Posted on 06/21/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by anotherview
Shhh! Don't confuse the Paul bashers with facts. They're having fun playing in their sandbox!
Registered June 20th 2007, spinning like mad for RuPaul on the 21st.
Welcome to FR.
Sounds like Republicans need to make up their mind. Do they want this nation to be a part of the UN or not? Or only when it’s expedient for their purpose? Of course good 'conservatives' here will be able to explain why the Congress of these United States is voting to send a resolution to the UN.
Just WHY would asking the UN to do ANYTHING be any kind of a good idea? Please explain that to me. I know Dr. Paul wants the UN OUT of the US , the US OUT of the UN and out of our misery for keeps. What’s YOUR excuse? Why would a vote to ask a totally illegitimate and worthless world body to charge a head of state with a crime be a good idea and a good message to send? If he’s such a criminal, then let the Israelis deal with him. If YOU like the idea, as a free citizen, you could go help them out. Hell’s bells, I might do something like that myself... But why is Dr. Paul so wrong for not wanting to give further legitimacy to such a worthless body as the UN?
Yes, of the 435 members of Congress the two members of the Moonbat Caucus recognize the problem.
A shame Cindy McKinney lost her seat, there would be three.
Can you list for me the Republican officeholders who have been consistantly been calling for the US to leave the UN?
Not critical of the UN, those calling for us to leave.
Right, you've 433 bozos in Congress, and then there's the elite, those endowed by the Creator with wisdom, Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich.
How did that poem go,
Dennis and Ronnie
Sitting in a tree
Honestly, you Paulite Internuts have to come up with something factual once in a while.
Shhh! Don't confuse the Paul bashers with facts.
There's plenty of facts on the thread, you can't address them.
So it's off to Shhh! Don't confuse the Paul bashers with facts
Best of luck to Ron Stassen on his way to .6%.
Or is it Harold Paul, I forget.
WoW!.....Another non-binding resolution.
Can't someone just turn out the lights on capital hill until they actually decide to do something BINDING about Ahcmadenajhad?
And of course you'll be able to provide a Constitutional basis for us sending massive amounts of money to hold up a world court of opinion won't you? (Right after I imagine you can send me the Constitutional basis for all foreign aid). What Rep. Paul did today was the only thing he could do under the Constitution.
No man in his right mind wouldn't condemn genocide. But there's a big difference between condemning it as a private citizen and condemning it as an elected official in the House of Representatives being asked to vote for a resolution to be sent to a world group, thereby removing our sovereignty on the matter. Can Congress not promote a general resolution that our nation condemns it without sending it to the UN? Or are we not allowed to make unilateral decisions without a UN resolution these days....
The vote is meaningless, of course. The U.N. overwhelmingly supports Iran and hates Israel, but it's still a good message to send to the world.
Goodness knows I'm no fan of either Kucinich or Paul (and certainly not of that abomination in Tehran), but the idea of encouraging the United Nations to indict the president of a sovereign nation based on his violation of UN "law" is a terrible, terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE precedent. I shudder to think what it would mean if it were ever done.
The only "world law" that can be trusted is G-d's Law. No purely human authority should have power over the world--period!
Plus this meaningless resolution is another way for liberal, anti-war-against-Iran Democrats to prove that they are still "pro-Israel"--like showing up at the annual "Salute to Israel Parade."
We spend money on foreign aid and UN membership.
You think it's unconstitutional, you challenge it. In the courts.
I know the courts suck, I don't know how we ever got them, might have something to do with the founders, I don't know.
But if foreign aid and UN membership is unconstitutional, and the opponents can't figure out a way to challenge it, either they're full of hot air, or they're really stupid.
I mention that because if our UN membership is legal, I appreciate you and Ron Paul disagree, the rest of us could very well get on with the question of why we're funding them the way we are, or even why we're a member, I think we should be.
Real world stuff.
As to genocide, the US is a party to the Genocide Treaty. The UN didn't "legislate" it, we entered into it voluntarily. You don't like it, I'm sorry. Your in good company, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, none of them pushed for ratification.
The lunatic neocon Ronald Reagan did, apologies to Ron "the true Reagan" Paul, but he did the deed.
Now it's law, despite Ron Paul, despite Dennis Kucinich, despite their supporters.
That's the real world.
BTW, there are plenty of people who wouldn't comdemn genocide.
The UN is either a sacred entity thru which all things must flow, or it is as bogus and as anti-American as most of us believe.
Israel is a US ally. Why not consult with NATO regarding the lunatic’s threat of annihilation to a US ally?
Anyone who likes for their tax dollars to go to the UN, then stand and be counted on this thread. Ron Paul believes it a fraud on the American people.
I say you can’t have it both ways. One is either an American, or a one world UN’er. I’m an American, and yet again, RP got it right...and not for the reasons most can or will seek to figure out. He voted anti-UN, not anti-Israel, nor pro Iran, but ANTI UN.
If we had more Congresspersons like him, we just might find ourselves exiting the UN.
“But why is Dr. Paul so wrong for not wanting to give further legitimacy to such a worthless body as the UN?”
Apparently when some here seek to denigrate Dr. Paul, suddenly, the UN becomes the sacred protectorate of western civilization. It’s a fact, the UN does not serve the best interests of the United States of America. RP knows it, and we know it.
Dr. Paul should be receiving a standing ovation for his courage to stand alone. I say alone, since I have no clue regarding the lone dems motive. But anyone who knows RP, knows full well his motive. He is anti-UN believing we should exit stage right now.
No, here's how it works
Constitution of these United States
Find foreign aid. Go back look again. And again. Can't find it? Not a power of the federal government. Unconstitutional. Unfortunately this would also include about 90% of what social conservatives advocate as well. BTW, I'm a social conservative. But I also realize if it's not in the document, it was intended to be legislated at the national level.
I know the courts suck, I don't know how we ever got them, might have something to do with the founders, I don't know.
And if you reread the Federalist Papers, the federal courts are involved in a lot of things they weren't intended to be involved in.
I mention that because if our UN membership is legal, I appreciate you and Ron Paul disagree, the rest of us could very well get on with the question of why we're funding them the way we are, or even why we're a member, I think we should be.
Great. After you find the Constitutionality of wasting my tax dollars on the rest of the world, you'll be about finding where exactly the Framers, or the Constitution, advocated joining courts of world opinion.
Now it's law, despite Ron Paul, despite Dennis Kucinich, despite their supporters. That's the real world
I see. So because Ron Paul recognized the unconstitutionality of the act and chose to vote no (because of same said unconstitutionality) he's lambasted by 'conservatives'. Yeah, I'll be more than glad to stand with a man who stands on principles as intended by the Framers instead of going whichever way the wind, or the polls, blow.
“But if foreign aid and UN membership is unconstitutional, and the opponents can’t figure out a way to challenge it, either they’re full of hot air, or they’re really stupid.”
Try reading the Constitution before you call people stupid.
Inquiring minds want to know where in the Constitution it is written that the fed.gov is authorized to give our money away to foreign nations...then you can show them how really stupid they are.
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."
Some- even some in this body- have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.
And from May 1st 2007:
Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.
More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .
According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States .
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?
(2) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
Unless one is blind, one knows that the terrorists currently operating in Iraq pose a clear threat to the national security of the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.