E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTexas Rep. Ron Paul suggested Wednesday that the government could just as easily target the media or academics the way it did US-born al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki in a military strike last week.
Paul, the libertarian-minded congressman who's criticized the government's assassination of al-Awlaki in a missile strike last week in Yemen, argued that the strike opens a slippery slope toward broader targeting of citizens by the government.
"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media?" Paul asked during an appearance at the National Press Club. "The media becomes a threat or a professor becomes a threat. Some day that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism."
Paul has staked out turf in the GOP primary as a critic of ongoing US foreign policy and national security strategy. He suggested earlier this week that President Obama's authorization of an attack against a U.S. citizen without due process was an impeachable offense, an assertion he repeated Wednesday.
Paul otherwise used his speech to announce a hefty $8 million fundraising haul for the third quarter before launching into a scathing indictment of federal overreach and a foreign policy he described as akin to the failed "empires" of history.
"This is what's happened throughout history," he said in his lengthy critique of America's "militarism." "Empires get too big, spread themselves too thinly around the world, and then they self-destruct."
Paul warned that US military presence in the Middle East could prompt retaliative terror attacks, saying the intelligence community has linked the presence of military bases in the region to the motivation for the 9/11 attacks.
"We're loading up the Arabian Peninsula with drones and cruise missiles," he said. "Do you think it's going to go unnoticed?! No, it's not going to go unnoticed."
Paul, a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve and banking interests, voiced support for the right of protesters on Wall Street to use "civil disobedience" to express their complaints against the nation's financial system.
"I can't speak for the people out there because I don't know who they are and exactly what they're demonstrating against. I can argue the case for their right to express their outright frustration with what's going on."
Paul said that his expectations-busting $8 million haul and 100k-plus donor base, formally announced at the beginning of his NPC remarks, demonstrates the appeal of his candidacy against other "status quo" GOP candidates.
He said that his fundraising amount, about half that of his fellow Texan, Gov. Rick Perry, signals that he is not beholden to "special interests" like his rivals.
"All donors are not equal."
In front of crowds of cameras and credentialed press, the presidential hopeful lamented his dismissal by the national media, noting that a recent straw poll victory in California was treated as a "nonevent."
"We have a uphill battle," he said.
Leave a Comment:
Tin foil hat anyone?
The simple fact that Fox is still on the air spewing their propaganda 24/7 kind of shoots that theory to crap!
Speaking of Fox - I see where old Roger Ailes finally came out and admitted they don't hire women for their brains...
It's the boobs (*)(*) that get them the job!
Yeah, Baby- CLEAVAGE! Not just ANY cleavage, but the 'fair' and 'balanced' ones!
My kind of channel. (with the sound off, of course)
Hey, Feisty- are you 'emoticon' boobs Palin's? If so, you need to move the *'s down toward the bottom somehow....
(aww crap- here comes Bob...)
Believe me I tried! lol
Don't you find their tales to be a distraction?
What a Wing Nut! Run Ron Run!
Feisty - finally, there appears to be something we can agree on. Paul is strange and Fox News has come to the conclusion that when brains and intelligence fails, baffle them with attractive "blondes" and/or nice boobs. Who knew?
Hmmm...
Chuck, Mark, and Domenico...
Led away in handcuffs...or, worse.
I don't think so.
Even though I know First Readers don't love Chuckie T.
C'mon, people.
Romney/Rubio 2012.
Yeah it seems crazy....
Until you think back on Bush. He put reporters on the terrorist watchlist as punishment for reporting that he and Cheney didn't like. Cheney outed a covert CIA agent. Bush and Cheney pressured the CIA to make evidence of WMD in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaida match their agenda. They subverted the Constitution with warantless wire tapping. Where does that stop, how far could it go, and what or whom would or could stop it?
So on principal I think Paul is right...that you need checks and balances is rational and prudent. You can't always assume benevolence in the White House. All you have to do is think back 4 years and there's your reason why.
I prefer this version (oYo) ... now those are boobs.
drive-by-observer:
( )( )
* *
Better? (Hey, they even "lean to the right"!)
Now look what I went and started... lmao!
Nice work Monkey!
The fact that feisty redheads are on blogs spewing crap 24/7 kind of shoots that theory to crap.
What a very dumb comment!
I agree! ;o)
Yea. your comment is very dumb!
Yeah, Andrew.
I agree. It at first seems funny, until you look at history even farther back than Bush. You know, back in 1938 or so German Jews, Russian Jews, Polish Jews etc. were comfortable in thier lives. Most were successful or at least happy. Then little things started happening. A feisty Corporal with a goofy mustache started talking to a bunch of German nationals and building on their bad feelings about the economy and their rather poor finish in WWI. I'm not saying our government is facist. Not at all. I am merely pointing out how something that seems trivial now can lead to something so monumental and life changing for millions (the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand for example).
Incrementalism is a very dangerous tool. Used wisely, it can change the course of history before anyone notices.
Feisty - Tin foil hats for sure.
So Ron Paul is worried that if we don't protect one citizen's rights then anyone's rights could be trampled -- Wow, Paul is a left-wing radical! At least he's consistent about real Big Brother/Big Government concerns, from legislating morality to warrant-less wiretaps/Patriot Act, to illegal wars, etc.
However, the media issue... State News is FOX, originally getting talking points from the Bush/Cheney White House. And the reason the media was MIA during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was all about ratings and profit and avoiding blowback from 9-11 fears. What we need is a free press that plays a watchdog role and keeps the public informed and educated on the issues. That's why public broadcasting is so important—but no, everything should be privatized and driven by greed.
In a recent program about major turning points in TV history, it was noted that Bill O'Really was the first "reporter" to interject opinion instead of just reporting factual news. And because of Billo's outrageous hyperbole, aggression toward guests, and right-wing dog whistles, FAUX Noise shot to number one in the ratings. Let's hear from Ron Paul on this.
Kinda like the Republicans have been targeting mainstream, non-bootlicking (i.e. not Fox) media for the last 25 years or so?
Doesn't take bullets to attack the media, Ron. The GOP has proven that.
Big Jeff: "Incrementalism is a very dangerous tool. Used wisely, it can change the course of history before anyone notices."
The liberal lemmings think it's great to have govt. controlling everything. As long as they get their hand outs. What will happen when the money dries up and the govt. is still in control of your lives? Can anyone say Greece? Ron Paul is right.
The only thing that could cause me be clued to "Fox News" is if I knew at some point a heavily fortified drone was due to hit!!!!
It's an age of globalization, and the people in charge of our country may or may not be actually patriotic at this point. In fact we already know many of them are willing to sellout to the highest bidder, so why should we assume they wouldn't turn against the populace when in many ways they already have, as they continue to rubber stamp legislation for multinationals. The war on terror can be seen as a war on dissent where anyone against the U.S. empire can be called a "terrorist." We however, assume that these dirty tactics will only be used on foreigners, but it's reasonable to assume that might not be the case. The war on terror and the man made climate hoax are two of the main ways the elite will try and take over the world. Another is through financial conquest. Remember, all those dumb third world countries who took predatory loans from Western banking interests, couldn't repay them and then got looted by privateers? Well, look at Europe..... unpayable debt causes countries to cut benefits and sell off public assets to privateers. The only thing saving the U.S. is that we have the world reserve currency, but even with that, we're in trouble. I don't know why you all assume that really powerful people give a crap about you beyond what you can do for them. If you agree to fight a war on terror w/ your tax dollars and the blood of your family members so multinationals can privatize resources to sell to us all, then of course they're going to take you up on that offer. They will hide behind the flag, and tell us all what we want to hear as they continue to take more and more of the pie and more and more control. And if the prevailing winds permit, dissenting Americans could easily become the new terrorists.
In fact, when the American empire collapses, the multinationals who profited from the wars get to take their money and run, and the American people will be left w/ the national debt and being branded as the bad guy since all the wars were waged under our flag. Then the multinationals might take their cash to a rising power like China (they already have) and resume the war on terror, and now maybe it's even more likely for Americans to be terrorists.
Finally, one of the things that allowed third worlders to be victimized was that big interests would buy off the dictator (or whomever ran the country). Now, since that dictator and his family were taken care of, they were willing to sellout their own people. Look at America now... most politicians selling out to the highest bidder. We are ripe for exploitation, so let's not be naive.
His conclusion is not that strange. My husband flys around the south east part of the country from Texas for his job almost every week. Quite often the corporate office will change his flight last minute; meetings at the corporate office, emergencies in the field, etc. My husband was put on a "watch" list because of these last minute changes.
Back in the 70's during the Watergate scandal, we were stationed in D.C. My husband was in the Airforce OSI during that time. (Just office stuff, dealing with military crime, not investigative on his part) but he had a high clearance because of the job. One time our house was broken into through a window and just searched, and our phone tapped at the same time. Nothing stolen and they leaned the window back in place when they left. His office always felt that it was "one of the other" agencies that did it.
Our government has always had it's little dark secrets, look at tricky Dick. Don't put it past any one in D.C. if they think you are a danger or even just a nuisance, YOU could be targeted.
Andrew, BigJeff and TruePatriot, right on the money guys.
So the giant leap from targeting a known terrorist in Yemen to targeting a news agency or teacher is "incrementalism"? What a fool. Is this yet another "ism" for us to fear?
Well, since Fox news is so far from being "news", it should have nothing to fear, except maybe "idiotsspewinggarbageism".
While I think Ron Paul is exaggerating a little, he makes a valid point. If we allow the president to unilaterally decide who is a threat and then authorize them to be killed, where does it stop. I have no problem with al-Awlaki being dead, but I do worry about the implications of what was done. At the time al-Awlaki was killed there was no arrest warrant out for him and he had not even been formally charged with any crime. The reason is that despite his vitriolic rhetoric against the US and in favor of Jihad, there was no concrete evidence linking him to the commission of a single overt act against the US. Like it or not, in this country vitriolic rhetoric, even against the US, is considered free speech. The US has always been a nation of laws and I fear that the way this was handled calls that heritage into serious question. The question I have is that if al-Awlaki really did commit crimes that warranted his being killed, why didn't the administration seek to get an indictment against him and formally charge him with those crimes. This would have removed many, if not all of the concerns surrounding what was done. This really was a political assassination and as such was illegal under both international law and by executive order.
Ron Paul may be a little bit of a nut, but he is right in that this is a very dangerous precedent that has been set and the slope can get very slippery. Who will the administration decide next is a threat to the US and take out?!?!
JS, most folks here think its about al-Awlaki, but it isn't. Hell, I have no doubt he got what he deserved and if he had been charged and convicted, I'd love to pull the switch myself. But he was not charged. Never. His record was as spotless as most of us. Sorry, but there has never been and never will be a resident of the White House that I would trust with such power over the citizenry.
Lot of short memories here. Stop dismissing Congressman Paul out of hand. J. Edgar Hoover anyone? How about Nixon and his henchmen and the media? How about the NEW media and their willingness to turn over anything and everything to the government? Remember Google rolling over?
As far as al-Awliki, we probably don't know the whole story. A Yemeni judge had issued a "Wanted: Dead or Alive"-type warrant. Who is to say, the Yemenis didn't ask for our cooperation?
Lastly, it's time we realized the pursuit of terrorists is not a military mission. It is a police matter, and we had better start insisting that nations work together on this problem. Al-Qaeda and other groups do not do their filthy work under any nation's flag, although they are clearly receiving aid and comfort from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These nations must be identified publicly. Forget this diplomacy nonsense.
We must work together - all nations. Global instability helps no one but the terrorists.
It is now proven that Fiesty pretty much backs Nazi ideas. Yep, leftist she is. But it is ok Fiesty, even your freedom to speak is protected under the Paul Plan.
RON PAUL 2012
I have to correct you Feisty,
No one at Fox News is hired for their brains. Male or female. As O'Riley self reflects constantly; "Pinheads, all of 'em!"
Paul, a vocal critic of the Federal Reserve and banking interests, voiced support for the right of protesters on Wall Street to use "civil disobedience" to express their complaints against the nation's financial system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My kind of "nutty".
Bush and Cheney personally redefined virtually all rules of engagement. They drove us into seriously costly, mismanaged, over-committed, but personally profitable wars aimed at exactly the wrong targets... and we're still killing our young soldiers and wasting boatloads of money we don't have today because of those policies.
So now we efficiently target and take out a major terrorist operative that is resident and propagandizing in a foreign country and Ron Paul and apparently some on this thread are worried about what might come of this gross violation of presidential powers?
Seriously? What non-sense.
LMarcT, "and we're still killing our young soldiers and wasting boatloads of money we don't have today because of those policies."
------------------------------------------
Which begs the simple question, "Why?"
I stand corrected GF! ;o)
J S the only reason Paul is considered a "nut" is that the American people live with blinders on. They are sheep who believe that movies like State of the Union could never really happen. If they will just look at the fact that we DO have covert organizations in the US, why ignore the fact that anyone of us could be targeted. We know that American citizens are "investigated", often with out reason every day. Phones are tapped, homes searched, people followed because they might have some ill intent. There is evidence that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. Richard Nixon had his hate list. Many were democratic leaning celebs, some were just common people who had no idea how they came to be on his list. Men with great power do not keep great power by being "Mr Nice". Some, not all will do anything, lie steal, maybe even kill to keep that power. It is a very small step from that and what we see today to the extermination of citizens here and abroad who are considered a "threat" to the man in charge. Al-Alwaki's assassination is proof of that.
The interesting thing is that the media was already targeted and Amy Goodman and others just won a court case over it this week. 40 - FOURTY! - members of the media were arrested at the last Republican Convention. The Secret Service tore their press credentials from Goodman and others' necks. They pulled Goodman thru police lines and arrested her when she asked to speak with the person in charge after her reporters were arrested.
Again, they WON their case. Google it. Get informed! It's not tin hat and it is not funny at all. Where was Rand Paul when it counted? This is a good example that exposes his motives and the AMerican public's blase attitude toward their own civil rights! The first thing to go is the press. Go research the Republican convention...and actually, anywhere during the Cheney/Bush reign - the press was ultra-controlled and black-mailed. We need to Free the Press from corporate control, too!
To all of the uninformed, short sighted, narrow minded, logically challenged posters spewing that Ron Paul is a "nut":
A NUT STRAIGHT OUT OF THE ASYLUM COULD DO A BETTER JOB THAN THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS YOU PEOPLE IDOLIZE
Ron Paul 2012 - the only REAL candidate that is NOT owned by special interests.
Indy Lib
Not sure of your point, but I agree we should get out ASAP. How to get out now that we are there is probably the toughest question of the day.
All I want to hear from Congressman Paul is about all the earmark spending he has done. How does it fit in with his view of the constitution. Like the 2.5 million earmark for decorative street lights and bike racks for a town in his district.
Devil's son
Can you cite a source/link? I would love to read about that.
al-Awliki surrendered his American citizenship the day he went to work with the terrorists. It's one of the ways one can loose their citizenship in this country. Therefore, he was not an American citizen. We do not arrest combatants in times of war.
As for whether or not his record was clean or not, the question is moot as he was not at the time of his death a citizen of this country.
VW, please referance your legal notion.
1. He was not in a warzone so he was not a legal combatant.
2. To this day there is no proof he did anything but talk out against the "evil empire"
3. American Citizenship is not automatically revoked in any case known.
It is evil people like you that spew non-truths in an attempt to sway public opinion. In effect YOU are doing the same thing that al-Awliki was doing but inside the US. Does that make you a domestic terrorist and available for execution?
If you want a straight and honest answer to a difficult, controversial question ask Ron Paul. If you want a garbled, incomprehensible response from a flip-flopping politician ask the rest of them.
If you can't understand the significance of this event your an ignorant partisan hack zombie.
The US has already bombed television networks abroad and has practically taken journalists off the air.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/nov/17/warinafghanistan2001.afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/cenk-uygur-msnbc-leaving_n_905415.html
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
From the US Department of State
By working directly with Al-Qaeda leadership and becoming part of that leadership al-Awliki was in violation of #'s 3 and 4.
By declaring, with the following statements, open jihad against the United States he put himself in the position of forfeiting his citizenship in this country and the protections that citizenship affords.
"Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom,"
"In a statement in March 2009 he said: "Jihad [holy war] is becoming as American as apple pie and as British as afternoon tea.""
Goebbels may not have pulled trigger himself but he was a very important cog in the machine that did. Bin Ladin didn't fly the plane but he had something to do with the events that take us to this conversation. Were they innocent? Are we at war with terrorism or not?
If I were making declarations of the destruction of this country from a country that has harbored terrorists, I might worry. But you will not find anything I've ever written that could be interpreted as such. Your last sentences are too ridiculous to take seriously.
I'm sure if the Bill of Rights were introduced today the same people would be making accusations of paranoia and craziness about those who were introducing them.
Headline: Ron Paul Suggests Media Could Be Targeted By Government
If anyone disagrees with that notion then they have no clue about the constitution and its intents. Why do you think the first amendment includes freedom of speech and of the press? Well, simply because the possibility of a government abridging those rights is very real and we know from history that it happens quite often. Yet Paul is written off as paranoid and crazy when he is really just stating the obvious.
vwterrt, can you explain to me how Al-Qaeda is an armed force of a foreign state, or how being in Al-Qaeda is "accepting a job with a foreign government"?
Al-Qaeda is neither a foreign state or a foreign government, so neither example you attempt to sight apply...
After reading through this, it is clear to me that some people still live life in the dark. Some rail against FOX and rightfully so. Some rail against the rest and again, rightfully so. People, they are Yin and Yang, flip sides of the same coin. They are both beholden to special interests, albeit perhaps not the same ones although they often over lap. Please research and open your mind. Don't take these talking heads at face value. They are bought and paid for. I've asked several people what they have thought of Ron Paul, self-professed conservatives and champions of the constitution to a person. Each one said something to the effect of 'nut job' or 'crazy.' When I pressed them, they couldn't give ONE reason. Not one. So essentially, I concluded, they listen to O'Reilly or Hannity etc and parrot what they say. People, THINK. There is one guy out there that believes in you and the principals that this great nation was founded upon. We have one chance here. Do not vote with blinders on.
Ron Paul 2012. Our last chance at liberty.
tinfoil hat? yet the story right next to this one
msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To2bM5tT8TY Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list"
tinfoil hat? Maybe not so much.
In my opinion, people call Dr. Paul a "nut" because they are scared to death that he is right.
al-Awlaki was clearly involved with al Qaida. He was very vocal in his hate for the US. However, he was a citizen of this nation and as such, he had rights. Rights that were violated by this administration when they murdered him. He had a right to trial by a jury of his peers. A chance to stand up and defend himself. This is right that we Americans supposedly hold dear. That law is in place to protect WE THE PEOPLE from tyranny imposed by an over reaching government. Whether we like it or not, whether we think he is guilty or not, he had a right to protection under those laws. When our government starts ignoring the law because it's inconvenient, there is a serious problem in our nation.
How can we espouse how great, special and noble we are because we are free and have laws when we turn around and ignore those very same laws to serve our own interests? Hypocrisy in the extreme.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how can certain leftists red heads denouce capital punishment as evil and immoral on tried and convicted murderers, then in the same breath praise the administration for executing an american citizen, inside the borders of a sovereign nation we are not at war with who has not even been charged with a crime? Apparently it's ok for Obama to point his finger and say die, while our judicial system is "immoral" for doing the same thing within the confines of the law of the land.
al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship when he took up arms against the United States:
Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
Therefore the predator drone did NOT kill a U.S. citizen. Once al-Awlaki joined the terrorist ranks, he was no longer a citizen and an enemy of the state.
However Paul does have a valid point that we need to keep our government in check, he is just incorrect in using this as an example of government overstepping its bounds.
On Feisty's low * boobs for Palin---then who would this be? (LOL) ♌
al-Awlak pledged his allegiance to the Nation of Islam, not the United States.
al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen. Yemen is the country his father was visiting the US from when he was born. Yemen is the country al-Awlaki returned to at the age of 7 and spent the majority of his life in. The United States has no extradition agreement with Yemen. We could not have "arrested" him and brought him to this country for trial without that agreement.
There are 56 countries we have no extradition agreements with and many of those are in the Middle East.
The question as to his citizenship seems more intended to discredit President Obama than to address the legality of al-Awlakis death.
Devil's Son, Ron Paul behaves as do many opponents of federal spending: they load it up with stuff for their districts and then vote against the entire package. He's just ensuring that if the feds are going to give back some of the money they have stolen, that his district gets some of its money back too.
It's how an honest man is forced to deal within a corrupt system.
Before people start saying that this is crazy talk, stop and think .What makes you so sure that our government is immune to the failings of almost every other government in the world? The “it can’t happen to us” theory of operation is doomed to disappointment. The liberties our founders built into the constitution were to protect us and we are allowing “them” to take them away one at a time in the name of safety, national security or comfort.
I understand your point and agree that our government regardless of who is in charge is not to be trusted. That said, they are prosecuting a war against terrorists using guerrilla tactics in foreign lands. These countries have little love of the US (except for the foreign aid checks) but we've caused most of that as well. We over throw governments, install and support dictators all for the right to have military bases so we can support the US hegemony. It's a dirty game and when the victim took up arms against the US he became a legitimate target. No due process needed.
I don't think that's the point. Rather than mistrust, see it as safety mechanisms that must always be in place in case something (or someone) goes wrong.
You can trust your politicians...when there are legal mechanisms in place to keep them honest. But when they can do whatever they want without reservation, you should expect that they will, and you should expect that at least some of what they do will benefit them rather than society. In fact, it may even come at a cost to society.
We're only doomed when we fail to pay for those military activities, when we fail to pay for anything. We fail when one party decides government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub. We fail when we do not share the cost for the common good and we fail when we do not to recognize that Government is essential to our country, to our democracy. We fail when we do not invest in America, when we do not keep the social contract of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, not just those who have the most. We fail when we forget that having a strong government with enough money to run it is essential to freedom. Ron Paul doesn't like government, doesn't like regulation, doesn't feel that anything should ever interfere with capitalism--we see how that worked when the economy collapsed and caused the Great Depression and when the economy collapsed in 2008 and caused the Great Recession.
Jody
You totally miss the point on Ron Paul. He is not AGAINST government. He just feels the FEDERAL government is overstepping it's boundary. Yes, the Federal government needs to provide for the defence, regulate interstate commerce, deal with immigration( which they are failing to do), and other things that provide for the COMMON good of the US. But they do not need to control every aspect of our lives. Big Brother? Yes! The 50 states all have different needs and wants depending on the population, the climate, the resources in each area. Something that might work in New York, might be totally wrong in Montana. Drug legalization that many Californians want would not work in Texas. But, California has the right to decide for themselves if it is something they truly want. They legalize medical marijuana, the Feds outlaw it; WHY. We are not a one size fits all country. Let the states deal with their own local problems, welfare, unemployment, right to work, or union. That is all Paul wants. Give the rights back to the states that SHOULD NOT be under the control of the FEDERAL government.
Andrew
What "legal" mechanisms are in place to keep the politicians honest? There are so many convicted crooks in politics, I can't count them all. Tricky Dick, Rod Blagojevich, William J Jefferson, to just name a very few. Congressional approval is at 14%, I don't see any off them being kicked out just now. We are stuck with them all for at least another year. I can promise you that 75% of the politicians in office right now are not in the least concerned with the American public, they are thinking about their paychecks, their kickbacks, their pension, their unlimited terms, their little "secrets" on the side. There is not ANYTHING that most would not do to protect those things. The day that the public gets complacent in trusting their own government, is the day we lose our freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said:
A quote by George Washington:
Another good source
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s34.html
Even the forefathers warned of trusting the government too much. It is comprised of men, and men are susceptible to the failings of the flesh.
The War on Terror is like all of our wars, useless. It creates more problems then it solves. Saying that BECAUSE we are fighting a war on xyz and xyz uses these unfair tactics, we have to sacrifice our sacred ideals? Sacrifice things like due process and privacy rights??? NO!!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
A principle only has meaning when it is adhered to with ironclad resolve, without wavering, THICK OR THIN!
I'm no Ron Paul fan. I'm no Bachman fan. Last weekend, this site had a snarky post about Bachman, our satellites, and Chinese lasers.
She was right- I found two legitimate sources in about two minutes to back her up.
Moreover, the writers of this article should KNOW that Paul is right. This administration tried to block out one major news source, and has blocked out two newspapers.
The first attempt failed because the rest of the media stood against it- the second succeeded because they said nothing. So, Fox is in, but the Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle are out.
This administration defies the Constitution, abrogates the rules, and runs roughshod over more than two hundred years of American liberty- and most of the media stands silent- when they aren't parroting their talking points.
So, like a stopped clock, Paul is right. I guess he has another one coming.
Jody, to expound a little on Deb's point, let's use an example. Right now and going back quite some time now, we've had a 'war on drugs.' Let's toss aside for one second the obvious legislating against morality and focus on the consequences. How is this any different than prohibition? We saw how that worked out and yet, we've learned nothing. We have families torn apart because fathers and mothers are in jail, we have organized crime, drug cartels, gun running, etc, etc. Should the Fed have this power? Isn't it time to end this madness? This is just one example. A little common sense goes a long way. Let's say that drugs are legalized or at least decriminalized across the board. What happens to these 'cartels' then? I could go on for days and this is just one aspect of why Ron Paul makes sense.
I once heard G. Gordon Liddy say he'd kill his mother if national security depended upon it. I'm sure it's happened before. But was Ron Paul speaking in such alarmist terms when Bush/Cheney were in charge? Nope! He was probably afraid of being next.
HankE - Dr Paul was sounding the alarm when Bush was in office. Wake up.
A politician that tells it like it is, that won't sell out our country to the lobbying/bribery that our current government is guilty of, how in the hell is he Republican??? Everything I seem to hear from him seems to appeal to my liberal leanings, not the right. His policies are way more left-wing than Obama's, for sure.
I've go to say, if he had an actual shot at winning, I'd most definantly vote for Ron Paul!
Dr. Paul was sounding the alarm BEFORE Bush was in office, just to set the record straight.
Prohibition- he has a chance but it's people who say things like if he actually had a chance that screw that all up, vote with your conscience not what the media tells you.
The problem is, he tells the truth and the lobbyists can't sway him, therefore they won't let him win, even if he were elected by We The People, like 2000, the corporations would come up with some excuse as to why the election was invalid, then the Supreme Court would get to put a corporate puppet in the POTUS seat.
The irony of the "it can't happen here" argument is that it already has and is happening. Heck! Our own government rounded up the Japanese during WWII and held them indefinitely. A gross violation of their constitutional rights. We made war on the Indians in the east and in the west back in the 1800's! It is the nature of government to become tyrannical. The founders rightfully recognized this and that is why Thomas Pain said that "
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one". It can happen here and this, the founders knew!
Tomorrow on First Read, see how Ron Paul credits talking dog with revealing winning Power Ball picks to Elvis' brain.
2012 Ron Paul campaign bumper sticker: Ron Paul...too extreme for...Ron Paul
God, how I miss the Fairness Doctrine...
I like our bumper stickers better:
B.O. Stinks!
Redhead, stop being an id10t. The point is for you to see how the assassination policy toward US citizen could incrementally spread. Detractors and the media love to mislead with Paul's thought provoking statements. Come to think of it, Paul is the only candidate with thought provoking statements.
*puff* *puff* *pass*
Depends on your definition of what "thought provoking" means. Seems to me that Paul's comments were meant to startle, grab attention rather than to require any deep thought.
I am in no way voting for a guy or the party who thinks I deserved to die because I don't have health care. Whats more doesn't think I deserved health care either.
How's that for thought provoking.
Asking Feisty to understand big pictures or slippery slopes is a waste of time.
She hasn't even figured out that the libbie refrain of "torture is evil." is done.
See, Obama summarily executed Al alawki. Didn't torture him, just off'ed him. If you have license to kill a man, you surely have license to torture.
Or does anyone think KSM would rather Bush have just off'ed him, as oppose to the enhanced interrogation methods employed?
How about you Jody - Torture bad, killing good?
What kills me is that, if this sentiment had been uttered by a left-leaning Democrat or whatever, feisty would be banging the drum and shaking her pom poms for it!
trumper2012 The point is for you to see how the assassination policy toward US citizen could incrementally spread. The Republican answer is try to capture them. Use ILLEGAL interrogation tactics in SECRET FOREIGN prisons, THEN tranfer them fo life in GITMO with NO TRIAL, NO NOTHING. Whether you are an AMERICAN CITIZEN or a FOREIGN CITIZEN and attached to the TALIBAN or AL QUEDA, you have a one way ticket to Hades with a predator.
Paul is usually wrong, but this time he's right. Scary stuff. Imagine if Michelle Bachmann were president and she had the ability to target her brand of evil terrorists like........ gays!
Spanky
Torture IS evil
So the government takes over Health insurance and has to draw the line on when to stop paying under certain situations, which would mean your government still decides when you stop getting insurance and therefore holds your life in their hands. The same hands that handle FEMA/Katrina, cash for clunkers, I could go on but the point is our government can't do anything right, every program they run is strife with waste...read into all the wasted money and screw ups FEMA is responsible for.... Then when the government figures out they have once again taken on more that they have money to pay for your health insurance will dangle on a vote just like the debt ceiling and will most certainly be the target of a multitudes of "cuts".Time to wake up, the government can't take care of you from the moment you are born until the moment you die, in fact they have proved over and over again they can't handle anything without screwing it up and wasting billions and/or trillions of dollars at the same time.
How's that for thought provoking!
Ron Paul is crazy!
...there are rules Mr. Paul....I know, you don't like rules/regulations...but, that's the way it is!
Can you say Patriot Act/wiretapping, etc......oh, well!
He is for the enforcement of the law and the ability of adults to choose how they use their own property or bodies.
Why should the government have domain over a mutually beneficial contract between two consenting adults?
Ron Paul is solidly against the "Patriot Act" and called Bush out on it repeatedly.
Why don't you read and research the truth before you post!
Let the paranoia begin. The problem I have with libertarians like Ron Paul is that they live in some ideologically pure spot and democracy or any government never was and never can be "pure". It just doesn't work.
God forbid someone actually try and hold the government accountable to the constitution. If that is paranoia then what is considered a "normal" thought process?
Wow....keep drinking all that delicious Kool-Aid! he doesn't want anything ideological. He simply wants the power to be on state and local levels as our Founding Fathers laid out for us. The Federal government was never, ever meant to have the kind of all-encompassing power over individual citizens that it currently enjoys.
from Podunk banned for death wishing a political figure. No, thanks.
Jody,
Our founding fathers didn't think that Government was pure, they on many occasions state that government is the embodiment of evil without checks and balances in place to keep the evil under control.
Control by the Citizens.
In this respect Ron Paul is saying the same things our founding fathers said over 200 years ago.
Now watch. The next conspiracy theory is that President Obama is targeting Fox News. Not that I would mind one bit. Let the Fox hunt begin.
He raised a hypothetical situation and suggested the possibility of a slippery slope effect. You may disagree with him but his logic is sound and by no means do his comments meet the definition of "conspiracy theory."
Ron Paul is selling some paranoia. Of course any government and including ours could target other American citizens but there is little evidence that our government makes that a regular practice.
Nixon had his enemies list and I imagine other presidents have done the same thing. The clowns we blew away were anti-American terrorists who denounced America. They were only citizens on paper and represented a very real threat to all Americans.
There is nothing in this world that cannot happen if someone is determined enough to do it. All we can do in America is hope that our government does not turn against its own people and that America does not turn against our government. If we act as real citizens, we have little to fear. If we let the government make sure that we are always safe, then we are giving away our freedom.
It's not a regular practice until of course it's a regular practice. Once is too many. Not prosecuting the first offense leads to the second and the third and so on and so forth.
So, were the Bill of Rights thrown together in a fit of paranoia and panic? There is a big difference between paranoia and ensuring that our liberties are secure.
JR,
Warrantless wiretaps were uncommon and illegal, until the patriot act came along, now it's a common practice of every police department.
While I believe Paul and his dad to be looney, the fact remains that government could "target" anyone...
whos to say..but if we worry about that, we might as well just eat a bullit ourselves....
One GREAT example of this, is the supposed suicide of the woman that accused Bush JR of rape.....
opednews.com
Early one Saturday afternoon in July 2003, I made a simple phone call to
Margie Schoedinger, a Texas woman who filed a rape lawsuit against George W.
Bush in December 2002. I expected to leave a message on a machine, so I was
caught a little offguard when Schoedinger answered.
She, too, sounded somewhat surprised I had called, saying she hadn't heard
from many other reporters. But she talked to me for a few minutes about the
legal action.
"I am still trying to prosecute [the lawsuit]," said Schoedinger, a
38-year-old African-American woman who lived in the Houston suburb of Missouri
City. "I want to get this matter settled and go on with my life."
Well, Schoedinger hasn't gone on with her life. In fact, three months after I
spoke to her, she died in an apparent suicide. And this matter remains
unsettled.
When I asked her in July 2003 about the lack of media coverage, Schoedinger
said she wasn't seeking publicity. She said she did not even know about a
December 2002 article in the Fort Bend Star, the only U.S. mainstream media
outlet that covered this story, to my knowledge. The Fort Bend reporter, LeaAnne
Klentzman, said she even went to Schoedinger's home and talked to a man there,
who said she could not come to door. While I reached and spoke to Schoedinger on
my first attempt, maybe she wasn't ready to talk back in December.
Anyways, Schoedinger said she was surprised the case wasn't covered more
because "it is true......People have to be accountable for what they do, and
that's why I'm pursuing it."
To be sure, Schoedinger's accusations - which include being drugged and
sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and other men purporting to be FBI
agents - are bizarre and hard for most people to believe. But her story fits in
with those told by a growing number of people who say they were used as guinea
pigs or whatever by members of the CIA or another U.S. agency who wanted to test
out the latest mind-controlling drug or just have a strange form of release. And
her death - let's just say government agents have made murders look like
suicides before.
In her court petition, Schoedinger said police in Sugar Land, another Houston
suburb where she said some assailants linked to Bush attempted to unsuccessfully
abduct her from her car shortly before the 2000 election, refused to take a
report or do anything about that incident. She filed a lawsuit against the Sugar
Land department and said that in preparing its defense, Sugar Land police found
out that she dated Bush as a minor. I didn't get a chance to ask Schoedinger
about that tie and didn't meet her in person, but her driver's license listed
her as being 5-foot-8 and weighing 125 pounds, for what that's worth.
The Fort Bend Star story quoted a Sugar Land police captain saying his
department had no record of any complaints by Schoedinger. All he had to do was
what I did - go to the Fort Bend County Internet site and do a simple search on
Schoedinger's name in the area of civil court records. I found the lawsuit
Schoedinger filed in December 2000 against Sugar Land police, and it even had
numerous responses by the department's attorneys in that case.
Just wait. This story gets stranger.
When I started asking Schoedinger about certain details of the case, such as
alleged surveillance at her home and if she was still legally representing
herself, she politely ended our conversation. "I need to see what has been
written," Schoedinger said. "I feel like it's best for me to end our
conversation."
Obviously, she had learned to be careful about what she said and to whom she
said it. I could understand her being leery about talking about her situation
with a stranger over the phone.
