There is a whole lot of anger regarding the National Defense Authorization Act that President Obama signed into law last week. Civil libertarians in particular have been livid over the content of the law which they think allows the indefinite detention of Americans, even though the indefinite detention provision was changed, before President Obama signed the bill into law.
Not too long after the President signed the bill, rabid Ron Paul supporters vigorously claimed that Paul opposed the bill. There’s just one problem with that. If he indeed opposed it so much, why didn’t he attend a House session to cast his vote against it?
Ron Paul took an oath to execute his duties as a member of the House of Representatives, yet he failed to show up to vote against the NDAA, a bill he supposedly opposes. He didn’t bother to take a few hours out of his day to vote against something he considers dangerous to American rights and freedom. Instead, he decided to ignore his congressional responsibilities in order to remain on the campaign trail. You’d think a self-proclaimed libertarian would do his job when bills as important as the NDAA come up.
The fact is, a sitting Congressman cannot say they oppose a piece of legislation and not vote against it when it comes up for a vote. It’s just irresponsible, which is contrary to Paul’s constant calls for Americans to be responsible. Looks like he doesn’t practice what he preaches, which begs the question: Why do people still support Ron Paul?
See who voted for the bill, who voted against it, and who else besides Ron Paul didn’t vote on it at all; http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml