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.
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.
I don't believe he was and I never supported him. He was just as unelectable as Hunter is now.
With the HUGE difference that Hunter may be THE most qulaified man to be CIC. So we shall see where that leads.
Four of the last 5 presidents were former governors.
I know. Never elected a black liberal freshman senator. Or a screeching hag senator, or a bald mayor of NY.
But we have elected Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clinton. That governor thing doesn’t always work out so well.
But that’s the problem — everyone says “It not my Congressman who is the problem, its the other guy,” and as result, they keep re-electing the same person over and over, who gets addicted to his job and power, and who then, uses his power to do everything he can to keep his job. One of the things that I like about Thompson is that he served a few years in the Senate and then left. Bill Frist is another example. In contrast, Duncan Hunter has spent almost as much time on the public dole as Bill Clintoon, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and other liberals who we love to hate, and in this regard, he is no better than they are. Perhaps if these politicans real jobs without all the perks and bennies that come with membership in Club Congress, they would be more respectful of the people they represent, rather than the lobbyists and special interest groups that put money in their pockets and help keep them in office.
The longevity is not the problem nearly as much as the policies. I’d give my left nad to have Jesse Helms still ruling the roost in the Senate.
Grover Cleveland was the mayor of Buffalo, NY.
No worries about getting back to me.
Politics are like a flying wedge. There is no way in hell that we’re all going to agree on everything, all the time.
I find Republican economic, tax, and trade policies to be quite bad, but it’s not relevant to my voting for Republicans because military and life issues are far more important in my scheme of values. This is the problem with Rudy, in particular: he’s so very bad on the morals issues that nothing he can do elsewhere can compensate.
The others are some kind of blah, but I could vote for McCain (he’s as good as Hunter on military issues, but weak on other issues), or Romney (I don’t really trust him on life issues, but he’s enough of an opportunist that he might be reasonably reliable, and better than Hillary anyway). Fred Thompson is good. He doesn’t have the strong military experience and background Hunter does, but if Thompson ends up being the compromise candidate, I’ll have no trouble voting for him. For now, I’m supporting Hunter.
I think Hunter could really take off if Thompson doesn’t enter the race.
I respectfully disagree — not about Jesse Helms — but about political longevity, in general.
Honest question for an honest answer: Given Mr. Hunter’s current position in the polls, his lack of signifcant movement, and the obvious concern about his campaign bank account, if Fred Thompson decides to run, will you support him based upon what you currently know about his positions and character?
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.