PDA

View Full Version : Other: Ron Paul's Hypocrisy?




tunk999
12-20-2011, 08:38 AM
I'm a libertarian and not hostile to Paul at all, but I want to know: why did Ron Paul vote against Congressional gold medals for Rosa Parks, Ronald Reagan, the Dalai Lama, etc., but vote FOR

one for the crew of the Apollo 11
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-595

one for the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-266

and one for the Tuskegee Airmen?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1259

All three would have been existing liabilities on the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund initially paid for through a loan from the Treasury, to be later recouped through the sale of bronze replicas. I.e. all of them would have been paid for through taxpayer-funded loans, just like the Parks medal. Could it be because they were all military-related, since the NASA mission was part of the cold war....? But then where's the constitutional authority for that?

And yes, I know you could just dismiss this by saying, "Who cares about some stupid medals when the country is falling apart?" but it's important to address this because it could be twisted to make Paul look like a fraud, like this guy does.

h xxp://www.lowgenius.net/post/2011/12/06/ron-paul-still-a-fraud.aspx#.TvCUZzUS1WI

HeaT777
12-20-2011, 11:17 AM
bump

playboymommy
12-20-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm no expert but I think you answered your own question, it has to do with military service. Don't quote me on this but I remember reading somewhere that Ron says government benefits are Constitutional when they are for our veterans. The Constitution permits the Federal government to provide for a National Defense which I also believe entails honoring them for their service.

TonySutton
12-20-2011, 11:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so

Bruno
12-20-2011, 11:40 AM
If I am not mistaken, he also has stated that he offered to take $100 out of his pocket to pay for it, and asked if other members of Congress would as well. No takers.

Edit - beat me to it above

gls
12-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Nice first post :rolleyes:

Yes, obviously it has to do with the military connection, one of the few Constitutional functions of the federal government.

Krugerrand
12-20-2011, 11:47 AM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/8/17/2e52cfc9-4b50-4235-a350-d4c94b7066ae.jpg

erowe1
12-20-2011, 11:48 AM
Who cares? So his decades long career in the house hasn't been 100% consistent on every single inconsequential issue.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
12-20-2011, 11:49 AM
Welcome to the forums. Others have already answered this and I hope I answered it for you in chat earlier. If you have any other questions than be sure to ask them and I am sure you will find many people willing to help you out.

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 11:50 AM
The issuance of military service awards is a congressional authority, and is included in the Constitution :

Article 1 Section 8. Paragraphs 13,14 and 15.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

erowe1
12-20-2011, 11:51 AM
I'm no expert but I think you answered your own question, it has to do with military service. Don't quote me on this but I remember reading somewhere that Ron says government benefits are Constitutional when they are for our veterans. The Constitution permits the Federal government to provide for a National Defense which I also believe entails honoring them for their service.

I don't think the only ones out there are military related. IIRC there was also one for the Boy Scouts that he voted for.

I guess the people who see an issue there would have us put a vote for a boy scout medal on one side of the balance and a vote for the Iraq war on the other side and pretend they're both equally bad.

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 11:54 AM
From the history of the Boy Scouts...


The BSA was granted a Congressional charter in 1916, now codified as 36 U.S.C. Chapter 309,[35] stating that their purpose is to:

promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

The charter authorized and set standards for the incorporation of the BSA and provided for the "exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" that they adopt.

The BSA National Executive Board governs the organization and is led the national president, a volunteer elected by the National Council. Board members included regular elected members, regional presidents, and up to five appointed youth members. The Chief Scout Executive is the board secretary and non-voting member. The National Executive Board has a number of standing committees that correspond to the professional staff organization of the National Council. Finally, since the founding of the BSA in 1910, the President of the United States has served as the organization's honorary president during his term in office.[36]

Thus the boy scouts, since the US president is their commander in chief and they are officially chartered by congress, is technically an organized militia.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:02 PM
From the history of the Boy Scouts...



Thus the boy scouts, since the US president is their commander in chief and they are officially chartered by congress, is technically an organized militia.

