Skip to comments.Ron Paul, the Real Republican? (Announcing the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, since Saddam has no active nuclear program, being that he is dead and the methods of production (and the uranium produced thereby) are now in our hads, our efforts, so far have been very effective.
That's very good news indeed.
Why is it then that we are continually told that another terror attack is not a matter of "if" but is a matter of "when?"
Their sponsors in the Al Dawa Islamic Terrorist Party, a Party who have openly claimed responsibility for Anti-American Terror attacks, are Ruling Iraq from their seats in the Iraqi Parliament.
I dunno. Been to Salt Lake City lately?
Been to Salt Lake City lately?
>>Now, on to Iran to finish the job.<<
Dream on, bro. The generals are not going to fight a two-front war while their rearguard is sitting in the middle of a bunch of Shi'ite militias with ties to Iran. Too bad we let THAT particular genie out of the bottle.
Of course I have.
Your allegations of mass murder are allegations.
He was the head of the Badr Brigade during the Iran-Iraq war.
I'm not sure why he should be convicted for fighting Hussein or why he should be convicted because the Badr Brigade is now in the business of eliminating Sunni insurgents - the same business that the US military is in.
That's why I remarked that those wanting on his ping list should 'beware'. Is there a ZOT somewhere in the future?
Can you explain to me what good his "principled vote" accomplished....'cause I already know about the harm.
What he did accomplished nothing except for showing him to be of the same mind-set as Murtha.
And Hezbollah started kidnapping Americans and hijacking planes after the Marines pulled out.
It means: call, summon, or invite.
Hope that helps.
The entire name is The Islamic Call Party and has a few extra words in it besides Al Dawa.
Today, Ron Paul continues to oppose the war in Iraq. So this is nothing new to him. Rightly or wrongly, if one thinks about it, his judgment is principled as well as constitutional.
Ron Paul asks the question we should all be asking ourselves. "Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
Now, supporters of the war, and I am personally one of them, must consider that the constitution only authorizes congress to declare war. Congress has made no such declaration of war. This puts us, we supporters, in a tricksack...since we have allowed our troops to go to war without congress declaring war as prescribed in our constitution. Our founding fathers believed that our representatives of the people whose sons and daughters would fight the war, and not our President, should make and declare war.
So if one thinks about the conflicts (not wars because congress has made no such declarations since WWII) where we have had failures, those actions of war were unconstitutional to begin with.
When congress authorized the funds for the war in Iraq, why did it not declare war against Iraq? It is Ron Paul's conviction that if the constitution had been followed to begin with, we would not be in the mess we are today.
Constitutionally speaking, he makes a valid point. And, he asks a very valid question very relevent to our situation in Iraq today, "Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
Perhaps some here can answer his question. And please don't yell at me. I supported the war from the gitgo. And no, I am not offering this a support for Ron Paul. I'm just asking myself and some of you, what do you think about sending our troops off to war without a declaration of war from congress as required by our constitution? And are we supposed to have our troops in Iraq or anywhere in the business of creating democracies?
That is right. The spots are not too hard to see on this one.
Please add me to the Ping list.
They do not rule Iraq any more than Ralph Nader and his Greens rule the US.
Oh, and any luck with that list of American ground units deployed in Kosovo?
I was arguing for the virtues of Reagan and Paul.
I don't think Tancredo would want to be on a ticket with somebody who supports open borders.
You are accusing me of lying because I refuse to acknowledge that Ron Paul "voted against the Iraq WAR".
I'm sorry, but "WAR" is a Constitutional term. Ron Paul advocated a vote for a Constitutional Declaration of WAR. Congress did not vote to Declare War as Ron Paul did, in fact, advocate.
So stop calling me a "Liar" for using Constitutional terminology correctly.