By Ryan P. Christiano
Congressman Ron Paul often declares himself a critic of federal spending, and touts himself as a Libertarian. It appears however, that Congressman Paul doesn't always practice what he preaches. For the Congressman, liberty appears to have a very high price tag.
The Wall Street Journal, The Congressional Quarterly, The Liberty Papers, The Cable News Network, and The Fox News Channel have all researched the Representative's "fiscal frugalness". Unfortunately for Representative Paul, he is neither frugal nor libertarian in his earmarking.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Congressman Paul is planning to request an astronomical $400 million dollars worth of earmarks this Congressional year. The libertarian Congressman has requested $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. That just scraps the surface of the proposed spending.
According to David Nather of The Congressional Quarterly, Paul is decrying irresponsible and unconstitutional Federal spending, while he requests earmarks for his district that:
" includes two projects to improve the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, at a combined federal cost of roughly $32 million. There’s also the sunken ship Paul wants the feds to remove from Freeport Harbor. And he wants the feds to take charge of maintaining the Pix Bayou Navigation Channel. There’s also a feasibility study for flood, hurricane and storm damage control projects along the coast. And there’s the mysterious “project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay.” (The bill provided no other details.)"
Congressman Paul doesn't see a conflict between libertarian ideals and rampant earmark requests for spending. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”
The Congressman goes on to justify his spending propensity as an offsetting action against executive power:
" a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny."
The Congressman claims that in an ideal world there wouldn't be a federal income tax, however, as long as there is one, he has a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. Whether or not his constituents want that reclaimed money going to the marketing of wild American shrimp and shrimp fishing research is not clear.
Representative Paul has a unique approach when throwing his support behind certain earmarks. He sponsered ten earmarks for a particular bill and then sat out the vote when the bill came to the floor of the House. This is clever of the Congressman, even if it is less than libertarian of him. This technique ensures that he will bring home the bacon to his constituents, when he feels the bill will pass anyway with his earmarks, while pacifing his anti-tax supporters who helped him get elected to Congress.
The Congressman declares himself a constitutionalist while asserting massive spending powers never granted to him in the very document he claims to be the greatest guardian of.
*Note - Ryan Christiano is a young libertarian Republican activist from New Jersey. He is a member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus which supports a strong stance against Islamo-Fascism.
Update!!
LR Article on Ron Paul receives some web media attention
Ryan Christiano's article above on Ron Paul's Pork spending was written up and linked too at NewRepublicans.us. There is also a commentary section, with a number of comments from the site's visitors on the article.
47 Bloviations:
Isn't that money that was already included in the budget? What's wrong with him trying to get a piece for his district? Show me where he's increased the size and scope of gov't or stop being a d-bag.
As far as I can tell by reading the Constitution, Dondero, the Congress passes appropriations by voting on them.
Only the final appropriations bill vote, therefore, is relevant to assigning "blame" for any particular spending.
Can you produce for us a link to a roll call vote where Congressman Paul voted for any of this spending? Hmmmmm?
This is only the tip of the iceburg. Ron Paul needs to be also called onto the carpet for his blatant hypocrisy on term limits.
While Ryan does an excellent job here of exposing Paul on the pork barrel side, I'd like to see someone do a similar investigation on Paul about term limits.
Do you have any explanations on that front?
Too busy laughing at article to comment.
Ok Eric, your running for Congress, right? So under Congressman Dondero, you are going to allow all the tax money that your constitutents pay to just fly out of the district? Is that what you are proposing? We need some clarification on your position.
As far as term limits are concerned I don't agree with them, seems to me like it is a big government solution for ignorant voters. But anyway, it didn't pass so why should he fall on the sword. If someone believes in spending caps for campaigns and they don't pass should he allow himself to be outspent 20 to 1 with a personal restriction on campaign spending or should he abide by the rules of the competition?
Personally I am glad term limits don't exist because if Congressman Paul wasn't in Congress there would not be one politician who believes in my basic ideology. He is the only representative that represents me, although I do not live in that district.
umm...this was brought up a long time ago...and thoroughly explained. perhaps you should do a bit more investigation. earmarking is not the problem, federal spending is. not only is it justified to try and get his district some of this confiscated funds back in the case where the bills are passed, Ron Paul still votes against these spending bills as the constitution warrants. there is no conflict of interest.
it seems like people are scraping the bottom of the barrel to dig up dirt on Ron Paul, and they all come up short.
