Ron Paul has challenged democrats for what he views as their hypocrisy in voting against the war funding during the Bush Administration while now voting for same legislation under the Obama Administration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.
In the meantime, the ACLU has sued TSA over its arrest and detention of Paul’s treasurer, here.
For more on his speech, click here.
In other news, Niagara Falls believed to be wet.
BS is the word for today. BP is going up and it ain’t the oil company.
I was not and am not a Paul supporter. I do see his points. This man is one whom Votes his conscience and now I wonder how he has made it in DC all of these years as what appears as an Honest Politician.
I think the Texas heat makes one’s blood pressure go up if that’s what your talking about. Ron Paul is right on the war but is so wrong on just about everything else.
Lynn Woolsey reported threats by the WH against freshmen house members who were considering voting their conscience, as in, NO. One “good” reason given for the votes? Loyalty to the president. That’s odd because I thought Congress was its very own branch of govt. I thought it was supposed to represent the people and shut the purse strings on a disastrous policy of empire whose only beneficiaries are the have-mores. Please note that Scahill reports a 29% jump in the number of mercenaries in Afghanistan. Yep, that’s money well spent. Also note that our newest commander there, McChrystal was previously engaged in “special actions” that may likely be recorded on the pictures the WH refuses to hand over.
I don’t believe in accidents about Ron Pauls’ treasurer’s detention/interrogation either.
This sycophant mindset is exactly what scares me the most. When the president is up to no good, we are supposed to have at least one functional branch of govt. to stop him. This horrific vote will result in the death and wounding of countless of our people, civilians and bleed us dry financially. Exactly how long does anyone think this can actually continue before it all falls apart?
Funding these wars has murdered and maimed our soldiers.
Those who funded are guilty of all the atrocities. They will be held accountable.
War Funding = War Crimes
That makes more sense.
Good point.
The wars sucketh.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-moderation-not-modernizing.html
OFF TOPIC – Canadian Warrantless Searches for ISPs.
http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?content=20090617_213536_8084
Boooooo! Bad on you Canada!
I think Paul correctly points out the false choices in our two party system.
Bush ran as a non-interventionist, small government candidate. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Obama ran against the war, for government transparency and a restoration of individual liberties. His actions have been entirely at odds with his words.
Swarthmore mom noted that Paul was wrong on everything but the war issue. That means she favors the death penalty, the limitless war on drugs, government power to define marriage, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Guantanamo, enhanced interrogations, the REAL ID act, the draft, the power of government to take homes by eminent domain, and FISA, among other advancements to liberty popularized by the Bush administration.
I think Paul has been far more correct on these positions than Obama is proving to be.
QFT: “… allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA’s core mission of protecting safety.”
How much cash is too much? Why is the TSA even counting cash?
What books are okay to bring aboard a plane? Which might indicate potential qualities of a domestic terrorist, or flag a pre-crime?
What stops the TSA from ordering a search or copy of laptop contents in order to better assess the risk that a flyer might commit a terroristic acts? How about searching cell phone contents? iPhones and Blackberry’s?
Why limit it to flyers? How about rail passengers? Subway riders? Bus passengers? HOV lane commuters?
What about any other illegal activities uncovered in these investigations?
Here’s something to think about:
The Proposal”
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.
The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision”, and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).
Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress.
(267 members x $165,200 pay/member/yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each
member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. Current estimates
for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr.
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell
phones to name a few)
Note: Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction
in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that’s 8-BILLION just to
start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS IN GOD WE TRUST
While I don’t agree with a lot of Paul’s views, he looks more and more appealing every day. He is one of the only guys who will actually vote what he believes. I am shocked and disgusted that this bill passed with such overwhelming support. This just shows how willing the Dems are to deceive their base, many of whom have been voting Democratic for years because of the pledges to bring the troops home. The system is broken, but it isn’t like there is anything we can do about it.
Anon,
Paul has no need to buy into the two-party system and the corruption that results from parties wielding power by sheer numbers rather than by good, honest ideas.
P.S. Try to switch your default who/whom to “who,” because more often than not, “who” is right, and if it’s not, at least it sounds pleasantly colloquial.
Matthew N
“The system is broken, but it isn’t like there is anything we can do about it.”
We can do the math.
As of 2006 (latest census data), the Federal Government employed 2.72 million people. ALL Government employed 19.73 million people. The total population of the U.S. population is 299,398,485. 75.4% are 18 or older. This results in a population of approximately 225,746,457 that is 18 years or older (voting age).
We the People outnumber Federal government workers by roughly (225.75 total population – 2.72 Fed employees/2.72 Fed employees) or about 82 : 1.
We the People outnumber ALL government (state and Federal) workers by roughly (225.75 total population – 19.73 total govt. employees/19.73 total govt. employees) or about 10 : 1.
Outnumbered 10 : 1 or 82 : 1, either way, the one is the stinky side of that stick. They better get down the reality of THAT math because at the end of the day, the clowns in DC only rule as long as we let them. We could shut the whole show down. And if we’re forced to do that? Well, if you think the French wanted their pound of flesh after the Revolution, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. We’re a much nastier lot on the whole than the French could ever aspire to be.
Buddha,
I guess I need you to correct my post. Whom sumbuddy complained that I am not colloquially correct. Damn, and I ain’t even Politically Correct.
