Rand Paul Caught Trying to Use Fake Quote from Founding Father to Justify His Ignorance

rand-paul-patrick-henryI’ve often referred to the Republican party as the “propaganda party” because that’s what I truly believe that it is. These are people who honestly and truly believe that they’re the only ones who stand for “Constitutional values.” They’re also many of the same people who claim this nation was “founded on Christianity,” yet can’t explain why there’s not a single reference to Christianity anywhere in our Constitution.


The conservative mindset is baffling considering how the Republican party is now comprised of southern conservatives, not the northern liberals who made up the majority of the party during the days of Lincoln. As we all know, southern conservatives have almost always been on the wrong side of history when it comes to our Constitution.

Well, what some Republicans also like to do is cite quotes said by our Founding Fathers (usually out of context) to try to make some point that if they were alive today they would surly be supporters of the tea party and the GOP.

Take for instance GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul, who found the need to “quote” Patrick Henry last week in South Carolina:

“Patrick Henry said this, Patrick Henry said the Constitution is about ‘restraining the government not the people.'”

Which is actually just a part of this quote:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Pretty clear cut, wouldn’t you say? It seems Patrick Henry was clearly anti-government and would be a tea party supporter if he were around today. These words couldn’t be more specific and oddly aligned very closely with much of what you hear from tea party Republicans today.

There’s just one slight problem: The quote is fake. There’s absolutely no evidence or record of Henry ever writing or saying such a thing.

But Paul’s not the only one who’s fallen victim to using fake quotes. A few weeks prior to Paul using this fabricated quote from Henry, Scott Walker did the same thing by trying to use a quote he claims was said by Thomas Jefferson… that was actually never said or written by the Founding Father.

Then just a few months ago Ohio Governor John Kasich, a potential GOP 2016 presidential candidate, was busted using a fake quote from Abraham Lincoln to justify his stance against providing free community college to all Americans.


It seems to be a growing trend where Republicans are so quick to try to justify their ignorance by citing great people from our past, that they’re too inept to even do a quick Google search to verify if these quotes are real.

Then again, when do facts really matter to conservatives? That’s why so many Republicans can be so loose with saying nonsense like what Paul did, because they know it doesn’t matter if what they’re saying is factual or accurate – it’s just about telling conservatives what they want to hear.

And when it comes to conservatives, especially those who align with the tea party, all they really care about is supporting those politicians who are most willing to pander to the delusions they’ve built up in their minds.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Steve Temke

    Rand Paul keeps trying to brand himself as a different type, a unique Republican, but continues to fail miserably. Just like all the rest of them, he is morally bankrupt and ethically challenged. Nothing new here, folks.

  • poppaDavid

    When people talk about our founding fathers, too may ignore Thomas Paine. He certainly was one of them. His pamphlet on “Agrarian Justice” is interesting because it proposed Social Security as a federal program. Suppose our “original intent” people could get on board with Thomas Paine?

    • buricco

      No doubt they hate him and downplay his existence because he was an out atheist.

      • poppaDavid

        So much for all of the founders being Christians.

      • buricco

        Certainly I don’t think you could call Jefferson or Franklin “Christians” in the sense that they believed in Jesus Christ as the son of God – a fact that I’m sure pains many a would-be theocrat…

      • poppaDavid

        Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the Bible and excised the parts he didn’t like. That makes it easy to see what he did believe.

    • Cliff Isaac

      By 1793, he was imprisoned in France for not endorsing the execution of Louis XVI. During his imprisonment, he wrote and distributed the first part of what was to become his most famous work at the time, the anti-church text, The Age of Reason (1794-96). He was freed in 1794 (narrowly escaping execution) thanks to the efforts of James Monroe, then U.S. Minister to France. Paine remained in France until 1802 when he returned to America on an invitation from Thomas Jefferson. Paine discovered that his contributions to the American Revolution had been all but eradicated due to his religious views. Derided by the public and abandoned by his friends, he died on June 8, 1809 at the age of 72 in New York City

      • poppaDavid

        Sure, but how many of the “Original Intent” tea-party crowd are willing to support his original intent?

      • Cliff Isaac

        Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Romans 13:6-7).
        Alot of tea party members agree with Thomas Paine’s view of agrarian justice rather than FDR’s social security. Mainly because the fund doesn’t get paid into until someones death. So that it funds itself through an estate tax and is divided evenly to each person. No has to pay into it while living. That would alleviate alot of the problems with our current social security system. With 77% collecting SSI and never having worked a day in their life or seen a doctor. Rendering the system insolvent. Paine appears to be a good fit for the Tea Party. He supports commercial enterprises and hates national debt, except in cases of military buildup, and, like libertarians and the rest, Paine was an ardent believer in small government.

