The House of Representatives voted to condemn the Iranian government and its recent actions in the country with a 405-1 vote. The sole no vote came from Congressman Ron Paul, and already he is getting flack for his position, as critics argue that, as a proponent of liberty, he should have supported this resolution. On the website Libertarian Republican, a guest columnist writes:

Well once again Congressman Ron Paul shows how much he just loves liberty, he just voted against a house resolution that would declare official support for anti-government protests in Iran! *takes in air* Ahhhh yes, LIBERTY! Don’t you just love it? Now, to be more serious, how come every non-interventionist paleolibertarian like Paul is always willing to say and write things for freedom (well except this time of course), but they are so resistant to doing something for freedom?

First off, I would agree that we need to express our support of the anti-government protests in Iran, but I am one of those that stands by Ron Paul for his no vote. Ron Paul didn't vote no because he doesn't support freedom for the Iranian people. On the contrary,  he voted no to express his disapproval of Congress voting on resolutions with no real legal weight, interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign nation -- and doing so with limited information on the real situation, being hypocritical in its haphazard condemnation of only those regimes it finds inconvenient.

Or we could just switch our emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, and then maybe to North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, depending on which one acts up the most.  Novelty is always appealing.  So this sounds like a plan, right?

Because I'm pretty sure that's how he depicted himself during the election. Now, however, he has announced that he will create 20,000 new government jobs (yay! we have that much less money to put into growth of actually valuable private industry!) to manage all the new weapons he will be buying -- more than $100 billion's worth each year, in fact.