The Ron Paul Record

[TomVols]

http://newrepublicans.us/?page_id=377

Found this surfing the net. Just thought I'd throw it out here for discussion. Is this an accurate picture of Rep. Paul's voting record? Just curious.

EXCERPT:

12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill - Did Not Vote
09/26/2006 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - No
10/20/2005 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill - No
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution - No
04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - No
06/03/2003 Desecration of Flag resolution - No
04/09/2003 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - No
07/17/2001 Flag Desecration resolution - No
04/26/2001 Motherhood Protection Act (Substitue Amendendment) - No
04/26/2001 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 - No
09/30/1999 Substitute Amendment to Unborn Victims of Violence Act - No
09/30/1999 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 - No
07/15/1999 Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999 - No
06/30/1999 Child Custody Protection Act - No
06/24/1999 Flag Desecration Amendment - No
06/04/1998 Religious Freedom Amendment bill - No
06/12/1997 Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment - No

 

[KenH]

We would have to know what they gist of those various bills was in order to intelligently discuss them.

The only ones on the surface I feel that I can comment on are the ones related to the flag if they refer to flag burning. Such actions are free speech, regardless of how much we may disagree with such actions. Also, as long as one is burning a flag which is his/her own property(or the property of someone who doesn't mind their flag being burned) it isn't anyone else's business what that person does with it, regardless of how much we may feel disgust toward the action.

We are falling into a really bad habit in this country of wanting the government to subsidize the things we like and to ban the things we don't like.

 

[TomVols]

The only ones on the surface I feel that I can comment on are the ones related to the flag if they refer to flag burning. Such actions are free speech, regardless of how much we may disagree with such actions. Also, as long as one is burning a flag which is his/her own property(or the property of someone who doesn't mind their flag being burned) it isn't anyone else's business what that person does with it, regardless of how much we may feel disgust toward the action.

I actually agree with you 1,000%. I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. Of Rep. Pauls votes, this is one of the least bothersome

 

[KenH]

How can any of Paul's votes be bothersome if you don't know what was written in the bills? You know you can't go by the title of bills as to what the intent of them is.

 

[billwald]

He automatically votes against any bill not authorized by the Constitution as he understands it. Nothing in the above list is a constitutional matter.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

How can anyone discuss intellegently the flag bills and none of the other. Seems like selective defense to me. Old ronnie doesnt appear to want to protect children. The "its agaisnt the consitution"thing is a good cover for do nothing, lazy people who want evil to run loose. But in the end children need to be protected.

 

[KenH]

How can anyone discuss intellegently the flag bills and none of the other.

Because I am somewhat familiar with the content of the flag bills because they are fodder for talk shows when they come up for a vote in the Congress.

 

[TomVols]

Perhaps when I get some time we can delve into the content of the bills. But people like headlines (like, "Thompson lobbies for abortion), regardless of their veracity

Seriously, I'm sure Paul voted against the abortion bills out of supposed allegiance to the constitution. However, that's why I posted this: for the Paul-ites to share their wisdom on this.

 

[KenH]

However, that's why I posted this: for the Paul-ites to share their wisdom on this.

Provide me with the gist of the bills in question and I will do what I can.

 

[TomVols]

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: (CIANA): On April 27, 2005, the House of Representatives took up the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 748, CIANA), a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) and strongly supported by NRLC. The CIANA would prohibit transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion if this evades the right of her parents to be involved, and would require an abortionist to notify a parent of a minor who resides in another state, with certain exceptions. Following the defeat of the hostile Scott and Jackson-Lee Amendments, the House of Representatives passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA, H.R. 748) by a vote of 270 to 157. The bill was supported by 216 Republicans and 54 Democrats. It was opposed by 11 Republicans, 145 Democrats, and one independent. Roll No. 144, April 27, 2005. The bill was then sent to the U.S. Senate.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/descriptions/session=109&chamber=H

According to National Right to Life, Rep Paul had a 56% rating in the 109th congress, one of the lowest pro-life ratings for a GOP congressman. Over the last ten years, he averaged about a 70-75% rating.

Anyway, I digress....I'll post more as I get time.

 

[TomVols]

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099). This bill, supported by NRLC, would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is "substantial evidence" that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetal_pain/UCPAA.pdf

2005 Representative Paul supported the interests of theNARAL Pro-Choice America 75 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Paul supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 65 percent in 2004. http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296

Yikes.

 

[KenH]

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

I Googled and did not find any links to any explanation.

I guess you could contact his campaign if you want an explanation at:

www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/

But since Ron Paul can't win the GOP presidential nomination I really don't understand why you are concerned about his votes anyway.