      • poppaDavid

        “77% collecting SSI and never having worked a day” You really ought to explain that, because as stated it is a lie.

        Paine’s funding is different from FDR, so? It is socialism. And to say that Paine is a good fit for the tea-party is pretty funny. They don’t accept death taxes either.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Luke Rosiak reports for the Washington Examiner, July 30, 2013, that a study by the Social Security Administration found some disturbing, but unsurprising, attributes of disability recipients:

        Recipients of federal disability checks often admit that they are capable of working but cannot or will not find a job.
        Returning to work is not a goal for 71% of the SSDI recipients, and 60% of the SSI recipients.
        Most have never received significant medical treatment and not seen a doctor about their condition in the last year, even though medical problems are the official reason they don’t work.
        Those who acknowledge they’re on disability because they can’t find a job say they make little effort to find one.
        Of those who say they’re actually looking for a job, most say they’re looking only for part-time jobs that will allow them to keep their disability benefits.
        The unearned disability recipients are in less pain than their counterparts who had paid into the system. In other words, they are using SSD as a substitute for welfare. These individuals are typically overweight, uneducated and from broken homes.
        There are practical barriers to weaning recipients off the disability rolls. The jobs they’d be candidates for often don’t provide health insurance, which is essential for those with medical problems, and they’d rather receive the SSD benefits. Many also say they don’t have transportation to work.
        72% of the small number of SSDI recipients who started a job while on disability got cash under the table, as did 70% of the small number of SSI recipients who started a job while on disability.
        24% of the SSDI recipients lack even GEDs, as do 43% of the SSI recipients.
        Only 18% of SSDI and 15% of SSI recipients said, during the past 4 weeks, they could not do social activities with family or friends because of their physical health or emotional problems.
        As many as 96% of SSDI and 91% of SSD recipients admit whatever physical health or mental problems they have do not hinder or limit them from the kind or amount of work or other daily activities they do. In other words, they are not really so disabled they can’t work.
        47% of SSDI and 41% of SSD recipients are obese; 30% of both groups are overweight; only 21% of SSDI and 25% of SSD recipients are of normal weight.
        28% of SSD recipients had never worked for pay, i.e., they never had a job!
        Most SSD recipients don’t bother to educate themselves about or avail themselves of government programs to wean them off disability, such as the Plan for Achieving Self-Support, Earned Income Exclusion, and Continued Medicaid Eligibility after they get off disability benefits.
        Many disability recipients also receive other government welfare benefits: 28% of SSDI and 81% of SSD recipients are on Medicaid; 80% of SSDI and 42% of SSD recipients are on Medicare; 18% of SSDI and 52% of SSD recipients are on food stamps.
        The lack of a spouse is a significant factor: 54% of SSDI and 88% of SSD recipients are not married.
        11% of SSDI and 21% of SSD recipients have been receiving disability benefits for 20 years or more.
        Source: Public use file round 4

      • poppaDavid

        SSDI is not SSI.

      • poppaDavid

        Side question, why do conservatives who want to follow the “original intent” of the Constitution quote Jefferson, who didn’t like it, instead of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist, who championed a strong federal government?

      • Cliff Isaac

        The Federalists wanted to limit free speech including hamilton. The constitution is not a “living”document as some on the left like to indicate. Conservatives believe in a government limted by the constitution. The Left believes the state should be the most powerful force in society. It should be in control of educating all of its children; it should provide all the health care for all of its citizens; and it should supervise just about all other areas of society. There should be no competing power. As to the all-important question of how much government is too much government, I have never encountered a person of the Left who had an answer to that question. Conservatives believe the individual is the essential component of a good society, not government. The government’s role in society should be limited to absolute necessities such as national defense and to serving as the resource of last resort for citizens who cannot be helped by other citizens, private organizations or charities that donate money and time.

      • poppaDavid

        Jefferson opposed banking and capitalism. “And with the laborers of England generally, does not the moral coercion of want subject their will as despotically to that of their employer, as the physical constraint does the soldier, the seaman, or the slave?”

