Ron Paul Is Wrong About History

Ron Paul allegedly said in an interview that in dealing with international crises a President should act like President Kennedy during the missile crisis when he picked up the phone and called Khrushchev.

Charles Krauthammer argues that Ron Paul is wrong: Kennedy never picked up the phone to call Khrushchev.

We have to trust Krauthammer. Well, his predictions of the future are always disastrously wrong – for example, his rant about the unelectability of Ron Paul; the news from the Virginia GOP these last days make it clear that only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney can boast any electability, after everyone else lost the chance to compete for a good 10% of the delegates on Super Tuesday. But Krauthammer’s knowledge of history has always been superb. In addition, Krauthammer is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the elitist organization that is so secretive and vague about its true mission and goals, and always has something good to say about more world government and less local government and liberty. They certainly have in their archives such details like whether Kennedy picked up any phone or not; and Krauthammer certainly has access to these archives. So he knows.

He wasn’t allowed to continue his historical lesson, though. If he was, a man of honor and integrity like Krauthammer would have pointed out that Ron Paul was wrong to compare himself to a failed liberal fake hero like Kennedy that can’t show one positive achievement as a President. (Even the missile crisis was resolved in a way convenient to the Communists.) The President that really solved international crises by picking up the phone was no other but Ronald Reagan, a true conservative hero. Krauthammer in his honesty would have pointed out that Ron Paul should have referred to his friend Reagan with whom he shared the same views of foreign policy – non-interventionism, and using liberty and justice at home as an example to the world. Krauthammer would have taught us that it was Reagan who never started new wars – except for two very small and limited operations with almost no loss of American lives – and he ended some of the wars started by his liberal predecessors in office. He would have reminded us that it was the neocon (covert liberal, that is) author Norman Podhoretz who criticized savagely Ronald Reagan for his “softness” toward the Soviet Union, called his foreign policy “scary” and “dangerous,” and declared that Ronald Reagan doesn’t understand the foreign threat to the United States and Israel. Krauthammer would have told us that Reagan preferred to meet the enemy in person instead of sacrificing American soldiers while sitting in his convenient office in Washington DC. He would have also told us that the “evil empire” fell without a single American soldier invading it; entirely by the shrewdness and the wisdom of a President who believed in peace abroad and liberty at home.

In other words, Charles Krauthammer would have shown that Ron Paul doesn’t have to go that far back in history to find a historical example for his policies. Kennedy the liberal democrat is a bad example. Ronald Reagan the conservative hero is Ron Paul’s true example. Ron Paul was wrong about history.

Unfortunately, there is only so much time in an interview. Next time Krauthammer will do better.



About Bojidar Marinov
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman.
  • Ishmael137

    Unlikely Kennedy picked up the hotline since it was not installed till eight months after the crisis. And if a call had been made, it would not have been necessary for America and the USSR to negotiate secretly through intermediary nations, the USSR "proclaiming" that munitions were not being sent to Cuba, and the US telling the Brazilians to tell the Cubans invasion of the island would be "unlikely" if missiles were removed.

    Publicly, though, Kennedy threatened war (the real kind, the same as Paul would resort to) if the Soviet ships tried to run the blockade.

    Paul's isolationist stance would lead to more conflict, not less. And, yes, Paulies, he is an isolationist when it comes to the stage of world politics. Isolationism has nothing to do with trade. As far as the "non-interventionist" paen sung by Paul's Greek chorus, it's a mythical beast, rode by a bellicose man who either wants to declare war on a country or have nothing to do with it.

    • joeT

      Plus Paul votes against all Free Trade treaty agreements.

  • joeT

    "The President that really solved international crises by picking up the phone was no other but Ronald Reagan, a true conservative hero."


    Can we atleast tell the whole truth? Reagan spent years and years, against liberal Objections of REFUSING to talk to the Soviets. He did not do so until he had Leverage in his favor: The Defense Build-up and Star Wars, this is basic history and all things Paul opposes and considers Ronald Reagan a Warmonger over.

    This is beneath an American Vision outfit.

  • joeT

    Ron Paul, in 1987 leaving Reagan's GOP:

    Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed…

    Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind…

    I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy…

    I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction…

    I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

  • joeT

    "Krauthammer in his honesty would have pointed out that Ron Paul should have referred to his friend Reagan with whom he shared the same views of foreign policy – non-interventionism, and using liberty and justice at home as an example to the world."


    Somebody is Lying here, and its Marinov....not Krauthammer. Ron Paul and the Lew Rockwell clique consider Reagan to be an evil Warmonger as I've already shown above Paul's views of Reagan from the 80's.

    Its flatly RIDICULOUS and a HISTORICAL LIE to claim Reagan's Foreign Policy was that of Ron Paul's. Do you have any idea of all the INTERVENTIONS and ACTIVISM Globally of Ronald Reagan????????????

    Paul has George McGovern's Foreign policy....on steroids.

