xita
07-25-2007, 11:27 AM
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
It was on Reddit (http://reddit.com/info/1wyco/comments) with the title of "Ron Paul votes against gold medal for Reagan. This is impeccable reasoning."
Before then, I had seen a lot of Paul article titles but never bothered to look into him. After I saw that statement, I knew that Ron Paul was worth looking into.
Now, of course, I'm hooked.
The reason I posted this is because it may have a similar effect on other people. Perhaps this is an article and link you would want to email to all your contacts or friends. It's up to you.
Here is a copy of the statement:
-
-----------
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H1655]
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan's presidency.
* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.
* Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
* In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan's stated convictions.
* It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
It was on Reddit (http://reddit.com/info/1wyco/comments) with the title of "Ron Paul votes against gold medal for Reagan. This is impeccable reasoning."
Before then, I had seen a lot of Paul article titles but never bothered to look into him. After I saw that statement, I knew that Ron Paul was worth looking into.
Now, of course, I'm hooked.
The reason I posted this is because it may have a similar effect on other people. Perhaps this is an article and link you would want to email to all your contacts or friends. It's up to you.
Here is a copy of the statement:
-
-----------
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H1655]
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan's presidency.
* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.
* Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
* In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan's stated convictions.
* It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm