Reason #985-B To Think Ron Paul Sucks

There are many reasons to think Ron Paul is a bottom feeder. He refuses to support a Constitutional amendment to protect normal, heterosexual marriage. He voted to turn the United States military into a San Francisco bath house by repealing DADT. He wants to see drugs and prostitution legalized. He thinks Islamo-Nazi Iran should have a nuclear weapon. He surrounds himself with lunatics like Cindy Sheehan's love slave, Screwy Lewy Rockwell. In general, there isn't a sewer RuPaul (H/T: Mark Levin) isn't too proud to hunt for food in.

"Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the 'ground zero mosque.'

In a statement decrying 'demagogy' around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.'

'Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be 'sensitive' requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from 'ground zero,' Paul continues.

He goes on to argue that 'the neo-conservatives' who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia...never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."

Yes, I know this is old news. No, I'm not breaking any new ground here. However, since Ol' Ru is running for President, this crap should be revisited. (Even Howard "YEAAAAAAAAH!" Dean thought this was a bad idea.)

I don't want to get involved in the technical legalities about whether or not this House of Hatred should or should not be built, since the developers don't seem to have the money for Lincoln Logs, let alone building a gazillion dollar insult. That was beaten to death last year and I don't feel like rehashing it. What I want to focus on is RuPaul's detestable attitude on the matter. (Which is eerirly similiar to Chariman Obama's and Nazi Pelosi's detestable attitude on the matter.)

The above snippet shows, once again, that RuPaul is NOT a Conservative, regardless of what his drug addict followers claim. He's basically an anarchist, and this little episode proves it.

Now, before we get started, I think it's appropriate to explain what I mean by anarchist. I'm not talking in this sense of a bomb-thowing V For Vendetta type. I'm talking about someone who believes they have the right to do what they please when they feel like doing it. That's what RuPaul is advocating here. This has nothing to do with "neo-conservative" war mongering or the religious rights of Muslims. (This is a bare-bones explanation of RuPaul's mentor Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, which basically states that society should allow individuals to do as they please as long as they can afford to do so.)

A Conservative doesn't believe in any of the above nonsense. A Conservative is a staunch defender of the individual and his rights, but the Conservative also believes in common sense and morality. For example, a Conservative would defend a bar owner's right to allow smoking in his bar, but a Conservative would fight tooth and nail to stop a strip club from opening next to an elementary school or a church. The Conservative fights for limited government, but never for anarchy. The Conservative also believes that while the individual has rights and those rights should be defended at all costs, the individual should use those rights in a responsible manner. In other words, the Conserative may very well want to give the social finger to the driver of a Smart Car with a "Obama 2012" bumper sticker, but he doesn't because he believes in a polite moral society.

Ladies and gentlemen, yes there's a fine line that often gets blurred when it comes to our rights, and I don't claim to have all the answers. But I will tell you this, I sure do understand our rights better than Ron Paul does.

I’ve written books here on how Paul isn’t truly a Constitutionalist, but you want a sampling of just one example from each of the three legs of Conservatism:

1. Economic- Earmarks are the most unConstitutional form of spending, redistribution w/ out legislation. Paul is one of the leaders of pork barrel spending via earmarks in Congress.

2. Foreign policy- Paul ignores large sections of the US Constitution on his foreign policy stances, specifically in regards to honoring treaties (as to be considered ‘high law of the land per the US Constitution’), yet never offering a bill to defatify mutual defense treaties as the Constitution prescribes. At that, treaties are the only thing the only law outside itself the Constitution requires to be considered high law.

3. Social- I can go on and on this one, but let’s take Abortion. Paul ignores that the Constitution says no one can be deprived of life without due process of law- in other words, the individual right of existence trumps all, yet Paul treats this issue as a 10th Amendment issue as though States’ rights somehow trump individual rights.

....and so on....

Some more examples- Falsely claiming that the only way the Constitution allows the use of the military in our interest is through a formal declaration of war (specifically worded as he expects). This contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which gives three specific ways the military can be used for force (1. Punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations, 2. Formal war, & 3. Quelling insurrections). He has been screaming for a decade how the WOT is unConstitutional yet this falls under category 1 in how the military can be used.)

How about his claim that the Constitution says that only ‘gold and silver coin’ are legal tender. This is again false. (albeit a decent practice). The Constitution limits States to only issue gold or silver for payments of debts but Article 1 specifically gives Congress the power to both mint currency and set the value, something they couldn’t do if it were a commodity currency like gold where the value is set by the market.

How about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage act and saying the government has no role in recognizing any marriage? Again, this flies in the face of Article 1 that does give Congress the authority to set standards for ‘weights and measures’. How does that apply? Federalist 42 discusses how ‘measures’ include definitions that apply to contracts and laws (ie what defines the parties in a Marriage Contract).

..want me to keep going? I can do this all night. I’ve been dealing with Fraud Paul for decades.

I bet you didn’t know he was literally kicked out and locked out of the Libertarian Party after an embezzlement scandal in 1988, which is why he came back to the Republican party after denouncing them? Literally locked out. After the FBI raided their offices, the door locks were changed and they found themselves out on the political street. Mr. Constitutionalist(sic) is an old time career politician who has found himself a niche in how he plays the game.

I’ve been keeping my powder dry for a while, but as some here can attest, there is so much dirt on Paul, even from his own pen, if I had time I could fill this place up with articles that his followers try to suppress.

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.