-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Rand’s Rebellion
The Tea Party senator from Kentucky picked his battles on war and civil liberties.
In recent months, most of Rand Paul’s political odd-couple pairings have underscored the Kentucky senator’s Republican credentials. Paul joined with John McCain to introduce a GOP jobs bill. He teamed up with Lindsey Graham on legislation that would prioritize smaller harbors for dredging work. He worked with his fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on repealing net neutrality.
When Paul arrived in Washington, it was widely assumed he would spend some of his time fighting these men as well. Last week, that time finally came. On a series of votes involving foreign policy and civil liberties, one of the Senate’s most rock-ribbed Republicans channeled John F. Kennedy: “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”
McCain and Carl Levin, the liberal Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed on rules for detaining suspected terrorists. They claimed it would leave most Americans untouched, affecting only a tiny minority who would take up arms against their own country as members of known terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.
Critics charged that the McCain-Levin language gave too large a role for the military in potential civilian prosecutions and lacked adequate safeguards to prevent the indefinite detention of American citizens. If the U.S. is a battlefield and the war on terror has no end in sight, it is dangerous to tell Americans, as Lindsey Graham puts it, “And when they say ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up.’”
Paul and McCain had a testy exchange over this amendment. “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won,” Paul maintained. “[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.”
“Facts are stubborn things,” McCain shot back. “If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back into the fight to kill Americans, he is entitled to his opinion.”
“I don’t think it necessarily follows I am arguing for the release of prisoners,” Paul countered. “I am simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process.”
Paul supported an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, to strip the McCain-Levin detainee provisions from the national defense authorization bill. When the Udall amendment failed, Paul backed a similar measure by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. The Feinstein amendment was voted down by a smaller margin.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions then offered an amendment saying that alleged enemy combatants acquitted by civilian courts could still be held indefinitely by the military. Levin, eager to spare his fellow Democrats an awkward vote on national security, moved to pass Sessions’ amendment by unanimous consent but Paul demanded a roll call vote. “I am going to ask for the yays and nays,” Paul said.
The Sessions amendment then failed 41-59. Both Levin and McCain voted with Paul to kill it. According to some reports, Levin had been promised that Sessions’ language would be excised from the final conference report anyway. But the roll call vote defeated it outright. Later, Paul voted with a 99-1 majority in favor of a compromise purporting to clarify that existing law concerning the detention of American citizens was unchanged.
As if that wasn’t enough, Paul later pushed for a vote on revoking congressional authorization for the war in Iraq. The president had announced that the war was effectively over, so Paul reasoned that the body the Constitution authorizes to declare war should ratify that decision. Paul’s bill failed, despite a Democratic Senate majority eager to take credit for ending the Iraq war.
While only a few Republicans joined Paul’s rebellion, there were some interesting names on the list. Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Dean Heller of Nevada voted with Paul on Iraq. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah backed Paul on terror detainee rules. All three are Tea Party favorites.
Some of the Democratic votes were also revealing. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, once declared the Iraq war a failure. But he voted to authorize it under President Bush and has now voted against de-authorizing it under President Obama.
Sometimes Paul stood alone against both parties. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a fellow Tea Party triumph from last year’s election, had bipartisan support for an amendment to bring the former Soviet republic of Georgia into NATO. “It called for the President to lead a diplomatic effort to get approval of Georgia’s Membership Action Plan during the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago,” a Rubio spokesman explained in an email.
Paul blocked the amendment. He believed that NATO expansion in this sensitive area could embroil the United States in Georgia’s conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking war.
Since Rand Paul joined the Senate, his fellow Republicans have found him much more of a team player than his father Ron Paul, the feisty libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas. Last week reminded them that Rand is still very much his father’s son.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (132) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/05/rands-rebellion
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Wayne| 12.5.11 @ 6:51AM
Too bad Rand isn't running for President instead of his father. I'd be voting for him. He is right, the government says somebody is a terrorists and we all believe it. It doesn't need any proof. We already of Homeland Security warning about right wing terrorism, and how long would it take an Obama administrating to start sending drones on Tea Party rallies. Its not all that far fetched. I wouldn't give him the option.
Don Vito| 12.5.11 @ 7:22AM
Rand has a bright future...People are tired of these endless foreign wars that harm, and do not help, our national interest. He is from the key state of Kentucky, and will bring libertarian,
anti-neo-con, ideas into the main stream.
He is also an MD and knows about health issues.
CrackerHound| 12.5.11 @ 11:53AM
Don Vito said:"Rand has a bright future"
Too bad our country doesn't.
Jack in Wi| 12.5.11 @ 7:28AM
Ron and Rand for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty is the winning ticket. The Republicans who voted for this enabling act should change the name of their group from Republican to National Socialist.
I voted for this dope Ron Johnson here in Wi.
He claimed to a libertarian conservative who liked to read Aynn Rand. I never liked Miss Rand much, but I hoped he had some principles. Well even filthy old Russ Feingold would have voted against this travesty. The national congressional Republican leadership is insane to pass this. Obama has threatened to veto this, and the Democrats get to look like friends of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Frankly all I see from people like Gingrich, Romney, Bachman, Perry, Grahme, and Mc Cain are people who love endless war and torture and are enemies of the Constitution, especially the 1st 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights.
This country has 18,000 murders each year. We haven't suspended the Constitution or taken away the peoples right to bear arms. The terrorists took the lives of less then 3 thousand Americans 10 years ago and the Republicans want a police state because they are scared. The Neocons want this country to turn into their Hero, Trotsky's Soviet Union, or maybe Israel where such policies are common. This is supposed to be a Constituional Republic To hell with the whole bunch of them.
Amy| 12.5.11 @ 9:43AM
Very well said, Jack.
So few republicans know of the Trotskyist roots of neoconservatism or what real conservatism is anymore.