But I remember being puzzled by Schoedinger's attitude after hanging up the
phone. I wondered that if she had made up such a wild story, why she didn't come
up with something a little less outlandish, in which people couldn't necessarily
dismiss her as a kook. I wondered why she didn't seek publicity to at least
provide some form of protection. I've long learned that being as public as
possible is one of your best defenses against rogue intelligence agents. But she
didn't even seem to want any media to cover her story. I told several writers I
knew, some of whom tried to contact Schoedinger. None succeeded, as far as I
know.
I remember thinking, "I hope she doesn't wind up on the wrong side of a gun."
And sure enough, in late September, Schoedinger did.
The Houston Chronicle wrote a bare-bones obituary that stated only that
Schoedinger "expired" on Sept. 22, 2003, and her burial was at Houston Memorial
Gardens.
For one, using a
gun to commit suicide is
predominantly executed by males, according to psychiatrists and other sources
like pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. Women are more likely to overdose on
drugs, although the number of gunshot suicides among women has increased in
recent years.
Besides Pravda and Internet ezines - one of whom referred to Schoedinger as
"deranged" - I haven't seen stories on this strange death of a woman who filed a
rape lawsuit against the U.S. president and wound up dead nine months later. I
can't say I'm surprised. Or even angry. I don't know what the hell to think. All
I know is I was one of the last - if not the last - reporters to speak to
Schoedinger, and she didn't sound "deranged" to me in July 2003. She sounded
like someone who had gone through something weird and was trying to sort it out.
She sounded like someone who wanted the truth to come out. And now she's dead.
I called the Harris County Medical Examiner's office, and a clerk told me the
cause of death: a "suicide" by a "gunshot wound to the head." I hung up amid
bombs going off in my mind.
Why do you believe Ron Paul to be looney? I know believing in that document that they each president swears to uphold is crazy and all.....
I didn't see Ron Paul volunteering to go to the Mideast to bring back this scumball.
Siestasis
Obama didn't volunteer to go to the MIDDLE EAST to bring back the scumball either. BTW the Mideast is in the US.
Yes...I'm sure that Hannity is anxiously looking over his shoulder.
Yes, and the government targeted "Big" Al Capone, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Bonnie and Clyde, and everyone else who has been and is on the "FBI's Most Wanted List." "Wanted Dead or Alive" has been around for a good many years!
Gotta say, Ron Paul does make a good argument about "targetting" American citizens without trial. I am in no way condemning the killing of that wack-job al-"whatever", but we need to step lightly on this issue. Problem here is that Ron Paul is of the Republican Party: motto - Kill First, Ask Questions Later. That said, maybe Paul would do better as an Independent, rather than keeping ties with the GOP.
Will someone from the GOP who is a "fiscal conservative", rather than social conservative, take control of this party of "NO", and help this country find some parity? I guess the "old schoolers" are ashamed that their Party is being wagged by the tail-end wackos, yet too scared to admit it.
Ron Paul is about as fiscal conservative as they come. The GOP - and you apparently - don't "see the forest for the trees."
I'm one of those retarded, pot-smoking, college hippie supporters of Ron Paul's. But, despite all of that, I'm able to read and I've been reading Ron Paul's collection of foreign policy statements in his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom: 'Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship' and, man, let me tell you, he's definitely crazy! He predicted most of the terrorist attacks against our forces overseas because, well, we placed them there, and he predicted, in April of 1999, that terrorists would attack our shores. Now, I know that it's one of those shot-in-the-dark things, but it's also fairly simple to predict when you look at history and understand precedent.
This was the same reason why Dr. Paul, at a debate in 2007, was laughed at when he warned our economy was in major trouble. "He'd been saying that for thirty years," his opponents will say, "he finally was right." Yeah, maybe, but had we listened to him for those thirty years instead of allowing Washington to do whatever it wanted, maybe Wall Street wouldn't be "occupied" right now.
Dr. Paul's positions sound extreme because Americans are uncomfortable with liberty and scared of the rest of the world. We realize, or should, that our place in the sun is now catching shade and those in positions of power want to maintain a balance that isn't sustainable. Regardless of the reality that faces us or the reasoning behind Dr. Paul's arguments, people like those on this site, will continue to attack him based on what lazy journalists say about him. He'll provide an hour-long argument. A reporter will paraphrase three sentences. An anchor will misquote the reporter, and, eventually, he loses credibility not because of his actual words or ideas, but because of the distortion we all help to create.
It's time that our country goes through some radical changes before it becomes something none of us will recognize and neither our sitting president nor the other candidates (with the exceptions, perhaps, of Johnson and Huntsman) will change our course. All we have to do is look at the Constitution. Seriously, is that so extreme or risky? Is not the rule of law preferable to the rule of man or have we convinced ourselves that this is a democracy, while recognizing that the majority still fails to rule when the elites make all of our decisions?
The point I'm making is that Dr. Paul's opposition to this assassination is not based on his hatred of everything Obama, appeasement to our enemies, or senility, his opposition is based on his fear that this power will be used in the wrong ways and, please, for the love of everything holy, don't tell me that our government's incapable of doing the wrong things!
yes yes and the patriot act is for our own good . lmao
Really? That's the whole opposition motive for all the Republican candidates, and all the Teapartiers, too.
Sounds more than a bit paranoid, there's a big difference between mistakes and malevolent intent, but your crowd doesn't seem to notice the difference. Killing a known terrorist is far different than disagreeing politically, yet Paul somehow thinks killing terrorists will lead to political killing as well.
From one pot smoking hippie to another, great post Joseph.
I am certainly not conservative nor a liberal.....what used to be known as a conservative (fiscally) democrat....but now is just extinct.....but in this particular case, Ron Paul is correct....we SHOULD have given some legal authority, a trial in abstencia....something legal before having an American Military drone ASSASSINATE an unindicted, unconvicted AMERICAN CITIZEN........this is not the America I was born into ..the American where it MEANT SOMETHING to be a citizen....sorry to bother with trash like this traitor.....but we MUST. This has crossed some line that hits me wrong. American killed by US drones without due process.... amid the cheering, I hear the sounds of tyranny.
