GOP 2016 Hopefuls: Ron Paul

GOP HOPEFULS HEADER

The Republican National Committee recently conducted an?online straw poll?identifying 32 candidates who could get its nomination in the 2016 presidential race. Each of the 32 has quite a questionable history, though, that contrasts with the GOP’s consistent claim of it being the ?moral? option for voters.

Philander, racism, thievery, bribery, and combinations of these and other?sins?are?found across the slate, in fact.?In this series on the 32 potential candidates (updated every other day), Liberal America will offer a quick rundown on the hypocrisy clouding each one’s ?holier than thou? claims.

Ron Paul

Former U.S. Representative from Texas

ron paul skidmore flickr
(Image Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr)

Many voters associate him with Libertarianism. And when they think of Libertarianism, they think of personal freedom. But just like his son (another potential presidential candidate), Ron Paul could care less about the freedom and individual rights of citizens. He’s even made many efforts to take them away.


For example, no one has a right to education, he says. Instead, the U.S. should have nothing but private schools. (They shouldn’t teach evolution either, says creationist Paul.) No one has a right to healthcare, Paul says, and not just in attack on the Affordable Care Act, but both Medicare and Medicaid, as well.

In fact, Paul believes that anything that isn’t specifically detailed in the U.S. Constitution should be illegal. Social Security is unconstitutional, he says (along with many other things ? see them in the video below). The Civil Rights Act should never have passed, welfare and other social programs are wrong, and the Dept. of Education should be removed (along with the IRS, the National Labor Relations Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, and even the Federal Emergency Management Authority, he says). We shouldn’t have paper money, either, and should use only gold and silver instead.

While he’s openly against individual rights, Paul made many efforts to grant rights to corporations.?Just examine the bills he authored, which include ones to remove the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Soil and Water Preservation Act, to restrict the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control? Act, and to the repeal the Davis-Bacon Act‘s assurance of fair wages for government projects.

Given this record of feudalistic actions, it’s shocking that he gets public support. But Paul is a master of misleading. Take his ?end the Fed? argument that calls for dissolution of the Federal Reserve, the joint board maintained by both private industry and government. Many applaud the concept of removing the influence of greedy Wall Street executives from the U.S. economy, but fail to recognize that Paul’s true goal is to remove the government and?its citizen-representing oversight from the group. He wants those private companies ? the same ones responsible for the last economic crash and subsequent recession ? to hold the keys to our economy all by themselves.

Many other bills were misleading, and purposefully so. For instance, the opening declaration of his H.R. 190 ?Social Security for Americans Only Act? proposed blocking illegal aliens from receipt of Social Security; read the bill in full, though, and you’ll see that Paul’s real goal was to remove all laws against companies hiring illegal aliens. His ?Social Security Preservation Act? claimed it would protect this principal asset of American seniors; instead, it proposed surrendering the trust fund to Wall Street. Paul’s ?Cures Can Be Found Act? said it would give tax credits to companies conducting medical stem-cell research; those credits were only applicable to alternate and not fully applicable uses, though, like veterinary and agriculture ? deep down in its text does the bill state its true goal of blocking stem-cell research for human medical purposes.

He misleads in his arguments against others? bills, as well, such as his open opposition to laws pertaining to hate crimes. On his own website, he claims such laws are a ?serious threat to free speech.? But since when does physical assault constitute ?free speech??

To voters with half a brain, Paul’s a racist. Long known to be that way, too. Many know of his newsletters, chock full of racist terms, from years ago. Many have heard Paul consistently change the blame about them, too ? ?yes, I wrote them? was followed by ?my staff wrote them, but I approved their content? and then went on to ?no, I didn’t write them or even know about them.? But his own staff says he wrote most of the questionable pieces himself and was well-aware of all others? content, and that he directly approved the racist statements that appeared in the newsletters. Don’t forget that he argues against the Civil Rights Act, openly takes campaign donations from white supremacist groups, and accepted the endorsement of former KKK leader David Duke.

Aside from those who he’s misled with his ?freedom? claims, the remainder of Paul’s apostles are ones who think he’s in favor of legalizing marijuana. But that’s a false presumption ? and one that he’s never attempted to refute, and continues to let everyone believe. Not once in his 24 years in congress, during which did he sponsor over 600 bills, did he ever propose such legislation ? not for recreational use and not even for medical purposes. So if that’s his true stance, then why did he never pursue it? He did co-sponsor one bill on a similar subject, but that was during his last campaign ? and it didn’t propose any legal dope. The bill (which he never pursued in committee, by the way) only called for allowing states to determine legality.

And that brings up his unending battle for states? rights. A true ?tenther,? Paul says any power not fully detailed in the constitution falls on the states. But his 10th Amendment support is geared towards weakening the preceding nine. He’s called for repeal of the Incorporation Doctrine, which is what makes the Bill of Rights applicable on the state level. If Paul had his way, basic rights and liberties ? free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion ? would only have to be recognized in federal courts, not by states or municipalities, and not by local laws, either. The only ?states? rights? he supports, then, are those of state governments to control and restrict citizens.


But will he continue these confederate goals in 2016, when he’ll be the ripe age of 81? Possibly; after dropping out in 2012, he said he’d run again. His website keeps that an open possibility. A Facebook group is calling for his campaign this time around, too. But with his equally-offensive son leading the polls right now, would he even bother?

Let’s hope not. One Paul is bad enough.

Visit Liberal America for information?on?the other?GOP 2016 hopefuls.

What’s your take on these?hypocritical Republicans? State your case on?Liberal America’s Facebook?page.

See previous posts on GOP 2016 hopefuls:

Kelly Ayotte??|?Haley Barbour?|??John Bolton?| ?Jeb Bush?|?Hermain Cain? |?Ben Carson?|??Chris Christie??| ?Ted Cruz??|?Mitch Daniels??| ?Newt Gingrich??| ?Nikki Haley?|?Mike Huckabee?|??Bobby Jindal?|?John Kasich?|?Peter King?|?Susana Martinez?|?Sarah Palin?| Rand Paul?|

I had a successful career actively working with at-risk youth, people struggling with poverty and unemployment, and disadvantaged and oppressed populations. In 2011, I made the decision to pursue my dreams and become a full-time writer. Connect with me on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook.