Utter Nonsense From Ron Paul

Gary Bauer's End-of-day Report | 12-20-07 | Gary Bauer

[T.Smith]

B.F.D.

[Admin Moderator]

R.I.P.

[Milligan]

Ron Paul is a Kook.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/heavens.gate/1.apple.jpg

Ron Paul uses the Devil Sign....it was done deliberately.
Ronbots will say Ron didn’t do that.. it was a surfer’s shaka sign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAL8ihIdMCU&feature=related

[truth_seeker]

“The vote was not about foreign aid, tax money or sending weapons. It was about declaring solidarity with Israel. Paul went so far to equate Israel with the terrorists as well.”

Doing otherwise might dry up his lush campaign contribution stream from Aryan Nations, Stormfront, etc?

[lgwdnbdgr]

There are lots of Holocaust deniers. Why is it the job of the US Congress to condemn them?

How will I know what to think if the government doesn't tell me?

[rmlew]

There are no friends between countries, only mutual interests.

Which is why friends don't spy on each other, but countries do.
1 So the Founders were wrong to allow for alliances?
2. Are you suggesting no country not an enemy to another conducts and information gathering?

[rmlew]

You are so right. I distinctly remember the US invading Venezuala, Canada, and Norway as well.
We are slo commmitted enough for oil to allow drilling off US coasts and have not ceded deposits to Cuba.

[rmlew]

Considering Iran's fudning other those who want to destroy Israel, calls for the sbugations of the Jews, and an eschatology that believes that all Jews must die or convert for the MAhdi, I'll go with the original translation of the Iranian government.

STill, let's look at the comment “must vanish from the pages of time”.
That seems to imply far more than the end of the Third Commonwealth of ISrael. It calls for Israel to be historically annihilated. Teh only way to do that is to kill all Jews.

[saminfl]

Dear T.Smith,

I guess it was a B.F.D. You forgot it was Jim's site.

[jas3]

Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10 of the Constitution- Congress is authorized to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations. There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the scope of the punishment, either it be a condemnation, sanctions, or a use of force.

Ah, yes...the little known and almost universaly ignored Offenses Clause.

There is very little in the legal literature on the Offenses Clause, although it has recently come into fashion as a possible means to reassert Federal powers that were originally justified under the Commerce Clause during the New Deal and which are now being clawed back. Professor Beth Stevens at Rutgers has suggested that under the Offenses Clause there are literally no powers reserved to the States. But other than this recent appearance, there's not much scholarship on the clause.

There is a decent article HERE in the Yale Law Review from 2002 on the Offenses Clause.

The thrust of this article is that Professor Stevens interpretation is incorrect. And the article goes on to suggest that the term "Laws of Nations" is derived from jus cogens norms.

Having read up a bit on the Offenses Clause, mnehrling, I will grant you that it is quite possible to justify Congress's condemnation under this clause.

So in conclusion, Ron Paul is wrong if he claimed that this condemnation was not authorized by the Constitution. And you are right to focus on the Offenses Clause.

Now whether Congress should spend their time on condemnations is another question entirely. And I would argue that they should not. But certainly one could consider it at least some very minor part of "their job".

jas3

[jas3]

In addition to the previous statement, we are also co-signers of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide treaty of 1951, and being Constitutionally obligated to honor treaties, we are legally obligated to condemn and prevent statements and actions that could result in new actions of genocide.

Which other countries are also signatories to that Convention, and how many of them fufilled their legal condemnation obligation in this case. I'm guessing the answer is zero.

jas3

[jas3]

There are lots of Holocaust deniers. Why is it the job of the US Congress to condemn them?

True, but since they did it anyway, it is very telling that Ronnie voted not to do so. If he wanted to make a statement about not doing this kind of thing, he should have not shown up for the vote.

Not necessarily. If his theory was that Congress is not empowered to make such condemnations or that this particular condemnation was not warranted, he should then have voted NO, which he did, rather than voting PRESENT.

jas3

[AuntB]

One of the stranger pieces of legislation that Paul Co sponsored would have kept him out of the debates!!

. H.CON.RES.263 : Expressing the sense of Congress that any Presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in debates among candidates if at least 5 percent of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidate’s election for President or if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidate’s participation in such debates. Sponsor: Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] (introduced 11/6/2001) Cosponsors (2)

See some of Paul’s CO sponsored legislation here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1940847/posts?page=28#28

Take note of the ultra liberal socialists in congress he signed on with.

Some time back Duncan Hunter got tired of all the snipping about the war and wrote a resolution so those that wanted to pull the troops out could have their say and get their vote.

Ron Paul didn’t even bother to vote.

It was voted down 403 to 3.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 608

H RES 571 RECORDED VOTE 18-Nov-2005 11:33 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution BILL TITLE: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

[SunkenCiv]

while campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday, Congressman Ron Paul said that if he is elected president he will end economic sanctions on Iran and withdraw the U.S. Navy from nearby waters. I am not surprised. On September 25th of this year when the House of Representatives voted 397-to-16 to impose economic sanctions on Iran, Paul was one of the 16 "no" votes. In July of this year, the House voted 411-to-2 to condemn Iran's Hitler- clone, "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The rare bipartisan vote was in reaction to Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, while telling mobs in Iran that they should imagine a world with no Israel and no United States, because, he assured them, that day is coming soon. The two "no" votes were cast by Ron Paul and leftwing nut Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul says he believes in the U.S. Constitution and smaller government. Good for him. But those views are cancelled out by his unwillingness to confront the evil of Islamofascism or to even condemn a Holocaust denier. This DISQUALIFIES him to be president of the United States.

Paul's belief in the Constitution has to do with ignoring what's going on in the world and not defending anything past US territorial waters. One reason to support a smaller government is to make inevitable the destruction of the United States by its permanent enemies.

[Diago]

Why is it the job of the US Congress to condemn them?

If only Ron Paul had voted "yes", there would have been on Peace on Earth, full employment, and the Indians would have won the World Series.

[MEGoody]

Not necessarily.

Yes, very much necessarily.

If his theory was that Congress is not empowered to make such condemnations or that this particular condemnation was not warranted, he should then have voted NO, which he did, rather than voting PRESENT.

Oh come on. The question he was voting WAS NOT whether Congress should consider such things. Paul showed his true colors.