I personally am tired of the Ron Paul supporters using that fallacious argument of him just trying to get a piece for his constituents.
Wrong is wrong. If everyone else is looting at Wal-Mart and he takes a few TVs because everyone else is doing it, he's still a looter!!! Twist it whatever way you want Paul is not a conservative leader at all.
The problem with you RP fanatical supporters (refered to as Rontards on other sites) is you cannot stand on the facts, so you twist the argument around and try to shift the burden of proof.
You ask where RP has increased govt since he's been in office but can provide no evidence of him "REDUCING" the size either. Here's his opportunity to stand up and take a stand and he chooses GULF SHRIMP.
But what convinces me that he is not the man for the Repulican candidate are 2 things.
1. He's not pro-life against family values. He voted for a bill the allowed minors to go across state lines and get abortions without notifying the parents.
2. Everytime a new session starts his first piece of legislation is a bill to legalize pot.
No thanks RP, as we say here in TX " That dog won't hunt ".
Rick,
Ok Ron is too much of a big spender for you. Who are you voting for President then? I promise to hold my laughter until after you answer.
I am not using the argument that he is just getting a piece for his constituents.
I am using the argument that as a matter of constitutional law, the Congress passes legislation by voting. Pointing to actions taking prior to the passage of a bill while the bill is being crafted or discussed in committee isn't relevant to establishing the responsibility for the spending, as a matter of logic, morality and law.
I consider Paul's action justifiable spite. The rest of the Congress is engaged in the passage of unConstitutional spending bills. Paul plants poison bills in those bills so that he and his constituents benefit even if Paul's "No" vote is overwhelmed and the bill passes. The question of whether or not this is justified ultimately boils down to how you feel about spite entering into the political process. I actually feel pretty good about it [as people who read too much Rand as children often do], so I approve.
With regard to the term limits, I would have to hear Eric's accusation first. I am not familiar with any historical Paul position on term limits. I do know that the Constitution is pretty plain on what the requirements to serve in the House are, and any requirements added on top of those would be unConstitutional. In addition, given the break in Paul's House service, I find it hard to see how he could be up against even a rhetorically self-imposed term limit at this point. But hey, I could be wrong.
Pbronstein,
If I had to vote today Duncan Hunter would be my man. But that day is a long way off. From your laugh comment I guess you were expecting me to say Rudy or Fred.
Fluffy,
Call it spite or whatever you want. Pork is pork. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig in the end. In my eyes its worse for him put to something in just of "spite" and then vote no. If your gonna attach your name to something then you should be for it otherwise it's double talk.
In addition to reasons said earlier I won't vote for a man that apologizes for being an American and doesn't support our troops.
The President doesn't support the troops. He is feeding them into a fire to be burned alive one at a time so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong.
People like you are barbarians. Many people think that the hallmark of barbarians is that they engage in atrocities, but that's really it; certainly so-called civilized men have engaged in atrocities too. No, what makes a barbarian is that he makes war on the basis of his pride. Warrior cultures that can't do any cost/benefit analysis other than "These Colors Don't Run" get slaughtered, because it is childishly simple to lure them into positions that are to their strategic and tactical disadvantage and from which they will refuse to retreat.
You want to support the troops? Withdraw them. You and Bush are "supporting" our troops the way that Custer "supported" his at the Little Big Horn.
Leading our troops to slaughter, huh. I'm glad you think, so highly of our men and women in uniform. Though it's not surprising since your leader thinks more highly of mall security guards.
If you call Iraq a slaughter the what do you call Detroit, and some of the other big cities across the US where more people are dying. Or how about the fact that more Americans are killed in one year by illegals in cities bordering Mexico than in the entire Iraq war. You need to change the bong water and wake up.
The main reason why those that have died over is not because of Bush. Their blood is on the hands of you liberal, politically correct, American hating apologetics that have tied our Military's hands behind their back because you don't have the stomach to WIN.
I am still laughing Rick, even though since it is Hunter it is more of a giggle. Hunter is a much bigger spender than Ron. Not only that, he voted for No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit. Ok now I am at a full belly laugh. Of course when I think of Hunter's major contribution to the House, the Military Commissions Act, it takes the smile right off my face because that is no laughing matter. Please go back to be the pious guy who can't stand having people put all the lipstick they want on a big spender.
Humor is very healthy I'm glad you can laugh. We laugh every time we see Ron Paul's fictitious Internet numbers.
I never said I was against big spending. Those are Rue Paul's words but his actions speak otherwise. So you just put your tinfoil hat and continue drink Pauls ganja punch and follow him down the primrose path.
Rick,
Ok, so you like big spending. Are you saying that Ron doesn't spend enough, or do you want more money in your district and not his? Ron is the most fiscally conservative Republican running, so I am having a hard time understanding your point. Right now it just seems like you are taking a Neocon talking point and running with it.
Pbronstein,
Wow it took you longer than I thought for the word "NEOCON" to come out of you. Usually that's the first thing that comes out of your mouths. Plus I think I've seen some of the stuff your saying on R Pauls website so whose spouting rhetoric here?
I'm for spending money that needs to be spent. We are the #1 nation in the world so it stands to reason that we have a large budget. You probably think that the money we spend on Iraq and the Military is "big spending". I call it necessary so I don't wake up with someone shoving a Koran in my face.
I guess a better way of puting it is I'm for whatever ammount of money our govt needs to do their jobs. Before you say "see he's a Neocon and is for Big Govt". I said what they need to do DO THEIR JOBS . There's a difference. Shrimp farming is not their job. Shrimp research is not their job. In short Pork, Pork, Pork. The money wasted on Social programs is a prime example. There's no reason why the govt should be paying rent to Katrina people 2 years after the fact.
You understand the difference! The military is one of the few jobs of our Govt. So they should stick to that and the spending will reduce itself.
Lets get back on track with this article. Show me 1 example of where Ron Paul has been a fiscal conservative! Given all his years in public service you can't do it because it doesn't exist. Arguing that he voted no after the fact is not a valid argument. While he's been in office Govt has gotten bigger and spending has gotten bigger so he's no better than anyone else when the lobyists get in front of him.
So based on that fact you have to look at other things when making a decision. Which is why I won't vote for a apologetic hippie RINO.
Looks like the anti-Ron Paul folks are getting more nervous every day considering the pablum they keep putting out there. 8-)
Not pablum, Mr. Hamilton, just facts. Take a look at your fiscal conservative's actual earmark spending requests. Very interesting and lengthy reading.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/alpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
The full link of the documents is located at http://libertariandefensecaucus.blogspot.com/
Firstly, I wanted to thank everyone for commenting here, even the critics. I see we have some new posters here at Google LR. Welcome. And feel free to post as often as you'd like.
Only one rule around these parts: DO NO POST UNDER ANONYMOUS, please use your own name, and town and state in the signature line is MUCH PREFERRED, as well.
Fluffy:
You sound like you're not only anti-War in Iraq, but just plane anti-Military. If we can't use the Military to fight Islamo-Fascism and murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, than what in the hell can we use it for?
And 3,800 dead? Gimmee a break!!
That's less than the number of GIs who died in two hours storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
And today, unlike in previous Wars they even count those Military Personnel who died in trafic accidents on the highways in Baghdad in the aggregate number.
Further, as a Military Veteran, honorably discharged with 4 years, and 3 medals, including 1 for service in a War Zone (Iraq/Iran War - 1984), I can tell you that there is no greater honor that a Military Man can have than dying for his country.
Don't you dare spit on the grave of those dead Military guys from the War in Iraq, by assuming that they did not wish to give their lives for their country.
If you've never served in the Military, than keep your mother-fucking mouth shut about such matters.
On term limits, the problem was that Ron Paul led the USTL people to believe for months that he was going to sign their pledge. Than at the last minute he balked, much to their dismay.
He was a champion of term limits in the 1980s, even bragging in his 1988 Presidential campaign about how he was "one of the firsts in the nation to intoduce it."
Than when he finally gets in office, he backs off.
