published Monday, June 21st, 2010

Ron Paul Endorses Van Irion for Congress

LAKE JACKSON, Texas-- (BUSINESS WIRE ) Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Van Irion for United States Congress from the 3rd district of Tennessee.

Said Dr. Paul, “I am proud to endorse Van Irion for United States Congress.

“Van Irion will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. We need people like Van voting with me in Congress.

“Van Irion is a dynamic leader who understands our Constitution and will fight against out-of-control government to restore our Liberty. Van has the courage to stand up against the bailouts and government takeovers being forced down our throats by Washington insiders.

“I have been particularly impressed by Van’s leadership in the fight against Obamacare. Van Irion understands that Americans deserve more freedom, not less, in our healthcare system and is using his skills and good name to fight back. We should all be proud of his fine work.

“The American people need more than just another vote. We need a man of principle who will always stand up for what is right. We need a citizen politician who will represent US. Van Irion is just that kind of individual.”

Said Liberty PAC director Jesse Benton, “We believe that Van Irion is the best candidate in this race and is best poised to win in both the primary and general elections. We hope the people of Tennessee will send this fine conservative leader to Washington at a time when he is sorely needed.”

Liberty PAC is Congressman Paul’s leadership Political Action Committee. Its mission is to identify and support candidates that believe in Liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility and a common sense, pro-America foreign policy.

Source: Liberty PAC

32
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
dshinn said...

Van is running a great campaign and working hard to get out his message. Not too long ago he won an online poll at the Chattanoogan.com, and his support is growing. Go to van4congress.org to learn more and get involved with the campaign!

June 21, 2010 at 4:42 p.m.
davidgid said...

This endorsement makes sense being that Van has the vast majority of the Tea Party leadership backing him. Who will endorse him next? Maybe Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin?

June 21, 2010 at 4:51 p.m.
millard said...

Van is the only candidate running in TN-03 truly focused on Constitutionally limited government. Thank you Ron Paul for recognizing this.

June 21, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.
rolando said...

If Gov. Palin endorses him, he will be our next Rep. Check her endorsement stats...

June 21, 2010 at 4:59 p.m.
MountainJoe said...

Go Van! rolando, I think there is a pretty good chance Palin may endorse him. She endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky and he crushed his establishment Republican opponent at the polls. Hopefully Van will do the same to Robin Smith et al.

June 21, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

ahem...Palin is no longer a governor. She quit, remember? Rolando, you have unfinished business on another thread.

June 21, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
pemallardepbfi said...

You can meet Van Irion here -

http://www.blip.tv/file/3674133

June 21, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.
sasquatch said...

Congratulations Van Irion! This is a good sign that truly liberty minded people are rooting for you. The speech you gave on may 25th was very telling: http://www.blip.tv/file/3674133

June 21, 2010 at 6:17 p.m.
gm1220 said...

We need someone that lives in the 3rd District not the 4th District representing us. Van reminds me of Hillary Clinton shopping for a state that would elect her! Why doesn't Van run in the 4th district? Van did not win the Chattanoogan.com poll because it had to be shut down due to an unexplained surge in voting coming from outside the district. Enough about the constitution! Go home Van!

June 21, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
pemallardepbfi said...

In case you missed it, Van has filed a lawsuit against the Healthcare bill. Anyone can join as they are making it a class action suit, even if you don't live in the 3rd Congressional District. There are over 31,000 people signed up at: http://www.obamacareclassaction.com/

June 21, 2010 at 7:42 p.m.
millard said...

gm1220,

Sorry the Constitution gets in the way of your crony politics. Well actually I'm not. That is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to do. You might try reading it some time. The Constitution requires that a representative be a resident of the state. The boundaries of the district can be changed after every census and usually are.

June 21, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.
gjuster said...

