The end of my support for Ron Paul.

I'm disgusted that Ron Paul voted repeatedly against the Cheney impeachment bill (HR333, NOW HR799). This was roll call 1037, 1038, and 1039. Paul sided with Sterney Hoyer who attempted to kill the bill altogether, and against Kucinich.

Congressman Ron Paul, explain yourself?

I had praised Paul for his statements about the lack of independent investigation into 9/11. Paul should certainly have taken the same stance on investigating Dick Cheney in formal impeachment proceedings.

The second vote, which is inexcusable and just hypocritical for Paul and his carefully crafted persona is roll call 993, The "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

Paul did not vote.

Kucinich showed up to vote against it. One of 6 to actually stand up for the Constitution.

Where was Dr. Paul?

where is he?

this concerns me also. I have talked with other fellow Paul supporters who believe that impeachment is a waste of time. I have to remind them that impeachment is mentioned 6 times in the constitution and needs to be use here more than ever. I also believe that its time for all in the truth movement to contact there representatives and demand that this move forward. WHY NOT USE THESE TOOLS? I would hope that the most articulate members of the movement (DRG, S Jones, R Gage, etc) would craft a very well argued letter to the house judiciary committee describing why we believe Che-ney is directly involved with the crimes AND the cover-up.

does anyone know definitively why Ron Paul is not interested in impeachment or HR 1955? How do we get answers from his campaign committee. I am very concerned. I have given him $$$, but won't do so again until I get some answers. Are we being hoodwinked?

The time to impeach the Bush maniac & the Cheney psychopath

was years ago.

They are both lame ducks now, and the election is less than a year away. (It would probably take over a year to impeach either of them.) They'll be going to the gallows for mass murder & high treason anyway.

"Congressman Ron Paul, explain yourself?"... he has...

Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney

Ron Paul Speech to Congress

November 6, 2007

Mr. 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.


Link :


Hope this helps you understand, it's all politics to me ;-{)

Props to tossthekitty over at the Loose Change forums for the info...

Best wishes

Thanks for the info - was

Thanks for the info - was curious myself...
Old man is consistent isn't he...
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

I think he's just trying to follow the existing rules ...

I was also a little concerned when I first read about this concerning Dr. Paul. However, from what I can determine, as he noted in his floor speech, he was voting as he did because the proper procedural steps were not followed. Impeachment is much like a criminal case in a court, though the functions are performed by different bodies. In a criminal case that you or I would be prosecuted for, we would have first a Judge finding "probable cause" to make an arrest. Then, a Grand Jury would indict. And finally, a Trial by jury would convict or acquit. My understanding of the way House Rules govern the impeachment process is that the Judiciary Committee serves the probable cause part, the House in whole voting to Impeach is in effect an indictment, and then a trial would take place in the Senate. This is the normal procedure that Dr. Paul is referring to in his speech, which he states were followed during the impeachment of both Nixon and Clinton (though I have not verified this fact).

I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, but I know that in the criminal courts if a person is not indicted by a grand jury, the case "dies" at that point. I do not know if the same is true in the case of impeachment. If it is true, then it could have meant that if an actual vote to impeach had gone on and then failed, they would be unable to bring similar charges in the future if more evidence became available. In any event, our system of democracy operates according to rules set out in the Constitution but also in the rules of the House and Senate, which in fact the Constitution allows for. Making sure these rules are followed is a good thing, in my opinion, even if it means the matter reggarding the Vice-President must be referred to the Judiciary Committee. Otherwise, there could probably be a case made that such rules were not followed and the case could be lost on a technicality.

What I find completely inexcusable is why key Democrats have said the issue is "off the table". To say such a thing is essentially saying to the Bushies that they can do whatever and suffer no repercussions for it. Further, it essentially makes check-and-balance function of Congress (at least in its impeachment role) moot, since it has been predeclared that it won't happen. To me, that is like a police officer saying I won't arrest a person no matter what develops in the future or what information becomes known. That is a truly dangerous thing.

Ron Paul standing up for the "mechanics" of our goverment is one of the reasons to SUPPORT him. By his own admission these rules can be cumbersome (and, in fact, often when a new party takes over one body of Congress or another they completely rewrite the rules of that body -- both Republicans and Democrats have done so), but the way to a better future is not to ignore the rules you don't like (signing statements, anyone?).

just my 2 cents...

HUH? Paul voted Aye for 799

The link provided shows Ron Paul voted with the Democrats on HR 799. Care to explain yourself?

Abstaining from the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act vote was pretty chicken.

The specific wording

The "Aye" vote was to send it to the judiciary committee, and thereby not allow a vote on the floor of congress at this point NOW.

It will most likely be killed in committee, and amount to nothing. Conyers (who has said impeachment is "off the table") runs the Judiciary committee, and likewise voted for this option.

See where Kucinich's vote is in the results.