"Honorary president" is not the same as "commander in chief."

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 12:05 PM
"Honorary president" is not the same as "commander in chief."

For the purposes of the definition of a militia, it is. Paul's votes are consistent with the Constitution.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:09 PM
For the purposes of the definition of a militia, it is. Paul's votes are consistent with the Constitution.

What definition of "militia" are you using? Do you really think Ron Paul considers the Boy Scouts are a constitutional agency of the federal government? And if he did, would that be a good thing?

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 12:28 PM
What definition of "militia" are you using? Do you really think Ron Paul considers the Boy Scouts are a constitutional agency of the federal government? And if he did, would that be a good thing?

The definition is any organized body of able bodied Americans. The boy scouts are organized, able bodied, and specifically trained in the very military skill of scouting which involves traversing difficult terrain with any and all means available (rock climbing, whitewater kayaking, hiking, etc), being self sufficient enough to survive outside of regular logistics channels (fishing, archery, marksmanship, fire-starting, etc), and capable of finding and describing enemy encampments (map reading, orienteering, photography, etc). The Boy Scouts were originally a british organization whose express purpose was to provide a domestic military advantage through trained youth scouts and spies. There is of course the fear of a hitler youth type movement, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a congressionally chartered volunteer militia organization that accepts the President of the US as their honorary president, and thus they are entitled to congressional recognition for exemplary service to their nation no less than a recipient of the Medal of Honor.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 12:33 PM
The definition is any organized body of able bodied Americans.

So you're defining a militia as any organized body of able bodied Americans.

And you're saying that, as militias, all of these organizations are agencies of the federal government, and thus honorary medals fore them are constitutional expenditures for Congress.

So the only groups of Americans that Congress shouldn't honor with medals are those who are not able-bodied? Is that why Rosa Parks doesn't make the cut? She wasn't able-bodied perhaps?

And if we were to believe that Ron Paul followed your reasoning on this, would you expect us to think that this was a good thing?

Icymudpuppy
12-20-2011, 12:55 PM
So you're defining a militia as any organized body of able bodied Americans.

And you're saying that, as militias, all of these organizations are agencies of the federal government, and thus honorary medals fore them are constitutional expenditures for Congress.

So the only groups of Americans that Congress shouldn't honor with medals are those who are not able-bodied? Is that why Rosa Parks doesn't make the cut? She wasn't able-bodied perhaps?

And if we were to believe that Ron Paul followed your reasoning on this, would you expect us to think that this was a good thing?

Any group of able bodied Americans can be called a militia, but they don't become an official militia until they are recognized by Congress, which the Boy Scouts was in 1916 by Congressional Charter see above. That Charter made the Boy Scouts subject to the Article 1 Section 8 in regards to land and naval forces. They are officially governed by congressional authority to establish rules, regulations, discipline, etc of the

Article 1 Section 8. Paragraphs 13,14 and 15.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Rosa Parks was not part of any RECOGNIZED ORGANIZED MILITIA. The Black Panthers are technically a militia. Was she a part of them? maybe... Were they officially recognized as a militia subject to Congressional authority? NO.

erowe1
12-20-2011, 01:05 PM
..

xFiFtyOnE
12-20-2011, 01:07 PM
I'm not sure of the rest but I know in the Rosa Parks case he said there was no authority in the Constitution to use tax payer dollars on it. He then proposed that he and the rest of Congress could donate money for the award. Ofcourse that didn't fly over to well. Congress loves spending other peoples money but don't ask them to spend from their own pockets!

cajuncocoa
12-20-2011, 01:09 PM
OP: :rolleyes:

Elwar
12-20-2011, 01:26 PM
The only things I have seen where Ron Paul is a "hypocrite" on spending is when it has a connection to spending on national defense. Which is not hypocracy, it is one of the responsibilities of Congress under Article 1 section 8.

I read one that said that he was hypocritical for approving a spending measure for NASA. When his campaign was asked they said it had something to do with defense.

The man knows his shit. He has been doing this for a few years.