Did he really say that?
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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JOHN DELASAUX on -
That proves that he has no concept of the relative values of all these high-dollar items.
All that would happen is that China would buy it all, and then we would wake up one day, and China would OWN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES.
-
Permalink Reply by mikeymike143 on -
conservative tom tancredo deservedly blasts ron paul on the immigration issue
On Thursday, Ron Paul announced he would form an exploratory committee for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. This is about as unexpected as spring snow melt.
I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul's views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.
Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom." One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.
The result is not pretty. Paul's book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants "have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything." He also claims, "It's hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant."
The immigration website VDARE.com refutes both of these assertions. They note that 77 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5 percent of illegal and 10 percent of legal immigrants are European – so the idea that we are treating Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.
In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don't support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to "use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home." In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.
Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.
As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not.
According to Paul, deporting such people would be "incompatible with human rights." That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.
The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.
Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens "involuntary servitude."
Paul comes out against Arizona's popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: "Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."
I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law's definition of "reasonable suspicion" is the same standard that applies for federal law does not expand police powers. immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the
So if we can't enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, "Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk could be issued." This "asterisk" would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate "automatic citizenship." Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.
I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=298533#ixzz1Mi...
-
Permalink Reply by kve@me.com on
-
Ditto Mr. Phillips, you Judge people well.
-
Permalink Reply by Sahm Gai on
-
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest."
-- George Washington
A humble foreign policy is consistent with the constitution. I am surprised to see this is not well-understood on these boards, as I thought this enlightenment was a pillar of the Tea Party movement.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
-- John Quincy Adams
Fiscal conservatives take note: you will never be free of tax slavery when you give carte blanche to the military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us of the impending moral hazard in his farewell address.
-
Permalink Reply by DocHollywoodMD on
-
HAPPY TO BE MAKING WAVES AT THE WHITEHOUSE! THEY GET A COPY OF EVERY SIGN I MAKE!
I HAVE REACHED OVER 1,000 POSTERS SENT TO THE WHITEHOUSE, AND HAVE SENT OVER 6,000 E-MAILS TO OBAMA SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE!
YES AMERICA!......................... THE WHITEHOUSE KNOWS MY NAME!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
