Politics

‘Assassinating’: Ron Paul & Gary Johnson Critical of U.S. for Killing Al-Alwalaki

Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:39pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
Print »
Email »

The news has been plentiful with chatter about the death of Anwar al-Alwalaki — the American-born terror leader — today. And plenty of people responded. But not many are grabbing as many headlines as GOP presidential hopefuls Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

First, Ron Paul.

On an appearance on MSNBC Friday, Paul blasted the president for “assassinating” al-Alwalaki.

“I don‘t think that’s a good way to deal with our problems,” he told MSNBC. “Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

Here’s the video:

Fellow candidate Gary Johnson was also critical of the administration. He told Fox News he had “mixed feelings” about the strike since he believed Awlaki to be “entitled to due process.”

“Well I — as president of the United States I would have been a lot more transparent about that, and I understand all of the accusations against al-Awlaki and they are very significant, and I don’t want to minimize at all the threat that he was posing to the United States. But he is a U.S. citizen, he was a U.S. citizen, and never before have we targeted a U.S. citizen for death,” the former New Mexico governor said.

He added later that Alwaki is “the first person to be denied” due process, and called it “unprecedented.”

“This is the first U.S. citizen that has ever been targeted for death by the United States government,” he said. “So this is unprecedented, and I certainly at best have mixed feelings about this — this is why this country was established, was you can’t have a government going through the countryside rounding up citizens because they are a threat to the country and then putting them to death.”

You can watch his Fox News appearance below, which included other criticisms:

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (606)

WarEagle74
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
Al-Alwalaki refused to turn himself in to avail himself of his Constitutional protections. As long as he remained at large and was considered a threat to the safety of the US, our military was within the Constitution to take him out. Paul and Gary Johnson are nuts if they think this man wouldn’t have killed thousands more Americans if given the chance.

Obama also created a climate where it’s more advantageous to kill AQ terrorists than it is to apprehend them. His folly in commiting to closing Gitmo and allowing Holder to attempt to try some of these people in US courts put him in a corner.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- lylejk
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:15pm
  I agree with you. Warrr Eagleee!!!! to you too. Class of ‘92. :)
  Report Post »
- Vindex.Dogood
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:21pm
  Wareagle said: “…this man wouldn’t have killed thousands more…”. Who exactly did he kill? Who’s the nut here?
  Report Post »
- staggerlee32
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:29pm
  Ok, your name is war eagle and your on the blaze and your probably a tea party member….. they might come for you next. I‘m just sayin’. Where will this stop? How far can they take this? I mean he is a US born citizen.
  Report Post »
- Drives Like Jehu
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:36pm
  Sounds to me like al-alwalaki made a poor choice of life-style (treason).
  Report Post »
- rose-ellen
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:01pm
  Refused to turn himself in? a wanted man is presumed innocent and if unarmed then killing him is unwarranted under our constituion.Just goes to show the constituion can mean anything we want it to mean. it also shows your thin skinned hypocrasy.You showed your true colors america-5 minutes after you got a taste of your own medicine -everything you professed made you different and better then any one and everyone on earth .a nation not of laws but sheer tyranical thuggery Only took you an instant tor you to surrender to your professed values! Hypocrites!
  Report Post »
- This_Individual
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:44pm
  Rosie baby, read the Constitution of the United States of America. You obviously have no clue what it’s all about.
  Report Post »
- shaneinNC
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:46pm
  You do not give up your rights by not turning yourself in. Where in history is that shown in the courts. Who ever gave the order to kill a us citizen without a trial committed a federal crime, namely a violation of their constitutional protections. Any officer obeying that order violated the UCMJ. No soldier is obligated to follow any unlawful order, the murder of a us citizen is a crime and an illegal order.
  Report Post »
LIBERTYFADING
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
Funny how they assassinate an American citizen allegedly gone bad, because the government deems him a terrorist. Wasn’t it just 3 years ago around the first few tea parties when homeland security wrote to local and state law enforcement to be aware of “right wing extremest” and “domestic terrorists”. I’m sure he would have been found guilty of the crime, that‘s not what I’m debating. The thing is, are you really willing to let the government decide who‘s a terrorist and who’s not? Please learn read the Constitution and read about non-interventionist policy that both Washington and Jefferson supported, then compare it to today’s foreign policy. You’ve been fooled by the media into thinking Ron Paul is extreme, when in fact, he’s been right all along.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:21pm
  There’s a differenec. Congres authorized a state of war with Al Qaeda, its allies and associates back in 2001. That act is still US law and all the justification that the Commander in Chief needs. there is no Congressinal declaration of hostilities against the Tea Party or any other group, American or other wise.
  Report Post »
- Rightallalong
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:38pm
  There is no Declaration of War … anything less than that is meaningless in the eyes of the Constitution. Its sad to see well meaning conservatives so willing to shred the constitution as long as they can feel like a man and talk about ow we GOT THE BAD GUY …
  Report Post »
- LIBERTYFADING
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:42pm
  Are you talking about AMUF? So because it was passed in congress, means it’s constitutional… That’s the kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. You think the Patriot Act is constitutional too? Both of those were reflex bills that got put through because of the shock of 9/11 without much resistance… Also, you say “there is no Congressinal declaration of hostilities against the Tea Party or any other group, American or other wise.” I think you meant, “yet.” It’s a slippery slope people… FDR had the Japanese put into internment camps, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. Do you really trust this government with your freedoms?
  Report Post »
- Libertarian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:43pm
  The 6th amendment, read it. It doesn‘t come with but’s, and‘s and if’s.
  
