Ron Paul: Hypocrite or Liar

Bookmark and Share    One of the things that I really want to see happen during the Republican presidential nomination contest is someone take Ron Paul to task. In the recent presidential debate, Rick Santorum began to do so but the limitations of the debate precluded anyone from really shedding some light on the Ron Paul myth.

To me, Ron Paul is a career politician, a hypocrite, and for someone who is credited for being some sort of anti-establishment knight in shining armor, he is as much a part of the establishment as any other person who has served as a Congressman for nearly two decades. But the real source of my disdain for Ron Paul’s politics stems from his dangerous, head-in-the-sand, isolationist defense and foreign policy positions. It is this area where I not only disagree with Ron Paul, but where his obnoxious repetition of the same isolationist, bumper-sticker slogan, remarks offend me.

According to Ron Paul, not only does the United States need to apologize to the world, we should have no part in world affairs. That is the exact same type of thinking which allowed two planes to fly into the World Trade Center, another in to the Pentagon, and a fourth one into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Yet according to Congressman Paul, as he said in a 2008 presidential debate, we brought that upon ourselves.

Ron Paul is correct when he claims that we could cut spending at the Pentagon. Being a government controlled department, I am sure that there are some programs that can be dispensed with and savings costs that can be found while still allowing the D.O.D. to to operate effectively. However, he is not correct to suggest that the United States has no interests or national defense interests in the Middle East. He lies when he says as he did in the last debate that we went in to Iran to find al Qaeda and didn’t find them. And that we went there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and didn’t find them” First of all we did not go there to find al Qaeda and secondly not only were WMD’s just one of many reasons for going to Iraq, we also found evidence that Saddam did have, and was developing WMD’s. The fact that Ron Paul would blatantly lie to create a punch line that offers a cue for his obnoxious followers to cheer at with screams, yells, and deafening shouts, truly disgusts me.

It further disgusts me when Ron Paul wants to balance the budget by having the United States turn its back on the cause of liberty and in the defense of this nation. It is my understanding that the primary responsibility of our government is to defend us. As such, if the government spends money on anything, it is the military and not much else. Ron Paul himself believes that unless something is specifically authorized by the Constitution, Congress should not pay for it.

Or does he?

Just looking at Ron Paul’s most recent legislative history, not his ancient history, but his recent history, Ron Paul who is an ardent opponent of federal subsidies, sponsored legislation that would have the government provide $2.3 million to fund research into shrimp-fishing, $8 million to pay for marketing of wild American shrimp, and money for renovating an old movie theater in Edna, Texas that closed in 1977. He is also the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in a water resource bills, including two projects to improve the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, at a combined federal cost of roughly $400 million.

Ron Paul even wants the federal government to flip the bill for removing a sunken ship from Freeport Harbor in Texas. The self proclaimed King of less government even wants the feds to take charge of maintaining a Texas waterway called the Pix Bayou Navigation Channel. In 2007 alone  Congressman Hypocrite had 65 earmarks. All totaled they amounted to the tune $400 million.

Another great example of Paul’s false image is his support for term limits . While he supports them and his newly elected senator son in Kentucky has sponsored term limit legislation, Ron Paul has served 11 terms in the House. In other words, he is saying hey, don’t do what I do. Now that’s the kind of leadership we need. For his part, Ron says that he believes in term limits but not not self limits. That is like speaking about  the virtues of having self control while drinking your 18th shot of tequila while sprawled out on the floor of your neighborhood bar with your pants around your ankles.

Ron Paul’s libertarianism has many commendable ideas but he is hardly principled. Principles are solid stands that one takes based on the sincerity of their beliefs. Principles are not just preached, they are practiced. If they aren’t, then the one who preaches but doesn’t practice those principles is nothing less than a hypocrite.

Ultimately, Ron Paul represents a noble cause, but he is not a noble representative of that cause. His type of reckless, holier-than-thou, na na na-na-na, childish, libertarianism is more harmful than helpful. As the poster boy for left-wing libertarians, Ron Paul has demonstrated that his political hypocrisy has a limited ceiling of support that he is unable to build upon. If the proper principles of  libertarianism are to ever be applied to government, the movement needs someone who is capable of uniting Libertarians with Republicans. Much of the TEA movement has a libertarian streak, but many of these people are “Responsible Libertarians”. They do not believe in anarchy but they do believe, to paraphrase Texas Governor Rick Perry, ‘that Washington DC should be as inconsequential to our lives as possible’ but should not relinquish its responsibility to defend and protect our liberty.

