Please login to continue
Forgot your password?
Recover it here.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up Now!

You are now logged into your account.

Sign Up for Free

Name
Email
Choose Password
Confirm Password

Menu
Posted on Aug 14, 2011 Print this Article

Santorum v. Paul on National Security and Marriage

The debate leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday may have changed the outcome.  Attention is focusing on Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who is developing the knack of answering a tough question without conceding the premise. The second-place finish of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who was expected by many to win, deserves closer examination.  For several years Paul and his noisy supporters have won a series of straw polls, even though the 76 year-old congressman's chances of being nominated in 2012 are even less than they were in 2008.  At events such as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Paul has done a masterful job of whipping up young voter/activists who seem to be focusing on his libertarian positions on marijuana legalization, combined with a leftist anti-war bent.

  

Rep. Paul also has embraced liberal positions on issues such as marriage−opposing any government effort to protect the institution and the rights of states to legally define marriage as the bond between one man and one woman.  Few Republicans have challenged Ron Paul's positions on military and social issues head on−until Iowa.

In the Thursday Fox News-sponsored debate leading up to the Ames Straw Poll, former  Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum confronted Paul on his libertarian views regarding foreign policy and marriage.  "Iran is not Iceland, Ron,"  Said Santorum.  "Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly." 

The senator's head-on challenges seemed to impress Iowa straw poll voters−one of whom said she was prepared to vote for Paul until she learned of his apparent unconcern about nuclear weapons in Iran.  Santorum was rewarded with better-than-expected results, allowing him to continue his campaign, against great odds.

Next time, one of the candidates might want to zero in on Ron Paul's votes to impose the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) Law and related policies on our military.  In June and again in September, 2010, Rep. Paul was among a handful of Republicans who voted to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military, which is usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  (Congresswoman Bachman voted to retain the current law in 2010.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney failed to state his position on the issue when the Center for Military Readiness surveyed presidential candidates in 2008.)

  

During the December 2010 lame-duck session, Congress voted to impose LGBT Law on our military with delayed implemention.  Final repeal of the 1993 law, which President Barack Obama has just "certified" will do no harm to our military, will actually create scores of serious problems that the administration currently is denying.

  

Ron Paul and his Libertarian supporters are free to promote that philosophy all day long, but they should stop trying to impose the LGBT agenda on men and women in uniform. To be consistent with their own "leave us alone" mantra, libertarians need to draw the line at the military's door. Unlike the civilian world, the All-Volunteer Force restricts individual freedom within itself to protect that same freedom for the rest of us.

Every presidential candidate should be asked questions that provide insight into what they would do to mitigate or reverse the damage done by imposition of LGBT Law in our military.  National security is not a game and the future of our military should not be put at risk just to please the LGBT−or Libertarian−Left.

 

                                                            * * * * * * *

Posted on Aug 14, 2011 Print this Article