Have you seen this?! Defund The War- Ron Paul

My God. Isn't Republican Ron Paul one of the Top Presidential Candidates ??? Can't believe it takes a Republican Presidential Candidate to speak out so loudly and clear against this war. Who among the Democratic Presidential candidates would match Ron Paul?

Defund the War

by Rep. Ron Paul
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.

Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation – the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.

But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.

more on the jump

Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.

The entire article is published here http://www.antiwar.com/...

•  wow

  I just spilled my morning coffie all over my t-shirt

  by New Sweden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:27:32 PM PDT

•  hi N. Sweden

  that is great news!

  :)

  I think you are new here so maybe you don't know about the copywrite rules

  kos will ban you if you copy and paste an entire article

  by Krush on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:30:58 PM PDT

  •  thanks for the reminder

    I got so excited when I read it that I totally forgot all about copyright rules. I sliced it up though and added a link instead.

    by New Sweden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:47:28 PM PDT

    •  i just felt bad because I thought you were new

      and that would be a horrible first experience here

      that is great news!

      legislators within both parties are going to have to work together to turn this train wreck around

      by Krush on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:58:04 PM PDT

•  oops!

  you aren't new here

  sorry

  :)

  by Krush on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:34:15 PM PDT

•  Top Presidential Candidate?

  Ron Paul is not a top Republican candidate, not by any stretch of the imagination.

  by ortcutt on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:36:38 PM PDT

  •  Re Ortcutt. Well

    When you put 10 people on a scene for a presidential tv broadcast candidate debate and Ron Paul is one of them I'd say that he is one of top ten.

    by New Sweden on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:52:08 PM PDT

    •  He's also among the bottom ten...

      given that there are only ten Republican candidates total.  Or does every candidate count as a "top candidate" in your book?

      by ortcutt on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:51:30 AM PDT

•  Ron Paul Is Wrong Anyway.

  Congress never transfered it's war power to the executive. The AUMF was never the basis the President used in deriving his authority. The signing statement said:

  Senate Joint Resolution 23 recognizes the seriousness of the terrorist threat to our Nation and the authority of the President under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States.  In signing this resolution, I maintain the longstanding position of the executive branch regarding the President's constitutional authority to use force, including the Armed Forces of the United States and regarding the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

  His statement clearly says that he was basing his authority on the Constitution and that the AUMF was in recognition of that.

  This all goes back to the Presidents theory of a Unitary Executive: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Repealing the AUMF would make no difference because the President didn't derive his authority from it in the first place. Since his view is that he has this power under the constitution, the only thing that can stop him is the courts, funding measures, or impeachment.

  This talk of repealing this or that is nothing but a smoke screen.

  by Kronos Blue on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:45:55 PM PDT

•  John Edwards

  I was just looking at John Edwards site and it's pretty much about the war as well. http://johnedwards.com/

  I just watched the vid called Speaking about Iraq. I think he's doing well on the war issue as well. John Edwards discusses Iraq during his speech to the California Democratic Convention. This video was recorded in San Diego, Calif. on April 29, 2007. For audio of the full speech, click here. http://johnedwards.com/...

  by New Sweden on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:15:06 AM PDT

  •  Is JE for defunding the war

    or just the surge.

    by ParaHammer on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:45:28 AM PDT

    •  He is for defunding the war.

      by cjallen on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:17:20 AM PDT

•  Ron Paul is...

  A Republicon, indeed... though if you look closely, he might be better described as liberterian, at least in leaning.  This is not his only call against the powers-that-be, for whatever that has been worth.

  He is, looking at my guage of biased personal opinion, very correct in one sense... his overall assessment... but not his vote.

  That said, it does not absolve him, for even a broken clock is right sometimes... twice a day.  

  by wgard on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:10:43 AM PDT

•  why is ron paul still a R?

  is he trying to 'keep it real' ?

  why not at least go Independent? Unlike other past politicians , such as Richard Shelby , it wouldn't be an obvious pander. He's actually staked out a relatively independent position. maybe he needs the exposure that his time spent in the R camp has afforded him...dunno.

  by change the Be on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:06:14 AM PDT

  •  shelby switched parties , I mean

    not to an Independent, though, just to the R party.

    The idea is that Paul could jump the sinking Rethug ship, and since he's not a realistic candidate, then why show fealty to the Machine anymore?

    by change the Be on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:09:28 AM PDT

  •  My understanding . . .

    Is that he has agreed to vote for Rep. Leadership and then go his own way on everything else in exchange for no other person getting Rep. Party support to challenge him in the primary.

    Thus he is a Rep. as a political expediency, voting for their leadership and being free to vote his conscience on everything else.

    by TastyCurry on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:43:59 AM PDT

  •  It's the natural home for neo-Nazis

    Which is what Ron Paul is:

    "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
    "[Although] we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

    "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

    "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?"

    by phenry on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:52:07 AM PDT

    •  ah, the true colors of a R

      by change the Be on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:10:59 PM PDT

•  Paul was the Libertarian Party Candidate

  for president in past

  by ParaHammer on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:47:44 AM PDT

•  Ron Paul...

  ...has always completely opposed the war, and has never voted for any funding for it.

  Paul isn't really a contender for the Republican nomination, and is an absolutist of a libertarian as one could imagine, supporting the return to the gold standard and the abolition of the CIA.

  Also, antiwar.com is a Pat Buchanan front, just so you are aware.

  by Jay Elias on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:14:44 AM PDT

  •  Come on Jay

    Paul isn't close to being a real libertarian.  He's anti-choice, anti-gay, etc.  Paul is just a plan asshole.  

    by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:28:33 PM PDT

    •  Wow...

      ...I can hardly believe that I'm coming back to this comment days later.

      I think that Rep. Paul qualifies for my personal label of being a paleo-libertarian; a libertarian with no sense of the world we live in now, or how to achieve libertarian values or goals in it.  While I utterly disagree with much of this, I can recognize it as being absolutely libertarian.

      I know nothing about Rep. Paul's anti-gay positions or record; never even heard of it before you said it.  So I'm unable to comment on that.  I do know of a lot of highly suspect at the least statements he has made about racial minorities, that at least suggest that he is a borderline racist, although I don't believe he has ever supported any form of legislative racism.  As for the issue of abortion and choice, I know he opposes abortion, although as a states-rights advocate, he has also opposed federal measures against legal abortion.  That being said, as strongly as I disagree with him on abortion, I don't consider his position on it non-libertarian; if one believes, as he does, that fetuses are human beings, then it follows that they have rights like any other American.  

      If you've ever been at a gathering of more than three libertarians, then you know as well as I do that being an asshole is certainly a common attribute.  I have little doubt that Rep. Paul is a dick; indeed, I have it on direct authority from my father who works with Congress intimately as his job that he is a "dick".  But I think there isn't much dispute that he represents libertarianism, albeit a brand I'm not too fond of.

      by Jay Elias on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:56:57 PM PDT

      •  I was out of town this weekend

        And came back Sunday night to see the praises of Ron Paul being sung all weekend.

        Anyway, Ron Paul:

        • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
        • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
        • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
        • Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
        • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
        • Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

        http://thelibertarian.wordpress.com/...

        by Mia Dolan on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:41:08 AM PDT

        •  Well...

          ...the first vote is against Federal funding, not allowing, I believe.  But while I am shockes about the Pledge and the adoptions issues, I'm not surprised on the rest.

          But again, I'm not singing his praises.  Being a libertarian doesn't mean that I like him, or support him, except on common issues.

          by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:13:14 AM PDT