To say that I am unhappy with Congressman and candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of these United States of America, Ron Paul, would be a gross understatement.First some disclosure is in order on my part. I have said in this blog more than once that if I were to take one more step to the right (politically speaking), I would be a Libertarian.
In general I find Libertarians to be highly principled and moral people. I read Mises.org, I subscribe to LewRockwell.com and, six of the blogs I follow every day are operated by Libertarians. Also, one of my collaborators here at CoF’s Guest Saturday is a Libertarian.
There is much that I admire about Ron Paul. His stand on monetary and fiscal policies are my stands as well. Ron Paul is a very principled man and he stands by his principles more than anyone else I know of in Congress. I know, that as a Libertarian, Dr. Paul believes that one should never be the first to use aggression. That is the stance that I think he has taken too far and the reason I am so upset with him today.
Yesterday I learned from this American Thinker article that, back in May, Congressman John Mica (R-Fl) offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Here is the amendment:
H.Amdt. 318: An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.amending H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. (Source)
The amendment passed 260 to 160 and for that I am very pleased. But what I am trying to understand is how anyone; be they liberal or progressive or moderate or conservative, Republican, Democrat or Libertarian could vote against this amendment. What moral grounds could they possibly have? the liberals and progressives I understand because in my opinion they have no moral values. But, eighteen Republicans voted against this amendment and one of them wants to be our President, Ron Paul.
Now, I have tried to give Congressman Paul the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he voted against the amendment to satisfy his most ardent Libertarian followers while knowing full well that the amendment would pass anyway. But, this doesn’t square with what I think I know about the man. If there is anyone in Congress who does not play politics with his votes, it is Ron Paul.
With total sincerity, I would appreciate it if the Libertarians who are reading these words would tell me whether you agree or not with Ron Paul’s vote and if you do agree, could you please explain your rational. I would really like to understand how any moral American could vote against this amendment to help protect our men and women in uniform. I can appreciate the Libertarians stance on war. I sometimes agree. But one doesn’t have to support a given war to support the well-being of our troops.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?