Ron Paul's Statement on Impeachment
Straight from the horse's mouth...
November 6, 2007Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.
I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.
I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.
I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
I'm not sure that I agree with his decision. But, at least this answers our question and makes his position a bit more tolerable than it would be had he not released a statement.
I have been particularly quiet about these two gentlemen (or are they really?!).....
..... some of you may be curious on my stance on this matter.
_________________________________
The actual election does NOT matter!
You may be perplex to why I say that?! You see both the Republicans and the Democrats are the Left Puppet and the Right Puppet of the Ashkenazis (commonly referred to as "Jewish Cabal" in the West).
The same can be said of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" ---> Left and Right puppet, again.
The United States of America does NOT have a "Representational Voting" ---- what that means is that instead of having 1% or 2% or 5% or 10% or 49.99999% of the vote DOES NOT NECESSARILY equate to 1% or 2% or 5% or 10% or 49.99999% political representation.
It's winner-takes-all!!!
So, even if in the SLIM chance that "our" guys win the majority, they will lose it ---- NO, not like with John Kerry, HEAVENS NO!!! They are both PUPPETS of the same puppet-master ------ MORE LIKE THE RECENT MEXICAN ELECTION THAT WAS STOLEN (i.e. the votes were fabricated....).
.
.
.
.
.
________________________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
So what should be the "aim" of all our hopes and effort?
This is the PERFECT opportunity to make our views KNOWN, to EDUCATE the sheeple (on 911 false flag, on USURY destroying American families, on PLANNED HOUSING BUBBLE that is causing so much family distress, etc).
And most importantly to let it be known:
1) WE SUPPORT AMERICAN TROOPS -- IN PARTICULAR WE SUPPORT THEIR SAFE RETURN HOME, NOW!!!!.
However, we do NOT support WAR FOR ISRAEL!!!!
2) WE DO NOT WANT WWIII.
WE DO NOT WANT TO GO TO WAR WITH:
- Iran
- Russia
- China
- Islamic nations
- Venezuala
- Latin America
- AFRICA
- name-your-3rd-world-poor-nation-here!!!!
..such patience!! if we just wait a few more years, all the islamic nations may be bombed!! they need to put fascists like cheney inside a lexan box at Times Square for all to taunt!! sell laser pointers to the tourists..
..are we only gonna get a few fascists when there LOADS OF TRAITORS JUST LIKE HIM, by the hundreds, thousands and millions, depending on level; cull off the top, imprison the mid.
Wow. What planet does Ron Paul live on? The Cheney regime wants World War III, but Ron Paul wants lengthy deliberation before Cheney is even questioned. Where was all the “protocol” when the Patriot Act was quickly rammed through? Where was the deliberation and "proper committee procedure" when Bush quickly launched the invasion of Iraq?
Paul says we must follow long tortuous “investigations and hearings." An impeachment IS an investigation. Why must we investigate, and investigate, before we can investigate?
For me, Paul's excuse doesn't wash. There are several other ways he could have gotten out of this, rather than directly voting to table the resolution.
He will be asked questions about this on the campaign trail, and he will give the same answer. His devotees will nod and say, "okay," but subconsciously they will have doubts from this point forward.
This is the first overtly political move I'm seen him make, discounting his membership in the republican party.
Ron Paul obviously sees his support base as being composed of "moderates" and he's calculated that aligning himself with an impeachment resolution against Cheney would get him labelled him as a "radical." He sees his momentum building, he's getting a lot of favorable attention in the press and he's almost surely going to reach his $12 million goal by the end of the year. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his campaign talking about and explaining his vote to impeach the vice president.
I do not agree with his position on this and I'm not impressed with his explanation. If he had said something to the effect
"Yes, I voted against the resolution but I did it for political reasons. I agree with the resolution but I'm trying to win the GOP nomination for president. If I had voted in favor of the resolution it would have become a distraction for the rest of the campaign and the issue would have been used to characterize me as a fringe candidate. Most importantly of course the republican party would never nominate a candidate who had voted to impeach a sitting republican vice president."
I would have at least given him points for being honest. I can still support him but this was a disappointing performance.
Ron Paul is using the Republican debates and primary structure to increase his exposure. He is about as welcome in Republican political circles as a turd in a punchbowl, but he is exposing the singular nature of both parties by being the only viable anti-war offering in either party. His Constitutional foundation and fiscal conservatism appeal to a large majority of middle class Americans, what remains of them that is.
Ron Paul will get shafted in every aspect of the primary process that the Republicans can manage. He will be shut out at the convention, regardless of how many supporters and delegates he garners. His supporters are liable to get the Chicage 68 treatment.
When the public sees how he gets treated after having availed himself to the "Process", it will be the catalyst for the rebellion within both parties that will lead to the formation of a strong viable third party - a party that will gather the anti-war sentiment that is boiling over.
I can easily see this third party getting more votes than either of the uniparty candidates - but alas, that is where the electoral college will kick in and insure the status quo.
The damage will have been done though and the illusion of Democracy will have been exposed for the charade that it has been, well since at least 1840.
All this is assuming that we aren't in a state of emergency with elections "postponed indefinitely".
AZ - the P.T.B. really despise this guy - that in itself is good enough for me!
I agree point for point.
I hope this is true:
Trouble is, I suspect any third party that arises will soon be infiltrated with the same ol' same ol' crypto-democrats and crypto-republicans and will morph into just another American Establishment Political Party shortly after formation.
Your point about the Electoral College is correct. It's been co-opted. The thoughtful minority of people in the United States is held hostage by the vapid, narcissistic, drooling majority.
Folks, this is what is known as a cryptic message - it means just the opposite of what it says, but he can't tell it like is because he is still in the "Process". Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of "two parties". Remember this statement.
Remember that Paul has also said that he would not support any candidate that was for continuing the war - his actual support base will be way too big to just vanish, plus the unfair treatment he will receive will endear him to the American people - they love a good comeback story from a fighter.
Things are a world different than when Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988 - He won't stop when he gets hosed at the convention.
If Ron Paul was against the measure only because it had not first been debated by the Judiciary committee, then why did vote to table the measure first? Why did he not make a motion to send the resolution to the Judiciary committee? I am aware that he voted send the bill to the committee after Hoyer made the motion, but it seems like a maneuver to push this under the rug.
Although Kucinich seems less politically adept, I trust him more than Ron Paul. At least I know where Kucinich stands.
I think everyone interested in this issue should phone the house judiciary and demand that they proceed with this matter.
-----------------------
"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."