Real Time Analytics


Ron Paul is an idiot


 

 

How many other ways are there to say this?

 

Anwar al-Awlaki was killed today along with some other jihadists.  Al-Awlaki had been trying to secure weapons of mass destruction to use against America and was behind a number of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks.

 

Fortunately, a missile fired from a Predator drone today ended this threat to America.

 

What was Ron Paul’s response?

 

Ron Paul called it, “an assassination.” 

 

I have little good to say about the Obama regime, but at least they are still killing terrorists.  Something is wrong with this picture when, at least in this area, Obama is a better leader than Ron Paul.

 

What part of self-defense does Ron Paul not get?

 

Terrorists do not care about the law.  A grand jury indictment does not scare them.  They are willing to kill themselves to kill Americans.  There is only one way to stop them and that is to kill them.

 

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen, only by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States.   He was not an American in any sense of the word.  He was an enemy of this country who lived for one purpose.  He wanted to kill Americans. 

 

Al-Qaeda and the other Muslim terrorists are not a traditional army but the are an enemy nonetheless.  If an enemy decides to bomb the United States, we do not send the FBI after them, we send the Marines.   We do not go out to arrest them, we go out to destroy them.

 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt did not convene a grand jury.  He bombed the hell out of Germany and Japan.   In a war, you fight your enemy.  In a war, you kill your enemy. 

 

Ron Paul does not get the fact there are threats to America.  Ron Paul thinks there is nothing wrong with Iran having the bomb.  He is totally nuts.  Iran wants to see a world wide Caliphate and is led by a man who believes he must create as much world wide chaos as possible to bring about the Islamic second coming. 

 

What would happen if Ron Paul were President?  It would be the nightmare scenario.  He would treat terrorism as if it were a criminal justice problem.

 

Ron Paul is dangerous for America and if he is ever elected, he will kill Americans. .  He should not be allowed into the White House, even on the public tour.  He should not be allowed in Congress.  He should not even be allowed to vote on what to have for dinner tonight.

 

Ron Paul.  A man who does not think America should be allowed to defend itself. 

 

Ron Paul, a terrorist’s best friend.

Tags: al-awlaki, al-qaeda, anwar, paul, ron, terrorism

Views: 9387

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Harper on October 5, 2011 at 10:32am

Here's is what Newt had to say about it in his newsletter today.  This, plus the copy of the order posted earlier should be conclusive to anyone with the ability to think that no one's rights (particularly al Awaki's)  were infringed by killing this enemy of our country.   When are you lefties and liberterians going to get realistic about the war on terror and its threats to this country?

 

The ACLU is aghast. Liberal bloggers are proclaiming the end of the Bill of Rights. Even some on the right have joined in the hand-wringing.

The source of their angst? News last Friday that one of Al Qaeda's most senior leaders, Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. drone attack on his convoy in the Yemeni desert.
Awlaki was, as the President described him, "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula." Nigel Inkster, Former Deputy Head of MI-6, called him the “ideologue of Al Qaeda.” Planning new ways to kill masses of American civilians was part of his job description, and by all indications he embraced the task eagerly. Awlaki was a senior recruiter of suicide bombers, and was linked to terror plots dating back to 9/11, when he apparently served as a "spiritual advisor" to several of the hijackers. He advised Nadal Malik Hasan, who is charged as the Fort Hood Shooter. He helped train Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the stymied Christmas Day underwear bomber. And he inspired the Times Square car bomber, too. The guy was our enemy.
But since the administration successfully tracked and eliminated one of the world's most dangerous terrorists, the ACLU and others are criticizing the President because Awlaki remained an American citizen. They claim the administration denied Awlaki "due process of law" by not trying him in an American court.
 
Never mind the fact that such a trial was not an option, with Awlaki roaming free in Yemen, helping to sow chaos there and spreading terror in the U.S. and Europe. (As Andrew McCarthy recently pointed out, "the authorization to assassinate Awlaki did not mean the administration would have him killed if it encountered him coming off a plane in Chicago.") Apparently having heard little about Yemen these days, the ACLU asserts that he was "far from any battlefield" there, and says he was "executed…without judicial process."
On this issue, the president's critics are dangerously mistaken. Congress gave the president the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” force against Al Qaeda in 2001. Anyone engaged in war against the United States, whether an American citizen or not, is subject to the use of force by the U.S.  As John Yoo put it this week, "American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal."
President Obama was entirely within his rights to take action against a top-ranking member of a group that has declared war on the U.S., and who was actively seeking to launch new attacks against this country.
President Obama's legal advisors unanimously agreed
.
In addition to eliminating an important figure in the Al Qaeda leadership, Awlaki's killing might be good news in one other regard. I hope it represents a concession by the Obama administration that the view the Left has championed for years—that terrorism is just a "law enforcement" issue—is fundamentally wrong.
This is a war. Now at least one of the administration's legal opinions admits that fact.

