Posted on 09/01/2011 12:44:44 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama
One of the lies Ron Paul's more vocal supporters (his army of cyberstormtroopers) will tell you until they're blue in the face is that the Shame of Texas has a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. They'll hiss, scratch, and burn a cross on your blog for daring to point out the obvious. In other words, they're like Chairman Obama's Drones, big on fascisti passion, small on critical thinking.
Let's take a stroll down Memory Hole Lane, shall we ? Here is the text of Ayatollah RuPaul's interview with Neil Cavuto of FOX News back in 2009:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Speaking of a lot of money, the battle about the money they're spending on Capitol Hill and, ironically, this guy is being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn't fair.
But we thought it only fair to give him his due and explain what is going on. I'm talking about Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
Congressman, the rap is that you're a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.
But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
CAVUTO: Well, then, who — who — who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?
PAUL: I have no idea. But the most important thing is to have transparency.
If you don't earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there's no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial. But we need more earmarks.
The reason that we don't have — didn't have earmarks, you know, in that $350 billion on TARP funds...
CAVUTO: Right.
PAUL: We needed to earmark every single thing. We need to earmark every single thing the Fed does. So, this whole thing, this charade — this is a charade.
CAVUTO: No, no, I understand.
But you know what? It just strikes people as a little weird, Congressman, because, you know, you champion and rail against government waste. And I know you rejected and voted against this package. But, yet, your constituents are going to benefit to the tune of more than $73 million in various projects from this package.
So, it's kind of like you're having your cake and eating it, too.
PAUL: But — but, Neil — Neil, you're — you're missing the whole point.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to — it's like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years — if ever.
CAVUTO: But would you argue, then, sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what's out of control?
PAUL: Oh, no, no. He — he — he totally misunderstands that. That's grandstanding.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: You're right about...
PAUL: OK. But then I'm right about the whole issue.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But are you saying, then — are you saying, then, Congressman, that the moneys that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City, that rehab center — that that's money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?
PAUL: It's the kind I don't vote for, because I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people.
If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative.
But, if you put an earmark for a bridge in Iraq, it's not called an earmark. If you build military equipment in somebody's city...
CAVUTO: So, you don't think their requests are wastes? You don't think their requests are wastes?
PAUL: Well, no, it's — it's — it shouldn't be done. There's a better way to do it.
CAVUTO: Right.
PAUL: But, if you're going to spend the money, the Congress has the responsibility. It's better to spend it on a bridge here than spend it on a bridge in Iraq, and blow it up, and then build it up again.
Those are the kind of earmarks they don't count.
CAVUTO: All right.
PAUL: So, you have to count...
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2009/03/11/rep-ron-paul-defends-his-earmarks-spending-bill#ixzz1Wg9BNOZX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to be fair to Reichsfuhrer Paul, he does make a lot of sense in some spots in the above interview. He was a 1000% right about TARP and building bridges in Iraq. No one can argue those points, and I applaud him for saying it. (And he also took a shot at the horrid John McLame, so kudos on that, too.) However, as I've written in a previous column, his view of public spending is almost Marxist. (Pork spending is in no way, shape, or form a "tax rebate".)
Not only is that knd of talk Marxist-lite, it's also something the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, would have vehemently disagreed with.
In 1792, Madison said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police,would be thrown under the power of Congress."
(This statement was made in response to a bill that was proposed in Congress to subsidize cod fishermen. Even in the 1790's, there were slobs who wanted to "spread the wealth around.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting note: I found this quote in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods, Jr. (Another "Libertarian" who has a fondness for appearing on Iran's Islamonazi state-run television station, but that's another rant for another time.) It's also a book Sheikh Ali-Paul wrote a blurb for. He writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Knowing our past is essential if we are to preserve our freedoms. Professor Woods's work heroically rescues real history from the politcally correct memory hole. Every American should read this book."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the good doctor should read this book again. We the People get it, he sure doesn't.
Ping!