Sheila| 12.5.11 @ 12:33PM
Excellent point, Amy, but probably wasted on all the rah-rah-repukes and neocons here.
CrackerHound| 12.5.11 @ 12:08PM
The majority of the 18,000 murders in this country are in select cities and mostly involve scum on scum crime....sorry to be so blunt but facts are facts.
The 9/11 attack was NOT an insignicant event. We needed to to take drastic action to prevent an even more tragic event from happening.
Having said that, I am with you on the wars and anti-constitutional legislation. I was for the Patriot Act and enhanced interrogations, but not anymore. I do not have a problem with terrorists being brutalized or even killed, but let the CIA do the Jack Bauer stuff and keep it off the books so to speak....just like the old days.
The reason I have changed my stance is I see what our government is becoming. Right under our noses, they are moving towards totalitarianism in a real way. I have become more libertarian out of neccessity while still believing we need a robust military. I cannot throw my hat in with the Ron Paul wing just yet, and maybe never as I still believe in American Exceptionalism and want our country to be THE super power. There are too many evil players out there to let our guard down.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny".
~Thomas Jefferson
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 3:35PM
and all we get from the Paul's are people who will eventually sell us out when it comes to security.
Pauls = another 9/11 sometime down the road.
Quartermaster| 12.5.11 @ 7:26PM
You'll get one with the Neocons. Their worldview is incoherent a childish. That's why we are nation building in an area that is Tibal/Clan based among adherents of a 7th century ideology that will always be at war with us no matter where we go.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:03PM
yawn.
Ron Paul has no subtlety. he has no marked legislative achievements. he has the persona on camera of a whiny, petulant little child. Obama would wipe him out.
Conservablogger | 12.6.11 @ 1:23PM
You want subtlety? That's what you with Newt, Romeny, et. al. Newt: "I didn't work for Fannie Mae, I was a historian." Riiiiiiight. Romney: "Romney isn't Obamacare. It's different." Riiiiiiiiiight. Look, I'm not a champion of the Pauls, but at this point, they've got a lot more going for them than the RINOs vying to be POTUS. You say Ron Paul has "no marked legislative achievements". Name a legislative achievement that Nobama had before becoming POTUS (voting present isn't an achievement).
BTW, given your tone of civility, your left wing is showing.
carnot| 12.6.11 @ 10:02PM
Ron Paul is what he is.
Guess again. But I don't wear my politics like some patch on designer jeans.
btw...nice try. answer one assertion with a completely tangential one!
I've seen enough of the Paul supporters to understand that this is not a group of people one can work with. In some ways it's amusing: it's as though they want folks to clear from the bar before they even arrive to share a drink. their incessant attack strategy becomes laborious after a point. these are not people anyone wants controlling our futures - of that much I am dead certain.
Alan Brooks| 12.5.11 @ 9:36AM
Rightwing paranoid.
Rhoetus | 12.7.11 @ 6:57PM
The Senate has given America the Argentine solution. The gradualism of the Fabians continues in America, we are no longer citizens we are subjects. Bill of Rights no more?
William Stearns| 12.8.11 @ 7:56PM
I think he thought about running, but he would have basically been in the same position as Obama (ie a Senator
Jane| 12.5.11 @ 6:56AM
A Huntsman/Rand Paul ticket would be dreamy. Two gorgeous hunks in the WH, I love them both.
Bruce| 12.5.11 @ 7:41AM
Jane;
You're starting to sound a little like Chris Matthews and his "thrill".
chuck| 12.5.11 @ 7:45AM
Clint, is that you?
Alan Brooks| 12.5.11 @ 9:38AM
Jane needs a cold shower so she wont be such a slut.
Sheila| 12.5.11 @ 12:35PM
Totally aside from the fact that they're opposite ends of the political spectrum, this comment demonstrates why women never should have been given the franchise.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 3:51PM
Hunstman & Paul are on opposite sides of the political spectrum?
chuck| 12.5.11 @ 7:32PM
We ALL know where Paul stands, we are reminded about that some 200 times a day from the Paul-bots, Clint, Sean, and he-who-must-be-shunned. I don't have a clue where Huntsman stands on anything, he just bores me to death, and I tune him out. Mr. 2% in the polls, what the use in listening to what he has to say?
Jack in Wi| 12.5.11 @ 9:57PM
Chuckie: Thank you for shunning me again. Ron and Rand for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty. Shalom.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 11:12PM
chuck,
I know. Huntsman hasn't a chance.. although the inmates are taking over the asylum. I mean look~ RuPaul's #2 in Iowa, LOL.
I just asked good old Sheila, the White Nationalist (she's said it herself here), because I thought it'd be interesting to see what she had to say. The Lefty-Libertarian holier-than-thou's convoluted explanations are entertaining. But then you have to unravel the deceit for all to see, whilst they demean and insult you to your very soul.
The Left always makes it personal, and they are the same way.
Whether it's Religious Idolators, lying Leftists or lying Lefty Libertarians, the behavior's the same.
It's YOU that has the "problem"~ never them.
They claim to be pure.. Constitutional Conservatives.. it gets tiring exposing how much they're like the Left. I've been doing it here for a couple of years with Clint who used to post as Tim* attacking me daily. It's great to see others here taking them on, including an author here, Jeffrey Lord. It's an all out war.
Heh, Clint's been silent these past few days, (to me). He must've been warned again. Who knows.
Well, they, along with the Democrats and the phony Republican Establishment types have succeeded in destroying Herman Cain, who would've made an EXCELLENT President, I am sure.
At the rate we are going, it'll be a race between Obama and Ron Paul~ and I will NOT cast a vote for either for the first time in my life.
chuck| 12.5.11 @ 11:43PM
Margie,
Don't worry, Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination. It's either Gingrich or Romney. Gingrich is a fighter, he knows what is coming, look how he put Pelosi right in her place today. Gingrich doesn't give a damn what people say about him, he'll just belittle them when they do it. It will play well with the base. Personally I don't give a damn about any dirt that they dig up or make up.
