Ron Paul is Breaking My Heart

[pepperpete1]

Please read the following:http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/Update/Update2008-07-27.htm

I called Ron Paul's Washington DC office today and spoke with Anna regarding Ron Paul's response to the petitions of redress to our congressmen.

I asked if she was aware of the petitions served on the individual congresspersons. She replied she was. I asked if she knew whether Ron Paul was going to respond to the petitions and she answered that he WAS NOT GOING TO RESPOND.I then asked "And the reason for him not responding is?" She said she was not given a reason.

If Dr. Paul cannot respond to these petitions, then I feel totally betrayed by his message of Constitutional government. I would have thought that he would pick up the efforts of We The People Congress and enfold it within his Campaign For Liberty.

One would think that he could at least have given a reason for acting like most other congresspersons.

I was planning on going to the rally but since finding this out I have changed my mind.

I feel as though I caught my husband with another woman. But this is even bigger than a marital infidelity. This is our country that needs us and needs all of us if we are to keep our civil liberties.

I believed in Ron Paul as an ethical man, an honest politician. How can he not respond?

He has until Friday to respond, but when his congessional office says he will not be responding, I have to believe he will not.

 

[RoamZero]

Interesting. Somehow we should try to get a public statement from Paul, maybe ask Alex Jones to question him the next time he has him on, or have someone in the DC area visit his office and ask for a statement.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

I've just read the whole wethepeoplefondation.org website, and i must say, i'm confused. What exactly do you expect to happen? You've aired your grievences, now expect a redress, but of what kind? And how do individual congressman redress your greivence? DO you expect a floor vote of somekind?

I need to hear more, in plain english.

 

[Shii]

I too thought signing petitions on the Internet would save the world...

 

[bucfish]

Oh come'on Paul has a lot going on and why you would even serve him with this I cannot fathom. Paul is the one man in congress that should never have been served.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Absent such a response Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.

Yeah - because he won't respond to an online petition.
That is a true measure of his adherence to the constitution, not his flawless voting record.


who cares

 

[yongrel]

Oh lawdy lawdy, Ron Paul hasn't prioritized responding to an internet petition. *sigh* His lackadaisical approach to an invisible petition really makes me question his credibility as a champion of the Constitution. I mean, yeah he ran for President against all odds and inspired our movement, but what has he done for me lately?

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

"I feel as though I caught my husband with another woman."

But it's actually more like you "caught" your husband watching women's volleyball and decided to get [irrationally] jealous.

Not going to the rally anymore because of this? That's pretty stupid.

 

[rich34]

I too thought signing petitions on the Internet would save the world...

That's some funny snit right there

 

[Akus]

I am looking forward for the "it's not about Ron Paul, it's about "the movement""crowd to start making apologies.....

On the other hand Pepperpete1, are you in his district? And even if so, must he answer to every single call people make? I for some reason think that it's like when an exhausted rock star refuses to sign autographs because he/she just wants to catch his/her breath and be left the fuck alone, but everyone thinks (s)he is an asshole/bitch with a God complex.....

 

[pepperpete1]

These petitions were served in person to each congressperson

 

[newbitech]

i am surprised that he will not respond to this.

for those yucks above who are trying to marginalize this as an "online petition", think again. These were served locally by precinct as well as mailed to the DC offices. It is more than a piece of paper to sign.

 

[MRoCkEd]

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I don't really understand what it is you're trying to do either, as one of the above posters stated. What's the goal here? In what way is the government going to redress us? What do you want from Ron Paul? A statement of support for your efforts? A guarantee that he'll introduce some legislation you wrote onto the floor of Congress? I don't get it.

 

[newbitech]

I don't really understand what it is you're trying to do either, as one of the above posters stated. What's the goal here? In what way is the government going to redress us? What do you want from Ron Paul? A statement of support for your efforts? A guarantee that he'll introduce some legislation you wrote onto the floor of Congress? I don't get it.

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

 

[pepperpete1]

The petitions were served as a redress to congress to remedy the unconstitutional acts as stated in the seven petitions. Acts they made unconstitutionally. The redress of Congress is our constitutional right per the first amendment. If the president, vice-president, and our congresspersons will not adhere to the constitution, we have the right to call them on it and hold them accountable.

I just would like to know why Ron Paul feels it is not necessary for him to respond to the people's petitions as stated in the constitution.

 

[torchbearer]

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

How can one congressman, by himself, accomplish any of the above?
It takes the support of the majority of a committee to get anything to the floor.

Ron Paul has been trying to give us relief via legislation he has been pushing, he is already trying to get rid of the fed, he is already trying to legalize marijuana, he is already trying to get our budgets under control, he is already trying to stop these needless wars.
Where else is he lacking in his responsibility to the people?

 

[MRoCkEd]

I just would like to know why Ron Paul feels it is not necessary for him to respond to the people's petitions as stated in the constitution.

Does the constitution say you must respond to petitions?

I can see going after other congressmen to make a point - but why bother with Ron Paul who is not part of the crowd voting on unconstitutional bills?

 

[newbitech]

Hoy can one congressman, by himself, accomplish any of the above?
It takes the support of the majority of a committee to get anything to the floor.

Ron Paul has been trying to give us relief via legislation he has been pushing, he is already trying to get rid of the fed, he is already trying to legalize marijuana, he is already trying to get our budgets under control, he is already trying to stop these needless wars.
Where else is he lacking in his responsibility to the people?

No one is saying he has to do all that by himself. But regarding the petition, he just has to respond. That is all. It doesn't take a majority to respond. I find it rather interesting that he would refuse. We will see what he says if he doesn't, but I think he will. This is probably just mis-communication. He still has time to respond and fulfill his oath.

If we can't get Dr. Paul to respond to a legal 1st amendment petition for redress, then there is no hope that there ever will be a majority.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

wow. you really don't understand? we are in such a sorry state if the so called patriots of the modern revolution don't understand the point of the constitution.

I will give us all the benefit of the doubt since the supreme court has never ruled on the last 10 words of the first amendment.

We the people have the duty as citizens to petition our government for a redress grievances. This means we have a list of things that we think is wrong with our government and we are asking our government to make them right.

If the government fails to "respond" to this petition, then the individuals must then take it upon themselves to make right what is wrong. By failing to respond, the government officially declares itself to not be the government of those individuals who signed the petition under their first amendment protections.

This means those individuals are no longer bound to the laws that make those items listed in the redress official government doctrine.

Maybe that's why Dr. Paul won't respond. It takes us one step closer to liberty if these clowns in DC continue to ignore their constitutional duties.

Ok, here's what i don't understand. For example, Dick Heller had a problem with the law, he petitioned the government with his greivance; that he thought the DC ban on guns was unconstitutional. The government "responded" to his greivence, allowed him redress and heard his case in court; many courts federal, appellate, Supreme Court. After a short time (14 years), he wins (kinda) and gets the DC law changed (kinda), and he registers a revolver.

What is it you all want? Just a response? So if they say, "ok, we're working on it", is that a response that will satisfy you? Or do they say"duly noted".

A good friend of mine for 20 years is big into WETHEPEOPLEFOUNDATION, and I still can't understand the strategy/tactic that this will accomplish. ( i have to admit, my eyes glazed over when he explains it). Oh, btw, I signed the RV at the Revolution March.