You are Here:
Issues on which Ron Paul is RIGHT and all other Republican candidates are WRONG!

Author (Read 19135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Foreign Policy

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=60 (Statement Opposing the Use of Military Force against Iraq)

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=60 (A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty)

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1842&Itemid=60 (Statement on Libya--Defining U.S. National Security Interests)

The CIA

-- http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-and-a-timeline-of-cia-crimes-and-atrocities/

Civil Liberties

-- http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul62.html (The Homeland Security Monstrosity)

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=197&Itemid=60 (Don't Reauthorize the Patriot Act)

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=139&Itemid=60 (Statement Introducing the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007)

-- http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-22/ron-paul-the-revolt-against-tsa/

The Drug War

-- http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/

-- http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-28/ron-paul-lets-repeal-the-war-on-drugs-just-like-we-repealed-prohibition/

National Sovereignty

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1146: (American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003)

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1192&Itemid=69 (CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade)

-- http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44919 (Ron Paul fires back at Newsweek 'hit' piece)

Ballot Access Reform

-- http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=231&Itemid=60 (End the Two-Party Monopoly!)

-- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3600 (Voter Freedom Act of 2007)

Presidential Debate Reform

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2478.IH: (Freedom Debate Act of 1997)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul: Holding the President Accountable on Libya
« Reply #1 on: Nov 12, 2011, 10:40:05 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pauls-texas-straight-talk-congress-is-ignoring-its-constitutional-obligations.html

Ron Paul: Holding the President Accountable on Libya

Ron Paul
Prisonplanet.com
June 7, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43yxph9Kh4o

Last week, more than 70 days after President Obama sent our military to attack Libya without a congressional declaration of war, the House of Representatives finally voted on two resolutions attempting to rein in the president.  This debate was long overdue, as polls show Americans increasingly are frustrated by congressional inaction. According to a CNN poll last week, 55 percent of the American people believe that Congress, not the president, should have the final authority to decide whether the U.S. should continue its military mission in Libya. Yet for more than 70 days Congress has ignored its constitutional obligations and allowed the president to usurp its authority.

Finally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich was able to bring to the floor a resolution asserting that proper constitutional war power authority resides with Congress. His resolution simply stated that “Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.”

Opponents of the withdrawal resolution said the 15 day deadline was too abrupt. But as I pointed out during debate, the president attacked Libya abruptly – he didn’t even bother to consult Congress – so why can’t he order an end to military action just as abruptly? When members of Congress took an oath of office to defend the Constitution, we did not pledge to defend it only gradually, a little bit at a time. On the contrary, we must defend it vigorously and completely from the moment we take that oath. I was pleased that 87 Republicans were able to put the Constitution first and support this resolution.

House Speaker John Boehner offered his own resolution on the same day, which declared that Congress would not support the insertion of US ground troops into Libya. Although this unfortunately was far from adequate to satisfy our constitutional obligations, it certainly was a step in the right direction and I am pleased that it passed in the House.  Just days before Speaker Boehner’s resolution, an amendment to the defense authorization act prohibited the president from using any funds in the bill to insert US troops into Libya. A separate amendment last week prohibiting any funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security from being used to attack Libya came within just a handful of votes from passing.  All of these votes demonstrate that members of Congress increasingly understand that our foreign wars are deeply unpopular with their constituents.  We are broke, and the American people know it.  They expect Congress to focus on fixing America’s economic problems, rather than rubber stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.

I believe these resolutions and amendments indicate that the tide is turning in the right direction.  I am confident we will see Congress move toward ending our unconstitutional wars.  The American people are demanding no less.  The president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.  This policy must be reversed.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Strange Definitions of War and Peace
« Reply #2 on: Nov 12, 2011, 10:41:53 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/strange-definitions-of-war-and-peace.html

Strange Definitions of War and Peace

Ron Paul
Prisonplanet.com
June 21, 2011

Last week I joined six Republican and three Democrat colleagues to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.



In a remarkable act of chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers.  Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back!  This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific.  The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back?  Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal law in the United States!  I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of US and NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.

We must recall the origins of these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population.  Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future.  One need not defend Gaddafi’s regime — and I most certainly do not — to object to this flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another country.  Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the United States as a preventative humanitarian measure over US enforcement of its immigration laws, for example!

