"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Ron Paul, A Hypocrite Accusing Other Candidates of Hypocrisy

Will Malven

Ron Paul's newest fusillade in the Iowa caucuses campaign accuses Newt Gingrich of serial hypocrisy. In some ways, he may be right. I guess it depends on how you define hypocrisy, but one thing is certain, Ron Paul is no stranger to hypocrisy himself.

Hasn't Ron Paul's entire career in Congress been characterized by hypocrisy?
  1. Ron Paul has served a total of 12 2-year terms in the House. Okay, so did you know that Ron Paul has proposed term limit legislation four times during his tenure? I guess what's good for everyone else isn't good enough for Ron Paul.

    From Meet The Press, December 23, 2007:
    MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask this. Term limits. You ran on term limits. "I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders." You've been in Congress 18 years.

    REP. PAUL: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There's a big difference. I didn't sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left. And it's true, I, I didn't run on that, Tim, you're wrong on that. I support term limits. You know, I, I, and I voted all--we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them.

    MR. RUSSERT: Yeah.

    REP. PAUL: But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits. It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution either. It's the philosophy of government that counts. It's only...

    MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily...

    REP. PAUL: Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that. I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.
    Way to rationalize Congressman Paul!!!

    Isn't that just a little bit hypocritical, Ron?
  2. In 1987, as I have previously mentioned and linked to in the "Must Read Articles" column, Ron Paul resigned from the Republican Party. He did so with a big splash posting his resignation letter to Frank Fahrenkopf in the newspapers--his "Dear Frank Letter."

    In fact, in the 1988 Presidential election, Ron Paul ran for the presidency on--you guessed it--the Libertarian Party ticket. He received, well, it's sort of embarrassing, 0.5% of the popular vote.

    So . . . exactly why is Ron Paul, Libertarian, running in the Republican Presidential Primary? I suspect it has something to do with the results from his run as a Libertarian. I mean, principles are one thing, but access to a larger pool of voters and face time in front of the cameras is something else entirely.

    Running for the nomination of a party with which you have fundamental and irreconcilable differences . . .

    Isn't that just a little bit hypocritical, Ron?
  3. Ron Paul claims to be a fiscal conservative yet he is the king of pork-barrel spending among his peers in Congress. Mr. Paul asserts that "earmarks" (monies set aside for specific pork-barrel projects) are actually a good thing, that we need more earmarks so that the bureaucracies in Washington have less flexibility in where and how the allocate appropriated funds.

    Very well, let's take him at his word. He certainly has garnered his fair share of pork for his district . . . all in the interest of protecting tax-payer interests, I'm sure. But, if it is so honorable to earmark monies for your home district, then why is it that Mr. Paul always makes the requests in appropriations bills which are guaranteed to pass--and then votes against those bills, secure in the certain knowledge that he will get his pork?

    Why are you voting against the very appropriations that you requested?

    Why then do you parade around bragging that you have never voted for an earmark?

    Again from the December 2007 Meet The Press:
    REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

    MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.

    REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?

    MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.

    REP. PAUL: Nah! Come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.

    MR. RUSSERT: If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...

    REP. PAUL: No, I, I make the request. They're not in the bills.

    MR. RUSSERT: ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.

    REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It's like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get...

    MR. RUSSERT: But if you were true...

    REP. PAUL: ...the money back for the people.

    MR. RUSSERT: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.

    REP. PAUL: No, no, that's not it. They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money.

    MR. RUSSERT: For...

    REP. PAUL: I don't advocate that.

    MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this...

    REP. PAUL: I'm trying to save the system, make the system work.

    MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you this...

    REP. PAUL: But no, I think you have it all mixed up. Now, you're confused.

    MR. RUSSERT: All right. It's all facts.

    REP. PAUL: You're confused.

    MR. RUSSERT: This is The Wall Street Journal. You load up the bills with special projects...

    REP. PAUL: I--no, no, no. No, you don't.

    MR. RUSSERT: You do. You do. You deny that you have, you have...

    REP. PAUL: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right and an...

    MR. RUSSERT: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.

    REP. PAUL: You don't quite understand.


    REP. PAUL: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I'm saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit, and I put it in--the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.

    MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this. But if...

    REP. PAUL:
    I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.

    MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.

    REP. PAUL: I don't take it. That's the system.

    MR. RUSSERT: The system.

    REP. PAUL:
    I'm trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it...

    MR. RUSSERT: Well. Well...

    REP. PAUL: ...rather ironic and entertaining.

    MR. RUSSERT: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.
    After all, we need earmarks, according to you, Mr. Paul. Earmarks are a good thing, according to you, Mr. Paul. So why are you bragging about never having voted for one?

    Isn't that a little bit hypocritical, Mr. Paul?
  4. Mr. Paul makes much of being a "strict constitutionalist." He brags about his fidelity to the Constitution and attacks those who do not follow his lead.

    So, Mr. Paul, exactly where in the Constitution can earmarks be found? I guess my copy of the Constitution must be faulty, because no where in it can I find any reference either to pork barrel spending, or to earmarks. Doesn't the Constitution grant the Executive Branch discretion in exactly where and how it spends the "Appropriations made by law" by Congress? After all, it is the "Executive" authority. Isn't that among the varied duties of the various departments in the Executive Branch? Shouldn't that responsibility fall within the purview of the Cabinet Secretaries?

    Claiming strict fidelity to the Constitution . . .

    Isn't that a little bit hypocritical, Ron?
  5. Just one more. Did you know that Mr. Gold Standard, has much of his personal wealth--somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 Million (nice neighborhood, Ron)--invested in gold mining stocks?

    Let's see, a member of Congress who is heavily invested in gold mining stocks and in gold advocating for a return to the gold standard. I'm not sure, but doesn't that qualify as a conflict of interests?

    Mr. Paul likes to talk about the corruption of some of his fellow members of Congress . . . about "insider trading" . . . but isn't a member of Congress campaigning for our nation to switch to a gold standard while standing to make a huge profit from the investments he's made in gold mining stocks comparable to Congressional insider trading?

    Isn't that a little bit hypocritical, Ron?
Is it not the height of hypocrisy for one to accuse another of hypocrisy when that one is guilty of the same?

Isn't that a little bit hypocritical, Ron?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

No comments:

Post a Comment