Why Ron Paul is extremely weak on defense


In his recent pathetic screeds, Official Ron Paul Propagandist Jack Hunter has desperately been denying that his boss, Ron Paul, is weak on defense, calling that accusation “absurd by itself” and claiming it is a mere distraction from other candidates’ alleged lack of limited government credentials and spending cuts proposals, an accusation by Hunter that I thoroughly debunked here.

As for defense, YES, Ron Paul IS weak on defense, no matter how many times Hunter will deny that. Ron Paul is extremely weak on defense – that is a fact.

Let’s review his entire record as a Congressman and as a presidential candidate.

The isolationist loon showed his true colors as early as the 1980s, when he routinely voted against Ronald Reagan’s defense budgets and denounced them (his son, Sen. Rand Paul, admits that Paul broke ranks with Reagan as soon as the Gipper submitted his first budget request to the Congress). He also refused to vote for particular Reagan defense programs such as the B-1 bomber, America’s first bomber since 1962. When he was leaving the Republican Party in 1987, he bashed Reagan for his defense spending hikes (and his assertive foreign policy abroad, calling it “unconstitutional”) in his farewell letter. Meanwhile, his chief of staff Lew Rockwell and his intellectual father Murray Rothbard called Reagan a “warmonger” and called on the Congress to impeach Reagan and remove him from office. In 1988, Paul called Reagan a “total failure” as President and said he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself from the Reagan Administration. In 1989, when Reagan left the White House, Rothbard claimed that the Reagan years were “eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years” and that Reagan was a “cretin”.

Ron Paul left the GOP in 1987 and the Congress in 1989. He came crawling back into the GOP in 1996, but insincerely, and only to win back his House seat, because he likes being a member of Congress and bringing $400 mn worth of pork projects back home every year. Since coming back to Congress, Paul has always voted against defense budgets, against crucial defense programs (such as the GMD program), and against other strong defense policies. Last year, Paul voted to cut $100 mn from the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program, which protects the US homeland (and ONLY the US homeland) against ballistic missiles. That vote, by itself, proves that Ron Paul categorically opposes a strong defense – and not merely military interventions abroad.

Earlier, in 2010, Paul and his liberal anti-defense friends Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) sponsored a “task force” comprised of propagandists from George-Soros-funded organizations (such as the “Center for American Progress and the CATO Institute) whose very purpose was to propose $1 trillion dollar in defense cuts. Predictably, the “task force”, comprised exclusively of anti-defense activists, easily came up with such devastating cuts, proposing massive cuts to America’s (cheap to maintain) nuclear stockpile, nuclear triad (including foregoing the next generation bomber program and cutting all three legs of the triad), conventional weapon fleets, military personnel, modernization programs (such as the F-35 and the V-22), and troops and bases abroad (not merely in Europe, but also in strategically important countries like Japan and South Korea, from where they wanted to withdraw tens of thousands of American troops). The sponsors of the “task force” – Paul, Frank, and Wyden – endorsed all of its recommendations. This is now known as “Ron Paul’s George Soros defense plan”.

When, last year, the Super Committee failed to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit and the sequestration mechanism was triggered, Paul declared himself an enthusiastic supporter of that mechanism (which will cut defense spending by $1.065 TRILLION over the next decade) and lied that it would merely cut the rate of growth of defense spending. His Official Propagandist Jack Hunter, his supporter John Stossel (a declared libertarian), and other libertarians are still propagating this lie, as is Rush Limbaugh. This is, of course, a blatant lie, because, as CBO figures show, the sequester will cut defense spending (hereby meaning the core defense budget) by $882 bn in real terms BELOW the FY2011 level over a decade. If the sequester is allowed to stand, defense spending will not return to FY2011 levels ($528.9 bn) in nominal numbers until FY2019, and will not return to such levels in REAL TERMS until the mid-2020s. However, Paul supports it and his propagandists are still propagating the forementioned lie about the sequester.

Furthermore, Paul supports defense cuts even beyond the sequester. The mechanism would cut defense spending in FY2013 immediately down to $491 bn, but Paul wants to cut it immediately down to $484 bn (while cramming the DOE’s $17 bn a year defense-related programs into the DOD’s budget). This would mean cutting the core defense budget down to its lowest leven since FY2005, when the world was much safer than it is today and America’s enemies were much weaker than they are today, and down to just 3.3% of GDP, the lowest share since FY1940 if FY1998-FY2001 are excepted. These would be draconian defense cuts. Yet Paul supports them. He also says that the cuts President Obama has implemented and plans to implement ($487 bn) are not enough.

America cannot be safe if it continues to disarm itself. America cannot be safe if it significantly cuts its defense budget. Yet, Ron Paul wants to cut it even BEYOND the cuts the sequester would make.

So as you can see, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul IS weak on defense – despite Jack Hunter’s and Bruce Fein’s pious denials. Facts are facts. Ron Paul IS weak on defense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s