GM1220 - The old he doesn't live in the district argument. If that's the case, how can someone from Chattanooga truly represent someone from Tazwell? When the district lines are redrawn next year, what if Chattanooga is cut out of the 3rd district - does that mean the winner of this race must drop out - of course not. That's why the founders of this great nation wrote into the Constitution that a person must live in the state, not in the district. Van lives 200 yards from the 3rd district line - AND much closer to the majority of the district than the other main candidates - if that's more important to you than the only candidate that believes that the Constitution is their rule book - then by all means - vote for someone else.

Van Irion is the only candidate in this race that is not going to be a puppet in Congress. I want someone who will stand up and say no to anyone that will shred the Constitution like it has been for so many years by Democrats and Republicans - and be strong enough to take the slings and arrows for standing up to our beliefs. That's Van Irion. When you hear him speak - you will believe too.

June 21, 2010 at 7:54 p.m.
pemallardepbfi said...

gm1220, What chattanoogan.com poll are you speaking of? The one that after over 2000 votes Van was at 51% and someone removed the poll. The results were NEVER posted, I sent numerous messages to the Chattanoogan.com and noone has ever bothered to tell me why you can find the Tonya craft poll still and every other poll but nowhere will you see the poll you claim Van lost. Did you find it? I think we need to put out a demand to see the poll, as no one has ever given a good explanation why that poll result was never posted. I have lost faith in Chattanoogan.com as a viable news source because of that. It seems like the way people work around here is if they don't like the answers they just ignore it or worse yet, hide it.

June 21, 2010 at 8:06 p.m.
gm1220 said...

gjuster--The 200 yards does mean more than just district lines. You didn't answer the question -- Why didn't he run in the 2nd or the 4th or the 5th disrict? And if they redraw the lines and the person representing us just so happens to not live in the newly drawn district --which I don't think has EVER happened, then I say we will deal with it them. I think that a person from Chattanooga can represent someone in Tazewell just as easily as Van can represent someone from Polk County!! I think he will be Ron Paul's puppet!! That's usually what endorsements mean. Now we have someone outside the district telling us to elect someone outside the district. What? Are we stupid? Go home Van!

June 21, 2010 at 8:15 p.m.
gm1220 said...

millard -- The Constitution was written to be a document for the ages INTERPRETED by each generation. Thank God for the Amendments. I am tired of the Constitutionalists talking about the timeless virtue of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They're the groundwork for a truly amazing form of government, but nowhere did it allow for women and my black friends to have the right to vote, or even be considered full citizens. Returning to SOME of the founding principles you go on and on about would be very, very, very dangerous.

June 21, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.
rolando said...

lkeith -- Normal courtesy toward former office holders is to use their former title...Gov, Pres, Sen, Rep, etc. That generally holds true unless one detests the former officer holder -- Slick Willie, Peanut Farmer, and soon-to-be-former Dear Leader, for instance.

We all know Gov Palin is actually former-Gov Palin, don't we? Do you detest her that much or are you still the stickler?

BTW, the "other" thread did not show in the "Most Recently Commented Stories" box, and the only poster there was alpo [who I will not read until he grows up], and since our conversation seemed to be at an impasse and no longer productive, I did not visit...I was NOT ignoring you. I'll check it now.

June 21, 2010 at 9:53 p.m.
millard said...

gm1220,

The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. You can read it in there if you take the time to do so. There has not been an amendment to date to require that a representative reside in the district. It does, however, hold the federal government to specific limits. That has not changed even after all of the "INTERPRETATIONS." I would commend it to you as actual reading material. You should try it. You could learn a lot about how the federal government is actually supposed to work.

June 21, 2010 at 10:09 p.m.
gm1220 said...

millard -- You are the most condescending jerk I have ever encountered. You have yet to answer a question. You are too busy trying to imply that you have read the Constitution and no one else has. Your campaign sounds like a cult!!! I am sure the framers of our Constitution never thought that we would have to address someone wanting to represent a district that they don't even live in! I hope you are not a woman or God forbid, a black woman, because your vote wouldn't be counted! We don't want you or your candidate here! Go home!

June 21, 2010 at 10:21 p.m.
MountainJoe said...