  You either believe that a citizen has a right to a trial or they do not. Read the damn constitution, too many of you conservatives are inconsistent.
  
  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:45pm
  LibertyFading has this correct Islesfordian. If you are a TEA party member and Government deems TEA party members terrorists, you are dead.
  
  We have given Government the authority to kill who it desires, who it deems an enemy.
  
  We are a Nation of laws, not men. We have given government the authority to kill who it desires and sees as an enemy whenever they want. That is just like Britian. That is what our founders fought against.
  
  If religion is deemed an enemy would you support this? NO because it’s against YOU. Do you think Government could use this to persecute religion? Might wanna think about that one!
  
  Ron Paul has it correct and has had it correct for a while. Wake up before you are taken out for your protest.
  Report Post »
- Libertarian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:45pm
  Remember this part of the 5th amendment “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”
  Report Post »
- Libertarian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:53pm
  @Okie,
  
  You are exactly right.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:58pm
  “Are you talking about AMUF? So because it was passed in congress, means it’s constitutional… That’s the kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.”
  
  What kind of reasoning is that? Are you saying that an act of Congress should be considered UNconstitutional? Ubtil the Supreme Court says it’s unconstitttional than it is constitutional.
  
  What? Are YOU guys the ones who get to decide what is constitutional and not the Supreme Court of the President? They at least, are part of our constitutional government. So, if Congress passed it and SCOTUS passed on it who are you or any of us say that the President, a Constitutional officer, can’t act on it?
  
  And as for the government declaring the Tea Party enemies, if it does that through an ACT OF CONGRESS we are so screwed that it wouldn’t matter what constitutional protections we had. So lighten up on the paranoia. Your way of thinking would prevent any act of war against our enemies because every argument you use could be used by the allies of our enemies to inhibit us.
  Report Post »
- chfields62
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:02pm
  Where was all this outrage when they killed Bin Laden? We are at WAR with Al Queda, in WAR you either kill or capture the enemy, you dont arrest them. He chose to go to WAR against us and paid the price. In WAR there are friends and enemies, nothing else. He was an enemy….
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:06pm
  Libertarian, Ex Parte Quirin, read it.
  
  The trouble with Libertarians like Paul and Johnson is that they are like some Biblical fundamnetalists who never make the distinction between the text and how they interpret it. So many fundies say “the Bible says…” when it does really say that explicitly, but that is how they read it because of other doctrinal positions that help them “read” the text (they will never admit to interpreting it).
  
  It’s fun to say that this action is unconstitutional but where does the Constitution actually say that? What do the Federalist Papers say about the war powers of the Commander in chief? What do other Founding Fathers say, or past Supreme Courts?
  Report Post »
- justangry
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:09pm
  I didn’t know congress had the right to deny due process to its citizens either. Hmmm
  Report Post »
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:09pm
  ISLESFORDIAN is not entirely correct. If one supports and defends the Constitution, which I gave an oath to do when joining the Army, then one must also recognize that our country should declare war on its enemies before labeling them enemy combatants and then killing them. We have yet to declare war on anyone since Word War II. Congress can try to call something an “act” of hostilities, but that does not fly. That is most likely them just trying to not be held accountable for what happens in a state of war. The least we can do before we go kill other human beings is actually declare war on them first., not play political games and try to label it something else.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:13pm
  @Islesfordian,
  
  “There’s a differenec. Congres authorized a state of war with Al Qaeda, its allies and associates back in 2001. That act is still US law and all the justification that the Commander in Chief needs.”
  
  The problem with that is it is for the protection of citizens’ lives and property that Congress is granted the authority to declare war – including protection from government overreach of Constitutional authority.
  
  So Congress had the responsibility to grant Awlaki due process.
  Report Post »
- hidden_lion
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:14pm
  “Where was all this outrage when they killed Bin Laden?”
  
  Bin Laden was not an American Citizen.
  American citizen are granted a trial here in America. Why not kill Maj. Hassan without trial? We know he did it, he was caught red handed, but he gets due process. People who blast Paul for this are just as bad as the liberal communists. You either have rights or you don’t….You can’t pick and choose which ones that should be honored, otherwise, say bye bye to the 2nd, then the 1st, etc…
  Report Post »
- resme
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:14pm
  Wow, Sad day for america, Not because a terrorist died. The constitution died. They already deemed tea party as a terrorist group, Look out here comes the drones. Constitution was already dead, But they dug it up, and took a big **** on it.
  Report Post »
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:14pm
  Apparently we are NOT at war with al-quaeda since we have yet to declare war on them. There have been 5 declarations of war since World War 1, but all of those were during the 1940s. Any other act relating to war is not constitutional and therefore not legal.
  Report Post »
- Gooch
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:16pm
  Congress did not declare war, they unconstitutionally authorized the president to do what he wanted to do with regards to Al Qaeda. Problem is once we accept unconstitutional acts as legitimate, then what grounds do we have to stand on when the government does go after an American group on American soil, the answer is none. And before you say it will never happen, just remember the media for the most part is complicit in these unconstitutional acts, so don’t think you will get much help from them. They will just call it a cult of child molesters that fired first when the government went in to arrest them. Furthermore, the government had an obligation to put Anwar al-Alwalaki on trial, they can and have had trials in abstention and as far as I know these are constitutional if the indicted party refuses to appear. Which my guess is, he would have refused. Don‘t just assume that just because we are against the methods that we don’t want the same outcome. We just want it reached in a way that won’t come back to bite us all later.
  Report Post »
- Vechorik
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:17pm
  Congress did not “declare ware on al qaeda”. Congress said to kill/bring to justice those responsible for 9/11. That’s why killing BinLaden was okay.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:19pm
  @IsLesfordian
  
  Is the universal healthcare act Constitutional? It passed Congress……..
  
  And no, it needs no act of Congress to deem anyone a terrorist, it only needs the Commander in Chief to declare someone a terrorist as it’s a war on “terror” and being commander he leads, he dictates, he decides.
  
  This is the whole point being argued against the patriot act, against this open “war on terror”.
  
  So say BO hates Jews and sides with Palestinians and declares all Jews terrorists, would you support it? Don‘t say it can’t happen…….
  
  You are championing this and that is sad! You are defending an over reaching Government using force on it’s own Citizens.
  
  We have the best military in the world. No one can touch us, no one. And to think we can’t send someone in to capture this guy to try him against LAW is insane!
  