I think this election will be different, we have serious problems that need to be addressed now, before it is too late. Newt has the solutions, has a proven track record, led the GOP to majority status, balanced the budget, reformed health care.
I don't care for Romney at all. Matt Towery, Insider Advantage pollster, and longtime political insider in Georgia said Friday on Boortz that Romney leaked the Cain story. 100%, knew it for a fact.
Paul has done nothing but run his mouth for the last 20 years. And his supporters do nothing to help his cause. Every once in a while you come across one that can articulate an intelligent argument for Paul's foreign policy beliefs, but it is rare. Most just call you a neo-con, neo-lib, Trotskyite(that's a new one), or just want to stomp your face. Wow, just makes me want to be a Paul-bot. Maybe Clint can tell me where to sign up and sell my soul.
Margie| 12.6.11 @ 1:00PM
Chuck,
I hope you're right. I'd hate to have to sit out an election for the first time in my voting life, but I thought about it again after previously saying I'd even vote for R Paul and came to the conclusion that he'd be worse than Obummer. Just think about the guys he'd choose to surround him~ all like-minded. I wondered where Dennis Kucinich would be in his admin for example~ could you IMAGINE? Or how about Adam Kokesh, the anti-American wolf in sheep's clothing?
I mean, at least with Obama we know what he is about because he makes it clear~ he's an unrepentant Socialist! With these guys, the Lefty-Libertarians, they all pure deceit, making it look like they're ultra-conservative but what would they actually DO?
Drugs for cheap available at WalMart? Whoopie! Oh, how flaming conservative.
Sanctions against Israel because they defend themselves.. or WORSE?
How about Hammas gets a say in how we treat them?
Maybe the Paul admin. would pull ALL of our troops from EVERYWHERE.
Sorry, but I'd rather pull the lever, press the button, or write in Obama's name IF I had to. But no one's going to force me, and I refuse to vote for either one of them.
As to Newt, I would gladly vote for him, despite what the Libertarians have to say about him. Hey~ if they don't like him, it usually has something to do with the fact that he's either pro Israel, a Hawk militarily, or doesn't want to legalize dope.
As to Romney, I don't trust him, but I trust R Paul a lot less, and would vote for him so that he and Obama would lose.
If he leaked anything concerning Cain, any kind of falsehood, he'll pay the price because God is JUST.
What angers me the most about the whole ting is the so-called conservatives who jumped on the bandwagon.
They are the scum of the earth.
chuck| 12.6.11 @ 1:41PM
Margie,
A few years back, I had a fellow working for me that quoted me the passage where Jesus said that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,than for a rich man to enter Heaven. I blew it off at the time, but have since come to realize that it's not the money, but how too many people sell their souls to obtain it.
I guess the same goes with political power.
Margie| 12.6.11 @ 5:19PM
Chuck,
Yes. It's the LOVE of money that the Bible says is the root of all evil, and not the money itself.
But when one has plenty of it, it is a sure temptation to love.. more than God, and that's what that verse is referring to that you mentioned.
God is a jealous God, so it says in His Word, and He doesn't want us putting anything before Him. We all fail miserably though.. the flesh is in rebellion against Him 24/7.
But then, that's where His mercy and love and Grace comes in.. Jesus gives it all to us, pours it into our hearts for the asking, empowering us to overcome sin.. and Hell which we all deserve rightly so.
But yes, political power, any kind of power, is like a drug.. and some politicians are addicted to it.
But there's still hope. Though they succeeded in bringing down herman Cain, God is still in control, no matter what happens, and His Will is going to be done... and ultimately, as it is written, "The Government shall be upon His Shoulder." That's Christ's Shoulder! Is. 9:6.
"..and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us." Rom. 5:5.
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 2:16PM
Name one "libertarian" who supports sanctions against Israel. That's just a ridiculous claim. Most libertarians simply want a neutral policy in the middle east. That isn't an "anti Israel" policy. It's simply a policy that states that the U.S should stay neutral in foreign conflicts. But really, you even make the neo-cons look bad.
Margie| 12.6.11 @ 5:22PM
There IS no neutral.
You're either FOR Israel or AGAINST israel.
And I didn't say there WAS a policy of sanctions against Israel.
carnot| 12.6.11 @ 10:04PM
ooooo la la! A May December Presidency!!!
Shamus| 12.5.11 @ 7:48AM
McCain has done everything in his power to destroy freedom in the United States. He was such a poor candidate that Barrack Obama looked good in comparison.
Dick Nome | 12.5.11 @ 8:33AM
If Capt. McQueeg had run the kind of campaign against Obama that he did against JD Hayworth, he'd be President now.
Quartermaster| 12.5.11 @ 7:28PM
And we would be in at least as much trouble as we are now. Probably more, given McCains idiocy.
nathan| 12.5.11 @ 8:22AM
Do any of us believe that if McCain's amendment passes only a "few" Americans will be affected? The Fifth Amendment is oh so clear isn't? "NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. What part of that did the senators voting for the McCain's amendment not understand? And notice, it covers "suspected" terrorists. Folks anyone can be a suspected terrorist. Sign this into law and this country ceases to be free and will become a police state. Remember Padilla was already subject to this and held in conditions that almost certainly violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Newt, THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM, doesn't believe in any checks on HIS power. Give him this authority and he'll throw anyone in jail he wishes. He absolutely can't be trusted with this power.
This was all too predictable wasn't it? When Bush/Cheney violated their oaths of office, when they approved the torture of people, when Padilla was abused, his rights taken away, all in the name of "saving the country", and no one said anything, when you start crossing lines, folks, you just keep crossing them. You don't come back. There is no such thing as being "a little bad."
The threat always was from the "right", not Obama. McCain is insisting as did Bush and Cheney that we sacrifice essential liberties for very little safety. And as Franklin said, we're going have neither of them at the end.
