agree entirely. Ron Paul's antiwar position is from a truly individualist standpoint and Barack Obama's (along with most of the other Democratic candidates who claim to be for peace) is from the perspective of sheer subjectivism.

    Ron Paul has convinced me, me who supported the invasion, that he is correct. That Barry Goldwater in saying war should be rare was correct. I still think the Iraq military effort was worthwhile but why did we stay?

    Ron Paul recognizes something that only historical scholars and, actually, a number of people who lived through World War II understand. That is that we catch more flies with honey than with salt; in other words, war must be the last resort if we are to remain a free country and have allies around the world.

    I hope that Ron Paul's campign continues to be as blessed as it has been... if he does not win, then he is still having an incredible impact on the general political landscape, and that is as important as anything.

  2. Todd Steinberg September 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM  

    Hello, I found you via a comment from a RP article. I plan to read some of the articles from your blog. I was inspired to come up with a spiritual based libertarian blog too from my religious perspective:

  3. Anonymous September 12, 2007 at 3:15 AM  

    I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and I have absolutely no enthusiasm for an Obama presidency. Not for the differences that this posting claims to find between the two candidates, however.

    Paul wants to pull all servicemen out of Iraq, back to the United States, immediately. Obama (and all of the other leading Democratic candidates) wants to "redeploy" the majority of troops -- with many to be placed in Kuwait or other friendly gulf states -- and to leave a force of 30,000 or so in Iraq "to avert a bloodbath" (as if our 160,000 troops were able to avert the one that has been taking place for the last four years). Paul wants to end military operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Obama not only wants to stay in Afghanistan, but talks about launching an attack on Pakistan (!). Paul opposes sanctions against Iran, and says that we should not threaten a nuclear strike against Iran. Obama supports sanctions and says that the option of nuking Iran should not be taken off the table... And on, and on, and on. Ron Paul is consistently opposed to military interventions abroad, while Obama supports many.

    I don't see how this squares with your thesis that Obama's stance on Iraq betokens a wish that America fail. If he wanted America to fail, as punishment for its capitalism, and if withdrawal from military engagements constituted "failure," wouldn't he take positions more like Paul's?

    What you miss is the real disagreement between the two candidates, which is a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy and utility of interference in the affairs of other nations. If you want to tie Obama's foreign policy to "Left-wing" ideas, it would be far more logical to compare his willingness to threaten force against Iran and Pakistan, on the one hand, and his willingness to tax, regulate, and otherwise boss around Americans. (I happen to think that this is poppycock, as history has offered up for more leaders with a taste for warmongering than with a taste for "social justice" legislation, but I digress).

    In any case, though, I'm glad that we can agree in our support of Ron Paul.