  A country of laws, not a country of men.
  
  No ones paranoid, we just know history. Apparently you do not!
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:26pm
  Freedomfighter, we DID declare war on Al Qaeda. that is what this says:
  
  “SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
  
  (a) <> In General.–That the President is
  authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
  nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
  committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
  2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
  future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
  nations, organizations or persons.”
  
  That includes all subsequent Presidents as long as the enemy still exists as a threat or until the law is anulled. This turd joined Al Qaeda, was operational in its activity. He was therefore a military target by his own choice and action. HE declared HIMSELF an enemy by the law that he knew was operational.
  
  QED.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:32pm
  “The problem with that is it is for the protection of citizens’ lives and property that Congress is granted the authority to declare war – including protection from government overreach of Constitutional authority.”
  
  That is not in the Congressional act nor is it logically compelling. We did not go to war against the Nazis to protect ourselves from our own government. Anyone who thinks that is smoking pot. We gave MORE power to the government during the war, and accepted that sacrifice as necessary, and it was.
  
  Now abuse can always happen under a wartime status, and they always will. But abuse happen at every level of governmental power. that is never a reason, in and of itself, to do away with those powers. Otherwise there would be no government at all, and NO government means rule by the strong and wicked against the weak and virtuous.
  Report Post »
- teapartyconservatism
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:34pm
  @ A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  
  You have it exactly right, as do many here and of course Dr. Ron Paul, MD, Lt Col, USAF, Ret., who though much maligned, recognizes as do Tea Party patriots, the urgent need to return to the Constitution as our first, best and last hope to save our nation.
  
  America should listen to Congressman Paul very carefully because he’s correct.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:35pm
  @Islesfordian,
  
  “It’s fun to say that this action is unconstitutional but where does the Constitution actually say that? What do the Federalist Papers say about the war powers of the Commander in chief? What do other Founding Fathers say, or past Supreme Courts?”
  
  Here’s this, for starters.
  
  The Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers
  http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:38pm
  “Is the universal healthcare act Constitutional? It passed Congress……..”
  
  So, Okie, I gather from your logic that we don’t need to have Congress repeal it or the Supreme Court overrule it. You and I can just decide that it’s unconstitutional and that settles it. Hogwash.
  
  Make the argumet that AUAF is unconstitutional. I’d love to hear it.
  Report Post »
- booger71
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:39pm
  Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to squash Mooselime Pie=Rats off the Barbary Coast to protect merchant ships
  Report Post »
- standupbcounted
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:39pm
  This was an enemy we took down and I don’t give a hoot where he was born. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will never defend this country and they talk like pinheads.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:43pm
  That the President is
  authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
  nations, organizations, or persons HE determines planned, authorized,
  committed, or AIDED the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
  2001, or HARBORED such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
  future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
  nations, organizations or persons.”
  
  Power was given to declare war upon each Nation to the President to DECIDE without limitations. Congress is to issue war at a specific detailed country and this is an open ended War the president can decide who we are fighting.
  
  If tomorrow BO decides IslesFordian a terrorist because he says you aided terrorists you will be hauled off and not seen from again without trial.
  
  Does this mention Al Qaeda by name? NO
  Report Post »
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:44pm
  And thus begins the copy/pastes battle… @ ISLESFORDIAN
  
  “The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun. James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.”
  
  It’s not supposed to be easy to start a war. The founding fathers wanted it to be hard to do something so drastic. Now we are making it so easy it is hard to keep track of how many countries we are in.
  
