Posted on 07/29/2007 9:59:15 PM PDT by George W. Bush
You’ve forgotten the very first charge I ever heard levied against Fred: that he was nothing but a stalking horse for his blood brother and fellow CFR enthusiast, John McCain.
That has worked out pretty well, hasn’t it. Especially for McCain.
During Debate on an AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PAUL OF TEXAS
TO PROHIBIT USE OF TAXPAYERS FUNDS FOR ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H6833]
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut.
I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country.
Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause.
So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.” “Appropriations contained in this act,” the report says, “are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.”
That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be.
So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.
...
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything. This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years.
So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them around and there is a real thing called fungibility.
So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our standards on them.
Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and Depo-Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control pill. These are not benign.
And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign countries and impose our will on them.
Few threads up he loses to the Breck girl, double digits. The American people would be better served if there were no polls in an election year. They are relatively worthless and are at best self-fulfilling prophecies in that they manipulate an uninformed and/or apathetic electorate.
I’m awaiting Lindsay Graham’s comments....
Ron Paul is starting to show some serious numbers in these events, 18% is very high... Congrats to Thompson as well for coming out first in this poll! My guy overall Romney also fairly respectable considering he just started campaigning in south carolina. Hunter moving up too.
It just shows this is a long race, and people should be careful when they say ‘x’ candidate can’t win.
Hunter beat Giuliani! cool.
He voted to destroy the first amendment with campaign finance reform, and he calls McCain his buddy.
He co-chaired McCain's presidential campaign and bragged about co-authoring McCain/Feingold.
More recently, he is backpedaling from naming open borders Spencer Abraham to his campaign team.
Not to mention the added benefit that NearlydeadMcFred is the one candidate that when standing next to Hillary makes her look pretty.
But don't fret, McFred will never be president.
Thats exactly how I look at it. Polls are very easily manipulated and there is a big difference between calling some people at home, and which people will actually drive down to vote in a primary. Not surprisingly the lib media leaders are always the candidates who they are most comfortable with.
Even people who know so many of the polls are bs, like the media polls showing a near majority supporting amnesty its almost scary to take the leap and not trust anything the ‘establishment’ says.
Well I still look at the national and especially state polls as an interesting ‘factoid’ to take into account, but not the end all and be all of information. Especially when it comes to lesser known candidates nationally.
He is a member of CFR and secretly wants the US to surrender all its sovereignty to global government.
In Ron Paul’s San Antonio rally over the weekend, he was making cracks about loaning money to McCrazy. LOL.
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.