Everyone one of you who applauded Cheney, who said "enhanced interrogation" was acceptable, all of you who said the excesses of that administration was okay because "WE HAD TO SAVE THE COUNTRY", well congratulations, those chickens have come home to roost. You are getting exactly what you should have expected when you started crossing those lines.
Hopefully Obama who may turn out to be the hero here (who would have thought it?) will veto this horrible liberty stealing bill. We live in strange times indeed.
TrueBlue| 12.5.11 @ 4:01PM
If you look at the Homeland Security reports released regularly you'd notice that all current and former members of the US military are looked at as possible terrorists. They may have retracted the statements made against Israel backing terrorists (which was total bull to begin with) but the one regarding our own military and vets was not.
That said, "enhanced interrogation" IS acceptable, but only with non-US citizens. If an enemy operative is captured, I don't care what they have to do to get information out of them if it means even one American life is saved. Any interrogator worth their salt knows that actual physical torture does not produce reliable intel though, people will say just about anything to make the pain stop after awhile. The THREAT of such torture though tends to make people give up information before it is even started, likewise when they know they have nothing to fear what reason do they have to give up the intel? Best course is to just not tell anyone what methods we use to gain information, so long as the person in question is not a US citizen.
nathan| 12.6.11 @ 2:22PM
Read Matthew Alexander's book sometime. He got all the information he needed, including the information that led to the air assault on the second leading bad guy in Iraq, without ever laying a hand on anyone or threatening anyone.
"The THREAT of such torture . . . " Like the interrogator in Abu Ghraib who told one detainee that if he didn't talk that he would go get the guy's kids and torture them in front of him? THAT THREAT? And what made that so horrible is that Saddam's people did torture kids in front of parents in Abu Ghraib.
Enhanced interrogation. Water boarding. The same waterboarding that when used by American soldiers during the Philippine Insurrection, they got courtmartialed for? THAT waterboarding? The same waterboarding that was named in bills of indictment at the Tokyo war crime trials? The same waterboarding that got American soldiers court martialed in Vietnam? And if it was acceptable why did Bush/Cheney not pardon those Vietnam offenders? Oh and by the way did we mention that those interrogators from the Inquisition used it? You all REALLY want to defend ANYTHING they did? Really? Be my guest here.
And read those international treaties we're signatories to. We can't do things like this to ANYONE, Americans or non Americans. The language is very clear.
It didn't bother you that people, all too often totally innocent like the Canadian were sent to countries to be tortured? You understand right that under the principle of if you hire someone to kill your wife you're as guilty as if you do it yourself that when you outsource torture it's the same as you doing it? Read "Ghost Plane" folks.
Did you all read about "124" in Kabul. The prison the detainees called "hell"? Picture this, the American interrogators taking a detainee to the gates of "124", handing over knowing full well that he's going to be horribly abused. Or interrogators going inside and conducting interrogations knowing what was happening in the prison. Defend that all you want folks.
And no, we don't do ANYTHING to save a single American life. In that case, with 18,000 deaths from firearms a year, may I assume True Blue that you're prepared to join the gun control crowd? . . . Didn't think so. How about this. 12,000 people die from accidents were the driver is over the alcohol limit. Care to declare war on them and bring back Prohibition? And do whatever it takes TO SAVE ONE AMERICAN LIFE? . . . . . Didn't think so. Sarah Brady has been saying that for years and we don't buy it with her and we don't buy it here. We don't compromise our principles for ONE AMERICAN LIFE or even a lot of them.
I get tired of saying this but I'll remind the class of this again, we hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men not just Americans, not just people we like, not just those that don't offend you, but ALL MEN are created equal, that they endowed by their CREATOR, not by the president, not by Bush, not by Obama, not by McCain, not by any earthly authority with certain unalieanable rights which means you can not take those rights away without just cause, not on suspicion, but just cause. Tom Paine is still is still right folks, to secure our own liberty we have to defend the rights of those we hate. And I know all of you get really tired of me quoting the Founders don't you? Sorry.
Quartermaster| 12.5.11 @ 7:33PM
The threat has always been from the left. McCain and his ilk are all left-wingers. They have *never* been conservatives. The GOP has never been a Conservative party. they started a statists and crony capitalists and they remain what they were at their founding.
George Washington would be considered a right-wingnut and would stand as much chance of being elected as Ron Paul. There is essentially no "right" among the office holders in our country.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 11:16PM
"The threat has always been from the Left."
Really? Well now, I say it's now also from the Lefty-Libertarians who are just as bad.
NO Conservative is good enough for them, and in fact nobody's really even good enough to be considered a Conservative except members of the Ron Paul cult.
Nope~ we're all just a bunch of Neo-Con Trolls!
Ugh.
chuck| 12.5.11 @ 11:50PM
Cult.........absolutely!
Wonder what they'll do when Paul fails to win the nomination?
Jews in Wisconsin and Philadelphia, beware the day Paul loses! It's all because of the JOOOOOOOOS!
Nancy in NC| 12.5.11 @ 8:30AM
Randy Paul is one among few that don't throw the Constitution under the bus at the first available opportunity.
Too bad there isn't a way to deprive those who are so willing to destroy our Country and Constitution their rights. Traitors and tyrants.
CrackerHound| 12.5.11 @ 12:14PM
"[[[Too bad there isn't a way to deprive those who are so willing to destroy our Country and Constitution their rights"]]]
There used to be until the Supreme Court became an extension of the excutive branch...and not to mention the citizenry's unwillingness to remain vigililant against such abuses.
TrueBlue| 12.5.11 @ 4:03PM
Still is a way, it's called voting the scum out of office. Sadly it isn't likely because the people want their "free" government money. Heck, any elected official that votes for something they KNOW isn't allowed in the Constitution has broken their oath and can be ousted from office with very little effort, assuming their constituents will bother.
