Skip to comments.50 Congressional Record articles (Duncan Hunter on the House Floor - Devastating the Liberals DH Col
Posted on 04/11/2007 1:01:11 PM PDT by pissant
A DEFINITION OF THE RICH (House of Representatives - February 17, 1993)
[Page: H649](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, for over a year President Clinton, then candidate Clinton, and now President Clinton, has been saying that he is going to tax the rich. He now tells us who the rich are: The rich include anyone who heats their home or drives a car in America.
IT'S CALLED PORKBUSTING, NOT GRIDLOCK (House of Representatives - April 02, 1993)
[Page: H1862](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] a member of the Democrat leadership who just took this well to criticize Republicans for standing firm against pork barrel spending.
This great economic stimulus package that you have touted includes bike paths in Puerto Rico, cemeteries, and fish atlases. It is pure pork, and the Republicans who are fighting this are porkbusters.
Our duty to the American people as Republicans is to stand firm against shams, and the Democrat economic package is a sham.
DO NOT SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY (House of Representatives - September 29, 1994)
[Page: H10255](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, the President in sending GATT down in an attempt at the last minute to get it through is really doing a disservice to our country. He is doing a disservice particularly to the sovereignty of this country. Eighty-three of the nations that will be members of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and that will be about two-thirds of the membership, have a record in the United Nations of voting more than 50 percent of the time against America.
What President Clinton is doing is giving away our strong right to bilateral negotiations in trade. He is surrendering that to a committee that does not like us very much. This President is sending our Government to the United Nations, our troops to Haiti, and our jobs to Japan.
THE D-DAY CELEBRATION--A REMINDER THAT PEACE IS PRESERVED THROUGH STRENGTH (House of Representatives - June 10, 1994)
[Page: H4299](Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr . Hunter ].
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to the distinguished gentleman who just talked about the visit to the D-day celebration by Democrats and Republicans, and let me just say as one Republican that I concur in his statement that it is important to those who celebrate D-day to remember that this country needs to be strong, to remember that we preserve peace through strength, and from my perspective, I would like to see every single American go to Normandy and understand that the few dollars we save by cutting the defense budget may be paid for ultimately in American blood when we are found to be weak by an adversary or a potential adversary and that weakness is exploited.
I think D-day is a reminder to all of us that America needs to stay strong, and I am reminded that after World War II, after D-day, after we had the mightiest military in the world and we started to demobilize, General Marshall was asked one day, `How is the demobilization going?' He said, `This isn't a demobilization; this is a rout.'
I would suggest that what we are doing in slashing the defense budget, as we did yesterday, is exactly the same thing we did after World War II, and we are not going to be prepared for what happens in the Korean Peninsula and we are not going to be prepared for what happens in the Balkans, and it is going to accrue to the detriment of the American people.
I would like to see everybody in the White House, everybody in the administration, and every American have a chance to set foot in Normandy and understand what occurred and why it occurred.
AMERICA NEEDS MORE CRIME FIGHTERS, NOT MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS (House of Representatives - August 18, 1994)
[Page: H8605](Mr . HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], has just blamed Charlton Heston for the failure of this pork barrel boondoggle that we humorously refer to as the crime bill. He even criticized Mr. Heston's role as Moses in the Ten Commandments.
Coming from his big government district in New York, Mr. Schumer probably would have preferred a movie entitled `Pharoah Knows Best.' Charlton Heston did not kill the crime bill. The American people looked at the promise of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] to make the rest of the country as safe as New York City, and the American people said `that is what we are afraid of.'
If pouring social programs into New York City solved crime, there would not be a single pickpocket left. Hug-a-thug does not work. We need more Ben Hurs, more Will Pennys, more Andrew Jacksons, and more Moseses.
COMMEMORATING THE SERVICEMEN KILLED IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 03, 1994)
[Page: H10675]Mr . HUNTER . Mr. Speaker, since I have that time, before I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] I want to answer perhaps part of the question for that father whose son was killed in Somalia.
Mr. DORNAN. Or the son lying near death in the last few hours----
Mr . HUNTER . Or the young man who has been shot in Haiti, and I think the answer has to do with priorities, and I think we can look back at liberal administrations since Vietnam, during Vietnam and since, and we have seen a situation in which typically politics has prevailed over the safety of American service people, and let me just say that in Vietnam many times our political leaders had a chance to end that war early, to do tough things with North Vietnam, to do things that were not diplomatically acceptable to them, and because of that there was only one currency that they were willing to expend in South Vietnam, and that currency was American soldiers, and because of that many times soft bodies of American G.I.'s ended up taking the hits when American bombing, and strategic positions and places, while it would have been done to the criticism of the world, it would have been attended by the criticism of world diplomats, nonetheless would have saved Americans from dying.
In Somalia we had basically the same thing where the American commander on the ground asked for armor. He asked for armor because he knew you had to have armor to get through the streets in Somalia in the urban areas because the other side has RPG's, rocket propelled grenades, and the thin-skinned vehicles that we had could not stand up to that----
Mr. DORNAN. And the big specter gunships were not overhead.
Mr . HUNTER . And central command approved the request for armor, and it was briefed by Colin Powell to President Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, and it was turned down, and I am paraphrasing Mr. Aspin, `for political reasons.' It is because it would have made our military look `too militaristic.'
[TIME: 2100] Mr. DORNAN. Too offensive.
Mr . HUNTER . So once again American soft bodies were sacrificed because the prevailing sentiment in Washington, DC, in a liberal administration, and the overwhelming sentiment was in favor of diplomacy, in favor of world image, in favor of politics, and not in the best interests of our fighting people.
We need this no nonsense patriot for President.
I think I’m about ready for a Hunter/Pissant ticket... Great stuff!
