Skip to comments.The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)
Posted on 04/25/2010 7:13:20 AM PDT by big black dog
I will freely admit that I did a bad, bad thing last week. Well, it wasn't a really "bad" thing unless you were one of those that fell for it I guess. What did I do that was so bad? I set up the Paulbots. Yes, evil rotten me, I know.
When I wrote "Earmarking Our Way to Oblivion" I purposefully left out any mention of Ron Paul even though I knew he was just as dirty as all the rest. See, Mr. Paul's own earmark fetish was certainly no real secret to anyone paying attention and with enough desire to dig a little. But the Paulbots were quick to comment about how because of the corruption that earmarks bring and how that they many times violate the Constitutional powers of Congress that this is exactly the reason why we needed Ron Paul.
Not a day goes by that supporters of Ron Paul aren't out in droves proclaiming any conservative that does not support their candidate is an evil neo-con, trumpeting how Mr. Paul is a true "constitutionalist" and is the only man qualified to be President. Well, I guess we now see how accurate their description of their own golden boy really is considering news that has really taken off in the last couple days about his own requests for earmarks.
It is no secret to those of us that are out there everyday taking fire from the Paulbots that when Ron Paul commands them to jump they not only ask how high, but also at what angle, what flavor of Kool Aid Mr. Paul would desire they bring him after they land, how many ice cubes he would like in said drink, what color he would like his house painted, how many gallons of gas he needs them to put in his car, what time he would like his wakeup call for the following morning, how he desires his eggs cooked and whether or not he wants them to polish his fine silver clockwise or counterclockwise. The answer to that last one is that Ron Paul demands they first polish it six times clockwise followed by a single counterclockwise finishing polish. Their loyalty to the illusion of their candidate as a savior of us all and as someone that actually holds the Constitution dear is admirable if not highly misguided and naive.
Now the Wall Street Journal and other sources have what Paulbots are robotically and predictably calling a "hit pieces" on their candidate. Of course I still question whether or not Ron Paul really can be considered a "candidate" when he barely cracks one percent in the polls. But that is another topic for another day. Anyway these "hit pieces" detail how Mr. Paul, supposedly a libertarian, has requested millions of taxpayer dollars for roles not delegated to the federal government by we the people. Hardly a "libertarian" stance. Hardly "hit pieces". Simply the truth.
Oh ... well ... uh ... Ron Paul 2008! He's still the man! Right Paulbots?
Last week the Paulbots were flooding me with comments about how we needed Ron Paul and about how I was right about the earmark problem. But this week I have particularly loved the responses by these same hacks to these new revelations and that have again flooded into my mailbox on cue since I blogged about Paul's own earmarks on Tuesday. They say things like, "Well the money was going to be spent anyway!" and, "It's ok because he is just serving his constituents like he is supposed to," or boldly proclaim, "there is nothing unconstitutional about Paul's earmarks!" or my personal favorite, "Well, yeah he requested the earmarks but he voted against them!"
That last one makes me chuckle. It's a pathetic having your cake and eating it too argument that no true libertarian would embrace. Anyone with half a brain sees through this tactic as nothing but style over substance worthy of the staunchest liberals. Mr. Paul certainly understands that in the current corrupt Washington culture his earmark requests would pass even as he votes against them. He knows all he has to do is attach them to the spending bill in order to reap the benefits. A true libertarian would not even request them in the first place.
But rather than calling for his impeachment for violating the constitution, something I have done time and again for all politicians, regardless of party, that violate the Constitution, the Paulbots rush out to defend the man they have deemed as "the one." Truth be damned! He really is a TRUE libertarian! Full ludicrous speed ahead!
It doesn't matter that they were out there in mass decrying earmarks just a week before. It doesn't matter that the Constitution is clear in Article I, Section 8 when it limits the powers of Congress to tax and spend on a concise list of things defined as the "general Welfare." It doesn't mater if Ron Paul has requested federal money to deal with issues found nowhere in these federal powers from funding for shrimp to building hospitals to maintaining trolleys. None of that matters because ... well ... Ron Paul is da man! Praise the Savior of our Republic! Hallelujah! And how dare I and others take his name in vain!
