Ron Paul won a straw poll in Iowa and came in a close second in Alabama. Here is a comment I left over at the HuffingtonPost.
Congratulations to Ron Paul and all those who want to restore the American republic. It's interesting that the article mentions that the campaign bought attendees tickets. I wonder where the campaign got money. How did the campaign get people there to vote? I reckon this means that the money bomb where thousands donated to the campaign was good for something. The dedication of Ron Paul supporters must be quite intense for them to turn out to vote in a poll where the malcontents would surely try to discount Paul's win.
I endorse Ron Paul
Ron Paul 2012
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Oh Lord, Jeffrey Bitchin' about so-called Anti-Semitism
Jeffrey Lord, the resident idiot, over at The American Spectator, blogs about what he sees as the anti-Semitism of some of Ron Paul's supporters. Lord visited dailypaul.com and claims that he could not help noticing certain comments.
The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.
Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.
I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?
Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.
The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.
Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.
I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?
Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Michelle Bachmann drinks Trump's Cool Aid
Lately, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann has been rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump. The results of their canoodling could be witnessed at the CNN Western Republican Leadership Conference debate, which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Like Trump, Michelle thinks that countries that were preemptively attacked by the U.S. should reimburse the U.S. for costs associate with destroying their people and infrastructure.
The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.
The idiocy and depravity of such a sentiment is overwhelming. Here is the transcript of what Michelle Bachmann said:
COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?
BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.
Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.
Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.
COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?
BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.
Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.
Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.
The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Patrick Buchanan is terrified...
Patrick J. Buchanan is mostly right when he says that changing demographics is bad news for the Republican party and possibly whites. This is so, because in the next few decades there would come a time when the American state would not be controlled by whites, but by non Caucasians.
The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.
As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."
The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.
As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Rush Limbaugh's Big Gaffe
Rush Limbaugh gave a great plug to Ron Paul economic plan. However, Rush made a big gaffe when he said that Ron Paul stole the ideas from him and anonymous Republican or Conservatives.
"Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to. "
Ron Paul is older that Rush Limbaugh. In fact, when Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, he was calling for a reduction in the Federal government and spending. Consequently, prior to 1988 Ron Paul had been advocating Federal spending cuts. Rush Limbaugh is out of place. He needs to respect his elders and get back to reality.
"Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to. "
Ron Paul is older that Rush Limbaugh. In fact, when Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, he was calling for a reduction in the Federal government and spending. Consequently, prior to 1988 Ron Paul had been advocating Federal spending cuts. Rush Limbaugh is out of place. He needs to respect his elders and get back to reality.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Herman Cain is a Liar
Herman Cain claims not to know about Neocons yet he names only Neocons as individuals who are helping him on policy or who he would have help him. Cain is a liar or worst he is a naive ignoramus as Bill O'Reilly has alluded to. Bolton, Kissinger and McFarland are figurehead Neocons. Perhaps, Cain should read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It," then he would realize by deduction that he himself advocates a position that he cannot give a name to.
ITEM #1:
MR. GREGORY: But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?
MR. CAIN: I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I'm familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement. Less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.
ITEM #2:
MR. GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who, who has shaped your thinking about the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?
MR. CAIN: I've looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I've looked at the writings of Dr. Harry--Henry Kissinger. KT McFarland, someone who I respect. So...
MR. GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?
ITEM #1:
MR. GREGORY: But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?
MR. CAIN: I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I'm familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement. Less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.
ITEM #2:
MR. GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who, who has shaped your thinking about the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?
MR. CAIN: I've looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I've looked at the writings of Dr. Harry--Henry Kissinger. KT McFarland, someone who I respect. So...
MR. GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?
Herman Cain's Dirty Rhetorical Habits
Herman Cain has a nasty rhetorical habit of accusing his prompters of misquoting him or fabricating something he said. The problem is that most of the time Cain does it, he is the one who is being less than truthful. His tactic is obviously to throw his prompter off their ground and a reflective defense mechanism when he is uncomfortable with the replay of his words.
During the Bloomberg TV debate, Herman Cain, said that Ron Paul was misquoting him on the question of whether or not he thought that an audit of the federal reserve was necessary. However, it has been shown that Cain did in fact call Ron Paul supporter ignorant for wanting to audit the fed and suchlike.