Now in Libya we see the possible use of depleted uranium shells, we see infrastructure destroyed, we see universities bombed, we see all the “collateral damage.”  Yet, this is a “humanitarian intervention”?

In our lawsuit against the administration, among other critical issues we are demanding that the courts provide relief and protection to the country from the administration’s policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations and NATO without authorization from Congress, and that previously appropriated funds by Congress may be used for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries. These are fundamental Constitutional issues and I expect the judicial branch to treat our challenge with the same level of gravity as we do in the legislative branch.

Remember, we were told that this attack would last “days, not weeks” and we are already three months and likely nearly a billion dollars into it.  As the bombings obviously target Gaddafi’s houses, even killing some of his family members, we can see that the real goal is regime change rather than protection of civilians.  Do we know much about the rebels whose side we have taken in what is, in fact, a civil war?

Although it is a bit late, I am pleased to see that congressional leadership has started to listen to our constituents, who are solidly against this war on Libya.  I commend Speaker Boehner’s expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration over this war and I sincerely hope he will use the full constitutional authority granted to the legislative branch to bring into check an administration clearly out of control.

Polls show that the American people increasingly favor a truly conservative foreign policy: one that rejects the leftist, utopian doctrines of nation building and preemptive war, and one that is NOT funded by debt.  Forcing the Obama administration to obey the clear letter of the law is one step towards restoring a traditional, patriotic foreign policy that serves American interests.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/four-decades-of-drug-war-tyranny-may-come-to-an-end-with-ron-pauls-new-effort-to-legalize-marijuana.html

Four decades of drug war tyranny may come to an end with Ron Paul’s new effort to legalize marijuana

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 23, 2011

Four decades of the so-called “War on Drugs” has led only to the suffering of millions of innocents, the crowding of our prisons with non-violent citizens, the utter waste of billions of dollars on law enforcement and the (in)justice system, and the enriching of underground drug gangs who thrive on violence. The outlawing of marijuana in America has been a disastrous political policy and an insane medical policy. It has labeled biochemical addicts “criminals” and thrown them in prisons to be treated like dogs.

The War on Drugs, through interdicting street supplies of drugs, has only made the drug gangs wealthier by driving up the value of the drugs that remain readily available. And it is now admitted that the ATF actually placed tens of thousands of weapons directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, giving rise to the very gang violence the agency claims to be preventing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…).

The U.S. government, it turns out, is actually contributing to the drug war violence!

Ron Paul, Barney Frank join forces to end the insanity

In an effort to end the insanity, Rep. Ron Paul has joined forces with Rep. Barney Frank to introduce legislation legalizing marijuana in America. President Obama, you may recall, promised voters on the campaign trail that he would do this, too, but it seems he’s been too busy bombing Libya and using the U.S. Constitution as a floor mat to bother keeping any actual promises. (GITMO is still open for business, too, in case you haven’t noticed…)

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfQya3kTOI

Of course, the War on Drugs is a very effective tool of tyranny to be used against the American people. It empowers the DEA and the federal government to conduct surprise searches of any home or business for any reason whatsoever (even without a warrant), it keeps the prison industry overflowing with endless cheap human labor, and it grants the big drug companies a monopoly over all those recreational drugs that are now sold as pharmaceuticals.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul Slams Absurd Libya War Powers Debate
« Reply #4 on: Nov 12, 2011, 10:43:19 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-slams-absurd-libya-war-powers-debate.html

Ron Paul Slams Absurd Libya War Powers Debate

Ron Paul: Libya Funding Bill Must Be ‘Straight and Clean’

The State Column
June 25, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xouwVdgUdEM

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, came down hard today against a House bill (HR 2278) that would have limited the use of funds for the U.S.’s involvement in the Libya War. The House also rejected the limited funding bill for the Libya War, while also striking down a resolution that would have authorized the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya.

Today, Paul told his colleagues that the limited funding bill was not what it appeared to be. Paul argued that the Libya bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war.” The purpose of the Libya bill was to “limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya.”

Paul pointed out that if HR 2278 passes, “the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya.” As of this time, without a declaration of war or congressional authorization, the president doesn’t have the authority to conduct these activities.

Paul also added that rejecting the Libya bill isn’t “necessary to prohibit the use of funds for US military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution.” However, Paul acknowledged that, if given the opportunity, he would “support any straight and clean prohibition of funds.”

