Pro-Ron-Paul loons falsely claim Napolitano was punished for supporting Paul

Pro-Ron-Paul loons are angry that Andrew Napolitano’s show, Freedom Watch, is no longer being aired on FN. They claim he has been punished this way for supporting Paul. The truth is that the show was ended because of is extremely poor ratings.

And while we’re discussing this subject, I’d like to state that the vast majority of the claims that Napolitano made during his infamous last show were blatant, insulting lies. They were not just false, they were insulting.

Napolitano started by saying that the two-party system was created to limit voters’ choices. That is a blatant lie. The two-party system was actually created at the beginning of America’s history by the Founding Fathers. The first parties of this system were the Federalists (led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton) and the Anti-Federalists (later called the Republicans, then the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). Napolitano claims that the system is designed to limit voters’ choice and their freedoms. He thus levies this false charge against the Founding Fathers, although he’s too much of a coward to admit it.

Napolitano also claimed that the Democratic Party and the GOP are not really different from each other on policy matters, that both support the same policies of Big Government and “military interventionism”, and that no matter who controls the Federal Government and who lives in the WH, government remains big and things remain the same. This is not only patently false, it is downright insulting for all of those past heroes (such as Ronald Reagan) who achieved REAL reductions of the size and scope of government, and all of those current conservative Republicans who are now fighting against Big Government, Allen West, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, and Mike Lee just to name a few. Moreover, the GOP’s philosophies and the policies the GOP favors are completely different from those of the Democratic Party. For Napolitano to claim that the two parties are not really different policy-wise is false, ridiculous, and insulting.

The fiercely pro-Ron-Paul showman also claimed that George W. Bush implemented a foreign policy of muscular military intervention. That is not exactly true. Bush did intervene militarily in Iraq, to be sure, and that was a debatable war. However, regarding Afghanistan, that was not a war he wanted, provoked, or had a choice about. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan hosted Osama Bin Laden and other AQ terrorists (who were trained in AQ camps in that country) who attacked the US on 9/11, killing almost 3,000 people. After such a war, and after the Taleban had refused to comply with repeated US requests to extradite OBL, President Bush had only two options: either to punish the parties responsible, or to do nothing and thereby show the entire world that aggression against the US could go unpunished. That was not a real choice.

Even less credible is Napolitano’s claim that government grew in the late 1990s. That is patently false. The size and scope of government SHRANK during that time. Spending, predominantly defense spending (which Napolitano derisively calls spending on “warfare”), was cut in real terms. Welfare reform was passed and millions of people were moved off welfare rolls, thus reducing government dependency, the single largest driver of government size, scope, and spending. The federal government was even shut down for a while. Taxes were cut, thousands of regulations were thrown into the dustbin, and the federal workforce was reduced.

Napolitano attacked Rick Santorum as a Big Government Republican, even though his beloved Ron Paul has a far worse record on that score. Santorum actually DID oppose the Republican agenda (and that of President Bush) on at least two occasions. Firstly, in 2002, he was one of the few Republicans to vote against the McCain-Feingold Act, which President Bush gleefully signed. Secondly, in 2008, he opposed the TARP program, which Bush was pushing for.

Napolitano claims that his beloved Ron Paul is a defender of liberty who wants to “defend our liberties from the government”, but that is completely false. Ron Paul is not a defender of liberty by any measure. Firstly, he wants to gut (not just cut, but gut) America’s defense, and has repeatedly cosponsored and voted for legislation which would do exactly that, such as Barney Frank’s George-Soros-sponsored defense cuts plan of 2010. Without a strong defense, you won’t have any liberties, as they will be at the mercy of America’s enemies and there won’t even be a safe country to live in. Secondly, Ron Paul is not a supporter of limited government, merely a states’ rights supporter. He believes that states have the right to do anything they want to do to you, and to trash any of your liberties, and that you cannot invoke the Constitution to defend your rights. In other words, Big Government is perfectly fine for him – just so long as it’s at the state level. In this respect, he’s no different from the vast majority of Republican politicians and columnists, including Mitt Romney, Pam Bondi, Ann Coulter, Andrew McCarthy, and Herman Cain. Thirdly, his record is stained by the tons of pork (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) he has brought to his home district every year he has been in office. For Napolitano to claim he’s a limited government supporter and then call on people to support a Big Government states’ rights supporter like Ron Paul.

Napolitano demands a “non-interventionist” foreign policy, but “noninterventionism” is a mere euphemism for isolationism, and is in any case a suicidal, irrational, ideological policy which would be just as bad for America as a radical tilt in the opposite extreme direction: McCainiac hyperinterventionism. The truth is that (Napolitano and other Paulbots, pay attention) America DOES sometimes need to intervene military abroad, specifically, when its crucial interests are at stake.

But the most ridiculous, and most insulting, claim made by Napolitano during his rant during the final episode of his show was that Ronald Reagan never reduced the size and scope of government and that “there was no Reagan Revolution”. Only a totally deranged libertarian or liberal could say something like that.

The truth is that there was a Reagan Revolution and that it succeeded beyond expectations. Tax rates were slashed from the 70s down to the 20s, while revenue dramatically increased in a supply-side boom. The inflation rate was dramatically cut from the teens to the low single digits, as the Reagan Administration and the Volcker-led Federal Reserve instituted a “King Dollar” policy that fellow supply-sider Larry Kudlow fondly remembers and which all four current GOP presidential contenders also support (in some variation). Government spending and scope of intervention were significantly reduced. The budget for the EPA, for example, was cut by 22%. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP shrank from 23% to 21%, despite Reagan’s massive defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War. Entire industries, including the oil and railroad industries, were deregulated, thus spurring their growth and significant price cuts for consumers. The economy embarked on a 25-year expansion which more than doubled America’s GDP. That is a great success by any honest standards. Only a deranged loon like Napolitano could call it a failure or deny that there was any Reagan revolution at all.

Of course, there is a limit to what a President can achieve by himself. For his entire time as President, Reagan had to deal with a House dominated by liberal Democrats such as Tip O’Neill (who wanted Reagan’s entire agenda to be DOA) and a Senate dominated first by RINOs and then, from 1987 onwards, by liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Robert Byrd. That Reagan nonetheless managed to get so much of his agenda passed is proof that the Reagan Revolution was a huge success.

By contrast, what has Ron Paul achieved during his entire time as Congressman (a total of 23 years)? Absolutely nothing. No important legislation that got passed, no real cuts in nondefense spending, no real reforms, no reduction of the size and scope of government that could be attributed to his name, nothing. In fact, he has made the Big Government problem WORSE with his pork projects costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

So, if one actually studies the facts, and doesn’t blindly buy Napolitano’s claims, one sees that his claims are all lies. Good riddance, Mr Napolitano!


5 thoughts on “Pro-Ron-Paul loons falsely claim Napolitano was punished for supporting Paul”

  1. If Napolitano was such a defender of liberty, why didn’t he push forward the question of eligibility with regard to “Barack Hussein Obama”? Instead, he fell in lockstep with Ron Paul, Alex Jones and the Russia today propaganda — which in itself was disturbing.

    1. The Founding Fathers DID create a two-party system, called the First Party System (the Federalists vs the Democratic Republicans). A two -party system has existed in the US since 1789.

      1. That doesn’t mean it was their intention that there should only ever be two parties holding most of the power. It’s just something that happened. The Constitution says nothing about number of political parties.

      2. True, but it doesn’t change the fact that Napolitano’s show was terminated because of its poor ratings.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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