Now it is my greatest hope that at least one of the Republican presidential candidates actually has the chance to call Ron Paul out for what he is truly is, and take the utmost advantage of that opportunity.  And as for my fellow commonssense conservative Republicans, the next time one of Ron Paul’s petulant, holier than thou, followers stands up and screams when they hear something they don’t like, scream back and tell them to stop drinking the kool aid.

Bookmark and Share

12 Responses

  1. Spend a bit of time studying, instead of complaining and you’ll find out that Ron Paul was 100% accurate and Santorum, who wants to “spread freedom around the world” on your dime, was very wrong. Santorum likes sanctions, too and guess who they hurt? They always hurt the innocent in a country.

    Ron Paul is anything but a “career politician.” He’s consistent in the way he votes and consistent with the Constitution. Lobbyists don’t ever bother going to his office.

    Ron Paul is a veteran. He believes in a strong national defense, which is not the same things as policing the world, nor is it the same thing as the war profiteering, Military Industrial Complex. The lack of knowledge in this piece of ranting fluff, is what’s disgusting. It’s down right defamation!

    I won’t bother with the rest of this opinion piece, not backed up with any sources or FACTS. I encourage you to read any of a number of Dr. Paul’s wonderful and affordable books, which include exhaustive bibliographies and citition for verification. View any of a plethora of interviews, where Ron Paul consistently fights for our liberties and sound money over the decades. Perhaps you’d be grateful and…. ashamed of this drivel.

    Want to scream? Use FACTS and with those, you won’t be screaming at Paul or his supporters. I’ve looked at all the “conservative” records. None of them have clean, let alone truly classic Republican, records. I’d suggest you do the same, since you obviously have way to much time on your hands.

    • Hey Blunder Woman, I don’t see your support. And I don’t see your ability to deny the fact that Paul supported the subsidies in question. I don’t see your abiity to dispute the hypocrissy of supporting term limits while he is growing older by the two dozen years he has been a Washington politician. Sorry, Ron Paul is a hypocrite and an unaccomplished legislator who has been unable to lead in a way that has hepled apply his thinking, as hypocritical as it is, to government. I find his naive foreign policy positions to be reckless and his attempots to paint himself as the only person in America who believes in the United States Constitution to be a irrational and tiresome.

      You may like Ron paul, that’s fine, but most Ron Paul supporters support him by blasting the beliefs of others more than they advance the beliefs he supposedly stands for. This piece simply points out the flaws in Ron Paul. I am not making the point by comparing him to others or by blaming others, I am making the point simply based on Ron Paul’s actions which speak much louder than his words.

  2. Ron Paul is the only one running that has a clue about the CONSTITUTION! He is the voice of WE THE PEOPLE. Washington, and the media better get used to the idea that RON PAUL is the PEOPLES CHOICE!!!

    • He is far from being this “people’s choice”. So I wouldn’t go around speaking for humankind. If Paul can win the Republican prtesidential nomination and then the presidency, maybe I will give your tired,old, slogan a second thought.

      • You are about to see something in this country that you, as a Republican, can’t fully imagine: a Republican candidate, Ron Paul, who has a 67% approval rating among Independent voters, who are the ones who will actually decide this election.

        Better start listening to Ron Paul and supporting him, too, if you don’t want four more years of this dung.

  3. I’d like to see someone take you to task, because you obviously bought into all the dumbed-down text books on the subject, just like Rick Baby. but despite that obvious knowledge handicap, you still have the arrogance to attack someone who was there at the time and remembers what actually went on. Like I do, like MILLIONS of other Americans remember it, too, and as Ron Paul described it for you. Accurately.

    America installed the bloody Shah, who was such a self-interested, bloated, ugly, tyrannical bully, such a blatant crook, that the Iranian threw off their shackles and hated us for it. Wake up and hear the little birdies singing.

    Contrary to being the wonderful land of the free and home of the brave that we would like America to be, we have become the land of self-serving, ignorant bullies, who think we can control other nations by force instead of example, pillage and rape them at will, all the while sanctimoniously talking about “freedom” and “peace” and “liberty”.