Earlier this week, Paul criticized President Obama’s explanation for the Libya War in a post titled “Strange Definitions of War and Peace.” Paul said that Obama’s reasoning for not seeking congressional approval before using the U.S. military in Libya was “laughable if not so horrific.”

Paul has always been candid about his opinion on the Libya War. On June 6, in a post titled “Holding the President Accountable on Libya,” Paul argued that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful.” In the same column, Paul also said that “we are broke, and the American people know it. They expect Congress to focus on fixing America’s economic problems, rather than rubber stamping yet another open-ended military intervention in Libya.” In the same column, Paul also said that “the president’s attack on Libya was unconstitutional and thus unlawful. This policy must be reversed.” So far, Paul has done everything in his power to reverse the policy.

The White House conveyed Obama’s disappointment that HR 2278 failed to pass, saying “now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe that are widely shared in Congress.”
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60

Introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines.

In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.” I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the “rights” granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens -- right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms.

The incident of the so-called “underwear bomber” last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines.

My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every Member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries.

I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency--in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11.  Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified.

The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, “The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.” In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
The incident of the so-called “underwear bomber” last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines...

For those not already familiar with the following:

-------------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/authorities-quietly-reverse-underwear-bomber-official-story.html

Authorities Quietly Reverse Underwear Bomber Official Story

Eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of accomplice vindicated after weeks of denial



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 28, 2010

Authorities have quietly reversed the official story behind the Christmas Day underwear bomber attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Buried in the last two paragraphs of a story about alleged female suicide bombers coming from Yemen, an ABC News report contains the following bombshell.

    “Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.”

    “Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab “did not get cold feet.”

Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.

“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.

FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.

    “Why is this not total breaking news?” asks Haskell’s wife on their family blog. “I think we now know WHY the video is not being released. Because IT SHOWS WHAT KURT SAID!!!!!! I mean, where is his apology? Where? They come out in the media, basically calling Kurt a liar, then they take it back, but it is in the bottom of another nonrelated article. Ridiculous. And still, to date, no authorities contacting KURT to ask him to look at the freaking video and help identify the guy. It’s so insane to me. We have an eyewitness to this, and they just don’t care.”

There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.

In addition, Flight 253 passengers reported seeing a third man connected to the incident being handcuffed by FBI agents after sniffer dogs found something suspect in his luggage. After initially denying any knowledge of this individual, authorities were forced to acknowledge his existence but claimed he had nothing to do with the attempted attack, completely contradicting multiple eyewitness accounts that state passengers were moved from a waiting area after it was made clear to them that a bomb had been found.

The fact that Abdulmutallab’s accomplices were all described as being Indian in appearance would contradict the story that has been spun around the issue in an effort to sell the public on naked body scanners in airports as well as deeper U.S. military involvement in Yemen.

[Continued...]


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17411

Congressional Hearing Reveals US Intelligence Agencies Shielded Flight 253 Bomber

by Alex Lantier



Global Research
February 4, 2010

A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane.

The hearing was reported in a brief article posted January 27 on the web site of the Detroit News, headlined, “Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation.”

The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Postand Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.

This is despite—or perhaps more accurately, because of—the fact that this information exposes the official government story of the near-disaster to be a lie. President Obama, who has joined with top US intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security officials to insist that Abdulmutallab was inadvertently allowed to board the plane carrying explosives because of a failure to “connect the dots,” has from the start been deceiving the American people.

[Continued...]


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17473

Flight 253: Intelligence Agencies Nixed State Department Move to Revoke Bomber's Visa

by Tom Burghardt



Global Research, February 8, 2010
Antifascist Calling - 2010-02-07

Rightist demagogues, as they are wont to do, prattle-on how they, and they alone, can "keep America safe"--by shredding the Constitution.

Waging a decades-long psychological war against the American people, corporatist thugs embedded within the National Security State assure us that secrecy, deceit and imperial adventures that steal other peoples' resources are the one true path to national prosperity and universal happiness.

But what happens when those charged with protecting us from attack, actually aid and abet those who would kill us, and then handsomely profit from our slaughter in the process?

During a January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick F. Kennedy, testified that the visa of accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, wasn't revoked at the specific request of secret state agencies.

Kennedy, a Bushist State Department holdover, was the former Director on National Intelligence for Management and headed the transition team that set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2005 under former Ambassador to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, a veteran of U.S. covert operations since the Vietnam war.