Herman Cain was his classic self when he appeared on the October 16th "Meet the Press" Sunday morning talk show with host, David Gregory. The relevant part of the show's transcript is below:
MR. GREGORY: Here's a general question. You said you wouldn't rely on wise men, so-called wise men, when it comes to foreign policy views, although you mentioned Henry Kissinger just a moment ago, that you're familiar with his writings. Generally speaking, you know, what, what you have as a great strength, I think to many, is no government experience. But you have no government experience whatsoever, and you want to do some big things. Explain that vision. I mean, would you bring outsiders in to Washington? Would you eschew the establishment of Washington and do things in a completely different way, maybe like Jimmy Carter?
MR. CAIN: Don't use Jimmy Carter as the example.
MR. GREGORY: Perhaps not ideologically.
MR. CAIN: Not ideological--don't--that's not a good example. Secondly, I don't recall saying I would not use wise men and wise women. My philosophy on...
MR. GREGORY: You wrote that in your book. "I won't lean on so-called `wise men' as other commanders in chief have done."
MR. CAIN: Well, let me explain what that means. I'm going to have a combination of people that are outside government and people that are inside government. As much as I and others talk about many of the problems that are perceived outside of Washington as what's going on inside Washington, D.C., there are some good people inside Washington, D.C., holding elected office that I am going to lean on and I'm going to call upon. But I'm also going to bring in people who understand, understand defining the right problem, knowing how to put--surround yourself with good people, and then putting together the right plans based upon some guiding principles that I have established throughout my career and I will establish as president.
There we have it. Cain always tells his prompter that he can't recall or he did not say that very things that he did say. In the above, Cain admits that he said something he claimed not to recall saying. I reckon the author of Cain's book was the usual ghostwriter.
In the end, Herman Cain's debating style is a liability ton him. Indeed, his dirty rhetorical habit shows that he is easily put on the defensive.
During the Bloomberg TV debate, Herman Cain, said that Ron Paul was misquoting him on the question of whether or not he thought that an audit of the federal reserve was necessary. However, it has been shown that Cain did in fact call Ron Paul supporter ignorant for wanting to audit the fed and suchlike.
Herman Cain was his classic self when he appeared on the October 16th "Meet the Press" Sunday morning talk show with host, David Gregory. The relevant part of the show's transcript is below:
MR. GREGORY: Here's a general question. You said you wouldn't rely on wise men, so-called wise men, when it comes to foreign policy views, although you mentioned Henry Kissinger just a moment ago, that you're familiar with his writings. Generally speaking, you know, what, what you have as a great strength, I think to many, is no government experience. But you have no government experience whatsoever, and you want to do some big things. Explain that vision. I mean, would you bring outsiders in to Washington? Would you eschew the establishment of Washington and do things in a completely different way, maybe like Jimmy Carter?
MR. CAIN: Don't use Jimmy Carter as the example.
MR. GREGORY: Perhaps not ideologically.
MR. CAIN: Not ideological--don't--that's not a good example. Secondly, I don't recall saying I would not use wise men and wise women. My philosophy on...
MR. GREGORY: You wrote that in your book. "I won't lean on so-called `wise men' as other commanders in chief have done."
MR. CAIN: Well, let me explain what that means. I'm going to have a combination of people that are outside government and people that are inside government. As much as I and others talk about many of the problems that are perceived outside of Washington as what's going on inside Washington, D.C., there are some good people inside Washington, D.C., holding elected office that I am going to lean on and I'm going to call upon. But I'm also going to bring in people who understand, understand defining the right problem, knowing how to put--surround yourself with good people, and then putting together the right plans based upon some guiding principles that I have established throughout my career and I will establish as president.
There we have it. Cain always tells his prompter that he can't recall or he did not say that very things that he did say. In the above, Cain admits that he said something he claimed not to recall saying. I reckon the author of Cain's book was the usual ghostwriter.
In the end, Herman Cain's debating style is a liability ton him. Indeed, his dirty rhetorical habit shows that he is easily put on the defensive.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Herman Cain on Illegal Immigrants
According to the NY Times, Herman Cain wants an electrified fence on the border and the use of lethal force if necessary. I would imagine that North Korean border policy has many similarities. The prospect of gunning citizens of a key trading partner and ally is mind boggling. Of course, it may be the hope of Herman Cain to use the fence and armed personnel as a deterrent.
Interestingly, attempting to enter the U.S. illegally is not a capital offence. Therefore, for someone who is running for president to advocate killing illegal immigrants on the border is a disqualification. Yes, Cain mentioned that illegal immigrants have killed Americans once inside the border and that border guards have been attacked. Apart from the self defense and justice his position is deplorable.
UPDATE: Herman Cain said that his plan was a joke on Meet the Press (10/16/2011).
Interestingly, attempting to enter the U.S. illegally is not a capital offence. Therefore, for someone who is running for president to advocate killing illegal immigrants on the border is a disqualification. Yes, Cain mentioned that illegal immigrants have killed Americans once inside the border and that border guards have been attacked. Apart from the self defense and justice his position is deplorable.
UPDATE: Herman Cain said that his plan was a joke on Meet the Press (10/16/2011).
Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds like Obama's Yes-We-Can
Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds like Obama's Yes-We-Can. By this I mean, it would be sweet to the mouth but bitter to the belly. The slogan lulls the unsuspecting electorate to sleep with its simplicity. However, the tax code is not an issue for simpletons. Moreover, giving the federal government an additional revenue stream, which it could raise is a very dangerous.
Cain says he would veto any bill that increases any individual 9% tax when he is president. Someone rightly asked if Cain would be president forever. Cain further said that he would insist that any move to increase the tax be done with a super majority in the Senate or whatever. Cain should know that Congress has a poor approval rating for a reason: rational distrust by the electorate.
The CS Monitor has a telling article entitled: Herman Cain 9-9-9 sticker shock? 18% sales tax possible in some states.
I believe 9-9-9 is a trojan horse for big government. Surely, such a tax plan would reduce effective demand in many states.
Cain says he would veto any bill that increases any individual 9% tax when he is president. Someone rightly asked if Cain would be president forever. Cain further said that he would insist that any move to increase the tax be done with a super majority in the Senate or whatever. Cain should know that Congress has a poor approval rating for a reason: rational distrust by the electorate.
The CS Monitor has a telling article entitled: Herman Cain 9-9-9 sticker shock? 18% sales tax possible in some states.
I believe 9-9-9 is a trojan horse for big government. Surely, such a tax plan would reduce effective demand in many states.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Michelle Bachmann is the dark horse
It's my belief that Michelle Bachmann would survive and rise in the polls in the coming weeks. I am yet to be satisfied that her positions and desirability have precluded her from gaining the GOP candidacy.
Now, Herman Cain is on the rise by his tax plan and his lack of funds are a liability. Mitt Romney remains a Mormon who is under suspicion of being a liberal. Newt is has too much baggage to continue and every believes he has too much baggage. Rick Perry is now Alice in Wonderland. He has lost his bearings and would continue to falter. Santorum is not too charming and he does not inspire confidence that he would beat Obama.
The two left are Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. When the dust would have cleared only two candidates could survive the conservative test in my view.
Now, Herman Cain is on the rise by his tax plan and his lack of funds are a liability. Mitt Romney remains a Mormon who is under suspicion of being a liberal. Newt is has too much baggage to continue and every believes he has too much baggage. Rick Perry is now Alice in Wonderland. He has lost his bearings and would continue to falter. Santorum is not too charming and he does not inspire confidence that he would beat Obama.
The two left are Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. When the dust would have cleared only two candidates could survive the conservative test in my view.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Brown signs California Dream Act
On October 8th, 2011 the Los Angeles Times reported that California governor Jerry Brown signed the California Dream Act into law. The legislation "granted illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges..." Why any state would enact such a law eludes me.
The usual criticism is that such financial incentives ignore federal law by encouraging and condoning illegal migration. Further, out of state U.S. citizens and legal resident still have to pay out of state tuition. Consequently, illegal immigrants enjoy benefits that some citizens and legal residents don't. Not to mention the fact that the state of California is running on a deficit budget. The question is why give freebies to individuals who don't deserve it in a time of scarcity?
The proponents of state's rights would say that California has the right to make such a concession to illegal immigrants. Fair enough. Just like the federal government, the government of California eludes the fact that reality always bites the deficit spender in the butt. Sooner or later the state would be broke and be forced to raise taxes and cut spending. I would imagine that the very individuals who benefited from the subsidization of illegal immigration would move to another state with the education they got thanks to the late great California.