    What a crock!

    If you like all the war-mongering so much that you just can’t wait to vote for Obama again, take advantage of one of the freedoms that America still offers—-the freedom to LEAVE.

    The rest of us have better sense and a better grasp on history, with the result that when we see your denigrating picture of Dr. Paul with a tin hat, we want to shove it up your butt and give you a 60 mile per hour enema. Maybe that would flush your brain out.

    • Listen sweatheart, I was there and not only do I know my history, I also make no apologies for being an arrogant American. Much of the world would not be free if it weren’t for my nation. Left unto itself the world would be dominated by dicatators and our nation would be facing unavoidable threats to our own soveriegnty. So while you apolize for America, I apologize for people like you who would ignore reality and risk their lives because of your fantacism for a lunatic leftwing libertarian who has defies his own words. Sorry but I chose to be a Reagan Republican over being being a Petulant Paulite.

      • I must chime in- the author of this article made some clear accusations and so far, no one has taken him to task line by line. All of this discussion is just opinion so far. If you think the author is wrong, prove it. He dug and did some history homework. How is he wrong, if he is? The discussion degraded down to name calling- is he right or wrong based on facts please. Let’s not let WH2012 become crude comments on Yahoo.

        • I appreciate Ruth’s effort and point. But I fully expected to be called names by the Paul people. In fact I even expect a death threat from one or two. But it all proves my point about the obnoxiousness of many, certainly not all, but far too many Paul fans. Their fanaticism is so unreal that they believe he can do no wrong and that he is perfect. They buy into his shtick about being the only man in the nation who has faith in the constitution or upholds it. They buy into this myth that Paul is the solution to all of our problems and that they are all constitutional experts and the only true defenders of liberty.

          I fully expected the Paul fanatics to show their true colors and dodge the facts in order to keep their knight’s empty suit of armor shinning.

          Still I thank Ruth for bringing up what I consider to be a valid point.

    • Wow! Hoping to find serious discussion here, but I guess that was too much to hope for. Name calling never moves a discussion forward and only makes the person doing it look foolish.
      Yes, Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, was a harsh dictator, and our ally in an area of the world that has had and always will have a very tenuous balance of various powers. I remember well when Iran fell to the Ayatollah and his followers. There were young men and women here studying who woke to find their families gone and no country to go home to. Many who supported the removal of Reza Pahlavi did not know what they were getting with the Ayatollah and died trying to correct the problem of the new, and, perhaps, harsher dictatorship that they helped to bring in. There is a movement towards a more liberal, “westernized” style of government among the young in Iran-I hope they succeed.
      War-mongering? Really? Do you happen to remember that Kuwait, an ally, asked our help when Iraq attacked her? Do you know that our President asked the people to rise up against their leader and we would support them, then had to walk away as they were slaugtered? We owed them their liberation from Hussein. We owed Hussein his downfall because he repeatedly ordered his men to shoot at USAF and RAF planes patrolling the no-fly zone, and he tried to assasinate a former President of this country. Both of those are acts of war and deserved to be answered, severely, with prejudice.
      Because I believe there are times it is necessary to go to war and defend others, you believe I should leave my country? How arrogant of you. Do you really believe the world would be a better place if the ethnic cleansing of WWII were allowed to go unchecked and Adolph Hitler were allowed to take over Europe, Asia and the rest of the world? That was his ultimate goal. That is the goal of the jihadists. Are you prepared to die or convert to Islam? If the jihadists were to win their war, those would be your only two choices. They brought their war here; we took it back to their homes where it belongs. As you can see, I disagree with you strongly, but this is the USA and we do not have to agree. We are free to discuss, debate,and/or argue about anything we want without having to leave our country because we disagree about politics or anything else.

  4. I think you protest too much…and that most of this article is fluff around your core opposition to Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Write an article clearly and fairly stating his position and critique it. My two cents.

    • Disprove the so called fluff. Until you can do that, it is obvious that Mr. Paul’s base is frustrated by facts which they can not dispute, so instead of confronting the truth, they go after the messenger and avoid the message. But I expected no less from the shallow but dense base that Congressman Paul Stands on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: