Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Reality Check There are good reasons why so many people like Paul, but too many seem oblivious to details about his history.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office.  Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government â€" the Article V convention option. If this is the first time you have heard of this, go to www.foavc.org to learn about it.
Â
Â
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency? Probably because extremely few of them know anything about this Article V convention path to political reforms.
Â
Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.
Â
First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Â
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Â
Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Earmarks are the currency of corruption, no matter what Paul says to justify his. He hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing that he knows contain his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district â€" not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests to stay in office.
Â
There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.
Â
Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. This is the most delusional aspect of his supporters: Their inability to see just how corrupt the current system is. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option.  Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his statements that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.
Â
Paul’s supporters talk of a revolution. But when Paul does not get the nomination what happens? The path to true revolution is to use the Article V convention option. Paul could do something truly revolutionary by using his popularity to get the nation’s first Article V convention.
Â
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
2007 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007
Last modified: Thursday, December 20, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2007-12-20 16:51:11
Some folks tilt at windmills, others choose their battles more prudently. Your Article V approach simply represents another great example of the myriad land mines Dr. Paul has managed to avoid in his career. Once he figured out that the LP wasn't a useful tool for change he has been as effective as they come at avoiding career ending moves. He walks a thin line, holding his colleagues accountable while they wait for him to step just far enough over the line for them to dismiss him. They never really can because they know he is right and they admire his principles even when he poses an obstacle to their glory.
It didn't take luck to make it to the point where he will either topple the liberal GOP leadership by sweeping the nomination or by winning as a Republican write-in candidate if the GOP manages to keep him from the nomination. He had to make prudent choices about his positions and actions. Thankfully that has included avoiding suicide by Article 5.
Either way, the future will include a far more conservative GOP with a well founded libertarian conscience applied to the political choices it makes. This evolution may take decades but at least it is going in the right direction for the first time in my nearly 30 years of voting.
So, Dr. Paul is a disgrace for not single-handedly bringing about a constitutional convention? Get real. Our rigged system will likely keep him out of office? Probably. This article comes off as if it were the work of an inadequately sophisticated agent provocateur.
Should we not vote? Give up? Give in to the status quo? Vote Libertarian? Commit mass suicide because it's hopeless to pursue liberty?
I'm aware of Dr. Pauls history, since I've been supporting him for some years now. But if you know of a better candidate for the job, please publish your endorsement, and he/she will be considered.
Posted By: Michael McClary
Date: 2007-12-20 19:18:45
The problem with calling a constitutional convention is that, once it's called, it can change anything, or even throw the whole thing out and start with a clean slate. Given that the delegates would be mainly the current politicians, with their view of the constitution as something inconvenient to be worked around, giving them such a blank check is extremely dangerous to our freedoms.
(Can you imagine, say, the current crop of politicians keeping the RKBA? Without, at a minimum, "clarifying" the language into an explicit statement of the "collective militia right" interpretation?)
This issue has already come up: The con-con is the only way the states can initiate constitutional modifications without working through congress. Last I checked we were two states short of calling a constitutional convention (supposedly) to add balanced-budget language. And we stayed two states short exactly because there's no guarantee that the convention, once convened, would stick to any limits included in the state authorization bills.
Fortunately the state legislatures are as scared of a runaway convention as we individuals ought to be.
It's not just a theoretical risk: It's already happened once. The original Constitution was written by a committee charged with proposing modifications to the Articles of Confederation. Instead they wrote the document we're now working under and went around the Continental Congress directly to the states - with a provision that when enough states had ratified it the new Federal Government would self-start (and everybody else better sign on or be left out in the cold.)
It was a coup on the Continental Congress - with the Bill of Rights a sop thrown to quell the last of the opposition.
No, Joel. Part of MY litmus test for a candidate is that he doesn't do anything as downright insane as calling for a con-con, thus handing the current constitution to the current politicians along with a whole box of strike-anywhere matches.
Um, not for nothing but, I like the constitution we have, thanks. The founders didn't have 24 hour news channels and foriegn and domestic special interests badgering them all the time. That gave them the opportunity to give rational thought to the question of "how do we ensure that liberty prevails and that tyranny doesn't come upon us again?"
We just need to follow it and enforce it as the law it is. Can you imagine what constitution we would be fed by the clinton and bush parties? OMG you have to be a friggin moron to want a new constitutional convention in today's ignorant and reactionary environment.
That is offensive. You can...and should read this mans writings over 30 years. Have you been sounding the same message for three decades in Congress and out of it? He has tremedous courage. I will take Dr. Pauls character and ethics over any other candidate. His integrity is the threat to those who marginalize him. Besides being honest and humble he is right.
 Why cry to him that he didn't trumpet your note when the magic moment was there? Didn't you know: when Chuck Norris gets scared he goes to Ron Paul. He will gain more time to speak when others drop out. Pace yourself for the long run.
That is my biggest fear. They keep as many on the stage as possible to limit his time to engage them. One droped today and maybe 2 more will after NH unless they have some mysterious rise like Huckabee to keep them active. Hunter and McCain will bow out if they lose NH and Romney might if he loses IA, NH, & SC. Huck and Fred will be gone after 2/5 leaving Ron Paul standing with Julie-Annie and maybe Mitt but then Bloomberg jumps in to take away the attention to Dr. Paul.
That would be a good debate to watch. America and those on the stage would get an education.
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2007-12-21 02:16:41
Making the accusation that Paul doesn't have courage is pretty ludicrous considering he brough up the CIA's Operation Ajax during a debate, which can be argued to be the source for creating radical Islam right up to Al Qaeda.
I mean, come on! The CIA was murdering people and helping the Shah construct a police state, and Paul is on national TV discussing this openly during a nationally televised debate.Â
You've been publishing a slightly different version of the same essay, for months, on various — mostly "progressive" — indie sites.
Two months ago, I and others posted rebuttals to your ThePeoplesVoice version, wherein you called Ron Paul a coward and, more implicitly, a hypocrite lacking integrity. I have yet to see you respond to the rebuttals; so below, I reproduce my rebuttal from that 2 November version at ThePeolesVoice, in hopes that you'll man-up this time around.
Â
Good morning, Joel.
You wrote:
"Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?"
This argument reminds me of those who say they would support Ron Paul if only he would come out and champion the cause for 9/11 Truth, or Impeachment, or this, or that, at every turn in his campaign. And since he doesn't quench their one-drink thirst for truth and justice, they go apeshit on him — calling him hypocritical, timid, or deceitful — and ultimately, not worthy of their votes. What a hoot.
So, he hasn't yet enunciated to your satisfaction his view on an Article V convention.
Okay. Fair enough. Be upset. But answer this: Who has?
Exactly. No candidate has (at least as far as I know). Otherwise, I surmise, you'd be supporting that candidate instead of spending your time bashing Paul for not coming out on it.
Here's an idea: Attend the next Ron Paul rally nearest you, and ask him personally. If your vote hinges so crucially on that one issue, then you'd probably do well for yourself and your sanity to do so.
And let's assume he does support it; what could he lawfully do — as a loner in Congress, or as President — to change things?
And on the earmark issue:
"[H]e has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items," you wrote.
Ah yes. The earmark/pork fallacy — another short-lived, Paul-bashing headline in the War Street Journal and on Fox Noise Channel. The following excerpt should expose for what it is that ill-aimed dook-fling of a charge.
Writes Lew Rockwell:
"The charge is that Ron's office has requested various spending grants for his district, at the behest of constituents. The charge is apparently true.
"In the same sense, if a constituent is not getting his food stamps, Ron's office--he is a Representative, after all--will try to help.
"Neither of these things means that Ron Paul supports federal public works spending or food stamps (though he'd rather see such spending, if it must happen, take place in Texas or Iowa than Iraq or Afghanistan). He votes against all such spending bills, and--of course--has the best record on spending in modern Congressional history.
"Ron Paul is being attacked here for being a good politician. Indeed, he is a superb politician, adept at assembling coalitions, building support for libertarian ideas among non-libertarians, knowing the proper timing for iniatives and campaigns, and garnering public loyalty despite smears and libels. It's how he's won ten times, against entrenched incumbents and Bush-supported challengers."
And in Paul's own words, from the link provided by LRC:
"Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
"The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred-billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
"So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
"So we need to focus on the longer-term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending."
[http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html]
Oh yeah. A big-time elitist. A big-government coward. A statist in anti-state garb. Uh huh.
Again, I ask, with all due regard: If you won't be voting for Ron Paul on account of his refusal to speak out on Article V conventions, then for whom will you cast your vote? I'm guessing no-one. The again, I could be wrong; but if I am wrong, then why spend so much time trying to convince others not to vote for Paul, while apparently spending little or no time supporting other candidates, or at least suggesting an alternative candidate? Just wondering...
–DT
Â
So tell us, Joel: Are you really this threatened by a man who, according to you, has zero chance of winning; or, are your ad nauseum re-publications of the same thoroughly rebutted rant simply an attempt to "catapult the propaganda"?
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2007-12-21 09:21:01
Sadly, those commenting appear incredibly ignorant of the truth about using the Article V convention option; how ironic that people on the right and libertarians that profess so much respect for the Constitution do not want to use what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case we the people lost trust in the federal government. All false views about an Article V convention have been fully rebutted on our website www.foavc.org, but few seem to have the open minds necessary to learn new information; instead, I keep reading the same tired old knee-jerk reactions to a "con-con." These wrong-headed views have been intentionally implanted into the public consciousness by the power elites that want to preseve the political status quo.