Unfortunately, everyone has to take what the CANDIDATE says with a grain of salt. The CANDIDATE may become PRESIDENT, BUT HE does NOT write LAW. That is supposed to be done by the HOUSE after committtee meetings, and markups, debate in the HOUSE chambers, then committee meetings in the Senate, markups, debate on the SENATE floor, then if passed, unto the President for approval or veto. Unfortunately, committee meetings don't take place anymore, NO debate on the HOUSE floor, NO committee meetings in the Senate, NO debate, and RARELY is a Bill VETOED anymore. ONLY ONE in the first 4 years of George W. Bush (Stem-cells). Maybe 6 in the 2nd four years. None by Obama so far. The BILLS the REPUBLICANS refuse to bring to the floor in the HOUSE? ANYTHING that HELPS 98% of America. BILLS RUSHED to the floor for votes in the HOUSE? BILLS that PROTECT MILLIONAIRES, BILLIONAIRES, OIL COMPANIES, COAL COMPANIES, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. Example of bills that will never see the light of day in the HOUSE while controlled by REPUBLICANS? CLEAN AIR legislation.
Joseph, Paul was seven years late and as many dollars short when he predicted we'd be attacked on "our shores".
The first terrorist attack on the World Trade center was in 1993.
It's great that Paul has you interested in politics- I was a young teenager when the Watergate hearings got me involved.
Still, history did not begin on 9/11/01.
Read a little. You were probably too young to know what was going on then.
Ok I'm probably going to be heaped upon by all the left wing nuts here, but that being said,
Any one remember all the death that have been independently linked to Whitewater?
Does anyone even remember the whitewater scandals?
target the media like we targetted that rabid dog we just slaughtered?
my goodness Mr. Paul, was an excellent idea.
let's start with Murdoch and his Faux News Network.
Old news. Nixon did it years ago. Not successfully but he did. Ask Liddy.
The fact is, these wars are undeclared so Ron Paul is right in saying that the assassination of al-Awlaki is wrong and unconstitutional. Due process is there to protect the rights of all American citizens. It's these small things that government does that Paul is trying to warn the people about. The government can slowly gain power by manipulating the people in to giving up their rights, including targeting the media or whatever they want to do. Our Constitution was written to keep our government at bay in this type of situation, but we've strayed so far from it that people like Ron Paul are ridiculed for what America stood for and other modern day politicians are praised for flip-flopping on their beliefs just so they can gain power and money.
Ron Paul is the real deal and he's got my vote!
Ron Paul 2012!
For the last time, what the US did was enforce the law against treason. If you commit treason the penalty is death. It's in the constitution. Here is a man sworn to kill americans and did so. That he was an American citizen makes no difference. I repeat, the penalty for treason is death. How death was delivered makes no difference.
Zebdor Wait a minute. Didn't George W. Bush and the Republicans DECLARE WAR on IRAQ? Using PHONY intelligence, of course. Wasn't that done by RECONCILIATION? Oh. wait. Isn't that a DIRTY word with REPUBLICANS now?
The war against the terrorist group Al Qaida was "declared". The rules in a war zone are different than the rules in a peaceful civilization. "Due process" doesn't apply on the battleground, and besides, citizens that side with the enemy in attacking the nation are traitors and loose their citizenship rights.
Doesn't the Patriot act passed by passed in the House by 357 to 66 (of 435) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 took away a lot of ours and the press/medias rights when signed by GW Bush.
Ron Paul voted against it both times.
And Obama signed an extension for it 2 times.
Obama extended it twice? I didn't know that. I knew of the first time when it was first about to expire. Paul voted against it during the Bush administration and the Obama administration.
Voted against it every time. Imagine that? A member of Congress who votes the way he says he will, to uphold the rule of law and to protect the citizens of this nation. Who would've thought it possible. Someone in DC who wants to protect our rights and freedoms.
Ron Paul 2012
The woodpeckers and trolls are out in force I see! Anytime an article mentions Ron Paul, the same predictable comments are pushed almost immediately - ad nauseam... tinfoil hats, loony, crazy. C'mon - don't you shills realize that any THINKING man or woman knows you're part of a concentrated effort to discredit this candidate?
You are so damn scared that an honest man might - just might - get into power, you'll do anything to maintain the status quo.
Keep the blithering inane assaults coming. Many more common folks think Dr. Paul rocks - and they're putting their money on the line with donations to prove it.
You are so damn scared that an honest man might. Jacques I didn't know the word honest could be used the same sentence with someone who is classifed as a REPUBLICAN.
Due process is the 5th - the 5th amendment out of 27 amendments to the constitution. It's number FIVE. Why do you think it was one of the top 10 things the guys who wrote the constitution put in there? Because it's trivial? Americans are stupid and deserve to lose their country to tyrants.
Journalists don't write what they want anymore. They write what their bosses will approve. If journalists, reporters, and newscasters suddenly started saying what they wanted, they'd be fired, like Hank Williams, Jr or Glenn Beck or Phil Donahue...fill in the blank. I am a fan of free speech. Journalists don't have it or use it anymore. If they did, mainstream media would be as popular as the internet.
Mr. Paul does bring up some valid points about the media or academic research being labeled. Currently we have a terror watch list that appears to have some flaws, a sex offender registry with many flaws. Next could be what Mr. Paul is talking about. I do get what he is saying. Yes, a bit radical, but with valid points.
The religious right has already declared war on academics and the media. That's why Fox News exists and the state of Texas is taking science and fact out of textbooks.
Janie, the state of Texas isn't taking science and fact out of textbooks, but they are slashing liberal historical propaganda that had diseased schools for a long time.
We need to make sure that the historical record is not only fair, but balanced.
You shouldn't lie. It's bad for your skin.
Woo! Ron Paul 2012! Finally I feel like I'm living in America again and not some communist dictatorship! God Speed, Ron! We're with you!
You felt previously like you've been living in a communist dictatorship because you're stupid, on crack, are a paranoid conspiracy lunatic, and know nothing about life under communist dictatorships.