Blind loyalty is never attractive. And it is often deadly. The Constitution is simple. It allows for laws and spending on the only a short list of topics which are clearly stated and any libertarian worth their salt knows of James Madison's discussion of this in Federalist 41. The list that is there is the list. That's it Mr. Paul. That's it Paulbots. Nothing about shrimp. Nothing about trolleys. Nothing about most of what Paul's earmarks are spending money on. No amount of whining about Ron Paul getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar will change the facts. No amount of hurling slurs like "neo-con" or "fascist" or "globalist" at those that exposed Mr. Paul will make a difference in the truth. Such tactics don't work for liberals and they will not work for you. I'm sorry I entrapped you last week. But it is something you are going to learn from as you progress on in life. Principles are only principles if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and always watch your own glass house before you cast the first stone.
It's so simple even a Paulbot can understand it. And I call on Ron Paul to be a true libertarian and draw up articles of impeachment against himself, convince his fellow Congressmen to approve the action and finally vote in favor of the action when the time comes to pay the piper.
But he won't. He won't because the fact is there are few true libertarians out here in the real world. We are a lonely bunch for sure. Even though lots of people envision themselves as such, when push comes to show they are at best nothing more than a bastard cousin; the liberaltarian. And that is why we are in trouble.
Why would I need a redo? I commented on the article.
I will say that's a very nice cherry you've picked, there.
Light is a good dissenfectant, the more light the better on
Paul and his cult.
Also my earlier comment at #15
Disproof would be something in the article addressing others. What he did or did not address elsewhere is not in evidence.
Disproof would be something in the article addressing others. What he did or did not address elsewhere is not in evidence. He calls articles of impeachment to be drawn up against Ron Paul. Everyone else gets a pass.
I hear quite a few of 'em work part time at Starbucks.
Heh! Hit that nail right on the head.
Rabadash RABs, are you going to come and defend your man?
Or are you going to keep hiding like a coward...........I think we know the answer..........
Indeed it was..
Yes, I want Obama to make those spending decisions.
Right everybody. That’s what you all are saying.
Is Ron Paul actually voting to spend money?
My understanding, which might be wrong, is that Ron Paul is voting NOT to spend the money. But he loses (when he loses).
After he loses, he doesn’t want his constituents to be ripped off, to have money taken from them and spent elsewhere, so he tries to have that money given back to his district.
The point isn’t earmarks, the point is spending. Less spending, less government, more freedom.
>Shrimp Boats is acomin
>Their pork is in sight.
>Shrimp Boats is acomin
>They will be drugged up tonight
You know, one thing that I agree with Ron Paul on is his stance that ‘the war on drugs’ / federal restriction of substances is unconstitutional... and before anyone jumps off the deep-end let me explain:
In order to prohibit, nationally, the production and/or consumption of alcohol we had to pass a Constitutional amendment... where is the constitutional amendment that legalizes drugs? Where is the one that gives the federal Government the power to enforce regulation of such substances?
>I hear quite a few of ‘em work part time at Starbucks.>
You may have hit it.
Ron Paul stooge Chuck Baldwin in the Daily Paul
Chuck Baldwin ;Hooray for Starbucks
By Chuck Baldwin
March 2, 2010
The major news media was replete with reports over the weekend that the coffee company, Starbucks, “has no problem with customers packing heat while placing their orders.”
The PaulBots are probably regulars for the
Vivanno Smoothies with Real Fruit
It describes the PaulBots in a NutShell
Have you ever read the whole interview where this sentence came from? Here is what he said right after that:
...Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood....
In an article solely and specifically about Ron Paul where the author is kind enough to mention that he has previously written about the same basic issue with other politicians, even to the point where he names the article for reference, you are upset because in this article, again only about Ron Paul and his "followers" he only specifically speaks of Ron Paul.
..and you wonder why they never include the whole thing.. kind of defeats the ‘we are the purists’ philosophy they are trying to push. Reagan had a very rational commentary on that.
When they aren’t picking seeds and stems out of the last bag of the week in Mom’s basement....
Now that’s funny right there.
And in this case apropo...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.