According to the LA Times 'Brown downplayed the cost to taxpayers. He said the California Department of Finance estimates 2,500 additional students will qualify for Cal-Grants as a result of the Dream Act, at a cost of $14.5 million." Of course, all the estimates ignore the a potential increase in illegal immigrants to California. Additional students will qualify on top of the 2500 figure because there is an incentive for illegal immigrants to move to California. The problem of enumerating illegal immigrants (the college bound and other)remains despite Jerry Brown's estimates.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Pathetic attempt to smear Iran and save Holder
According to Associated Press "The Obama administration accused Iranian government agents Tuesday of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and immediately used the thwarted plot to ratchet up sanctions and recruit international allies to try to further isolate Tehran."
Of course, it's okay for the United State government to assassinate individuals in foreign nations and kill innocent individuals in the process. However, when it comes to a supposed plot by another nation to do the same thing, then a grave sin has been committed.
The question is what Iran had to gain from the act? Also, why was the plot so shoddy in operational details whereby Iran could not have denied involvement had it happened? Why is the Iranian government being punish for the conspiracy when no evidence was cited that the government itself was involved?
At this point the story around the plot is ridiculous. The only parties who benefit from the plot are the U.S. attorney general and other arms of the state that want to weaken Iran.
Of course, it's okay for the United State government to assassinate individuals in foreign nations and kill innocent individuals in the process. However, when it comes to a supposed plot by another nation to do the same thing, then a grave sin has been committed.
The question is what Iran had to gain from the act? Also, why was the plot so shoddy in operational details whereby Iran could not have denied involvement had it happened? Why is the Iranian government being punish for the conspiracy when no evidence was cited that the government itself was involved?
At this point the story around the plot is ridiculous. The only parties who benefit from the plot are the U.S. attorney general and other arms of the state that want to weaken Iran.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Ron Paul wins Values Voter Summit straw poll
Ron Paul has won yet another straw poll. Indeed, he delivered a powerful speech before an audience at the Values Voter Summit presidential straw poll. Paul discussed how debt, overspending and economic woes take a toll on the family. He also correctly cited the fact that many military families are broken because soldiers are gravely affected by war psychologically, physically and financially. Underlying this sentiment is Paul's view that many of the wars being fought now are unjust and unnecessary; a sentiment that I endorse.
Of course, the malcontents are saying that straw polls are irrelevant. Some have even gone far enough to claim that the Paul campaign was too effective at getting supporters to vote therefore something morally wrong must have taken place.
To my understanding, a straw poll is a simulation designed to gauge the level of support for a candidate in an area and around a time period. The mere fact that supporters would show up to vote in a nonbinding election is indicative of what likely to play out on an actual election day. Moreover, the winner of a straw poll normally gets to dominate the news cycle for a few days or weeks.
It would be mistaken to say that straw polls are useless when the case of Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll meant more media coverage for him and his subsequent upswing in polls.
Ron Paul winning the straw poll should mean more positive media coverage. In this sense, winning the poll is vital to a candidate that has few advocates in the mainstream media.
The critics would argue that the Paul campaign bought the straw poll or they stuffed ballots by busing voters in. All of the foregoing is speculation by incredulous Ron Paul haters. What is fact is that Paul has a high level of support, which translated into actual votes. It matters not how the voters got to the venue; all that matter is that they were there. Ron Paul got values!
Congratulations to Ron Paul and special thanks to those who voted for him.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Omaha Considers Allowing Legal Immigrants to Register Guns...Finally
According to the Omaha World Herald, Omaha Police Chief, Alex Hayes, submitted a memo to the city council on Friday 30th, September proposing changes "designed to make city regulations consistent with state and federal gun registration laws — while adding a section that encourages voluntary weapon registration."
Of course, the City of Omaha, Nebraska was incredibly short-sighted to have restricted the legal immigrants from registering firearms in the first place. The state of Nebraska allows legal immigrants to legally own guns. However, a Nebraskan city with a sizable legal immigrant population disallowed it.
The Omaha police chief said that the changes were in the pipeline for some time now. He even suggested that a lawsuit filed against city was negligible in influencing his or the city's decision. Quoting the Omaha World Herald again,"The lawsuit was filed by the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and Armando Pliego Gonzalez." Indeed, Armando Pliego Gonzalez is reported as saying that "It's a good thing. We have been trying to do something" by KETV NewsWatch 7.
I really hope that the Omaha city council changes the ordinance and allows legal immigrants to register firearms. Surely, it's the right thing to do.