      • poppaDavid

        BTW, “When is government too large?” When it forgets that it is supposed to protect and serve all individuals instead of the moneyed class.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Alexander Hamilton was a member of an abolitionist society in New York and considered a number of plausible methods to end the system of slavery. George Washington released his slaves upon his death and tried to set an example for future emancipation. Thomas Jefferson proposed several measures to abolish slavery in Virginia and understood the institution’s corrosive effect on free society. The founding generation, often divided on issues of the day, agreed that slavery was a curse to be dealt with, not an institution to be lauded.

        But by the late 1830’s, as slave populations exploded rather than dwindled and soaring profits accompanied the once-dying institution, a new political theory was crafted to defend it. By 1837, John C. Calhoun’s “positive good” speech had focused the intellectual class of Southern slavery defenders on the ostensible benefits of slavery to the slave himself.

        Paternalism and “A Chicken for Every Slave”

        It is clear through their support of entitlement programs, near-endless welfare benefits, and niggling regulations of every type, that the modern leftist elite sees themselves as a benevolent guiding force, correcting the behavior of the poor or uneducated for their own good. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times even bemoaned the fact that the U.S. government could not be granted Chinese-style dictatorship powers for a single day, implying that such a government could “authorize the right solutions.”

        Compare modern liberal benevolent paternalism and support of the welfare state to the ideas of Henry Hughes, a passionate advocate of a slightly modified version of antebellum slavery that he dubbed “Warranteeism.” The ideas behind a “warrantee” system of slavery will sound familiar to students of the New Deal and especially the Great Society. Hughes said in A Treatise on Sociology, the Theoretical and Practical in 1854

        Laborers never want work. If they do; provision for its supply is warranted… Laborers are never out of employment… In the distribution of the warrantee economy, the distributor is the state or function of justice. Wages are warranted… Wages are variable, but these variations are never below the standard of comfortable sufficiency of necessaries. Want is eliminated. There are no poor: all have competence… Capital and labor are syntagonistic… The subsistence of all is warranted to all.

        Notice the similarity to FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, recently championed by liberal intellectual Cass Sunstein:

        The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.

        Hughes believed that slavery was a perfect system of social justice and that it would fix the inequalities of economic distribution that were present in free, capitalist societies. Hughes said that the economic and labor system must be highly regulated through the institution of slavery so that, “injustice in the distribution shall be eliminated.”

        William H. Freehling, one of the greatest antebellum America historians, called Hughes a precursor to Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kenneth Galbraith in that they allied Big Labor and Big Government against Big Capital.

      • poppaDavid

        There is no rational connection between the speech of Calhoun and the freedoms of FDR. One talks about full employment through slavery, while the other talks about having and keeping the benefits of your labor. Slavery has no intention of providing any of the freedoms listed by FDR.

      • Cliff Isaac

        Hughes believed that slavery was a perfect system of social justice and that it would fix the inequalities of economic distribution that were present in free, capitalist societies. Hughes said that the economic and labor system must be highly regulated through the institution of slavery so that, “injustice in the distribution shall be eliminated.”

        William H. Freehling, one of the greatest antebellum America historians, called Hughes a precursor to Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kenneth Galbraith in that they allied Big Labor and Big Government against Big Capital.

      • poppaDavid

        Hughes was obviously promoting a self-serving idea of the states-rights group. And wrong.

        Freehling was obviously trying to paint FDR with the slavery paint. Your consideration of him as “one of the greatest…” makes your opinion suspect. Get honest.

      • Cliff Isaac

        He was not trying to paint him with the slavery paint. That was not the point. The rational connection between Calhoon, Hughes, and FDR is their argument for security over free enterprise. That’s why during Calhoon’s and Hughes time, Slavery was a form of security since their was no security in banking. One had to own property to be secure. ie slaves or land. Capitalism did not create slavery. Slavery is socialistic in nature since it relies on the redistribution of slaves and can not survive without capitalism. Just like socialism and communism need it to survive. The banking industry, slavery, drug cartels, abortion clinics, and corporate monopolies all undermine the moral relationship between buyer and seller in a free enterprise inherent in capitalism. They use detestable commodities that are a blights on society. Conversely Socialism and communism are forms of legalized theft and are therefore amoral. That is not to say Capitalism isn’t corruptable, but there is no other system that isn’t inherently corrupted other than Capitalism.

      • poppaDavid

        No. You wish to ascribe moral character to Capitalism (the economic system) and Capitalists (the practitioners of capitalism) that are inconsistent with the basic premise of capitalism. Capitalism holds that a person may invest their retained earnings (capital) in economic ventures and take a profit from that investment.