RTO Trainer

On 1 January, the Federal Elections Commission will close it's doors and not reopen for an indefinite period of time.

The 6 member commission is presently only 2 strong. President Bush has nominated 4 new members, but Democrat gamesmaship has held up their confirmation.

Further, Congressional Democrats have cooked up a scheme to keep from actually recessing as tehy normally would. With no recess, the President can make no recess appointments.

So what effect will all this have, with there being effectively no oversight, on campaign spending. At teh very least, we won't have to listne to the Paul-bots talk about who got more money from whom--no one will know.

The Congressman claims complete reverence for the Constitution, yet in his imagination, the Presidency seems to have unfettered authority to make sweeping changes to government. And the Paul Bearers talk a good game in support, but they don't specify either. Under what authority does Ron Paul plan to:

1) Put the US economy on the Gold Standard (and where will the necessary amount of gold come from)?

2) Abolish the Income Tax?

3) Abolish the CIA, FBI, ATF and other agencies?

4) Abbrogate NAFTA and the WTO?

5) Withdraw from the UN and NATO?

The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. The Constitution also requires that the US government, of which the President is Executive, shall preserve a republican form of governement for the US and the individual states as well as to defend the US.

Further the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution which requires the points above.

Doesn't is stand to reason that someone who is a "pacifist" or is "anti-war," who would be unwilling, morally or philosophically, to use the military isn't suited to the office and should be considered "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" per the meaning of the 25th Amendment and should be disqualified even to run?

The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. The Constitution also requires that the US government, of which the President is Executive, shall preserve a republican form of governement for the US and the individual states as well as to defend the US.

Further the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution which requires the points above.

Doesn't is stand to reason that someone who is a "pacifist" or is "anti-war," who would be unwilling, morally or philosophically, to use the military isn't suited to the office and should be considered "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" per the meaning of the 25th Amendment and should be disqualified even to run?