  I guess you support the idea that we don;t have to explicitly say we are declaring war on someone before we go kill them. Athe the very least we should rename the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense since that seems to be how we conduct business now.
  Report Post »
- Acting Man
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:48pm
  Why is the US government supporting Al-Qaeda in Libya?
  Report Post »
- jb.kibs
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:51pm
  life is a 2 way street, if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. if you allow the government to assassinate people who are “suspected” and not KNOWN, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be guilty…. then you invite that upon yourself and everyone on earth. nobody said freedom is easy… if he was guilty, they could have brought him to trial, and put him in prison. if he is guilty of murders, then he might get capital punishment… all legal, that is, IF he is truly guilty… why just assassinate him instead of bringing him to trial? what can someone possibly do, that is legal, that can warrant assassination? nothing. everything that would warrant assassination is illegal… which means, that they could be tried, found guilty, and processed accordingly by the sentencing which pertains to the crime…
  
  Ron is the best… he’s really bringing out the closet liberals, progressives, neocons and control freaks. this is great… it’s a goldmine for the “name takers”…
  
  “Take comfort in knowing that the constitution will prevail, all opposed will be granted swift justice.” – AmericaRestored 1:1
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:52pm
  @Islesfordian,
  
  “What do the Federalist Papers say about the war powers of the Commander in chief?”
  
  See here.
  
  Federalist Papers #69
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm
  
  “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
  Report Post »
- jb.kibs
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:55pm
  did that reporter really ask “what about bin laden”? was bin laden really an American citizen gone bad? hmmm i didn’t know that…
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:58pm
  Okie, if the President begins to use his war powers authorization to go against those who are not enemies of the US the Congress can either halt all his expenditures, they have the power of the purse, OR they can impeach him. Either way the only protection we have against abuse of the president’s powers is more political power. You can’t do away with Eminent Domian because it is abuse. You must define and proscribe the abuses.
  
  Just so, you cannot deprive the president of effective war powers because he MAY insanely abuse them. you must establish protections and remedies for such abuse, which are there in the Constitution.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:01pm
  @IsLesFordian
  
  So what does BO need to say Israel helped terrorists attack against us so we will begin taking them out? If he decides that true he will issue troops to attack.
  
  He has all the power to do as he pleases. If you are that progressed in your thinking there is no hope for you. If you are that ignorant, you are nothing more then BO’s useful idiot. Progressives useful idiot.
  
  The healthcare bill was challenged because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It’s progress is halted until determined.
  
  If Congress passed a bill saying IsLesFordian can’t speak, can’t worship, can’t own a gun would that be Constitutional? NO it an unconstitutional bill that was passed.
  
  I’m finished talking to someone this stupid. It’s sad, it’s embarrassing for our country, and it’s a disgrace for Liberty around the world and you support it. Amazing. Have a great day!
  Report Post »
- chazman
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:04pm
  … I must admit that Ron Paul is correct, no matter how much I wish I could justify this action. However, what are we to do? Send in the SEALS, putting their lives in danger, just to bring this puke pot out alive? And then what, put him on trial which is certain to cost the taxpayers millions? And then what, incarcerate him where someone in the prison population cuts his throat, killing him anyway? What the hell else can we do with these muslim morons?
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:10pm
  Doctor’s labor,
  
  What part of Federalist 69 says that the President, once hostilities have been authorized by Congress, DOESN’T have supreme power to determine and execute enemy combatants even if they include citizens of the US?
  
  You post stuff that says nothing to the point at issue. I don’t get it. Where has anyone with Constitutional authority declared that the normal due process granted to every citizen applies even in wartime situations and outside the jurisdiction of the US?
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:10pm
  Absolutely stupid!
  
  Congress is the limitation! Congress being a bunch of sis bags gave the President their JOB, THEIR DUTY. How do you not understand that?
  
  Congress detailS the exact WAR mission and the president commands that mission HOW Congress says too. Our Congress said here you go, you decide and you pick who’s a terrorist!
  
  So if BO determines you a terrorist will you be happy to wait in terrorist prison or death while Congress tries to impeach him?
  
  Congress giving open ended resolutions, acts, is the very thing our founders did not want, thus they gave it to Congress!
  
  So BO can call IsLesFordian a terrorist! He has that power. Who will take it away? No one!
  
  I’m out. Wake up!
  Report Post »
- Cat
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:10pm
  Lot’s of interesting reading in this tread.
  
  There is something called reality.
  Throughout history, the victor has always had an advantage in weaponry and war tactics.
  From, bare hands to stones, from swords to firearms, from firearms to chemicals, etc.
  