Show me a better candidate

Is there any other candidate willing to take on the Federal Reserve? Is there a candidate that will entertain the idea of abolishing the income tax? How many candidates really will bring the troops home? Is there another candidate I can vote for who won't turn this country into the North American Union?

I am a 9/11 truther and I was amazed at the success Ron Paul enjoyed from the November 5th money bomb. Has there ever been a day like that for 9/11 truth? How many of Ron Paul's supporters want a new investigation into 9/11? Is it half? Maybe more? Why won't these same people donate to grassroots truth movements?

Who else is an alternative candidate? Kucinich??? One week there are reports he saw a UFO and the next week he tries to impeach Cheney (I'm not saying that UFO's don't exist but we all know how the MSM will spin that). Wasn't Kucinich supposed get some detailed investigations into 9/11 a few weeks ago? I look at Kucinich and I see a loser. So who does that leave us with? Mike Gravel...Mike...who??? You think that there are people who haven't heard of Ron Paul, how many have heard of Gravel?

What is the problem with Ron Paul? Why is there resistance here? If not Ron Paul then who? There has never been an impeachment of a president during a time of war. Pelosi said it's off the table, it's not going to happen. Kucinich is a distraction. Ron Paul is not a perfect man, but his message is perfect. Don't try to pick apart Ron Paul and find reasons not to vote for him. There are many great reasons to vote for Ron Paul and many great reason not to vote for anyone else...


Ron Paul will turn on

Ron Paul will turn on you.

While he - as a natural ring-winger - takes up SOME issues that are LEFT WING topics in the rest of the world, he is also a member of the CIA-culture where the left/right bait/switch originated from.****

Paul has been assigned his niche by the ruling elite, and he plays it well enough to fool the usual patridiot born-yesterdays and bad enough for the elites to keep him in pork.

Kucinich is a completely different class. I have never seen a US politician with more integrity.

**** You should do some research. For example the Anti-United-Nations crap has two functions: It shows the CIA which people to watch/recruit as marionettes for their incredible mind-games... and it muddies the waters, i.e. weakens the left. Do some research and find out where and WHEN these ideas were planted. It is in the interest of the RICH AND POWERFUL TO DISMISS THE UNITED NATIONS. For us people the UN is a godsent, it is designed to enforce justice. The bankers/military/industrialists/intelligence (Extortionists/Murderers/Slavermasters/Spy-Assassins) hate it.

Now vote me down, because it is clear I am typing all this to wind you up, right?
I am certainly not giving you well-meant advice, right?

I am a perp/mole who wants to stop Ron Paul from abolishing the Federal Reserve, and European Union TANKs with Russian crews are already secretly stationed inside the USA, for the final takeover of World Government under the rule of the Rothschild's. You better buy stock up on WHEAT GRASS get more guns.


Of course not. So please take the first half of this post seriously and take the cognitive dissonance as deadly serious. Whenever cognitive dissonance rears it ugly head YOUR INSTINCT IS SAYING: HELLO!

Trust your common sense.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is first and

foremost a Republician.

The Republicans are the

right wing of the Rich Party. The Democrats are the left wing of the Rich

Party. Now that Cynthia McKinney is running for President on the Green

Party ticket, I hope you will join me in switching to the Green Party.

I could vote for McKinney,

I could vote for McKinney, but I still like Paul and I think he runs as a Republican because he feels third parties don't stand a chance

Politics as usual. Not good.

We have had enough of politicians frankly.

GOP tactic meant to embarrass Dems on bill to impeach Cheney

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by long-shot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

The anti-war Ohio Democrat's resolution accuses Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

The Houston-area delegation split, with Republicans John Culberson of Houston, Michael McCaul of Austin and Ted Poe of Humble heeding the request to keep the motion alive to embarrass the Democrats.

GOP Reps. Kevin Brady of The Woodlands and Ron Paul of Lake Jackson voted to kill the measure, as did Democrat Nick Lampson of Stafford. Houston Democrats Al Green, Gene Green and Sheila Jackson-Lee all voted to keep the impeachment resolution alive.

"I believe that it is important that we hold our leaders responsible for their acts and their failures to act," Jackson Lee said.

Chronicle reporter Michelle Mittelstadt contributed to this story.


Ron Paul.....Do You Support Impeachment?

Personally I am disappointed in Dr. Paul's vote.

This is not good.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


UFOs are any Unidentified Flying Objects. They are a fact, seen by many thousands of people, and reported on in newspapers all the time.

Kucinich never claimed to see anything "extraterrestrial" just unidentified and odd.

That's a large distinction.

I'd vote for Kucinich, but apparently the rest of the country doesn't really want peace.

As for Paul, I'm not going to send him any money after the above mentioned betrayals. That's where my support ended. If he manages to win the nomination and it's him vs. Hilary, I'll probably vote for him.

Is McKinney actually running for the Greens, or was that a rumor that was put to rest already?

I prefer third parties.