Sure Ron Paul supports Pork for his District. I admit, as his Senior Aide, I was even tasked numerous times with the job of bringing the bacon home, particularly for the Shrimpers and other Coastal interests.
He's not quite as hypocritical on Pork as he is on Term Limits, cause at least with the District Pork, he admits that he's being a bit hypocritical. With Term Limits he's just completely avoided commenting on the issue.
Somebody really needs to call him on the carpet on it.
Looks like they have video evidence that shows the claims of calling out "9/11" to Giuliani are bogus, not that I would even care if they did.
Still, you are looking pretty weak right now.
Eric,
Thank you for your service!
Eric Dondero wrote: "Further, as a Military Veteran, honorably discharged with 4 years, and 3 medals, including 1 for service in a War Zone (Iraq/Iran War - 1984)".
Thank you for your service, Eric.
Which side did you fight for in the Iraq/Iran War? Iraq?
Ken, thanks for the gut wrenching laugh. I think it's funny when fanatical Paul supporters turn things around and say we are scared of him because we shine the light on one of his numerous shortcomings.
After Rue Paul losses the Republican nomination I just hope that he does not turn into Ross Perot pt. 2 and help usher Billary into the whitehouse.
These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it...:Great investment opportunity in jaco bay, jaco beach, jaco beach costa rica, Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com/
Rick,
Congressman Paul has already stated that he will not run as a minor party or independent candidate.
Regardless, Hillary Clinton will be your next president. Get used to the idea.
Ken,
Don't believe the hype! Yeah she's got a lot of money and the media want her in, but Women can see a snake when ones hiding in the garden. For the most part they hate her. She's a true Marxist, so only the far wing libs will vote for her. As long as the Conservatives stick together the US can avoid the nail in the coffin that Billary would bring.
How does one behave as a rational politician in an irrational society?
That is the question that we should be asking. With all of the money that is paid into the federal government by the constituents of Ron Paul's district, it is only fair and appropriate for him to bring some of that money back to them.
The hypocrisy and contradictions that this article accuses Paul of, I imagine like Eric's armpits, really don't stand the smell test. It is perfectly consistent to play by the rules of the game as they stand, while simultaneously advocating that the rules be made more fair. That is why Ron Paul is the only candidate running who advocates the total abolition of the income tax and that it be replaced with nothing. Notice the irony of using the word abolition, a term that was associated with ending slavery, because slavery is exactly what the income tax is.
Of course that type of analysis is something dreadfully lacking on this blog where the prevailing tone of discourse rarely rises above the level Eric's burping beer and the fart joke humor and utter simplistic brutality of a fascist sycophant.
Rick,
Don't believe your own hype. 8-)
Duncan Hunter? He was recently added to the list The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and two to watch). For more details on Dunky...
Eric writes: "If you've never served in the Military, than keep your mother-fucking mouth shut about such matters."
Sorry Eric, I will not shut up because you fucking say so. I haven't served in the Military, but I have every right to speak my mind about this. So you know and to give you a bit of perspective, I do have 4 family members that have served in the US military, including one who is currently a Lieutenant Cornel in the Army.
That being said, I have a tough time blindly offering my thanks for "service" from people that willfully and knowingly break their oath to protect the Constitution against enemies, foreign or domestic. I consider such people traitors, even if they wear pressed military uniforms with pretty dangling medals. Also, I have a hard time offering thanks to the "service" of people that willfully and knowing brutalize, torture, rape, and kill innocent civilians, or destroy entire countries, cities, and towns, even if they are following orders from higher-ups. These people are basically thugs and should be treated as the criminals they are. From my assessment of your writings on this blog, I say you nicely fit this category.
Unfortunately, you and most other military folks I have met, make this "service" like it is part of some religious rite, where you think we should blindly worship, revere and bow down to your "service", even when your oath to protect the Constitution is conveniently forgotten and broken.
I offer my highest respect to those in the service of liberty, not to a blind reverance to those in the service of empire.
morerice,
I bet your one of those people that says I have a right to speak (you have to listen to me) and then tell a Christian to shut up about God and put him in their box!!! Your last statement embodies everything that is wrong with our Society and why we are in the twilight as a world power. The problem is that you liberal wusses (This includes RINOs) believe you have the right to say anything you want without consequences. The freedom of Speech granted in Bill of Rights was to protect citizens from Govt. Just look at what's going on in Bali right now and that's what the BOR protected against. It's not to force other citizens to be subjected to your twisted beliefs because IN YOUR EYES nothing is taboo. That's where you show your hypocracy.