Given the avalanche of media interest, fueled by Fox News and the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, whether or not the suspect should have been read his Miranda rights, the only coverage of the hearings that reported Kennedy's explosive testimony, was a brief article in the Detroit News.

[Continued...]

-------------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul Attacks “Regime Change” Bill
« Reply #7 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:48:42 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-attacks-regime-change-bill.html

Ron Paul Attacks “Regime Change” Bill

Statement on H.R. 515, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011

Ron Paul
July 8, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the “Belarus Democracy Act” reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a US regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus — or anywhere else — are to be US-funded and which are to be destabilized? How can anyone argue that US support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow “promoting democracy”? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people? How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people?

I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the US government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by US government-funded front organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and others meddling like the old Soviet Union in the internal politics of a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States. It the arrogance of our foreign policy establishment that leads to this kind of schizophrenic legislation, where we demand that the rest of the world bend to the will of US foreign policy and we call it “democracy.” We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas.

Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war. Do we need to continue war-like actions against yet another country? Can we afford it?

I wish to emphasize that I take this position not because I am in support of the regime in Belarus, or anywhere else. I take this position because it is dangerous folly to be the nation that arrogates to itself the right to determine the leadership of the rest of the world. As we teeter closer to bankruptcy, it should be more obvious that we need to change our foreign policy to one of constructive engagement rather than hostile interventionism.  And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress.  We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-vs-gop-warmongers-congressman-romps-to-victory-in-iowa-debate.html

Ron Paul Vs GOP Warmongers: Congressman Romps To Victory In Iowa Debate

Paul is the only candidate who will end ceaseless foreign invasions

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Aug 12, 2011

Ron Paul emerged the clear winner of last night’s FOX News GOP debate according to a poll of Fox viewers and even according to analysis in the Washington Post, as the congressman cemented the fact that he is the only hope America has of ending its involvement in multiple costly and damaging wars across the globe.



Paul was in his element at the Iowa debate and delivered the most comprehensible and impassioned performance seen at any of the debates thus far.

Every other candidate in attendance attempted to scramble over their rivals to lead the charge for the military industrial complex, while Paul stuck firmly to his anti-war principles, demanding that US troops be brought home with immediate effect.

During a heated back and forth with Rick Santorum regarding a potential conflict with Iran, Paul showed true statesman qualities, arguing that merely slapping sanctions on the country and refusing to even entertain the idea of negotiating with the Iranian leadership would lead directly to conflict further down the line.

“They have no evidence that they are working on a weapon,” Paul said. “At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What is so terribly bad about this? Countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business. Do not get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.” The Congressman added.

When Santorum insisted that Iran had “killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and Afghans have,” Paul urged the American people to see through such examples of war propaganda.

When Santorum added that Iran had been “at war with us since 1979″, Paul countered that it was the meddling of the CIA in Iran in the 1950s that had directly caused such “blowback”.

“The senator is wrong on his history,” Paul urged. “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah. The reaction, the blow-back came in 1979, it’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem!” The Congressman asserted as the crowd in attendance erupted into riotous applause and cheering.

“Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me they are all around the world, and they are not a whole lot different than others.” The Congressman added. “Iran does not have an air force that can come here, they can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves.” Paul said as he fended off constant attempts by Santorum to interrupt him with authority.

“They are building up this case just like we did in Iraq, build up the war propaganda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and ‘they had nuclear weapons and we had to go in’, I’m sure you supported that war as well,” said Paul, directing his words toward the former Senator.

In the stand out moment of the entire evening,  a clearly emotional Ron Paul almost burst out of the screen as he boomed into the microphone “It’s time we quit this. IT’S TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE’RE SPENDING ON THESE WARS!”

In other particular highlight, Paul schooled phony tea party wannabe candidate Michele Bachmann on the rule of law after Bachmann defended the gulags at Guantanamo Bay and insisted that accused “terrorists” have no rights whatsoever under the American justice system.

“I thought our courts recognized that you have to be tried,” Paul responded.

“This administration has already accepted the position that when you assume someone is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination – even American citizens, that affects all of us eventually, you don’t want to translate our rule of law into mob rule.” Paul hit back.