As to Ron Paul, I am completely familiar with all of this writings and activities in Congress; I had the honor of a one on one conversation with him in his office for an hour. I have for many years greatly admired his independent thinking, but as a former senior congressional staffer I am also aware that he really has accomplished next to nothing as a memberr of Congress. True, he is no ordinary, lying politician, but that does not logically lead to concluding that he has the capabilities to be a great president. I have long stated that he never, ever had any chance of obtaining the Republican nomination; the political system is much too corrupt and rigged to permit that. I predict that the primaries will ultimately reveal that despite his passionate (and more than a little obsessed) supporters, he does not have the attributes to receive truly widespread public support, especially among critical thinking Americans that see past his personality to his policy positions. And my position is that if he really had all the integrity you supporters see in him that he would, when he does not get the Republican nomination, say very publicly that his supporters should NOT for the Republican candidate that he surely could not possibly agree with on important issues.
Posted By: Pimpin Turtle Dot Com
Date: 2007-12-21 11:42:09
All three of the top Democrats running have said that there is no way they could or would pull the troops out of Iraq until their second term in 2013. That is insane… It is not only Iraq though. Paul wants to pull troops out across the world. The U.S. population is only 1/25 of the world’s population, yet we spend 80% of the entire world’s military budget. We have troops in 130 different countries! We operate over 700 bases WORLDWIDE! THEY ARE BUILDING A NEW EMBASSY IN IRAQ THAT IS BIGGER THEN THE VATICAN! We still have 50,000 troops in Japan! 40,000 troops in Korea! 75,000 + in Germany! This is insanity and it is bankrupting America! Down with the military-industrial complex! Go Ron Paul! Champion of the Constitution! http://www.ronpaul2008.com http://www.pimpinturtle.com
There are too many sweeping generalizations and conclusions in this article. Every voter has degrees of agreement with a candidate's past actions and voting history. For me, 80% agreement with Dr. Paul is better than 35% agreement with all other candidates. You state: "This is the most delusional aspect of his supporters: Their inability to see just how corrupt the current system is." Sir: I am not delusional just because I don't agree with your ideas.
It is none other than Ron Paul that is the most critical of any of the candidates on the current corrupt system and he has the courage to proclaim this publicly various times, like on Meet the Press ("soft-fascism"). Remember, what it makes all the more remarkable is that he critisizes his own party strongly, which is also - together with a general negative compaign by the media with a few exceptions - and that is very tough. There are many strong interests in both parties that would resist his exposure of a corrupt system. One needs power to effectively change/move the system and it takes time and money to open the eyes of the people in the street.
On the sides of the Democratic Party with 1% of the votes so far, the race is still open with 3 viable candidates and on the side of the Republican Party one could say 5. Thus I do not know why one can say "when", not "if" Ron Paul fail the nomination. Especially this year a clear candidate is extremely difficult to predict. With the Democrats it may be sooner than the Republicans. There may well be a brokered convention with the Republicans, and external factors like an economic recession, the possible worsening of the situation in Iraq, high oil price etc. may well contribute as the deciding factors to get Ron Paul the Republican nomination. It is senseless to speculate now... there are other possibilities also. Bloomberg/Hagel could run as Independents, especially if say Huckabee or Romney get the Republican nomination, and in this case Ron Paul could also run...in a 4 candidate race..
Regarding the earmark issue raised during the Meet the Press interview, Ron Paul's position is perfectly understandable and logic. While never accepting an own rise not backed by the constitution, he voted against the earmarks for this district 14. he is against the system. Now the earmark system gets approved and his district gets allowed say 400 million. He represents the interests of his voters. Must he now refuse the earmark, so that the earmark goes back to Washington, into the coffers of the system, and possible to another district while his district is left in the cold? The system can only be overhauled once Ron Paul is president, together with congress approval.
Joel, listen to your libertarian friends. They're right. If you were fool enough to pull the trigger on an Article V convention, I and every big-government advocate I know would sell our very homes to make sure we were the ones on the ground floor.
If you actually think an AV Con-con would result in ANY positive changes, you need to hop back on the Reality Train.
But really, the FOAVC link has one whopping lie : that a runaway convention isn't possible. The only limits are that two-thirds of the states must approve whatever this convention comes up with. So, in theory, as long as two thirds of the states -- not two thirds of the population, mind you, but STATES -- approves of the changes to the Constitution, bang, they go through.
That IS a possibility. Who knows what might be done? Do you really want liberals setting the changes to the Constitution?
Good Job!!! I am no longer disillusioned by Pimp Paul. I am no longer rubbing the lottery ticket that is Paul. I authored the Ron Paul is a Quitter article I could use your opinion.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.