In your choice of a candidate to support for President in the 2008 election, consider this: Does your candidate oppose the use of children as soldiers? You might assume that there is no real difference between presidential candidates. You might assume that, of course, all presidential candidates oppose making children into soldiers.
The record shows quite clearly, however, that some presidential candidates have taken action on the issue of child soldiers, while others have stood by and done nothing on the issue.
The stakes are high, if not for the presidential candidates, then for the child soldiers themselves. According to Kindsoldaten vzw, a Dutch organization that works toward ending the use of child soldiers, half a million people 17 years and younger are enlisted in armies in 85 different countries. Of those, there are about 300,000 child soldiers actively involved in wars around the world right now.
This year, there have been several pieces of legislation in Congress attempting to deal with the worldwide problem of child soldiers. The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 would require the President of the United States to cut military aid to countries in which the army or government-affiliated security forces use children as soldiers. The bill would also establish investigations by United States embassies into the extent to which child soldiers are being used around the world. The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 exists in four different forms – one in the Senate and three in the House of Representatives.
There is also H.CON.RES.75, a resolution that would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of child soldiers is unacceptable and ought to be ended. This resolution would not actually do anything, though it is, as an official positive statement against the use of child soldiers, slightly better than doing nothing.
There are three tiers of presidential candidates serving in Congress, according to the status of their participation in congressional efforts to combat the use of child soldiers:
1. Presidential Candidates Who Have Cosponsored the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007
These candidates are: Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.
2. Presidential Candidates Who Have Cosponsored H.CON.RES.75
Only Dennis Kucinich has cosponsored this resolution.
3. Presidential Candidates Who Have Done Absolutely Nothing On The Issue Of Child Soldiers
Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul have done absolutely nothing on the issue of child soldiers. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
There’s another group of presidential candidates, of course: Candidates who are not in Congress. These candidates can’t do anything other than talk, but we can at least examine them according to whether they bother to bring up the issue of child soldiers on their campaign web sites. Let’s take a look at them, then:
1. Presidential Candidates (not in Congress) Who Discuss Child Soldiers On Their Campaign Web Sites
Not a single one.
2. Presidential Candidates (not in Congress) Who Say Nothing At All About Child Soldiers On Their Campaign Web Sites
Talk is cheap, but the following presidential candidates are too cheap to even talk about child soldiers on their presidential campaign web sites: Alan Keyes, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Mike Huckabee, Rudolph Giuliani.
There’s a whole lot for America to be ashamed of in the collective inaction of the presidential candidates on an issue that ought to get some mention and dedicated action. Two presidential candidates, however, do have something to be proud of. Good for Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for setting themselves apart from the apathetic crowd on this issue.
(Sources: Kindsoldaten vzw; Library of Congress)
Wait for some twerp in the Ron Paul camp to say that because the Constitution doesn’t contain the words “child soldiers,” such a bill is clearly unconstitutional.
Such a person hasn’t read Article I of the Constitution with anything close to a piece of care.
Shame on Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter… and Ron Paul.
Well, considering Paul wants to eliminate ALL foreign military aid, it’s a moot point.
Thanks for popping up, Alex.
As you know, it’s not moot unless it’s accomplished. I could tell you I’m in favor of cherry pies for all Americans, but unless I set down to making and distributing those cherry pies, it doesn’t matter. It’s not what Ron Paul says that matters, it’s what he does. Here’s a bill to accomplish a cut in foreign military aid, AND to do so in a way that cuts down in the use of child soldiers. Why isn’t Ron Paul supporting this legislation?
It’s not at all moot. Ron Paul’s way of working in the Congress is that he hardly ever supports anybody else’s efforts, including this one.
His rationale – that he has a super duper libertarian plan that would solve all problems, if just everyone would listen to him.
In the meantime, Ron Paul does nothing, and tries to stop other people from doing anything.
That’s true on child soldiers, and education, and… oh just about anything worthwhile.
Ignoring the random conversation about Ron Paul:
Countries using child soldiers is bad, sure. But there isn’t enough interest by the American voting public to justify wasting prominent space on a candidate’s website in order to write about EVERY issue that is bad in the world and how they would fix it. I’d bet that all candidates oppose child soldiers, but most probably realize that it’s not going to be a big issue in the election (since they all agree on it) and they probably realize there’s very little they can do about it (how do you STOP another SOVERIGN NATION from NOT using child soldiers? Either you pay them or your bomb them (in the broadest senses of both “pay” and “bomb”).
It’s NOT a random conversation about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is choosing NOT to help protect child soldiers because he won’t lift a finger unless he gets his libertarian agenda exactly as he likes that.
How is that RANDOM, Joseph?
Are you a convert to the cult of Ron Paul? You seem to have a special ability to ignore anything negative about him.
The comment conversation IS random. The article above says:
“Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul have done absolutely nothing on the issue of child soldiers. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.”
You, of course, focus on Ron Paul. I was giving the people posting the benefit of the doubt by calling it random. If it’s not random, it’s intentional. If it’s intentional, then it just supports my position that Jim is likely to be a DNC fanboy or hack. Loves to have the third post decrying Paul, but won’t mention his dear, darling of the DNC Hillary for her not saying anything about it after the first post. How about we have a comment thread spreading around the blame, instead of constant attack on Paul, eh? Didn’t think so.
