Cong. Duncan Hunter

Status
Not open for further replies.

vito

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
738
Location
Northern Illinois
With Cong. Duncan Hunter in the presidential race, 2nd amendment supporters now have at least two candidates to support (the other is Tom Tancredo). Hunter seems to have less negative baggage than Tancredo and is seen as a more responsible candidate than Tancredo. Might he have a real chance? Will gun rights supporters come to his aid with money and personal effort? If you are like me and feeling depressed that the Republicans might end up with Guliani or McCain as our presidential candidate, this might be the time to step forward and help Hunter.
 
Hunter's credentials as a conservative are fine; it's his personality I can't stand. He's the original Mr. Bigshot with an overbearing manner. But I suppose I could overlook that if he's an ardent RKBA supporter; is he?

TC
 
From www.ontheissues.org

Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.
INSTANT disqualifier for me and just about anyone else who both understands the concept of freedom in America and appreciates it.

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge Protection Act: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.
In other words, we're going to tie the courts' hands behind their backs when it comes to determining if the government schools are shoving religion down your kids' throats. INSTANT disqualifier to just about anyone outside of the fundamentalist right.

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Desecration of Flag resolution: Vote to pass the joint resolution to put forward a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Note: A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Well, he also hates freedom of speech, I see.

Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees.

A "527 organization" is a political committee which spends money raised independently of any candidate's campaign committee, in support or opposition of a candidate or in support or opposition of an issue. Well-known examples include MoveOn.org (anti-Bush) and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (anti-Kerry). Voting YES would regulate 527s as normal political committees, which would greatly restrict their funding, and hence would shift power to candidate committees and party committees. The bill's opponents say:
This legislation singles out 527 organizations in an effort to undermine their fundraising and is a direct assault on free speech.
This bill would obstruct the efforts of grassroots organizations while doing nothing to address the culture of corruption in Congress.
H.R. 513 is an unbalanced measure that favors corporate trade associations over independent advocates. Corporate interests could continue spending unlimited and undisclosed dollars for political purposes while independent
Evidence here that he wants DC to remain a good old boys' club favorable to incumbents, and limiting free speech.

Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

REAL ID Act of 2005: To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
Title I: Amendments to Federal Laws to Protect Against Terrorist Entry - defining more factors relevant to credibility determinations in asylum cases.
Title II: Improved Security for Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards - setting minimum security requirements, including the incorporation of specified data, a common machine-readable technology, and certain anti-fraud security features. Title III: Border Infrastructure and Technology Integration - studying ground surveillance technologies.
NH is pretty hostile to Real ID, so good luck getting him through here!:neener:

Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted):
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of
Reference: Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror; Bill HRES 861 ; vote number 2006-288 on Jun 12, 2006

Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.
States that the House of Representatives:
affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
Reference: War in Iraq Anniversary resolution; Bill H Res 557 ; vote number 2004-64 on Mar 17, 2004

Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the US military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It would be required that the president report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomatic options or other peaceful means would not guarantee US national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of UN resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution would also give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Every 60 days the president would also be required to report to Congress on actions related to the resolution.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL; Bill HJRes114 ; vote number 2002-455 on Oct 10, 2002
Uhhh, didn't we just go over the whole neo-con empire thing this past mid-term?

Now, the guy has his good points, such as immigration and not liking welfare very much, but come on, people, be realistic here. We've been over the Patriot Act thing, and the whole neo-con empire building thing, and the general consensus was "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" on that stuff. Sure, the Dems are hypocrites that'll use the "War on Terror" and those pesky TERR'ISTS to infringe on our rights even more, but that's not what the sheeple are percieving.

Basically, Republican+pro war=losing candidate for 2008. It's that simple.
 
I'd like to learn more about Ron Paul. I've been running across stuff he's written or said lately and it seems to make a lot of sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top