Lots of gems here.
"If pouring social programs into New York City solved crime, there would not be a single pickpocket left. Hug-a-thug does not work. We need more Ben Hurs, more Will Pennys, more Andrew Jacksons, and more Moseses."
"Mr. Speaker, for over a year President Clinton, then candidate Clinton, and now President Clinton, has been saying that he is going to tax the rich. He now tells us who the rich are: The rich include anyone who heats their home or drives a car in America."
Seriously. This man needs to be our next President.
Doubt if the sheeple will see/hear any of this however...?
“We need this no nonsense patriot for President.”
Yes, we do.
With his record and my undeniable charm, we’d win for sure. ;o)
I think I’ll post one of these every other day or so. Feel free to do so also. The link here is a treasure trove.
Wow. He’s pretty impressive.
Hey, I saw your response to me, but I forgot to get back to you. We may disagree on gender pricing, but I certainly can’t argue with your choice of candidate.
Hunter is a good man and will make a fine President.
Sounds like he might make a good ‘08 prez to succeed our Prez.
If I have anything to say about it, they will hear it.
I'm a loser
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be
And central command approved the request for armor, and it was briefed by Colin Powell to President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, and it was turned down, and I am paraphrasing Mr. Aspin, `for political reasons.’ It is because it would have made our military look `too militaristic.’
Bwa hahahahahahaha.. go get’em Hunter!
I’m tired of beating up on hapless Rudy. LOL
I, for one, am going to work my butt off to see he gets there.
For those disappointed in how Newt developed “foot-in-mouth” disease yesterday...here’s someone who has an immunity to it. ;)
Wow, what an informative post. *rolls eyes*
Wipe your chin. Rudy soiled it.
I’ve yet to hear Hunter have to correct himself or tapdance out of a silly statement. I’m sure its happened, but I’ve read thousands of statements and I’ve yet to see it.
Thanks for the ping. Bump for later reading.
Yeah right. Compare this “losers” record and his consistant stand on principles and conservatism to the other candidates. Get back to me if you find anyone better.
Many of our founding fathers felt that our country should not be run by career politicans, but rather, we should elect a citizen legislature whose members serve a few years out of civic duty, and then return to the civilian life from which they came. Indeed, that was the premise of the “Civilian Legislature Act,” which was Item No. 10 in Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. Could you please ask your good friend Duncan Hunter how he feels about career politicans and if he agrees with the founding fathers, then why, as a conservative, has he spent 27 years in Congress, rather than serving a few terms and then retiring back to private life?
He appears to be pretty much untouchable.
He’s probably taken a few votes I wouldn’t care for over the years but percentagewise I probaly agree with 80 to 90 percent of what he’s done.
Duncan Hunter is the man!!
What do we do : D HUNTER / F TOMSON ????
All I can say is you better thank your lucky stars that Hunter and some like him have stayed in place.
But if private sector experience is your guide, you might want to support uh,,,,,uh,,,,,uh
Doesn't matter whose name is first. They would make a good team.
Any politician who agrees with me 60% of the time, but whose agreements are in my key areas of concern, can win my support.
If I agreed with a politician 90% of the time, but the 10% disagreement included interpretation of the constitution, I would never support him.
I very much enjoyed reading your homepage. Why the attack on Duncan?
Duncan/Fred or Fred/Duncan I can easily live with.
Now if we can just get the rest of the boosters for the RINO Rudy McRomney candidates to just shut the hell up... maybe he'd have a chance.
Gun Owners of America researched Fred. He’s better than Rudy, Mitt, or John, but not by much. I’d rather have Duncan for Prez with Fred, Ron, or Newt for Veep.
I’d like Ron Paul to be Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Education, or the like.
He’ll trim those institutions down to size post-haste.
My #1 is Hunter all the way. Guns, God, Family, Conservatism, patriotism, Military.
http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx - MUCH INFO HERE.
I'm good with that. ;-)
Maybe after he's done axing that unauthorized expansion of Federal power, we can move him over to NASA, the FAA, the FAA, and the FDA.
Whoops... Second “FAA” was supposed to be “FCC”. Had a stuck finger I guess.
Bump’n Hunter... to the top!
He's good people and would make an excellent President from what I've seen so far.
You Hunter Freaks remind me of the Keyes supporters from 2000. Like da hood's going to elect a conservative oreo like him.
That's the problem with career politicans: They think they are entitled to the office because we really need them and they are irreplacable. What should be obvious to anyone who has ever spent time working with elected representatives on the State and Congresional level is that career politicans are not nearly as smart as they think they are, the job is not nearly as difficult as they think it is (which is something they would realize if they were smarter), and if they were to drop dead tomorrow, life would go on and there would be dozens of people from the same party willing to step forward and accept the nomination, who are as conservative, if not more conservative (or liberal) as the person they are replacing.
What is so very obvious is that the Republican controlled Congress that was voted out of power last November was as dysfunctional, spendthrift, and corrupt as its Democratic predecessors. Duncan Hunter was an important part of that Republican Congress, who abandoned their conservative roots, and decided to grow the government at an unprecedented rate and spend our hard-earned tax dollars like drunken sailors, and that makes him part of the problem, not the solution.
Thanks. See#46. Hunter is just like Keyes, too conservative to be electable.
And Alan Keyes was qualified to be CIC how? Who is better than Hunter for that role?
There is some merit to what you say. I’ve supported term limits. But Hunter being in Congress has been helpful, not hurtful. He has the highest conservative rating of any candidate running (including Thompson, who I think will run).
Gotta choose who is best amongst those that toss their hats in the ring. I’d much prefer a 26 year congressman with a good to excellent record and a bona fide military expert to a life long public servant that has shown nothing but contempt for conservative ideals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.