I do admit, I do not proof read as it is the ideal I am trying to get across.
AY,
There are lots of ways you are incorrect. It’s all part of your charm. You do just fine without my pruf redding services. As to who/whom, there’s a cheat: substitute usage. Look at he and him. If you’d use he = who and him = whom.
BIL:
“Well, if you think the French wanted their pound of flesh after the Revolution, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. We’re a much nastier lot on the whole than the French could ever aspire to be.”
oh that’s good, now fomenting revolution. The French revolution was a bunch of shit throwing a bunch of shit out. What are you that little intellectual giant Robespierre. Who’s your Rousseau, Mao Tse Tung?
We can call you the dictateur sanguinaire if you like.
Have you proven Islam is worse than any other religion yet, Incompetent Servant? No? Then who cares what you think, pantsload?
Indentured Servant,
Please cease with the cheap, vulgar 4-letter words. Surely you are old enough to use and understand proper words in a discussion.
Thanks.
Ron Paul is anti-choice. He is not a bad guy but his appeal is largely limited to a certain segment of white males. He represents a fairly conservative district in Texas, and he tailors his views on social issues to pander to his constituents like any other politician.
Former Federal Leo:
is this better?
I will refrain from barnyard language hence forth. But what better term to use for the perpetrators and recipients of the Terror. Both sides were foul and malodorous.
“BIL:
“Well, if you think the French wanted their pound of flesh after the Revolution, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. We’re a much nastier lot on the whole than the French could ever aspire to be.”
oh that’s good, now fomenting revolution. The French revolution was a bunch of trash throwing a bunch of trash out. What are you that little intellectual giant Robespierre? Who’s your Rousseau, Mao Tse Tung?
We can call you the dictateur sanguinaire if you like.
Repetitive behavior can be a sign of mental illness. Saying the same thing over and over will not, however, make it true.
BIL:
I was just changing the wording to make it more family friendly.
There you go again with the attacks, now I am mentally ill? Do you know any other method of discourse?
Oh I said it could be a sign. You inferred you have a problem because you exhibited the symptom. Good. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.
You should really learn when to walk away.
Just as a stopped clock is correct twice a day, Ron Paul is correct on one issue, the War. My chief complaint about him is that he calls himself a “libertarian” but is anti-choice. This dichotomy is philosophically intolerable and shows that he is
also adept at political posturing, but in a slightly different format.
Mike,
I do like one other thing about Paul. His stance on the IRS and tax code. Maybe that’s his other stop on the clock?
The only politician I’ve met who was “right” almost 100% of the time was Paul Wellstone. He wasn’t a kook nor did he allow himself to be marginalized. My son picked his college in part because of Wellstone’s affiliation with it.
Most all of congress from as far back as 2003 should be in prison for initiating and funding the illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and murders in Pakistan.
War-funding kills and maims our troops.
The U.S. Government has violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials. The world rightfully sees the U.S. Government as Nazi terrorists and torturers.
Indentured Servant,
Thank you. I can read your posts now instead of skipping over them by default.
Paul is an anti-choice Libertarian who attaches earmarks to bills, then votes against them (knowing they will be passed). He is strange. Maybe the only Republican with independent thoughts.
However, on the point of war funding, the model is too simplistic. Voting for funding operations in Iraq in 2009 is different that voting for them in 2008 (or earlier). A vote for funding in 2003-8 was a vote for unending occupation and war against the “terrorists”. A vote for funding in 2009, is a vote to move ahead with the withdrawal of troops on a schedule agreed to by all parties.
Democrats voted (generally) against unending war in Iraq last year. Republicans voted for it. This year, Dems voted to allow operations to continue knowing plans are in place to leave. Republicans don’t want to leave, so voted against it.
Jeremy Scahill addresses the idea that this funding is different because it’s for ending the wars:
“New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, who voted against the war funding in May—when it didn’t matter—only to vote Tuesday with the pro-war Dems, sounded like an imbecile when he made this statement after the vote: “We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president needed our support.” What planet is Weiner living on? “Wrapping up the wars?” Last time I checked, there are 21,000 more US troops heading to Afghanistan alongside a surge in contractors there, including a 29% increase in armed contractors. Does Weiner think the $106 billion in war funding he voted for is going to pay for one way tickets home for the troops? What he voted for was certainly not the “Demolition of the 80 Football-field-size US Embassy in Baghdad Act of 2009.” To cap off this idiocy, Weiner basically admitted he is a fraud when he said the bill he voted in favor of “still sucks.”
(found at rebel reports)
To being the troops home they should NOT have voted for War-Funding. Liars! Murderers!
Funding these illegal wars is criminal. Those who voted for funding are War Criminals!
Typo sorry.
To (bring) the troops home they should NOT have voted for War-Funding. Liars! Murderers!
Funding these illegal wars is criminal. Those who voted for funding are War Criminals!
Hurray! Ron Paul!
Mr. Ron Paul for 2012.
Regan said, “What to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago? Is the job situation better than it was 4 years ago?”
With Ron Paul’s 2012, You, it, and they would be.
Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
As Mr. Regan said, “You ain’t seen nothin yet!”
George Washington,
you may be the father of our country, but you are insane in your political views if you think ron Paul is a savior, or can even win the Republican nomination.