I only got a few lines in, and I imagined Less Nessman, five-time winner of the Buckeye News Hawk Award from WKRP in Cincinnatti was speaking, and couldn’t continue.
Did you diagree with me ? It’s cool if you did.
That he is no strict constructionist, but a pork-loving big spender? I agree with you. That he’s an incoherent lunatic? That’s also pretty apparent.
I’ll be the first to admit at times my humor is rather childish. Sometimes, I cross the line. Feel free to blast me for that anytime, FRiend. Eventually, I’ll learn.
I’m just worried that this loon is going to cost us the 2012 election.
How do Israeli Conservatives view Paul ?
The funny thing he was wrong about the whole issue.
This man is dangerous. No, he’s not going to win the nomination. No, the American people aren’t going to elect him. At the same time, he can do incredible damage to the Conservative Movement.
Before long, the arrogant and lazy media will start tying this whack job to the rest of us. When that happens, it will set us back for decades.
Generally, he’s not on the radar. Everything going on in the states is happening “over there,” and that especially applies to moonbats like Ron Paul, who isn’t even happening.
Perhaps I’m getting worked up over nothing....
Why do you think Congress should write Obama a blank check with no specific instructions on how to spend the money?
Why do you support efforts to further consolidate Obama’s dictatorial power at the expense of Congress?
Are you some kind of Obamabot?
“Are you some kind of Obamabot?”
I quoted James Madison, so obviously not.
I think you’re missing the point.
It appears to me that Madison was opposing indefinite spending, not deferring discretion to the executive branch.
E, Israel should be paying attention to ron paul. His attitude towards Israel intersects with islam’s attitude and his reent appearance on iran TV is nothing short of incitement from a sitting US Congresman.
He might be a loon,but who in iran’s government isn’t? Who knows how iranians perceive his support for them and his endorsement of their *right* to have nukes? It is not a far stretch for them to extrapolate that HIS attitude reflects Congress’s attitude as well.
No one has called paul out except for Allen West. Congress has not spoken out in any way against what paul said or did by appearing on iran TV and outing Israel’s nuclear program. The silence has been deafening.
American networks are picking him up and giving him facetime. This is not a good thing.
The money is already being confiscated and given out, he's against that. But after the government has already done that, why should Ron Paul's district be the only one that does not see a return of some of its taxation?
To put it another way, imagine a thief steals money from a dozen people. He then promises to return some of the money to the folks he stole it from if they ask for it. It looks like Ron Paul's critics would have him refrain from asking for some of it back on the principle that he doesn't support stealing in the first place, and stand by that principle as the other 11 people see some of their money returned to them (including his).
It doesn't make sense to me. Would be glad to hear someone explain "why" he should not ask for some of the money to be returned to his constituents. He's against the theft in the first place, but wants to make sure he gets as much back as he can when the thief offers to return some of it.
Do you believe that ending all foreign aid, including the annual billions to Israel and the billions we send to Israel’s enemies, is an anti-Israel policy?
I'm trying to understand your logic here. Are you saying that for Ron Paul to be a constructionist in your eyes he would have to not only vote against the appropriations bills that give us the pork in the first place, but also ask for no earmarks for his district at the same time?
Isn't that like rejecting the return of your stolen property to you because you're against stealing?
Here is what I KNOW. When Benjamin Netanyahu was PM the first time, he made it his number one priority to pay off Israel’s debt to the US so Israel would not be able to be manipulated by US foreign policy and favoritism to arafat. Israel was well on its way to doing exactly that when clinton blew him out of the water. The US WANTS Israel in debt to us, and because of it, Israel is on suicide watch.
When Israel started its own aircraft industry, the US destroyed it. Anything Israel does is micromanaged by an islamist state department.
Having said that, that is not my objection to ron paul. My objection to him, is his treasonous willingness to go on enemy television and sell his own country, US, out.
That he is a notorious antisemite is not news. Talk is cheap. It is his ACTIONS that I detest.
Also, can you please define "enemy television"?
Iran’s press TV.
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.