This is in response to an article by Thomas Berry that appeared on The Patriot Post a little while back. I will go through line-by-line to dispel some of this misinformation. You can see the full article here.
"For example, do those who believe this claim expect Romney to be as blatantly disrespectful of the office, dignity and traditions of the presidency as Obama has been? Do they really think that a President Romney would tolerate gay rights activists using a White House reception in their honor to photograph each other making obscene gestures in front of President Reagan's portrait?"
First off, I don't think Romney would have any more control over that than Obama did. He's a terrible president, but we should have valid reasons for calling him that. More on this later. As far as your comment about the dignity and traditions of the presidency, as far as I am concerned the most important duty of the president is uphold his oath of office. I think failing to do that is the most disrespectful thing the POTUS could do. In that regard, I admit that yes, I do believe Romney would be as "blatantly disrespectful" as Obama is.
"Do they really believe that a President Romney would tolerate in his administration an Attorney General who openly lies to Congress, let alone endorse and defend him as Obama has done with Eric Holder?"
I'm not sure about this. I do think Romney, if ever faced with a scandal such as this, would play it off politically. Either way, even Fast and Furious is a minor issue compared to our looming debt and bond-bubble crises.
"Do they expect a President Romney to force people of faith to violate their consciences by funding or participating in practices that violate the tenets of their religions, as Obamacare will do to opponents of abortion and contraception in less than two months?"
He sure did in Massetchusets. He has already made it very clear that he would violate my conscience by funding wars that go against the "just war" theory that many Christians hold. In the grand scheme of things, I think killing people aren't the world with bombs overshadows my tax money going to condoms. I do, however, disagree with both.
"Would President Romney pack the Supreme Court with clearly prejudiced judges nominated solely for their fealty to his agenda, as Obama did with Justice Kagan?"
I suspect it wouldn't matter a whole lot if he did, the rule of law is kaput these days, anyway.
"Do they expect a Romney presidency to be a cesspool of corruption like Obama's quickly became? Do they think a President Romney would hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in kickbacks, disguised as guaranteed loans, to backers and bundlers, as Obama did with Solyndra?"
In short, yes I do. He's taken a lot of money from a lot of special interests so far in this election cycle. I doubt he would do it with a Solyndra-type of scandal, but more bailouts of "too big to fail" companies is definitely something he has publicly spoken in support of before.
"Would President Romney bow to foreign leaders"
Metaphorically, to Israel and the UN, I'm sure.
He said he wouldn't stop foreign aid. That is one point. I think he would make a lot more enemies, however, with his aggressive foreign policy.
"and stab allies in the back, as Obama has done?"
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm more worried about him stabbing the US Constitution in the... back, so to speak, than "allies."
"Would he betray close friends, as the Obama administration did in leaking Israel's once-secret plans to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons program, supporting election of Muslim Brotherhood members who vow war with Israel in Arab Spring countries, then giving said countries $800 million?"
I have a hard time considering the "plans" to attack Iran leaked. It's a pretty well-known fact that Israel would strike if they thought Iran had them. As far as supporting the election of Muslim Brotherhood members, I think destabilizing the middle east in an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy is radicalizing their populations and making it fertile ground for groups like the MB to plant seeds.
"Did Governor Romney sit for twenty years under the preaching of a radical minister who called for God to damn America and referred to the country as the "U.S. Of KKK A"? Would President Romney form his view of the country from such hate? On the contrary: Romney's faith has strong roots in traditional, unequivocal patriotism and love of America."
Um.. he's a Mormon. Not to point out the obvious, but they believe in some pretty whacky things. And he acted as a missionary for them. How does his faith have strong roots in patriotism and love of America? By believing the second coming of Christ happened here? This entire paragraph is a flare to distract people from what matters.
"Is Governor Romney a pathological liar like the President? Ben Smith of Buzzfeed Politics has documented 38 lies and fabrications, covering everything from ancestors to college, in Obama's autobiography, Dreams of My Father. One wonders if one of his dad's dreams was that his son would be a man of honor and truthfulness."