In our documentary America at Risk: The War With No Name, Callista and I discussed the refusal of the Left to speak honestly about the enemy we are at war with. Our number one example in that movie was Major Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter inspired by Alwaki. The section on Alwaki below shows exactly why we must consider this a war:
 
 
The ACLU and others accusing the President are in complete denial about the nature of the threat we face. American citizenship cannot be used as protection with which to wage war against America.
Permalink Reply by Juan Reynoso on October 5, 2011 at 10:45am

We are to blame for this threat to the American people. Our Immigration laws are a joke, we allowed any one to enter our country, multiculturalism is the danger and our security is at risk. The Mexicans want to take over California, they kill hundreds of Americans every year and we are silent, why?, are we blind that we can not see the danger?. 

God save us from our onw demise. 

Permalink Reply by Deb in Texas on October 5, 2011 at 10:48am
RP also wants open borders.  psht!
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on October 5, 2011 at 11:08am

Actually RP is rated worst by NumbersUSA. Second only to Obama.The interactive link to source data is right here   What better source than NumbersUSA?

Permalink Reply by Barry Gabrielson on October 5, 2011 at 11:28am
That is BOs only chance, to get paul to win the nomination. I am surprised that all the progressive operatives on Fox News and MSLSD have not praised RP as their man, the last place Rep.  When progressives want RP, then you know your on the wrong side.
Permalink Reply by William and Tyra Adair GOP 2012 on October 5, 2011 at 11:30am
Vaya Con Donis
Permalink Reply by Truly Patriotic Person on October 5, 2011 at 1:04pm

You can't even spell "Vaya Con Dios"? Gimme a break. The 4th time I've seen it.


Permalink Reply by Deb in Texas on October 5, 2011 at 11:34am
That is true.  But it's the primaries where you fight to get the right guy in.  It's the general where you fight to keep the wrong guy out.  Therefore if it's RP then he will be my vote in the general.  But until then.....
Permalink Reply by Truly Patriotic Person on October 5, 2011 at 1:10pm
Well, you say you want border security. Paul is the worst on this. Decide what you want on this Constitutional issue! Paul is among the worst, overall, in performance on Constitutional issues. Not opinion, fact. Perry is better, Bachmann tops the list.
Permalink Reply by JOHN DELASAUX on October 5, 2011 at 12:23pm
How is that wish working out for you guys, over the last two decades ?
Permalink Reply by Tim Campbell on October 5, 2011 at 12:22pm

Seems like the "war on terror" is going the way of "war on drugs." If you have a diffused decentralized "enemy" you have no clear targets. This is going to be like a "whack-a-mole" game. This is a deeply rooted cultural/religious based issue, that can't be won by just a force against force type of fight, the core doctrine of Islam will always be able to justify it's jihad against anyone defined as an infidel or apostate. Getting the various middle eastern populations to level of education that allows them to think independently and develop stronger moral values will be the key to diminishing the radical influence.

I think Ron Paul understands this issue from this perspective. And also from a bigger financial and economic perspective of how this falls into the strategy of poorer less developed countries weakening the USA by "bankrupting" us through this "whack-a-mole" war of immense expenses with very little return on the value. There is another concern of why the Federal Reserve System is so manipulative in world financial policy, and what is going on with the bigger picture of global monetary policies. No nation can beat the USA in a force on force war. But by bleeding the USA financially and causing havoc with economics, enemies can create real internal social/economical problems that weaken the USA strategically with social anxiety/unrest, and in global economic policy. Why stand at a hornets nest and keep whacking it with a stick? That's the effect of having U.S. military in Islamic lands, which gives the radicals justification to keep their Jihad and continue attacking.

Permalink Reply by Freedom on October 5, 2011 at 7:00pm

Tim,

You got a good handle on this problem.

The soul reason for whacking the hornets nest is because our corporate run government feels we should to drain the middle east oil in trade for worthless fiat money before we drain ours.   Its a decent stratigic idea, but i believe there are better alternatives.

 

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 



© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!