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 ...
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.
Shiite Parties: United Iraqi Alliance, 130 seats.
Leading figures: Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Abbul-Aziz al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq; Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Kurdish Coalition, 53 seats.
Leading figures: President Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani.
Islamic Party of Kurdistan: 5.
Iraqi Accordance Front, 44 seats.
Leading figures: Tariq al-Hashimi, Adnan al-Dulaimi.
Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, 11 seats.
Leading figure: Saleh al-Mutlaq.
Iraqi National List, 25 seats.
Leading figure: former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
Reconciliation and Liberation Bloc, 3 seats.
Iraqi Nation List (Secular Sunni Arab), one seat.
Yazidi minority religious sect, one seat.
Al-Rafidian List (Christian), one seat.
Turkomen Iraqi Front (Turkish secular), one seat.
Provided as reference material.
So, are you leaving FR? Please say you are. Take ron Paul with you. Hey, please let Ron know that he's outta here...gonna get the stick next election cycle.
Okay, but Ron Paul does not support Open Borders. He is very Anti-Illegal-Immgration and Pro-Border-Security. Read my commentary on Immigration, posted below the Article.
Boy, I did not get that from your posts. Went back and reread it... still did not get that. Sorry for the mixup...
Ron Paul turned his back on the troops and he is political dead meat.
You are not telling the truth. He voted against the Iraq War Resolution, which gave the President the authority to use force against Saddam. Force was used and Saddam removed. If Ron had his way, Saddam would still be in power, period. It is on Congressional record.
What the Paul followers fail to see is that the terrorists are psycho-mass murderers, and will bomb the piss out of us if they perceive our will is lost. We can NEVER cut and run where Islamo-terrorists are involved.
I agree with your point entirely. I, myself, supported a Declaration of War and the removal of Saddam from power.
I did not then, and do not now, believe that we should maintain a continuing troop presence thereafter if the Iraqis are going to vote Terrorists into Power.
LOL. Yes, the US soldiers and scientists lied about the enriched uranium they removed.
The Bush allies at the NYT and BBC were in on it.
It's all a conspiracy by Halliburton and the Joooos.
No actually the GOP Congress has done just that for 10 years as much as the DEMs but nobody bothers to see why. Be back in later to defend what I posted but I can defend it.
Bump for Ron Paul.
(The only member of Congress I can respect)
Ron Paul is opposed to the Iraq War, so I can't support him.
The word "War" is not anywhere in the title of that Resolution. It it is not a Constitutional Congressional Declaration of War -- which Ron paul advocated.
"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?""
Because the job is not done.
And cowardly nutjobs like Ron Paul who give aid and comfort to the terrorists and show weakness aren't helping get the job done.
Duncan Hunter is solid on a lot of those issues as well. And supports the Iraq War. Makes the choice between him and Paul pretty easy.
and will bomb the piss out of us if they perceive our will is lost.
As one who supports the WoT and the invasion of Iraq, I say yes to sending our troops without a declaration of war when the administration believes it is necessary to defend America. This is not the first time this has happened.
As for having our troops in Iraq creating a democracy, that's not their purpose as warriors. However, I've yet to see a better alternative. Will democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan emerge victorious? Perhaps. But it will never happen if we now cut and run. Nor may it happen if we stay yet fight a politically correct war. What America has to do is come to a decision; do we stay or leave? I'm for staying. But if we do, the gloves must come off and we must win. Anything short of that would be disastrous. Gen. W. T. Sherman and his march through Georgia to the sea comes to mind as an example. The same with Phil Sheridan's march through the Shenandoah.
Who said fight a ground war?
Massive attacks to destroy production facilities, and let it fall into chaos.
At most, help the Kurd in the North.
Sure, as soon as you let me know what a "nay" vote would have accomplished....., or for that matter, what any vote OR non-vote would have accomplished, except to throw red meat to the mindless.
If Ron had his way Saddam would still be in power to rape, torture and murder the innocent. Can't parse that.
I can't, and won't.
Dirtboy, I've respected your posts for a long time. One question: Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD, do you believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to provide military and financial support to an Iraqi Government which is dominated by Islamic Terrorist Parties who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of United States Marines in cold blood? Yes, or No?
The Libertarian Party opposes all restrictions on immigration. Why was he the Libertarian nominee for president if he was against open borders?
Exactly. I don't mind if he runs, I just hope he doesn't run for his House Seat at the same time so we can get rid of him.
It's frankly amazing to me how:
"Continuing to provide Military and Financial support to an Iraqi Government which is dominated by Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of US Marines" is something which:
Cui bono. And the NYT has been thoroughly discredited on its Iraq reporting. This is not hard to understand, because wars sell papers.
Iraq had no enriched uranium.
Because he is resoundingly against Big Government across the board.
Ron Paul is also 100% Pro-Life, also; but the generally pro-abortion Libertarians supported him anyway because he is just so tremendously anti-Socialist.
Also, a vote by Congress to authorize military force is equivalent to a declaration of war as far as I'm concerned.
To be frank, your premise is bull crap.
"Iraq had no enriched uranium."
Most practical people would agree with you. I do. But there are those who use such nuances to explain votes then things don't go there way.
Can't parse that.
Iran won't fall into chaos. It is a cohesive nation whose people identify strongly as Iranian. Again, the Bush administration is relying on tiny dissident groups who come here so we'll pay them to tell us what we want to hear. If they enjoyed popular support they'd be in Iran, not here.
The price of oil, btw, will skyrocket. And unless you're willing to bomb the place into glass (and we aren't), all the bombs and planes in the world won't hold territory.
Yes. If we leave Iraq, we will have to go back to a far worse situation later. Imagine al Qaeda with oil revenues.
When Ron had the chance to vote for the Iraq War Resolution, he voted "no." When Ron had the chance to vote for the troops and the surge to win in Iraq, he voted "no." He is a coward and not worthy to shine the boots of our brave troops.
Read that article more carefully. The US removed the same slop the IAEA had already identified. Nothing even approaching weapons grade.
Along with a bunch of "radioactive sources" available at your local hospital too.
As opposed to Al Dawa and SCIRI with oil revenues? These people have attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of US Marines; what makes them Angels?
They're all rabid dogs as far as I'm concerned. But I respect your polite disagreement and wish you well.
Can't parse that.