Of course, the City of Omaha, Nebraska was incredibly short-sighted to have restricted the legal immigrants from registering firearms in the first place. The state of Nebraska allows legal immigrants to legally own guns. However, a Nebraskan city with a sizable legal immigrant population disallowed it.
The Omaha police chief said that the changes were in the pipeline for some time now. He even suggested that a lawsuit filed against city was negligible in influencing his or the city's decision. Quoting the Omaha World Herald again,"The lawsuit was filed by the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and Armando Pliego Gonzalez." Indeed, Armando Pliego Gonzalez is reported as saying that "It's a good thing. We have been trying to do something" by KETV NewsWatch 7.
I really hope that the Omaha city council changes the ordinance and allows legal immigrants to register firearms. Surely, it's the right thing to do.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Grammatically Correct
I suffer from the condition known as 'reading from memory instead of what is one the screen'. Therefore, isolated grammatical errors would all be corrected within 72 hours of a posting date.
Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated.
Anwar al-Awlaki the accused terrorist propagandist and plotter was assassinated in Yemen on Friday 30th, September. According to reports al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone strike. Of course, the Muslim hating and blood thirsty avengers of the empire are gleeful at the news. However, wiser men and women such as Congressman Ron Paul have pointed out that a U.S. citizen was executed without first being afforded a trial.
I now quote some of Paul's comments to NBC news while in New Hampshire campaigning for the 2011 GOP presidential nomination:
"Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.”
"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."
I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul in his assessment and concern. Now, those who think otherwise could only muster three types of responses.
1) Claim that al-Awlaki was not a U.S. citizen or ceased to be U.S. citizen because he criticized the state and advocated taking up arms against the state.
2) Claim that the U.S. Constitution does not preclude the extra-judicial killing of a U.S. citizen in all circumstance of which this case is representative.
3) Claim that the means justify the ends. Also, make the case that the law cannot keep up with the complexity of the threats that are faced by the U.S. Therefore, the president must act to eliminate threats as needed.
Firstly, al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. As well, criticism of the government or even calling for an armed revolt does not relieve an American of citizenship. A charge of treason is not a letter to the editor but a legal judgement. It has not been made.
Second, the analogy whereby the police are compelled to kill a suspect to protect their own lives or that of others is not germane in this case. Al-Awlaki was not an imminent threat to the U.S. Further, a police officer who discharges his weapon or kills someone must prove that he acted within law. The U.S. government has not presented any evidence to prove that Al-Awlaki was an imminent threat.
Thirdly, giving the president the luxury of ignoring the Constitution and executing U.S. citizens without a trial is a danger to all of us. The definition of terrorism is very malleable (Patriot Act!)and could be used against anyone. The quest for revenge or justice should not lead to the negation of the very article that makes justice possible: the Constitution.
Further Reading:
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality by Glenn Greenwald
I now quote some of Paul's comments to NBC news while in New Hampshire campaigning for the 2011 GOP presidential nomination:
"Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.”
"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."
I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul in his assessment and concern. Now, those who think otherwise could only muster three types of responses.
1) Claim that al-Awlaki was not a U.S. citizen or ceased to be U.S. citizen because he criticized the state and advocated taking up arms against the state.
2) Claim that the U.S. Constitution does not preclude the extra-judicial killing of a U.S. citizen in all circumstance of which this case is representative.
3) Claim that the means justify the ends. Also, make the case that the law cannot keep up with the complexity of the threats that are faced by the U.S. Therefore, the president must act to eliminate threats as needed.
Firstly, al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. As well, criticism of the government or even calling for an armed revolt does not relieve an American of citizenship. A charge of treason is not a letter to the editor but a legal judgement. It has not been made.
Second, the analogy whereby the police are compelled to kill a suspect to protect their own lives or that of others is not germane in this case. Al-Awlaki was not an imminent threat to the U.S. Further, a police officer who discharges his weapon or kills someone must prove that he acted within law. The U.S. government has not presented any evidence to prove that Al-Awlaki was an imminent threat.
Thirdly, giving the president the luxury of ignoring the Constitution and executing U.S. citizens without a trial is a danger to all of us. The definition of terrorism is very malleable (Patriot Act!)and could be used against anyone. The quest for revenge or justice should not lead to the negation of the very article that makes justice possible: the Constitution.
Further Reading:
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality by Glenn Greenwald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)