It is nothing new to run in a district one does not live in. Google Tom McClintock, Representative from California. When he was first elected to Congress he lived, not 200 yards, but 400 miles from the district that elected him. (He later moved into the district.) If you don't like the rules then amend the Constitution to require living in the district. Until such an amendment is ratified, then the original qualifications (over 25 and a resident of the state) remain in effect.

Van Irion knows the Constitution and knows he is qualified to run in any district in TN he chooses. He chose the 3rd district because we are desperately in need of better representation than we have had for the last 16 years. Electing another "establishment Republican" would be more of the same. We deserve better than that ... we deserve Van.

June 21, 2010 at 10:26 p.m.
MountainJoe said...

gm1220, the rude one here is you!

We have a Constitutionally qualified candidate we support. If you have a beef with him on the issues, let's hear it. But he is just as qualified to run as Robin, Chuck, or any of the others. So either pose an issue question or YOU go home....

June 21, 2010 at 10:28 p.m.
MountainJoe said...

Oh, and by the way, the Constitution was written in ENGLISH. No "interpretation" required, unless maybe you are an illegal alien and have trouble reading English.

June 21, 2010 at 10:29 p.m.
gm1220 said...

Montain Joe -- I believe that Van has another rude supporter! I don't believe that I said anything to you. But, because you ask, I do have a beef with your candidate. I don't think he should be running in the 3rd district. No one will answer the question --Why here? Why not Memphis, Nashville--why here? Sounds fishy!

June 21, 2010 at 10:36 p.m.
rolando said...

Van has a better Constitutional claim to the 3rd District than our President has to HIS office...Van's candidacy is not being challenged in and being heard by the SCOTUS. The requirements for the latter office are clearly written also.

June 21, 2010 at 10:44 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Here you go, gm1220. In case you missed these answers no one seemed to had given you:

"Sorry the Constitution gets in the way of your crony politics. Well actually I'm not. That is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to do. You might try reading it some time. The Constitution requires that a representative be a resident of the state. The boundaries of the district can be changed after every census and usually are."

"GM1220 - The old he doesn't live in the district argument. If that's the case, how can someone from Chattanooga truly represent someone from Tazwell? When the district lines are redrawn next year, what if Chattanooga is cut out of the 3rd district - does that mean the winner of this race must drop out - of course not. That's why the founders of this great nation wrote into the Constitution that a person must live in the state, not in the district. Van lives 200 yards from the 3rd district line - AND much closer to the majority of the district than the other main candidates - if that's more important to you than the only candidate that believes that the Constitution is their rule book - then by all means - vote for someone else."

"The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. You can read it in there if you take the time to do so. There has not been an amendment to date to require that a representative reside in the district. It does, however, hold the federal government to specific limits. That has not changed even after all of the "INTERPRETATIONS." I would commend it to you as actual reading material. You should try it. You could learn a lot about how the federal government is actually supposed to work."

"It is nothing new to run in a district one does not live in. Google Tom McClintock, Representative from California. When he was first elected to Congress he lived, not 200 yards, but 400 miles from the district that elected him. (He later moved into the district.) If you don't like the rules then amend the Constitution to require living in the district. Until such an amendment is ratified, then the original qualifications (over 25 and a resident of the state) remain in effect.

"Van Irion knows the Constitution and knows he is qualified to run in any district in TN he chooses. He chose the 3rd district because we are desperately in need of better representation than we have had for the last 16 years. Electing another "establishment Republican" would be more of the same. We deserve better than that ... we deserve Van."

Unfortunately I cannot post it in larger, bold font for you, but maybe you will be able to read all the answers this time around. Cheers!

June 21, 2010 at 10:46 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Oh, and Go Van!

June 21, 2010 at 10:48 p.m.
MountainJoe said...

Why didn't Van run in the 2nd or 4th or ... ? gm1220?

Because he didn't want to, that's why. He wanted to run in the 3rd, probably because he lives almost in the geographical center of it (though 200 yards outside some arbitrary, gerrymandered line). That is all the reason he needs, according to our Constitution. Neither Van nor his supporters owe you any other explanation.