In fairness to Jim, however, he did list off the candidates in his first post, before narrowing in on Paul.
My senators are in favor of this bill, or I would be on their cases right now.
What are YOUR senators, presidential contenders or no, doing about child soldiers?
And what are YOU going to do about THAT?
Joseph, don’t be silly. Alex is the one that focused in on Ron Paul – trying to defend an indefensible neglect on Ron Paul’s part.
It started with “Wait for some twerp in the Ron Paul camp to say that because the Constitution doesn’t contain the words “child soldiers,†such a bill is clearly unconstitutional.
Such a person hasn’t read Article I of the Constitution with anything close to a piece of care.”
from Jim. All “Alex” said was that it was a moot point since Paul’s opposed to all federal military aid. It wasn’t really a defense of Paul, just a statement of Paul’s belief. A defense would have been that “Paul’s right in being opposed to all foreign aid, including in regard to Child soldiers”.
How does predicting the inevitable and repetitive silly statements from Ron Paul supporters here make someone a DNC supporter or a Clinton supporter? They do just pop out of the woodwork every time you mention Ron Paul’s name. It doesn’t take a crystal ball either to figure out they aren’t thinking for themselves.
Joseph’s continued insistence that Jim is a member of DNC is pretty laughable to anyone who has given this forum an even cursory examination. Joseph is either clueless, or is intentionally trying to mislead. Either way, it doesn’t give me a lot of faith in his judgment.
No, my belief that Jim is closely aligned with the DNC stems from his constant focus on Unity08 with such great posts:
“Unity08 creates a new website. Possibly has a lower membership goal?” but is instead titled “Unity08 PR Magically lowers membership goal”
and
“Unity08 doesn’t count all of its votes” instead of “The Democratic Party is going to disenfranchize millions in its primary”
Jim focusing on Ron Paul instead of Hillary and others is just something that’s within the realm of possibility, at least given his clear support for the DNC.
When Jim states that he’s never registered Democrat, and never will, and rails against Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein this week, that’s all just part of some insidious DNC plot, right?
Haven’t you seen the critical things we’ve all written about Hillary Clinton? Dear me, have a look around.
Again, all Jim does is get pissed when Democrats don’t stand up to Republicans. He never criticizes the Democrats on their own merits, nor does he ever bring up a criticism that would make the Democrats look bad independently of their competition with the Republicans. ex. Their disenfranchizement of millions of Florida voters in the Primary. In that case, it’s not the Republicans that did something stupid (although they may restrict votes too), but the DNC. So lets not report on it. Lets, instead, report about how Unity08 didn’t count less than 100,000 surveys. Because THAT is more important.
Lets face it, Jim is clearly a DNC fanboy. Writing a few negative articles about a candidate doesn’t change that underlying factor, especially when Jim has stated in a comment before that one of the principles is being “non-partisan”.
And on another note, lets not forget that some political campaigns FUND people writing blogs in support of them.
Jim has already explained why he thinks the Florida thing is a non-story. If Joseph is so all fired up about Florida, why doesn’t he address the issues Jim raised about it?
You don’t see Joseph complaining about the THREE states the RNC is suing over the same issue either. Why is Joseph not equally concerned about the voters in these THREE states becoming disenfranchised by the RNC?
Joseph just keeps pasting the same spammy comments over and over.
Who is Joseph, who is he working for, and why does he hide his IP behind special software?
Joseph, you really haven’t looked around at Irregular Times much, if that’s what you think of Jim. There’s a lot to see here that would surprise you.
Yes, Joseph – why are you hiding your IP?
And yes, Jim has explained why he thinks Florida is a non-story. It amounts to “I hope and have faith that the Democratic party won’t be stupid”, even though a LARGE number of the posts on here are about how ALL politicans are stupid. And, additionally, his “explanation” just helps to PROVE his bias for the DNC, as his expressed views on Unity08 don’t allow “hope” or “faith” or anything else. He doesn’t ASSUME that Unity08 “won’t be stupid” and will make sure the online vote, if it happens, is fair and unbiased, and that the leadership will have to be fair. Oh no, he makes it clear he thinks that Unity08′s a total sham, and they would DEFINITELY be stupid enough to go public and try to bias the vote.
Yeah, Jim’s explanation of why Florida’s a “non-story” just proves that the DNC and he are bed-fellows.
Uh, and about the RNC I said, and I quote:
“In that case, it’s not the Republicans that did something stupid (although they may restrict votes too), but the DNC”
The DNC has ALREADY voted to strip Florida of its votes. The best the RNC doing is “considering it”. Or then again, maybe it’s progressed farther, I haven’t looked it up, but the fact Jim still doesn’t see it as a story is very telling.
And Jim’s previously posted his “examples” of how he isn’t all about the DNC. They don’t prove anything. My last comment, about his endeavors and about the type of articles he writes that aren’t “all about the DNC”, still applies.