Watch all of Paul’s answers and exchanges below:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Republican Voters Are Losing Their Appetite For War
« Reply #9 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:50:31 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/republican-voters-are-losing-their-appetite-for-war.html

Republican Voters Are Losing Their Appetite For War

Ron Paul’s anti-war message resonates more than ever before

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 18, 2011

As presidential candidate Ron Paul builds his campaign around an anti-war message of bringing the troops home from conflicts that the United States can no longer afford to pay for, polls show that Americans, and particularly Republicans, are losing their appetite for war.



“Voter confidence about the short-term course of the war in Afghanistan has fallen to its lowest level in nearly two years, while confidence about the direction in Iraq over the next six months has dropped to the lowest point in almost five years of surveying,” according to Rasmussen.

Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.

Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.

In addition, support for continued military action in Libya hit a new low this week, with just 20 per cent approving the United States’ role in toppling Colonel Gaddafi through their support of Al-Qaeda linked rebels. 52 per cent oppose military action, with the rest not sure, marking the first time a majority of Americans have opposed military intervention in the North African country.

A mere 13 per cent of Republicans support the campaign in Libya, again emphasizing how Ron Paul’s anti-war message is resonating better than ever before amongst the electorate who will choose a Republican candidate to challenge Obama next year.

Given this sentiment, it’s not surprising that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul: Obama’s Misadventures – Libya to Be Occupied, Syria Next?
« Reply #10 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:51:21 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-obamas-misadventures-libya-to-be-occupied-syria-next.html

Ron Paul: Obama’s Misadventures – Libya to Be Occupied, Syria Next?

Ron Paul
August 30, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtnB-e0-QRA

Even as a major hurricane hit America’s eastern seaboard, the administration is determined to expand the war in Libya while threatening the regime in Syria.  Is there any limit to government’s appetite to create more problems for our nation and economy?

Americans may be tempted to celebrate the apparent victory of US and NATO backed rebels in Libya, since it seems the Gaddafi regime is overthrown. But I believe any enthusiasm for our Libyan misadventure is premature.

The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress — and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate.  It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress.

Are we better off as a nation by ignoring and debasing our Constitution?  Are we better off having spent more than a billion dollars attacking a country thousands of miles away that had not threatened us?  Are we more financially sound having expanded the empire to include yet another protectorate and probable long-term military occupation?  Are we more admired throughout the world for getting involved in yet another war?

Still, many will claim that getting rid of Libyan ruler Gaddafi was worth it. They will say that the ends justify the means. As the civilian toll from NATO bombs adds up in a war started under the guise of protecting a civilian population, even the initial argument for intervention is ridiculous. We should not forget that there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack. The attack was a dubbed a preventative humanitarian intervention.  But as soon as NATO planes started bombing, civilians started dying.

Gaddafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others that we support and count as allies. Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements.  Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion.  Will Libya be any different?

We already see grisly reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents.  There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness on the part of the rebels.  We know that some rebel factions appear to be allied with Islamic extremists and others seem to have ties to the CIA.  They also appear to have a penchant for killing each other as well as supporters of the previous regime.  The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.

What is next after such a victory?  With the big Western scramble to grab Libya’s oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?

Neo-conservatives continue to dominate our foreign policy, regardless of the administration in power.  They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the US moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the US.  Already the US president has called for “regime change” in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime.  Are US bombers far behind?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul: CIA Chooses Dictators Around the World
« Reply #11 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:52:08 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-cia-chooses-dictators-around-the-world.html

Ron Paul: CIA Chooses Dictators Around the World

Presidential candidate elaborates on CIA “coup” comments

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 1, 2011

Speaking about his contention that the CIA had orchestrated a “coup” in America against the government, Congressman Ron Paul told the Alex Jones Show that the Agency was also behind the choosing of dictators around the world.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfni3McvYns

“For the CIA to really be running the show….the CIA is involved in war, they’re involved in military activity, they pick targets from Langley in Virginia, they can shoot missiles to any spot in the world, generally killing a lot of people they shouldn’t be killing and missing the one’s they’re trying to target,” said Paul, adding that such activity was even outside the realm of Obama’s unconstitutionality in terms of the Libya bombardment.

“Now we have the DoD person Petraeus going over to the CIA and then the CIA head going over to the military,” said Paul, adding, “I know the CIA’s been involved in so many elections around the world, they pick and choose dictators….I don’t think there’s any doubt they’re very much involved in these revolutions going on in the Mediterranean, we’re just trying to pick dictators,” said Paul, adding that the CIA’s secrecy was “out of control”.

