I was doing a little reading on your favourite Presidential candidate earlier. I wanted to see what his stance on capital punishment was; as I expected, it was a flip-flop.
While that's an interesting issue to discuss, I'll bring it up after, because the main issue I wanted to address was something else. I know I've brought up his stance on abortion a lot, but it is one area where I think that he demonstrates his true colours; the crack in his otherwise impressive armour of "good deeds".
So as I said, I have three questions for you all, and if you could answer them with either a yes or a no, it would be appreciated.
1) Ron Paul is quoted as saying that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution"; is this a fair statement?
2) Ron Paul is also quoted as saying, "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." He went on to cite the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution as the grounds for this. He was quoted as saying that the 9th and 10th amendments "do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion." Is this also a fair statement?
3) In 2000 and 2003, Ron Paul voted in favour of the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000" and the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003", respectively. Is this a fair statement?
I've saved you guys some trouble, and did the homework for you.
Regarding question 1:
http://www.ronpaul20...ho-is-ron-paul/ expressly states:
Regarding question 2:
On January 30, 2006, Ron Paul released the following statement entitled, "Federalizing Social Policy". I've included several sources of this, to ensure accuracy and legitimacy.
http://paul.house.go...=1158&Itemid=69 (This is the official United States House of Representatives website, by the way!)
Regarding question 3:
http://clerk.house.g...000/roll104.xml -- As you can see, Ron Paul's name is under the "Aye" section, indicating on official record that he voted in favour of the PBABA of 2000.
http://clerk.house.g...003/roll530.xml -- And again in 2003.
When asked about his support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Acts, Ron Paul is quoted as saying he did it to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade."
(You can independently verify this yourselves if you like, it's true; Google that phrase.)
I did a search of the US Constitution for the part which says it's not voting against the Constitution if you are just doing it to offset a Supreme Court decision. Predictably, this part never showed up.
I know I said I had three questions for you, but like Ron Paul, I only stick to my words until I decide it's inconvenient. So I have a fourth.
4) Knowing these things, and knowing that Ron Paul's entire campaign is based upon his "honesty" and "integrity" and "strict constitutionalism", how can you reconcile your support for a candidate whose alleged core values are demonstrably false, and who will disregard the things that he is supposed to stand for when they become inconvenient?
Ron Paul is NOT the honest, forthcoming and 'constitutionally sound' candidate that his campaign team would have you believe. Instead, he is a practiced liar, who changes his tune whenever the winds of political favour blow a different direction. He is a hypocrite, who routinely dismisses current and proposed legislation for being unconstitutional, but then votes for unconstitutional propositions, if it suits him. Need more proof? Remember what I said about the death penalty?
On August 25th, 2007, Ron Paul went on the record, saying, "As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime."
http://archive.theam...ndex.php?id=898 (You'll have to listen to the interview. I don't know at what timeframe he says it.)
His close friend and former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell writes in 2010, however:
"Ron Paul is the most consistent advocate of life in American politics. So, naturally, the DC pro-life (unless its Muslim) groups--joined as they are at the hip to the Republican party--oppose him. After all, Ron Paul is not only anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, he is anti-capital punishment and anti-war. That is, he represents a consistent pro-life ethic."
While that's not QUITE straight from the horse's mouth, he has had well over a year to object to that statement.
This isn't the only example of Ron Paul flip-flopping on issues though.
On June 5th, 2007, during the Republican Presidential Debate for the 2008 election, the question of support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came up.
Ron Paul went on the record in support of DADT, saying, "I think the current policy is a decent policy. " ( http://transcripts.c...6/05/se.01.html )
However, on May 27th, 2010, Ron Paul voted in favour of HR 5136, and again in finally repealing the act. ( http://clerk.house.g...010/roll317.xml and http://clerk.house.g...010/roll638.xml respectively.)
You can see where I'm going here. This is what I've been saying all along; that Ron Paul is as full of nurrz as any other politician. His honesty is just as questionable, his voting record does NOT reflect strict constitutionality, and his flip-flopping on issues is well-documented.
Is he the best Republican candidate? I don't know. Is he some kind of political messiah, as some of you seem to be implying? Absolutely not.
He's just a regular politician, that does all the things other politicians do; lie, cheat, and steal - and find fancy ways of telling you why it was okay that he did it.
If you look at him from that perspective, he doesn't stand out as a better candidate than Romney or anyone else.
Ron Paul is NOT the change he promises.
This post has been edited by Kakarott: 22 February 2012 - 10:04 AM