    This is representive of the Views of Reagan from the Rothbardians. Murray Rothbard in 1983

    Ronald Reagan, Warmonger

  • Ishmael137

    Reagan had the advantage of actually seeing the USSR as the evil empire it really was. It was this vision and outlook which enabled Reagan to collapse the USSR, unify Germany and end the Cold War that had threatened Americans for generations. Had a Ron Paul been in office, we would have looked over our Wall of Isolationism and said, "None of our business," hiding from reality until the country was ringed about by missiles.

    Paul's foreign policy is laughable...and dangerous. Because of America's isolationism in earlier generations, America was caught flat-footed prior to WW1 and WW2, and had it not been for a tremendous effort to convert to a wartime economy we would have lost the war. With Paul's isolationism in place, America would not make a move till missiles were in South America and warships were off the coast...with the entitlement babies that now populate America, is there anyone who believes America could against convert to a wartime economy, especially with Paul calling for protections for the enemies within?

    • Ron Willison

      Its really sad that this site must be owned ZIONISTS. Because it seems that any reply or post with that word in it more than once gets moderated. Of course then again godfatherpolitics has felt the wrath that saying anything bad or real about the way the Palestinian people are being slaughtered by their occupiers.

  • Maestro

    Before you say anything check Dr. Paul record i Congress. Do NOT ZION rule 2012 election. FREE USA WILL VOTE FOR DR.PAUL ONLY

  • joeT

    There is a good book on Reagan and the Cold War by Peter Scweizer: "Reagan's War"

    They made a GREAT Documentary out of it called: "In the Face of Evil"

    Both of which, Marinov should read/watch before making RIDICULOUS claims that Paul and Reagan are at all alike, espeically on Foreign Policy.

  • Maestro


  • Maestro


  • sandykramer

    Ron Paul may or may not personally be anti-semitic, but is evident that many, if not most, of Paul's supporters are not appreciably Christian with regard to their view of Jews.

    • Dagny

      No, it's not "evident," or correct. Your statement would be downright silly if it weren't evil.

      • sandykramer

        Woe unto those who call good evil and evil good.
        Try being objective and READ the comments of Ron Paul's SUPPORTERS, and ask yourself if the thoughts expressed by many would reflect well upon Jesus. What is evil is remaining silent in the face of those who would substitute lies for truth. It is hardly "silly."

        • Peter

          Ron Paul supporter are not all Christian so many of the comments may not be so. The same behavior and comment range might come from any local "Church" filled with "believers". Would that mean that the group or what they represent is wrong? What is your source for "many, if not most?" What is the definition of a "Christan... view of the Jews?"

        • sandykramer

          The comments were addressed to self-professed Christian respondents. The evangelical Christian perspective regarding Jews is that they are God's chosen people. Salvation is from the Jews. Concerning "many if not most": My IMPRESSION from having read literally hundreds of remarks by Paul supporters.

  • Watchmen

    The write of this at lest took the time to out these journalist and pundits.

    It has always been said that there is some media complex. Like carbohydrates, you have to look behind the scene.
    It you take the syndicated columnist, in the print and internet media, you will find more than less are
    part of a cabal you have no idea about.

    Next time you read a magazine or newsprint google the person or do a wiki
    many from the left and right are the same.

  • Ron Willison

    Actually Bojidar. John Kennedy got his brains scattered all of a Dallas Texas street just a couple of weeks after issuing Executive Order #11110.  He had the guts to challenge our wonderful FED and FAMILIA to the tune of three Billion dollars.  Linden Johnson tore it up and made sure it never saw the light of day. Right after taking the oath.  Bobby Kennedy was taken out just a short time later after making it known that he was going to go after Organised Crime (i.e. The FED and THUGS) with robust determination.  Those criminal pukes stole America in 1913. What speaks volumes about our seat of Government is the fact that everybody short of  Doctor Ron Paul that we have sent to DC to represent We The People. Have not only been SILENT about the biggest swindle and sting operation that began in 1909-1913 and to this day is still an ONGOING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY! Thank God for Ron Paul. His courage and willingness to draw a line in the sand about this crime is the only reason we are having this conversation. And guess what the biggest slap in the face to America is. That's right, They are using our money to BRIBE our public servants. 

    Everybody in every state needs to look long close and hard at their Reps. and Senators. They have got to fire each and every legislator that has more than two terms in office. Or nothing will change short of Obama will complete their plans of turning America over to The One Global Government. Sure that may mean throwing out a few baby's with the bathwater. But that is the only way we can take our country back from the thieves.  If  you Obama lovers don't wake up and realise that the change you thought you were going to get when you elected him. I would start rehearsing the speech that you will have to use when you daughter or grand daughter comes to you crying. "But GrandPa, I don't want to work in the government bakery for the rest of my life. I want to be a zoologist.  Ron Paul 2012. There is still time to help us get Doc Paul into the Oval Office. He is still fighting, but he needs backup.