Paul’s original comments regarding the CIA “coup” were made during a Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference in Atlanta, GA, in January 2010.

“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup,” stated Paul. “The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA,” he added.

Watch the clip of Paul’s original comments below.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: Ron Paul: CIA Chooses Dictators Around the World
« Reply #12 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:54:43 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
“Now we have the DoD person Petraeus going over to the CIA and then the CIA head going over to the military....I know the CIA’s been involved in so many elections around the world, they pick and choose dictators....I don’t think there’s any doubt they’re very much involved in these revolutions going on in the Mediterranean, we’re just trying to pick dictators.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2844.htm

Friendly Dictators

Written in 1995

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:

Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948

Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America.

Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-is-right-military-adventurism-is-a-luxury-we-can-no-longer-afford.html

Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford

James Delingpole
London Telegraph
Sept 8, 2011

Ron Paul has got himself into trouble over his suggestion that if the US military stopped air con for its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could save the treasury a whopping $20 billion a year. He remarked in the latest Republican presidential candidate debate in the Ronald Reagan Library:

    I was astonished! We are spending twenty billion dollars on air conditioning for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would take all that away, use ten billion to pay down the debt, and use the other ten toward FEMA and any other agency that we really need. And if you took that air conditioning away, those troops would come home very quickly, and I’d be happy with that.

It’s unlikely to endear him to the rump of US right: there are an awful lot of conservative apple pie moms out there whose boys (and girls) are proudly serving right now in sweaty, lethal hell holes where dysentery is a way of life. But Congressman Paul has never held back from telling it like it is and while his suggestion may be insensitive and tasteless, the broader point he is making is absolutely spot on. Foreign military adventures are a luxury the free West can no longer afford.

To put Paul’s remarks into perspective, consider these shocking figures from Mark Steyn’s terminally bleak new masterpiece After America.

In 2010 the US spent about $663 billion on its military; China about $78 billion. How is it financing this massive expenditure? By borrowing money, mainly from China. Within a decade the US will be spending more of the federal budget on interest payments than it does on its armed services.

If today’s abnormally low interest rates return to their 1990 to 2010 average of 5.7 per cent, then America’s debt service projections for 2015 (that’s less than four years away, by the way) would increase from $290 billion to $847 billion. Steyn notes: “China would be in a position to quadruple its military budget and stick US taxpayers with the bill.”

Full article here
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul’s View On Foreign Occupations Supported By US Troops
« Reply #14 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:56:14 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pauls-view-on-foreign-occupations-supported-by-us-troops.html

Ron Paul’s View On Foreign Occupations Supported By US Troops

Ignoring the facts, establishment media smears Congressman as “defending Al-Qaeda”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The establishment media is once again attempting to smear Ron Paul as anti-American following Paul’s simple observation during the debate last night that foreign occupations increase the risk of terrorist attacks, when in reality the Texan Congressman’s views are endorsed by US military personnel more than any other Republican candidate.

[Embedded video omitted - see original article]

“Republican Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul was booed at last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate while explaining his view on why America was attacked on September 11, 2001,” reports ABC News.

The corporate media instantly seized on the boos, made by a gaggle of neo-con “Tea Party” members, as a tool through which to portray Paul as un-American, with one acerbic headline even asking whether the Congressman was defending Al-Qaeda.

It’s a common smear to equate not supporting foreign occupations as anti-American or against conservative principles, despite the fact that the founding fathers consistently warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

But like a lot of the myths circulated by the establishment about Ron Paul, reality reflects a very different picture.

Given the fact that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself, his views on foreign occupations are supported by the very U.S. troops that neo-cons constantly invoke to support maintaining such foreign occupations.

Paul’s contention that the troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that US bases around the world should be closed, is supported by those very same troops.

“Paul’s campaign told Politifact that Paul raised $34,480 from people in the military, compared with $19,849 for Obama and $13,848 for the other GOP presidential candidates,” reports USA Today.

“The Center for Responsive Politics says $11,350 of Paul’s military donations come from people who work for the Army. In the 2008 campaign, the center found that individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul’s top three sources of campaign donations.”

But it’s not just military service people who are growing tired of America’s unaffordable foreign empire. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, conservatives in general are losing their appetite for war.

Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.

Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.

In addition, a mere 13 per cent of Republicans support US military intervention in Libya to topple Colonel Gaddafi.