The other fallacy in your statement is that you believe what America stands for and what America is are separate. You say you support Liberty of which there would be none without the "EMPIRE" you hate so much.
I don't know what kind of company you keep but I have never in my life met a man/woman that has served this Country that uses their service as a "religous rite" for us to bow to. They all have and completely understand a little thing called Honor of which humility is the main ingredient. Everyone of them has never asked for a single "thank you", but yet you spit on them because you don't have a clue about HONOR and you believe it's your right.
Rick, I only spit (not literally, of course, only in writing) on people like you and Eric who have no concept of the very things you bring up: honor and humility. For you these ideas are a game of pretend to make people offer thanks and respect in the face of betrayal. I refuse to play these dishonest games.
My entire point is the only oath a military person makes is to protect the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. If they truly live up to their oath (which I believe few actually do these days) they deserve our utmost respect, appreciation, and thanks. If they don't support or live up to the oath they took to protect the Constitution, then their "service" is nothing but a betrayal at best or criminal at worst.
I repeat, I offer my highest respect to those in the service of liberty, not to a blind reverance to those in the service of empire.
Have you seen the Ron Paul campaign 3rd quarter fundraising numbers? Over $5,000,000! I would never have thought he would have raised this much money in his campaign. The campaign's goal for the 4th quarter is $12,000,000!
morerice:
If you truly believe that then you are a fool. It is men of honor, valor and courage that have laid down their lives so you can post your miserable tripe without fear of reprisal. Maybe you would prefer to live under a fascist dictator. Morerice your words betray you. I can see through your guilt-ridden self-loathing America hating arguments.
Morerice: One other thing...
You do realise that the links you put up about Hunter come from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. CREW is nothing more than a group of partisan hacks doing the dirty work for the Libs. The executive Director of CREW, Melanie Sloan, started the organization in 2003. Sloan's claims to fame are being a former U.S. Attorney, aide to Representative John Conyers (D-MI), and aide to Senator Charles "upchuck" Schumer (D-NY). She is currently on the legal team of Valerie Plame sueing Vice President Dick Cheney, Dick Armitage, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.
And as you well know the libs get EVERYTHING right! erm... well actually not-so-much. Nice try though, thanks for playing.
morerice,
The problem with your mantra is that its "moral relativism". You take bits and pieces (true or not) and twist them to you own warped reality. Have you read the entire oath you refer to? Here it is for you because I bet you haven't! I've put the parts you left our in bold.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Now I challenge you to show the evidence that our real soldiers have broken that oath! I know you believe that the War in Iraq in Unconstitutional but that is a lie to because the President had the full backing of Congress and the House when the war started.
Judging by your comments your one of those that believe that our soldiers are raping and pilaging everywhere when there is NO evidence of that. Most of the Pendelton 8 have already been aquited, so thats been proven FALSE. And lets look at your poster boy Jesse Adam Macbeth (aka the phony soldier), he's been show to be a poser and a liar.
As anyone watching Ken Burns' amazing "The War" series knows, the brave soldiers who fought and died on the deathtrap beaches of Iwo Jima also gave their lives for an ill-conceived, unnecessary cause. The same could be said for the Italian campaign, a pointless, mismanaged disaster.
Does that mean I hate the troops, too?
Iraq is a clusterf**k that has cost us many lives and over a half-trillion dollars. We've lost more money in a week than all of Paul's earmarks combined. I guess paying Chalabi to feed us false information is a better use of our taxpayer dollars.
But we're arguing over deckchairs on the Titanic in this thread.
Bush a war criminal.
Nice try Morerice.
http://sullywatch.blogspot.com/
Mr. Sullivan seems like a fine writer, when he's not contradicting himself, and not plagiarizing the work of other writers.