I have already admitted my interest in his campaign is not in winning but in simply enjoying watching the liberal GOP Establishment having a hissy fit over his campaign.

I'll be voting, the Lord willing, for Ron Paul in the Arkansas presidential primary next February 5 and then for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in November 2008.

 

[KenH]

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099).

I would not have voted for this bill. It is not an issue in which the federal government should involve itself. It is properly a state and local government issue.

 

[KenH]

Here is Ron Paul's statement on flag burning:

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr062205b.htm

 

[TomVols]

The Firearms bill, according to Vote Smart:

Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition pertaining to acts of criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act:

With a 283-144 bi-partisan vote, the US House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to block lawsuits holding firearm manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their lawfully sold products. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397) will prevent wrongful civil liability lawsuits against law-abiding companies and end years of abuse of America's legal system by industry opponents. The US Senate passed the bill last July with a 65-31 bi-partisan vote. President Bush signed the bill into law on October 25, 2005.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_2_52/ai_n15978741

The Unborn Victims act stemmed from Laci Peterson's murder and makes it a crime to kill a fetus, meaning if you kill a pregnant woman, it's killing two people. http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVAEnrolled.pdf

Child Custody protection act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA/CCPASenatetext012405.html

Religious Liberty protection act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-1691

Motherhood protection act:

Vote to adopt a substitute amendment that assigns additional punishment for violence committed against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3476&can_id=318

Religious freedom amendment

The Religious Freedom Amendment in its original form stated:

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny a benefit due to religion."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.J.RES.78:

 

[KenH]

I think the answer to most of your questions, Tom, is that you are looking mostly at issues that are not relevant to the federal government. They should be handled by state and local governments.

That is Ron Paul's general stance and mine as well. I don't doubt that there would be times that I would vote differently than Ron Paul if I was a fellow member of Congress but I imagine I would vote the same way that he does at least 90-95% of the time.

 

[TomVols]

I Googled and did not find any links to any explanation.

I guess you could contact his campaign if you want an explanation at:

www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/

But since Ron Paul can't win the GOP presidential nomination I really don't understand why you are concerned about his votes anyway.

I have already admitted my interest in his campaign is not in winning but in simply enjoying watching the liberal GOP Establishment having a hissy fit over his campaign.

I'll be voting, the Lord willing, for Ron Paul in the Arkansas presidential primary next February 5 and then for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in November 2008.

Look at the last post on page 1. I provided an explanation to the Child Interstate Abortion act. I'm questioning this because (1) It's interesting and (2) Paul deserves my consideration. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but his non pro-life voting record troubles me greatly. The Constitution above all guarantees a right to life, and to vote against such is a vote against the Constitution. Hiding behind "states rights" to do this is unconscionable, IMHO. I have no problem with his vote against the Religious Freedom Amendment, because the 1st amendment suffices if properly applied.

I'm really not sure yet who I'll vote for. All the GOP guys have their strengths and their weaknesses. Paul is too pro-choice and buys the liberal line on why Muslims hate us. Rudy is too pro-choice. McCain- too much to go into Romney - well, I just don't know where he is, and don't think he does, either. Huckabee I like, but his stance on increasing ed and arts funding troubles me. Tancredo and Hunter I like. Thompson I like.

 

[KenH]

I understand your quandary as you seem to represent the typical Republican Party supporter - and I can respect your quandary.

Fortunately, I don't have that problem as I have always pretty much been a political renegade - and love being one.

buys the liberal line on why Muslims hate us

I have to disagree with you there. That isn't the liberal line. It's the common sense line.

But if you want to call it liberal that's fine with me. Liberal is not a four letter word to me like it is to some of the folks who post on this board.

 

[TomVols]

I am by no means the typical GOP supporter. I am a bit of a renegade myself. There is just no one who captures my interest on the Dem side. Not in the slightest. Edwards is appealing but just too left for me. He's just about the extent of it.

I disagree with Paul in that the Muslims didn't start hating us in 1953 over the Shah. They hated us long before that. They hate us because we aren't them. Muslims have engaged in aggression against non-Muslims for eeons. The notion that if we just kept to ourselves, then we wouldn't be targeted, is simply naive. I'm not about to argue that our foreign policy has helped us globally, but it's not why we got hit on 9/11, and the commission report even noted such (we talked about that before to the hilt).

I'm liberal on some issues, too, I suppose.

 

[KenH]

I disagree with Paul in that the Muslims didn't start hating us in 1953 over the Shah.

I disagree with you about that but I think you have to admit that it certainly didn't help.