There are a couple of things you can say about Ron Paul. First, there is little middle ground with him. People either love him or hate him. Second, he is not shy about talking about what is on his mind.
Ron Paul earlier this week was talking about the Bin Laden operation and said, "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?" He is of course, referring to the government of Pakistan.
Then, when asked by WHO radio if it was necessary Paul said, "I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary. I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters in to London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"
If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it. Such insane comments now raise the issue if he should even be in the Congress.
Ron Paul supporters will always rush to his defense. They will point out some good things he has said and done, such as the demand to audit the Fed.
That is all well and good but his isolationism and naïveté are simply too much.
Perhaps Ron Paul should be reminded of a few things. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. He is not a combatant in the sense of the law, where the law of warfare applies. He is a terrorist. The best legal analogy to a terrorist is the pirates of old. Under International Law, a country that catches a pirate is pretty much free to do anything to the pirate they want.
The same should be true for terrorists.
For Ron Paul, he should know much better. As a Congressman, he should have access to some classified information that we do not have. Every American who watches the news and can fog a mirror knows that the Pakistani Intelligence Service has been a silent partner with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If we had tipped Pakistan off that we were going to go in and try to “arrest” Bin Laden, when we got there, all we would have found would have been an empty house and maybe some booby traps.
For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, “not necessary,” is simply nuts.
Ron Paul thinks that if we simply pull all of our military out of every other country and hunker down behind our borders everything will be okay. No, it won’t be. We are dealing with madmen in this world. Some of them are bent on world domination by their particular religion and others are simply nuts. Ballistic Missile technology and nuclear weapons are spreading faster than anyone can control. Kim Jong “mentally” Il can push a button and thirty minutes later one of his missiles hits America.
We cannot have a leader who does not believe in protecting America. Socialists hate America and do not want to see America defend itself. What is Ron Paul’s excuse?
Tags: Paul, Ron, bin, laden, obama, osama, pakistan, terrorism
Permalink Reply by Judson Phillips on 
Permalink Reply by william lee gullen on -the reason 'our troops' are in other countries is to stabilize and facilitate our international
business interests and occasionally engage the enemy du jour in a proxy war. a phenomena
more commonly referred to as the 'military-industrial complex.
-in the event of an foreign threat against americas' sovereigncy we would surely seek and
destroy. witness jefferson and the barbary pirates...b
Permalink Reply by Robert Blasingame on 
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Aren't there some truther sites you'd be happier at Don?
LoveMyObama.com or something might be a better fit for you!
Permalink Reply by David L Shields on Judson, it seems you believe the story line that the US government and its media cohorts have published about Bin Laden for the past 20 or so years. So let's pretend that Ron Paul had been president when we were attacked in places around the world.
From what I know of Ron Paul he would have been an advocate of retaliating directly against the perpetrators, but he would not have expanded the conflicts into invasions of nations and nation building.
Ron Paul would have led the charge to oppose the excesses of the environmental movement and their Congressional cohorts that have prevented us from becoming energy independent. Therefore, there would be no issue about insuring control of middle east oil and the middle eastern nations would not be awash in US dollars that they can turn against us via the insanity of the Muslim extremists.
Ron Paul would have led the charge against the privately owned FED and their cohorts in Congress that have led us into the debt and deficit positions we are in today. We would not be paing half of a trilion dollars in interest on our debt, much of it to the FED.
Ron Paul would have led the charge against deficit spending.
Ron Paul would have led the way against illegal immigration and for immigration enforcement.
Ron Paul would have done while in office what he said he would do when he was campaigning.
Ron Paul would have rejected or worked to strictly limit the expansion of foreign aid programs which make the world's most corrupt and tyrannical governments and leaders.
Ron Paul would have opposed the Community Reinvestment Act and the banking insanities promulgated by the Sallie Mae and Freddy Mac and the resulting housing implosion and economic collapse.
Ron Paul would have opposed the dumbing down of our education system and the vast expansion of the government benefits dependent class.of our citizenry.
Ron Paul would stand for fundamental human rights including the right to our own property and would have been strongly supportive of personal responsibilities as an adjunct to our Bill of Rights, wherein we are primarily responsible for our own health, wealth, opportunities, freedoms and liberties.
Ron Paul, had he been president for many of the years in the recent decades would have helped produce a vastly different landscape of blessings and opportunities for our children and our grandchildren.
Ron Paul is focused upon solving fundamental issues and not focused on treating symptoms.
In this case Judson I go with Ron Paul's approach instead of yours, but I do appreciate many of the thoughts you express in your articles on the Tea Party Nation.
Permalink Reply by David L Shields on Thanks Mike,
I really hope the people in the Tea Party Nation will study how we got where we are and figure out the kind of leadership we need to work our way back out of the morass.
We are up to our necks in alligators and we are in an incredibly deep hole. When you are in those kinds of positions you need to move away from the alligators so you can prepare to deal with them more effectively. You also need to quit digging the hole deeper.
I vote for the leaders that will say they will fix the bad laws that have gotten us into this mess and will follow through after they are elected.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I know of that meets those two criteria.
The Tea Party Nation exists because the vast majority of the citizens, including me, have awakened to the fact that there are many major laws on the books that work against the best interests of at least 90% of the citizens and residents of this nation.
We need a new type of politicians. Politicians who will throw out bad laws and replace them with laws that work for the betterment of We The People.
Let us not get derailed.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on David L Shields, I don't understand.
Right from the top, "Ron Paul he would have been an advocate of retaliating directly...."
Where did you get that? Just that one, for starters. Do you think it up on the fly, or have ESP, or...I don't know.
Not from anything he's said! Wish I had your great knowledge!
Permalink Reply by Maria Bodey on See my post above for a detailed answer. Mr. Shields is correct when he says that Dr. Paul "would have been an advocate of retaliating directly." Dr. Paul introduced legislation a month after the 9/11 attack that gave the U.S. a constitutional right to go after Osama bin Laden directly. You may look it up yourself at the links cited below.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3076&tab=sum...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076
Permalink Reply by David L Shields on Please do not make the mistake of thinking Libertarians do not advocate defense of our homeland and military and other action directly against those that attack us. But they do oppose the US fufilling the role of the policeman of the world when there are no attacks in process.
That is very sound policy and does not require our government to make up lies upon which to base military action.
Permalink Reply by David L Shields on Vern, I hope you now know that the record shows the facts about Ron Paul and that you too can gain great knowledge if you will look at root causes and deal with and advocate fixes to the root causes.
The bad laws passed during the past 150 years can be fixed.
We can change the laws that focused power on the political parties instead of on the states and the individuals.
1. The process by which we choose the President and Vice President
2. The process by which Senators are put into office
If we got those two repaired we would be back into a much stronger system of checks and balances.
We can get rid of the privately owned FED and get rid of the process that makes it so easy for the federal politicians to spend in deficit.
In 1913 when the FED was established the US dollar's purchasing power was still at the 80% level of what it was in 1776. A US dollar would purchase 80 cents of what it did in 1776.
In 2011, under the process used by the FED and our deficit spending politicians and the resulting inflation, the US dollar's purchasing power is now less than 1 penny of what it was in 1776.
It has taken less than 100 years to decimate the worth of our money and transfer at least one quadrillion of our national wealth from the productive, responsible citizens and residents into the hands of the wealthy, powerful, private bankers and elites who think they have the right to rule this nation.
We need to get rid of that power to corrupt and control.
And those are only the first 3 bad laws we need to fix.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