Nice remarks about U.S. soldiers, also. Do you believe, Morerice, that America is, for the most part, a force for good? Do you believe we have liberated millions of people through out our history at great cost to our blood and treasure? Do you believe in American exceptionalism? That this nation came to be, under the guidance of a greater power, so that it may be a country of hope, and prosperity, and liberty? A beacon of liberty to those drowning in the dark seas of tyranny?
Or has your hatred for President Bush so blinded you that you are only able to see what is wrong with America? President Bush will not be President for very much longer, I wonder if your hatred for this country will ever cease to be.
``We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?''
And Fluffy, the Congressman does not vote for the spending on the floor because he knows it is going to pass without his vote. He inserts the earmarks in bills that are assured passage without his fiscal "fingerprints" on them. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp for you. try hard though, I just know you can get it.
Ryan, your simplistic attack on me that I "hate America" is just wrong. To put it in terms you understand, I fully support the Constitution, what I consider the basis of American government. The Constitution is entirely about a limited Federal government with humble foreign and domestic policies, sound currency, individual freedom, civil rights, and self-responsibility. But I think the current Federal government, after many decades of changes, pushes for the very opposite of these ideals. For example, our courrent government supports torture, invasions or destruction of sovern nataions, spying on it's citizens, fiat money, welfare and entitlement programs for almost everything, taxing over 50% of people wealth. These are just a few of a long list of things that the current government is doing that is the opposite of what the Constitution would allow. I long for a return to what made this country, the land of the free.
Additionally, you ask, is America "for the most part, a force for good?" I believe it still is, for the most part. But there are many areas that I think the current government is a force of terrible evil, especially in its foreign policies, welfare/entitlement programs and fiat money. It is painfully obvious that our government has/is moving towards a totalitarian or fascist system and bankrupcy. I desire to move the country back to a Constitutional Republic on which it was founded.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Morerice,Fair enough. I wish the government returned to its proper constitutional parameters and boundaries as well. We might quibble on the exact degree in which to reign it back to the Framing Generations' intentions, however, I concur with you in overall principle. I would place a greater emphasis on a strong defense to protect our national security, but setting that aside, our visions of liberty might not be as irreconcilable as you might believe.
My only suggestion is that you not go out of your way to denegrate your country when you oppose the government in power or a particular policy. Our soldiers our heros and courageous in whatever endeavour they are asked to partake in. Even when you disagree with their mission. They have given their lives for decade after decade so that you may have the absolute right to criticise the government, just please be mindful of that reality when you speak out.
Thanks for putting it in terms even little ole' me could understand ;)(sarcasm intentional)
Ryan, I agree with you on your thoughts on my assessment of military personel. On further reflection, I was too harsh in my criticism on the oath military people make. As you correctly pointed out, the oath contains two parts: protectng the Constitution and following the President. I can see that it would be very hard to decide which part of the oath to follow, especially when the entire military system is designed for soldiers to blindly follow orders without thinking. Additionally, we can not forget that many of these military folks are 18, 19, 20 years old and simply do not have the life experience to carefully reflect on the finer points of the oath they take. Heck I was a kid when i was 20!
As for the vision of this country, it seems you and I aren't too far off in principles. Our main difference lies in foreign policy. I too call for a strong national defense. But what we have today is almost all offense with out of control military spending. Ask yourself: what the hell is our military doing in over 130 countries around the world, involved in major war about every 10 years? It is time to bring our troops home, where they can reall DEFEND America.
He votes against his own earmarks. You call that unlibertarian? Weird.
Spending money on Goyim ain't kosher to Jew Rittberg.
Money should only fund jewish wars and bail out jewish S&Ls.
The queen kike-ess of the Rittberg world, Ayn Rand herself never had any argument over alturism towards jews. Just as so called iconocasts like Freud never questioned the validitiy of his own jewish religion. (which is not proto-Christianity but demon worship and black magic, which fits quite nicely with his very orthodox as concerned work.)
He does not vote against them "Gabe", he inserts the earmarks in spending bills he knows very well will pass the full House with or without his yes vote. This way he claims to be a "libertarian" by technically not voting for the spending bill but having inserted the $400 million worth of earmarks in the bills in the first place undermines his claim as being a "fiscal libertarian". He'll take as much tax money for his district as possible as long as he doesn't actually have to go on the record consenting to the bill.
Weird isn't it?
Post a Comment