Please. Even a Romney apologist like you knows his record of flipping on issues. Yes he's a liar, and says anything to get elected.
"The claim that Obama and Romney have no differences is itself rooted in deceit. A headline on Congressman Paul's campaign site on June 22, 2012, states, "Romney No Different From Obama." The evidence cited for the claim is a video from the January 16 Republican candidates' debate of Governor Romney saying he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act.
The text accompanying the video fails to note that, in the video clip, Governor Romney goes on to explain in detail major differences between himself and the President -- and, by the way, Congressman Paul -- regarding defense, terrorism and national security."
This is where you've really riled me up. The NDAA is one of the major issues that we liberty activists cite in how Romney and Obama are no different. I watched the debate in its entirety, and Romney realizes that his stance on the bill was unpopular and attempted to distance himself from it. In his explainations, he actually said some of the very same stuff Obama has said in his defense of signing it. When it comes down to it, the indefinite detention of US citizens suspected of links to terrorism should not have been signed in to law, period. Both Obama and Romney have the same stance on this huge issue in that they have/would have signed the bill.
"Paul supporters are also circulating a video of Congressman Paul saying in a June 20 interview on MSNBC that "people have been misled into thinking that there's a big contest" between Obama and Romney.
Paul's backers use this video to claim there's no difference between the two; but then Congressman Paul explains that while he fails to see satisfactory difference in their philosophies of government, there are major differences in 'personality and power struggle.' As we saw in the examples of the Attorney General, religious freedom and the Supreme Court, there are undeniable major differences between Obama and Romney regarding 'philosophies of government.' "
You're kind of missing the point on this one. We don't cite anything that Dr. Paul says as instant truth, using his words as evidence in themselves. To claim that is intellectually dishonest. I noticed there was actually no refutation to what Dr. Paul said, either, just another claim of "undeniable major differences" between the two. Perhaps the main difference in Obama and Romney's philosophies is that, while Obama has a philosophy of complete statism, Romney has no philosophy whatsoever.
"For the Paul people to present these videos as evidence that there are no differences between Governor Romney and President Obama is flatly dishonest. Such a claim is like saying that Republicans and Democrats are the same. Both positions require deliberate disregard of factual evidence and willful acceptance of falsehood."
Yeah, this is kind of the point. Republicans and Democrats are the same in the exact way that we refer to Obama and Romney. There's no deliberate disregard of evidence. We have proof, and we cite it often.
"The claim that Obama and Romney are the same is also, much like Obama, childishly spiteful. Since their hero is out of the running, Paul's followers want to bring down his rival as well, thus ensuring Obama's reelection. While to his credit he still wants to influence the Republican party, Paul refuses to endorse Romney, even though his son, Senator Rand Paul, has done so to the Paul camp's chagrin."
No, we couldn't care less about Romney. Our goal isn't some demonic plot to bring him down; it's to restore liberty and sound money to our country. The spite that we have isn't our of a "we lost" attitude, and many still disagree with even that. We are spiteful because our country is being destroyed by morons who haven't the slightest understanding of what liberty really is, and we are being enslaves by debt and a police state because of it.
He ends with "From acceptance of delusion to willingness to believe and spread lies to indulgence of spite, I maintain that those who promulgate the notion of no differences between Obama and Romney are the same as the President and his supporters."
This might be the most ridiculous assertion of all. Attempt to follow the logic: we tell people that a vote for Romney is a vote for more big-government, aggressive foreign policy statism and he concludes: We are no different from Obama, after all.
What Mr. Berry fails to recognize throughout his "research" is that, unlike supporters of Romney who see it as an epic struggle between Republicans and Democrats, we Ron Paul supporters see it as a struggle between philosophies, culminating in a politician's stance on the issues. Not just social issues or petty politics, but core issues that affect our lives profoundly is what we focus on. When it comes to these issues--monetary policy of central banking, foreign interventionism, civil liberties--there really is no significant difference between our current president and Governor Romney. Attack pieces like this are delusions that need to be addressed and refuted so that those who have not awakened to the call of liberty are not further led astray.