It's been quite a week for American's most execrable Congressman. Apparently not content to definitively and irrevocably align himself with enemies of America, Ron Paul has decided to make sure everyone knows that he is the only Member of Congress not opposed to brutal totalitarianism. As in, literally the only one - from Pence to Pelosi, every member of the House (other than Paul) voted to honor Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, and Pelosi is even making plans to visit the Nobel ceremony personally. Pelosi's support for Xiaobo has led to the unprecedented event of Nancy Pelosi being praised on the front page of RedState.
Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit does a magnificent job of obliterating every one of the moronic arguments that are usually trotted out in defense of Paul's votes on resolutions like these. As Allah notes, it can't be because Paul believes these resolutions are a waste of money, because he votes all the time in favor of equally meaningless resolutions honoring sports teams and the like. It can't be because he is generally opposed to resolutions that meddle in foreign internal affairs, because he has certainly done that before as well:
If he’s opposed on principle to meaningless House resolutions, how come he voted yes on this one during the summer to honor golfer Chi Chi Rodriguez for his contributions to Latino youth programs? And if he’s against telling foreign nations how to conduct their business — even when it comes to standing up for core libertarian values — why’d he vote for this one a few years ago urging Romania to relax its rules on intercountry adoptions? That’s proof enough that he’s not above rhetorically pressuring other countries, but if you need more, you can always revisit his floor speeches and YouTube videos criticizing Israel.
Indeed. So how come when America needs a hero to stand up against wasting money on a resolution honoring Chi Chi Rodriguez (or, you know, research on shrimp marketing), Ron Paul is conspicuously absent, but whenever America wants to send a message that this country stands united in opposition to totalitarianism or terrorism, Ron Paul suddenly decides to become a principled libertarian and pennypincher? It's almost as though one could assume without fear of being faced with evidence to the contrary that Ron Paul's allegedly principled and "quirky" beliefs are really a fig leaf to cover the obvious fact that Ron Paul is far more sympathetic to totalitarians and terrorists than he is to his own country.
Unlike Allah, I am not interested in the Ronulan explanation for Paul's vote. I am quite sure that if Paul had voted in favor of the resolution, we'd be treated today with a deluge of praise by these exact same people who will defend to the death his "no" vote. The average Ronulan I have encountered is simply not capable of assessing any vote cast by Ron Paul in an objective fashion; to them, if Ron Paul cast the vote, then it was a good one, and whatever justification he gives for it is automatically correct. Thus, whatever they have to say is meaningless and irrelevant.
What is not meaningless or irrelevant is that this man is a perpetual cancer and embarrassment to the House Republican caucus. It is long past time for leadership to take action to declare, in the most public manner possible, that standing with totalitarianism does not make one a member in good standing of the caucus.