The myth that Republican candidates must not deviate from the neo-con dogma of supporting America’s unsustainable foreign occupations and the ludicrous policy of pre-emptive warfare in order to be electable is disappearing fast.

Although a gaggle of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” who in reality have nothing in common with the founding fathers, may have booed Paul’s explanation last night, the majority of Americans, and indeed the majority of US Military servicemen and women, were applauding him.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Obama’s killing of Awlaki violates American principles - by Ron Paul
« Reply #15 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:56:53 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/an-unconstitutional-killing-obamas-killing-of-awlaki-violates-american-principles.html

An unconstitutional killing: Obama’s killing of Awlaki violates American principles

Congressman Ron Paul
Oct 3, 2011

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.
 
President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.
 
We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles.
 
Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.
 
On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country’s director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.” This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.
 
The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States – even if they are a citizen – can be taken out on the President’s say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.
 
When Nazi leader and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann was convicted and executed by the Israeli government in 1962, it was after he was captured, extradited and tried. Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like Eichmann or Awlaki, who should meet their just fate – but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim.

I don’t trust Obama with determining what protections I should be allowed as a citizen any more than I trust him with our general defense, the economy, health care, job growth – or anything else.
 
The usual justification for such abuse of the rule of law is that the post-9/11 period demands a different code of conduct to ensure people’s safety. But politicians can always find excuses for why they should be allowed to disobey the Constitution.
 
Our current President may think he can go to war without consulting Congress as the Constitution demands he must, simply because he has determined that a nation like Libya needed our assistance. He and his party may believe they can saddle the American people with a national health care program, the authority of which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, merely because they deem it an emergency-like situation.
 
Simply put, it’s hard to imagine an issue in which this President could not find some extraordinary excuse to circumvent the rule of law. In fact, most of what he’s done to date is precisely along these illegal lines, with the Awlaki assassination being just the latest example.
 
I believe in our Constitution. I believe U.S. citizens who are tried and convicted of treason should face the ultimate consequence. Arresting and trying someone like Awlaki is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of all American citizens.
 
Serving justice is unquestionably necessary and important. But so is how it is served. Our first concern should always be for the rule of law, or we will continue to find ourselves under the rule of the lawless. This becomes of special concern when the lawless can now include the President of the United States.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Ron Paul: Who Else is on Obama’s Secret Kill List?
« Reply #16 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:57:33 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-who-else-is-on-obamas-secret-kill-list.html

Ron Paul: Who Else is on Obama’s Secret Kill List?

Ron Paul
October 11, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKmFr0LzGk

According to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land.  It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.

Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration.  If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American”, is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?  If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights?  Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government? Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner.  They killed people in front of many witnesses.  They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials.  These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty.  Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law.  Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans.  We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence.  Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11.  As the US attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.

Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary – not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas.  However, there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department.  How many more Americans citizens are on that list?  They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.

Al-Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations.  Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next.  Will you trust them?  History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back.  Beware.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27633

CBS Poll: The Majority of Americans are Opposed to War

Only 15% of Americans support military intervention in Iran.



Global Research, November 12, 2011
CBS

CBS News Poll at a glance:

* Three-quarters of Americans support US withdrawal from Iraq.

* Two-thirds of Americans believe the Iraq War was not worth fighting.

* Half of Americans oppose US involvement in Libya.

* More than half of Americans want to end the war in Afghanistan.

* Seventy per cent of Americans do not support military intervention to change dictatorships into democracies.

* 41% of Americans say that Israel is an ally.

* 37% of Americans say that Israel is 'not an ally,' and 12% say Israel is 'unfriendly' or 'an enemy.'

* 55% of Americans say Iran can be contained via diplomacy.

* Only 15% of Americans support military intervention in Iran.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Neo-CONNED! - by Ron Paul
« Reply #18 on: Nov 21, 2011, 09:59:36 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266&Itemid=60

Neo-CONNED!

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 10, 2003 Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted.  The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

            Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

            Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government.  However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

            One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

            The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

            When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

            Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

            Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

            The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

            Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

            That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

            The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

            Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

purificationU

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 10
    Posts
I am still at a loss on this at the moment.
The cotton quilts supplier supplied by our company feature the nice appearance .
 

 

Al Bundy

  • Global Moderator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1778
    Posts
Ron Paul about Fed













Last Edit by Gladstone
 

 

Powered by EzPortal