I have been a libertarian for many years, but only recently have I considered myself a member of the Libertarian Party.  I supported Michael Bednarik in 2004 and I plan to vote for Bob Barr this year because I think the Libertarian Party is the party that best exemplifies true freedom for everyone.  During this past year, however, I have had to answer questions about Ron Paul.  Because he has wrapped his message with the language of liberty, many people have assumed (incorrectly) that he was a libertarian.  He has a long association  with the Libertarian Party including the 1988 botched presidential run.  However, he has remained a Republican, even when the lack of an opponent in his House race gave him the opportunity to run as a Libertarian if he really wanted to.

And now, Ron Paul, because of a personal squabble with Bob Barr, has decided to endorse a non-liberty candidate from a non-liberty party.   The reason for the squabble is simply that Barr wouldn’t pay Paul the “proper fealty” at Paul’s “historic” news conference September 10th.  This supposed snub has caused a lot of consternation around the Paul organization and the Barr campaign,  because of some undeserved exalted status some libertarians have placed upon Ron Paul.

I write this letter today, to the Libertarian Party, to say that it is time to just forget Ron Paul and move on.  He is not a libertarian and he is not pro-liberty.  Let’s recap:

* Ron Paul supports passing federal legislation to ban abortion because he believes it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.  One shouldn’t forget that Paul doesn’t support evolution, rock solid science, but does support homeopathy, which is junk science

* Ron Paul supports eliminating any chance the Federal Courts can review marriage law.  This is done under the auspice of “freedom” but in reality it is an attempt to allow states to ban gay marriage

* Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a separation of Church and State, but instead believes in prayer in school and the Ten Commandments on federal buildings.

* Ron Paul believes states have the right to ban private acts between consenting adults as he angrily proclaimed in his response to Lawrence v Texas

* Ron Paul loves to talk about the Constitution but seems to ignore the 14th Amendment and the vast amount of case law behind it

* Ron Paul proclaims on his website the Constitution is “replete with references to God” when it is not

* Ron Paul talks a big game when it comes to presidential debate access, however in his own House primary, he refused to debate Chris Peden who was 6-8 times higher in most polls than Ron Paul ever was in his own presidential run

* Reason magazine has reported that Ron Paul laughs at the very idea of gay marriage

* Ron Paul has never once moved to impeach anyone in Congress or the President, while constantly talking about how everything is unconstitutional, because it would threaten his seniority

* In the last Congress, Ron Paul asked for more pork per constituent than Hillary Clinton, despite all the talk about spending

* Despite a reputation as “Dr. No”, Ron Paul has voted with the Republican party more than 70% of the time during his tenure, 76% in the last Congress

* Ron Paul has the third highest rate of missed votes in the House if you exclude people who have died or resigned

All in all, it’s a pretty pitiful record of liberty and freedom.  What I haven’t mentioned yet, is that Ron Paul has never authored a piece of legislation that has made it to law.  He has nothing to show for the cause of liberty.

One can not talk about Ron Paul without mentioning the newsletters he wrote in early 90′s.  I don’t care to rehash what he has said since 2000,  so I will simply quote an article from 1996, immediately after the newsletters first came to light:

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors.”

In conclusion, I see no reason why Ron Paul should continue to be revered inside the Libertarian Party.  The party is doing itself a great disservice by linking itself with someone who only superficially supports the ideas of the Libertarian Party, and someone with such a shady past.  While I hold no illusion that I hold any sway with the Libertarian Party, I simply ask that the party think deeply if it wants to continue to pay homage to Ron Paul

Sincerely,

Shane P. Brady