Skip to comments.Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists
Posted on 11/09/2007 12:34:47 PM PST by LSUfan
click here to read article
The thing is, I'm not even "defending" Dr. Paul, I'm defending the Constitution and the promise of individual liberty it was meant to protect. It is entirely Paul's fault that most of his positions line up with the same view.
Paul disavowed these over a decade ago and had enough proof then to get elected to the US House. Not sure what is going on now, but the DailyKoS is all over this one.
Kind of an odd day when supposed FReepers and KoS Kiddies are on the same side...
There honestly isn't any response possible to this sort of frothing, wild-eyed, over-the-top splutting than outright laughter, and a silent, inward prayer of thanks that whatever halfway house you're typing from is situated someplace far, far away.
My genuine sympathies to your parents.
The second stage of cultism, no sense of humor for your supreme leader.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
“but these vile, personal, and false attacks makes it look like you are afraid that he is going to win.....”
I don’t know about LSUfan, but I think it is more likely that many people are afraid his half-a**ed, nutty uncle released from the basement precense distracts from real debate regarding legitimate presidential contenders rather than his not-a-chance-in-hell campaign. There....vile and personal enough for ya skippy?
Yeah right. His campaign is really taking off. It’s sweeping the nation. LOL! Is he out of the single digits yet? By phenomenon do you mean as defined in the dictionary, as a “fact, occurance, or circumstance observed or observable”..???? or “something that impresses the observor as remarkable”...???? The first just says his being in the race is indeed a fact. I’ll go along with that. The second seems to say that you may find him “remarkable”. Judging by the poll numbers, its a small group who do. But then, there are people on the other side who think Kucincich is a phenomenon.
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Todays world political condition is as chaotic as ever. Were still in Korea and were still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.
The process by which weve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.
Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.
In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.
What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!
You didn’t provide any language from the constitution that would indicate specifically what language is required to ‘declare war’ other than what was used when Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. Therefore, I see no reason to believe other than that war was declared and the Paulestinians are just being nutty again.
Unless he provides specifics as to why he claims war was not declared, i.e. specific language in the constitution that says certain words must be used, your congressman is all wet.
You can take that up with Culberson and many other conservatives who feel the same way.
Culberson isn't my congressman, so I won't be taking anything up with him. I have 'taken it up' with other 'conservatives' who believe as he does, and none have been able to provide constitutional backing for their claims.
Phenomenon in the sense of a Meteor shooting to the earth.
Pray for W and Our Veterans
Quite. I’m puzzled at the anti-Paul rhetoric, which is far more malicious and distorted than there would be if there was actually something to it. The marginalization seems more born of bare fear than rational disagreement.
(FWIW: I’m not a hardcore Paul supporter, but he seems more like what a Republican candidate should be than the others.)
I agree. I have not come out as a definite vote for Ron Paul, but these attacks on him have pushed we more into his camp than anything else. If this is the only negatives that his opponents can gin up against him, it looks very good. It would be great to have a scandal-free candidates with no dirty laundry.
Well, according to the Bush administration war hasn't been declared, only the use of force was justified.
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Have a nice day.