NOW can you move on to an intelligent question? Please?

June 21, 2010 at 10:58 p.m.
libertylover said...

FYI, the Constitution, if strictly interpreted as it should have been, never allowed for slavery. What did allow for slavery was corrupt, immoral men defining people as property instead of men and women. Many abolitionists understood this at the time and were arguing just that. Returning to an original intent interpretation of the Constitution does not roll back the clock unless we all agree to define people as property again. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN, so please people, study your history before you comment negatively on the Constitution again. Our Constitution is a framework designed to insure our individual liberty and most people in the world envy what we have, yet many Americans are so willing to ignore!

June 21, 2010 at 11:33 p.m.
rolando said...

libertylover -- Great post. Folks need reminded on occasion exactly what we have.

But isn't it "The Constitution, AS AMENDED" that is the issue?

The only time original intent comes into the picture is for the un-amended part. An Amendment updates and replaces original intent. That is the ONLY way the original document can be altered, activist judges' decisions be damned.

So you are quite correct, as you know...the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery; it changed original intent from that point on. Excluding slavery from the original was the only way it would have been accepted by the delegates. Plentiful, low cost labor [slave labor] was essential to our new country's financial success. [Which is NOT to defend slavery beyond that original period of need.]

Yet in a way, we have effectively adopted a new form of slavery today...day workers, for instance. Very low pay, no benefits, no food/potty breaks, no public concern, etc. Child labor and sweatshops were another form of slavery; today's multi-generation dependency on government handouts [redistribution of wealth] for daily needs is yet another form...enslaving both the recipient and the provider of the wealth.

So slavery does indeed exist today, 13th or not. We just don't call it that.

June 22, 2010 at 5:40 a.m.
millard said...

gm1220

I did not have to imply anything about your interest in the Constitution. Your own words took care of that. "Enough about the constitution!" Those are your words not mine. If it makes me a jerk to infer that you don't like the Constitution if it gets in the way of your political objectives, then I guess I am a jerk.

As an attorney practicing in the federal courts I have sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. I take that oath very seriously. It certainly isn't a matter of convenience to be side-stepped whenever it interferes with political objectives. Van is the only TN-03 candidate who has pledged to adhere to the Constitution no matter what when considering legislation. I'm not sure what kind of cult it is to support a real Constitutionalist, but I am proud to call myself a member.

June 22, 2010 at 10:15 a.m.
MountainJoe said...

I am not an attorney but +1 to what millard said. Every elected official from city council all the way up to the president swears to uphold the Constitution. Sadly, few of them actually do. Ron Paul is one of them, and I am convinced Van Irion will be another.

Remember what Benjamin Franklin said in response to the question posed by a citizen at the close of the Constitutional Convention. "What sort of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" His reply: "A Republic, if you can keep it." The only way to keep our Republic from degenerating into tyranny is to uphold the Constitution ... not just when it is convenient ... but most especially when it is not convenient. That is called putting principle before politics. Ron Paul does that and I feel sure Van Irion will, too.

June 22, 2010 at 12:49 p.m.

Great posts Rolando, Libertylover and Millard (and other Van supporters).

We had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Van recently. He's extremely knowledgeable, energetic, Constitutionally and Biblically right on and just a good person to listen to and be around. He has an inner strength as well, which is an attribute desperately needed in Washington these days. When we vet and find Leaders such as these, it is an occasion for thanks to the Lord and to the American people who support them.

Don't let the teeny minds pull them down, they're only TOO willing and for the stupidest, ego-driven reasons. No research, no vetting of our Leaders, no critique, no wisdom= nothing and nobody worth their Salt in Washington, DC.

June 22, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
pemallardepbfi said...

http://goggle1791.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc

Bradley Co. Courthouse 6/22/2010 Barely a mention of the Constitution until term limits came up. Not one, "I'm a Constitutionalist" statement the whole night. I missed Van being there, they could have sent their support group to speak for them it was so lackluster. All the videos uploaded so far from the debates.

June 23, 2010 at 7:32 a.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.