CrackerHound| 12.5.11 @ 4:18PM
Amen TrueBlue....
Although voting is not the single answer under the current system. We need more DIRECT activism/action.
Currently our political stock are amoral and corrupt law school graduates who are hollow, selfish, empty suits looking for power and affirmation who care not for the good of the country....and more on the way. If our choice is between candidate A,B or C from either party you might as well spin a wheel because the outcome is the same.
Maybe there just isn't enough good and smart people willing to take on this mess and in that case we are screwed.
You can bet most of our "leaders" in government today would burn the constitution just to pad their bank account for one month or receive good press for a week. The situation is absolutely disaterous and catastrophic.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:05PM
of course not. he's never held any real power and never led any voting blocks in COngress.
this is a painful joke. a Ron Paul Presidency would be over before it started.
Rhoetus | 12.7.11 @ 7:01PM
John McCain tasted power and wanted more and more.
Nancy in NC| 12.5.11 @ 8:32AM
The administration and Congress (through TSA) have effectively destroyed the 4th amendment, so why not the 5th as well?
Nancy in NC| 12.5.11 @ 8:35AM
Listening to the GOP candidates I am reminded of Obama somewhat...when "I" become presidents "I" will issue an executive order to do this or that. While we criticize Obama for destroying checks and balances through executive order, we will hold our nose and vote for more of the same.
The Constitution is supposed to be the law of the Land. What a joke both sides have made of it.
JohnK| 12.5.11 @ 10:41AM
Nancy, it takes an Executive Order to rescind an Executive Order. The dictator, obama, has been issuing hundreds of extra-constitutional Orders that will need to be rescinded. What's that going to take? Hundreds of NEW Executive Orders to rescind.
VonMisesJr| 12.5.11 @ 8:49AM
The TEA Party that has been demonized has produced Paul, Rubio, Lee, as well as West, Johnson and others. This must scare teh hell out of the Democrat "socialist" Party as well as the Liberal Republican establishment.
Amy| 12.5.11 @ 9:45AM
I'd keep your eye on Rubio, VonMises--wolf in sheep's clothing.
VonMisesJr| 12.5.11 @ 11:14AM
You may be right, Amy. He is still better than Crist, and RINO's such as McCain. Just shows we have allot more work to do. Thanks for your thoughts.
ConantheContrarian| 12.5.11 @ 9:27AM
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio would be an interesting Pres/Vice Pres combination someday.
NeilBJ| 12.5.11 @ 8:50PM
Except that Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen. He is one of a prominent trio: Obama, Jindal, and Rubio.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.5.11 @ 10:01AM
This is why Congress has a 9% approval rating. Habeas Corpus is a 13th century idea; although, some Senators (on both sides of the isle) have no appreciation for "the price" this freedom entails. http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
JP| 12.5.11 @ 11:41AM
Habeas Corpus was not overturned, Rand Paul is a disgrace allied with the Far-Left out to destroy our Constitution and empower our enemies.
Read Andrew McCarthy's piece at NRO and the text of the actual Detainee bill(which Obama wants to Veto btw).
Warrior | 12.5.11 @ 3:18PM
McCarthy's article would make a lot more sense if he would explain when the last time Congress has passed a declaration of war. I'm open to you answering this question since he obviously won't and it's the central premise to this entire discussion.
It should be vetoed as this bill has basis in Constitutional law.
Warrior | 12.5.11 @ 3:19PM
Correction, this bill has NO basis in Constitutional law.
Alex Smith| 12.6.11 @ 10:35AM
What's it matter, America's now the battleground, and it can be anytime
devinesara| 12.5.11 @ 10:39AM
Well, maybe there's hope after all.
Jane| 12.5.11 @ 10:52AM
Huntsman was interviewed this morning on Fox News by Martha MacCallum. Huntsman was wonderful, charming and handsome. He's so Presidential. He's got my vote either on the Republican ticket, third party ticket or write-in. Martha was cute too.
The Bruce| 12.5.11 @ 3:34PM
I see the "style vs. substance" vote is up early this morning.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 11:10AM
Rand Paul,
" I have a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We've come to take our government back."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 11:39AM
He is allied with the Far-Left who want to Criminalize the War on Terror and create Lawfare, this is totally 100% Anti-Constitutional.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 12:23PM
You're Allied With The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Flunkie Stooges.
Dr.Rand Paul,
"I don't think it necessarily follows I am arguing for the release of prisoners," Paul countered. "I am simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 12:41PM
1) this law he opposed with the ACLU Left exempted US Citizens from Day 1 it was introducted. Paul lied.
2) Hamdi already confirmed the Constitutional powers that American Citizens engaged in War or Insurrection against the United States can be detained Militarily. Since 9/11 thats included a grand total of 4 Americans who were proved to be working with Al-Qaeda and/or Taliban(all this applies to).
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 12:45PM
"According to legal experts, the wording of the new National Defense Authorization Act effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), which limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. The Act allows for the imposition of martial law only where specifically authorized by the United States Constitution (invasion, insurrection, etc.) or Act of Congress. Under the provisions of the unamended NDAA, the president will have the power to impose martial law, and thereby suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Joe| 12.5.11 @ 2:12PM
Can you not read bill:
From the actual Law that passed, showing Rand Paul lied during the entire thing along with confusing the entire issue from the start...what they passed had nothing to do with American Citizens not working with Al-Qaeda or Taliban:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....tQ:e462417
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 3:20PM
Can't You Not Read, Sport.
" The provision was finally altered to exempt “American citizens.” According to Time, “Lengthy negotiations produced a face-saving move that the Senate backed 99-1, a measure that said nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens.” The Senate also blocked an amendment that would limit military custody to those terror suspects caught overseas, the goal of which was to make sure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.” But the fact remains: Section 1031 is still intact."
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 1:02PM
The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain is allied with The Far-Left.
"McCain and Carl Levin, the liberal Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed on rules for detaining suspected terrorists."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 11:35AM
From the actual Law that passed, showing Rand Paul lied during the entire thing along with confusing the entire issue from the start...what they passed had nothing to do with American Citizens not working with Al-Qaeda or Taliban:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....tQ:e462417
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Patrian| 12.5.11 @ 11:57AM
The idea that some rights are suspended in wartime is a JOKE when we are in PERPETUAL WAR that NEVER ENDS.
Get a clue you warmongering NEO-CON. You don't know what conservative means.
By the way, the Bill of Rights applies to ALL people not just US Citizens unless you believe the RIGHT GRANTED by our “Creator” were granted to just American Citizens.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 12:04PM
applying Criminal Law and Criminal Courts to Warriors in a War, in this case only those specifically in Al-Qaeda or Taliban, is not a "Right from God".
Protecting our "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness..." which this detainee bill actually does, and Obama wants to Veto...certainly is a Right from God that our Government has the duty to protect.
Solo| 12.5.11 @ 1:06PM
"Patrian"...
The Bill Of Rights applies to U.S. Citizens and those legally in the United States. It does not apply world-wide to every person on the earth.
The philosophical principles which animated the Bill Of Rights are universal (most of us believe), but the application of those rights are a function of the legal formation of our nation.
Second...we are NOT in "perpetual war that never ends". That's PaulBot hyperbole.
Third (and finally): I suggest you "get a clue" and learn the meaning of "NeoCon". Here's a hint: It has NOTHING to do with war. In fact...it has nothing to do with foreign policy in any way.
More PaulBot hyperbole.
TrueBlue| 12.5.11 @ 4:08PM
Sadly the term has been warped by over (and incorrect) use of the term and now means the equivalent of Liberal rather than "new conservative."
Solo| 12.5.11 @ 5:09PM
Exactly, TrueBlue!
As soon as you read references to Neoconservatives as being Trotskyites , you know you're reading the words of someone who has absolutely no clue of what they speak.
That accusation comes straight off the pages of Prison Planet and "InfoWars", the Mother Ship of colossal ignorance.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 11:17PM
Also, don't forget the charge of "Zionists!"
JS| 12.5.11 @ 5:08PM
Have you even read the constitution? The fifth amendment reads "ALL persons" not all Americans, all citizens, but all persons. Everyone. All inclusive. Holistic. You can't interpret the term to mean just "all citizens or legal peoples in the United States thereof" because the constitution clearly makes the distinction between all citizens and all persons. All persons means all persons.
Solo| 12.5.11 @ 5:16PM
IF that were true, JS, then our occupation and so-called "nation building' in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely an exercise whereby the United States is fulfilling its Constitutional obligation to protect and enforce the Bill Of Rights for the Iraqis and Afghans. Correct?
Reading the Constitution is no big deal, JS. Any half-wit can do that. It's understanding what you're reading that makes the difference.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:12PM
touche!
nathan| 12.6.11 @ 2:29PM
Read the Fifth Amendment closely. It says no "person". Not citizen, not resident of the United States, but person. What that means that anyone held by the federal government, at Abu Ghraib, at Bagram, you name it is covered since they meet the defintion of "person". Federal employees take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That oath does not end when they exist the country. It is binding at all times. Sorry. Finally go back and lo0k at the debate. Graham was the one who said the war was perpetual not Paul.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 11:36AM
Andrew McCarthy really exposed Rand for his Anti-Constitutional lies this weekend at NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....c-mccarthy
Patrian| 12.5.11 @ 12:02PM
The "war on terror" is a JOKE. Terrorism is a TACTIC and a FEDERAL CRIME... not an enemy. You cannot be at war with an enemy.
Since we are in a "War on Drugs" why not detain suspected drug users at Gitmo to?
JP| 12.5.11 @ 12:07PM
Terrorism may be a "Tactic", so is dropping Nukes....its a Tactic in this Case of War by Jihadist which is an Ideology with a 1400yr long history of War against the West with stated Objective of a Global Caliphate and Global Sharia Law to replace the US Constitution with.
Claiming its a Criminal Act, along with being Suicidal, is a Logical Fallacy.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 12:09PM
Because Drug Dealers are Criminals, Jihadist are Warriors.
American born Jihadist, are at a Minimum Insurrectionist and Traitors which the Constitution from Day one grants power to deal with, outside the Courts.
George Washington ordered American Citizens Killed at the Whiskey Rebellion.
FREEman| 12.5.11 @ 12:46PM
It's pretty disgusting watching you elevate terrorists to the status of "Warriors" so that they can be treated as something other than the petty criminals that they are.
Terrorists aren't a special case. They are criminals. Stop glorifying them.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 2:15PM
Jihadist have an Islamic Theology and doctrine they follow that is based on War against the Entire Non-Islamic World to Conquer it and replace it with a Caliphate and Sharia Law.
Its absurd to claim this is a Criminal Act, they themselves call it war.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:14PM
you're right.
but why bother trading barbs with Obama acolytes in disguise?
Ryan| 12.5.11 @ 12:46PM
Terrorism is an act of war. Nonuniformed combatants engaging a civilian populace to overthrow a government. McVeigh was a terrorist, as were the 9/11 Islamists.
Civil rights are automatically abrogated in acts of war. Period.
Some due process may be deserved for American citizens, and the current reauthorization goes several steps too far, but the point still remains.
Solo| 12.5.11 @ 1:11PM
Patrian....
Was the attack on Pearl Harbor a "...tactic and federal crime"?
Oh...and the "War On Drugs" is not really a war at all. Certainly you have the capacity to make that distinction?
Warrior | 12.5.11 @ 5:54PM
The attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out by a nation which had a central government and uniformed military. You can't compare Pearl Harbor to 9/11 in this fashion.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:18PM
and killing 2900 people isn't a "criminal act". at the least...it's genocide.
but we get it....for Ron Paul 9/11 was deserved retribution for American presence in the ME. in his moral Universe...9/11 wasn't even a criminal act! my God...why does Paul sound so much like the current WH occupant when it comes to foreign policy?
Warrior | 12.5.11 @ 10:36PM
Don't assume words I never posted. Congress declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, in fact that is the last time war has been Constitutionally declared. If you are going to fight a war, then declare it and prosecute it to the fullest extent of our military capability. Sitting here ten years later and we have done little more than invade, occupy, nation build and watch our enemies regroup and gather strength while our country is on the verge of financial insolvency seems like insanity. I'm not promoting any candidate here, just trying to discuss facts.
carnot| 12.6.11 @ 5:05PM
you're being evasive. the gist of the sub-thread was that 9/11 should be viewed as a criminal act.
nonsense.
GW| 12.5.11 @ 11:42AM
Rand Paul is much more sane than his father. Constitutionally, he is right. However, I think he and other conservatives would have more success if they developed a more comprehensive argument about national defense.
Right now, hawks like McCain and Graham (who seem to never find a conflict they don't like) are right to charge that Americans who take up arms against the United States are commiting and act of war. Paul should demand trials and due process for American citizens, while allowing foreigners and Americans who gave up their citizenship to be held on charges of war crimes. Someone who denounces his citizenship and then takes up arms against the US is a traitor and not an American citizen. He is not afforded the protections of a civilian and should be treated like an illegal combatant illegally fighting against American troops. Let him rot in Gitmo.
Next, Paul should push for a shutdown of immigration--particularly from the Middle East. We didn't have Islamic terrorism threats in the 50s because we didn't have Muslims in the country. The reason we are fighting the war on terror in constitutionally dubious ways is because we refuse to protect our border and sovereignty. As a country with a strong European heritage both politically and ethnically, we should be seeking to import more Brits, Germans, and Swedes; and fewer Arabs and Iraqis.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 11:52AM
Constitutionally he was 100% wrong on this issue and way out of step with the Constitution from the day it was adopted and used under George Washington.
JP| 12.5.11 @ 12:11PM
Again, the actual McCain-Levin bill, this was in it from Day 1:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....tQ:e462417
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Clint| 12.5.11 @ 12:51PM
"Although the Bush administration detained many individuals under the laws of war, particularly those captured by the U.S. military during the course of operations abroad, it relied on investigations and criminal prosecutions conducted by the Department of Justice for al-Qaeda suspects captured inside the United States in all but two cases. In the two exceptions--both early in its first term--where the Bush administration relied on military authorities and custody to detain al-Qaeda agents captured domestically (Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh al-Marri), it ultimately reverted to civilian detention and criminal prosecution because the legal risks of doing otherwise were too high. In those and other cases, counterterrorism officials across the government recognized that civilian criminal prosecution was more reliable and effective than military custody to handle terror suspects inside the United States."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 3:49PM
Once again the Lefty Libertarians prove what they are: Leftists in Republican cloting.
Neither of the Pauls are Republican, they just register as such in order to get elected. Sadly, they are able to fool a lot of people because they are so deceitful.
Do your research on Rand Paul~ he is friends with the enemies of Conservatism, like Adam Kokesh.
Their goal is to take over the Republican party, and make it one of Lefty-Libertarian goals.
Terrorist sympathizers all. And it's about time some of the Conservative radio talk shows hosts and other super Conservative writers wake up to this fact.
They are trying to claim the TEA Party as theirs as well~ yet true TEA Partiers want nothing to do with their ilk.
Divisions are necessary and unless we make it clear whose side these Paul-bots are really on~ they will succeed.
Rand Paul with his anti-American pal, Adam Kokesh:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/.....ement.html
Who is Adam Kokesh:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010.....-clothing/
Brett Fairchild| 12.5.11 @ 4:59PM
Margie, so I suppose you're one of those people who thought that President Bush was a great "conservative" President? You have to love those huge deficits, bloated government, and open borders. The Paul's actually want to return to the Constitution and limited government, which is something that 99% of Republicans absolutely reject.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 6:45PM
Wrong.
Wrong, and..
you're wrong, they don't, and they don't.
Next?
Brett Fairchild| 12.5.11 @ 7:43PM
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that George W. Bush was a conservative President?
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 8:43PM
I did answer you.
See above.
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 9:34AM
So if President Bush wasn't a conservative President, then why wouldn't you want someone like Ron Paul who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and small government? All of the other candidates in the race are simply big government Republicans like Bush.
Margie| 12.6.11 @ 1:07PM
Deceit. Your statement was that he was a "GREAT" conservative. And I answered you accordingly.
And Ron Paul can be all the "fiscal" he wants to be, and I do not trust that he is anyhow, because he's not an honest man, but even if he were truly "fiscal", let me know when he repents of believing that America is to blame for terrorists being what they are because of us, that America is an "aggressor", Israel doesn't deserve to defend herself, and that we should remove our troops from everywhere in the world.
Then get back to me about Ron Paul.
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 2:10PM
The concept of "blowback" is a documented fact by our CIA. It's not something that Ron Paul just made up. So if you want to argue with facts, go ahead. But Ron Paul never said that "America" is to blame for anything. He simply said that our government had made mistakes. But apparently, many "conservatives" believe that it's unpatriotic to question the government.
Margie| 12.6.11 @ 5:28PM
So, in your mind because of "blowback" we should stop fighting terrorism?
And he indeed did blame America for terrorists being terrorists, it's what he actually believes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynTKIRCaeA
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 7:28PM
Not necessarily, but there's nothing wrong with understanding what caused the terrorists to hate us in the first place. But the damage has already been done in my opinion, and I don't think that they would actually leave us alone if we left them alone. I just think that we can kill terrorists with drone bombs in Pakistan and Yemen, rather than having 100,000 troops in Afghanistan nation building.
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 2:12PM
Also, having our military here at home would absolutely make our country more safe. Securing our own borders and defending our own country will make us much safer than using our military to patrol the streets of Japan.
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:25PM
Paul has no damn plan for reducing government. no detailed plan. any of these cats who talk about abolishing Federal Departments without detailing according to what schedule and how they will transition people are simply pissing in the wind. the reality is no President is going to put hundreds of thousands of people on the street (GS, contractors, etc.). downsizing government needs to be effected. the reality, however, is that this will have to be handled dexterously or whomever gives the orders will be vilified instantly and lose huge reservoirs of political capital.
none of these people have laid down the details. it's all show.
Glen Bradley | 12.6.11 @ 1:10PM
The details of his plan have been in the public domain for some time, Sean Hannity has even stated that it's the best plan he's seen:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/
carnot| 12.6.11 @ 5:03PM
no it's not. there's no detail whatsoever on PEOPLE. how does he plan to transition the hundreds of thousands who will be impacted?
carnot| 12.5.11 @ 10:29PM
well...if 99% of Repubs reject these...as you claim...Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination!
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 7:37PM
Link to Video of Rand Paul & Kokesh yucking it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE9gVeykPAU
Brett Fairchild| 12.5.11 @ 7:53PM
Nobody cares about Adam Kokesh.
Margie| 12.5.11 @ 8:44PM
Oh, yes they do. The Lefty-Libertarians love him. Just ask Clint.
cicero| 12.5.11 @ 4:18PM
No one picked up on the item about bringing Georgia into NATO. Seems we are going backward. The last major dust up in Europe got serious when France and Britain decided to bring another eastern block country into an unbreakable alliance - Poland.
Treaty alliances are only as lasting as no one wants them to end. Once it becomes adventagious for someone else to break the alliance - or treaty - it is gone.
Good thing it was voted down - this time. All of our treaties have only lasted until thee other side no longer wanted to abide by it. We do not needd these alliances any more. NATO SEATO, etc., should be disolved. They have only served to allow most of our allies to ridde on our dime.
shipley130| 12.5.11 @ 4:42PM
The Hidden Agenda rears it's ugly head.
Gasas | 12.5.11 @ 5:11PM
Excellent post however I was wondering if you could write a
little more on this topic
http://www.gasas.com.es/
Gasas
Guantes de vinilo | 12.5.11 @ 5:11PM
Thanks for an insightful post. These tips are really helpful. Again thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.Keep up the good work.
http://www.guantesdevinilo.es/
Guantes de vinilo
POST American| 12.5.11 @ 9:47PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------
Those who carefully attend the wording
and privisos of this latest Globalist power grab
will be startled as they realize ONLY ONE
other nation on earth, in ALLLL history, has,
on paper, sanctioned the 'disappearance'
of its citizens at home and abroad -----
---------------------NORTH KOREA---------------------
Mc---CAIN is certainly living up to his name,
---or is it his mind CON-troll?
--------------HUAC/ NEW-remberg 2012-------------
Kevin| 12.6.11 @ 12:07AM
Ron & Rand, The Traitors Paul. In bed with Obama, in Love with Osama. Sharia Law upon One and All.
Brett Fairchild| 12.6.11 @ 9:35AM
That just makes you look like an idiot.
POST American| 12.6.11 @ 2:07AM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
And, speaking of John mc----CAIN, when
exactly, did it become 'OK' for unrepentant,
out front, mercenary adulterers to represent
conservative, or even Republican values?
-------Around 1973, when Gerald Ford,
himself an open adulterer, replaced the
'Nick's ON' ---hot on the heels of the
Kissinger-Rockefeller, Rich-HARD
-the NIXON/MAO RED China sellout
and TREASON op.
-----------------------------THAT'S WHEN.
REAGAN confirmed this pattern --until
CFR front op Bush Sr., prime presiding
director of the Globalist sellout ---took
office.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
wedding dresses | 12.7.11 @ 4:18AM
http://www.weddingdressesstore.com.au/
Nick| 12.7.11 @ 1:41PM
Wow a lot of Paul bashing here. Although I haven't heard a single factual argument. You realize that makes you look completely ignorant and stupid, right? Let me address some of these ridiculous statements:
"Paul has no damn plan for reducing government."
Why don't you visit his website, and read his specific plan? He's already stated that lay-offs would happen *through attrition*. But I doubt you know what that means.
"They are trying to claim the TEA Party as theirs as well"
Guess what? Ron Paul *started* the tea party during his 2008 campaign. If you go to this awesome thing on the internet called GOOGLE, maybe you can verify this yourself.
"for Ron Paul 9/11 was deserved retribution for American presence in the ME. in his moral Universe...9/11 wasn't even a criminal act! "
Wrong..and wrong. Ron Paul has often repeated his statement that 9/11 was a criminal act. The last time was the Huckabee presidential forum. Watch the video, and get informed. And also, I suggest you look up the video on youtube called "Ron Paul Predicted 9/11." This shows him in the House in the 1990's and early 2000's explaining that our intervention in the Middle East will lead to hatred and even terrorist attacks. This should be common sense. You are living in a dream world if you think they attack us for no reason. Would you attack somebody for no reason? Or would you have to be provoked first?
"Rand Paul is a disgrace allied with the Far-Left out to destroy our Constitution and empower our enemies."
Wow, really? Wow. Maybe if your definition of "destroying" the constitution is actually following it strictly. Maybe if your idea of "empowering our enemies" is to stop giving them money and motivation to kill us. Your point is so off-base, it's laughable. It's opposite of the truth. I sincerely hope you don't think this way, and I sincerely hope you don't have children. You are the reason this country is falling apart.
Rhoetus | 12.7.11 @ 7:23PM
Islam has become the replacement set for communism and totalitarianism. We must protect our liberties at home otherwise the enemy of freedom wins.