Thread: Just Saw Ron Paul on ABC News Sunday Morning

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by MW

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

Nah MW, you were too long-winded. Didn't bother to read it

Gee thanks. I'll have you know, I put a lot of effort in identifying Duncan Hunter as a great American worthy of your consideration !

I'll read it when I get a chance

Here is a link to an editorial from the San Diego Union-Tribune entitled "Legal Looting": http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... 08top.html .

Below is a copy of that editorial:

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Legal looting

Cunningham case only hints at extent of rot

December 8, 2005

The recent resignation of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, has focused the spotlight once again on the reprehensible ways that defense contractors work with lawmakers to win fat contracts for their services, whether they help the nation's defense or not.

Cunningham's bribe-taking was repulsive. But one of the biggest problems in contractors' and congressmen's mutual back-scratching isn't Duke-style corruption. It is what's perfectly legal.

This was underlined by the Union-Tribune article, "Contractor a master of gaining political access," by Dean Calbreath and Jerry Kammer. It detailed how Cunningham and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, worked closely with two local companies – ADCS Inc. of Poway and Audre Inc. of Rancho Bernardo – to make the Pentagon pay for converting printed documents to computer files. They and a few other lawmakers got Congress to allocate $190 million for "automated data conversion" projects from 1993 to 2001.

Did the Pentagon want this "help"? No. As a 1994 General Accounting Office report noted, it already had the tools for such work.

But Cunningham, Hunter and their House allies didn't care. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions – and ADCS executive Brent Wilkes allegedly was bribing Cunningham. No matter who griped, lawmakers could always add "earmarks" for pet projects to bills and get their way.

This led to such absurdities as a $9.7 million contract for ADCS to digitize historical documents from the Panama Canal Zone that the Pentagon considered insignificant.

This isn't governance. This is looting.

Hunter disagrees. In a phone interview, he said there was support within the Pentagon for such projects, citing several official letters praising Audre's technology or endorsing automated document conversion. He said his fighting for contracts to go to San Diego-area firms is what congressmen do.

But the preponderance of evidence shows defense officials objected to document conversion spending and saw it as ridiculous. That should have carried the day – with Hunter or any lawmaker trying to bring home the bacon.

Instead, the prevailing attitude was that when you have hundreds of billions of dollars to divvy up, everyone should get a piece – and if the Joint Chiefs of Staff think the military's bucks should go toward protecting soldiers and not the pointless preservation of old documents, well, tough luck.

This is no way to run a government. Forget the fatalistic argument that pork is an inevitable part of the legislative process. Just once it would be nice to hear a lawmaker declare he wouldn't vote to spend one dime on a military project that the Pentagon didn't request – or hear a president vow to veto every defense spending bill inflated by the legislative looters.

The status quo is revolting. If only it would inspire a voter revolt. A few more stories like the one about Cunningham, Hunter and the document conversion follies, and it just might.

MW said

Hunter knows how to play the game

This statement combined with the "Legal Looting" editorial is the kind of thing that worries me. MW, you have made a lot of good points about Duncan Hunter (and I DID read to the end ), but I am so afraid that with Hunter or Tancredo it will be *politics as usual*. I know it WON'T be that way if Ron Paul is elected. I'm sure Paul knows how to play the game too, but obviously he has made a firm decision NOT to. This is one of the things about him that I like the most. I can be sure that if he is elected, things WILL be different. I am tired of candidates sounding different, but when they get into office it *politics as usual*. I also believe this is the thing that makes Paul most attractive to voters.

I am still learning about all 3 candidates, and I may change my mind as I continue to research. I really appreciate all of the info everyone is posting!

No way will I vote for Duncan Hunter. After he accepted so nicely the invitation to an hispanic forum WHICH EVERY OTHER candidate refused, I was done with him.

girlygirl369 wrote:

No way will I vote for Duncan Hunter. After he accepted so nicely the invitation to an hispanic forum WHICH EVERY OTHER candidate refused, I was done with him.

That is the most ridiculous and outrageous thing I've ever read posted on ALIPAC! Sounds like something I'd expect to find on a La Raza website.

FYI: Duncan Hunter's message didn't change to suit the crowd. He carried them the same message you've heard in the debates and on his website. Hunter is to be commended for stepping forward to speak to ALL AMERICAN citizens, not just the ones that hang out at the majority caucasion debates and other events (I'm caucasion by the way). As I've said before, it took real guts to stand before an all Hispanic crowd and speak about a border fence, enhanced enforcement, and the rule of law.

I wonder if Hispanic-Americans say the same thing when Gov. Richardson speaks to a non-Hispanic crowd? The battle against illegal immigration is not about race, it's about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Honestly, I'd like to see Hunter meet with La Raza and set them straight too!

Personally, I hope Duncan Hunter convinced some of those in attendance that illegal immigration is also bad for legal immigrants and all Hispanics-Americans. After all, it is a fact that the Hispanic-American and African-American community suffer the most from illegal immigration.