  The British ‘Redcoats’ had a disadvantage when fighting in America.
  They were not familiar with guerrilla warfare.
  
  So here we are, a free nation, open arms to everyone, including those who wish to destroy us.
  We say we are a nation of laws, but our enemies use our laws to defeat us better than we use them to defend ourselves.
  
  What better way to claim your victimization in America than to claim you are a citizen.
  Hide in the belly of the beast, then lash out a thousand times.
  
  Think about it.
  Fight to win.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:13pm
  @chazman,
  
  “… I must admit that Ron Paul is correct, no matter how much I wish I could justify this action. However, what are we to do? Send in the SEALS, putting their lives in danger, just to bring this puke pot out alive? And then what, put him on trial which is certain to cost the taxpayers millions?”
  
  The solution to your concerns is the Constitutional Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
  
  See here.
  
  Ron Paul on “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:18pm
  @Chazman
  
  Yes, the rule of law is that important and every Navy SEAL will tell you that is their duty, to uphold and protect this rule of law and they will gladly give their lives to do so!
  
  By going around taking out those we do not like, who we deem an enemy without trial is the same as the Syrian dictator taking out who he chooses. Doing this we destroy the rule of law and anyone believing in it around the world.
  
  How strong would it show us to be by trying thus guy against our laws and finding him guilty. The world would see rule of law is JUST!
  
  Hope your day is great!
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:19pm
  @Islesfordian,
  
  “What part of Federalist 69 says that the President, once hostilities have been authorized by Congress, DOESN’T have supreme power to determine and execute enemy combatants even if they include citizens of the US?”
  
  Determining who is an enemy is EXACTLY what is a declaration of war. This authority is given to Congress alone.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:22pm
  @Freedom.Fighter,
  
  “And thus begins the copy/pastes battle…”
  
  CTRL+V for Vendetta? ;)
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:29pm
  @Cat,
  
  “We say we are a nation of laws, but our enemies use our laws to defeat us better than we use them to defend ourselves.”
  
  Show me our own laws that can be used against us, and I will show you that Congress had to violate their oath to the Constitution in order to pass them.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:29pm
  “I’m finished talking to someone this stupid. ”
  
  Gee Okie, if you are so unquestionably right and your reasoning is so unquestionably Constitutionally sound then I expect any day to see Congress and the Supreme Court slap down the President for his clear violation of his Constitutional powers.
  
  What’s that I hear? Nothing? Hmmmmmmm.
  
  Tell me oh constitutional oracle that you are, what are the flaws in Ex Parte Quirin? I would so love to know.
  Report Post »
- yougottabekidding
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:31pm
  They both are at the point of not being on stage, thank you
  They are both wrong it’s as Ron White says and Perry all most echoed him “Come here and kill us and we will kill you back” he was refering to Texas but it works for the US.
  It‘s Bush’ s fault! He had all the teams and intellegence in place Hussain is just riding his coat tails on this.
  He is doing this right. Even a blind pig will find an acorn if he roots long enough.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:33pm
  The more I think about this, the more it feels manufactured. We don‘t really know what happened and it certainly doesn’t sound like it was a gun to the head assassination.
  
  Manufactured to divide Libertarians and Conservatives? Just throwing it out there. It could be just a crazy thought. But seems to me the leaders in the race for “R” has a couple conservatives and a couple libertarians.
  Report Post »
- poverty.sucks
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:43pm
  Ron Paul continues to expose the Libertarian that he is, not a representative of the Republican Party.
  
  Ron Paul Libertarian for President 2016
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:46pm
  Some of you people might have heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, an insurrection in the early days of the Republic, which Washington put down without any hearings or due process drawing upon the powers granted to him by Congress to supress armed insurrection and domestic violence. This was against US citizens and Washington assumed the power and authority to determine who were the rebels that needed to be put down by the military.
  
  You won’t find that in the Constitution, but it was Constitutional nonetheless.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:48pm
  @poverty.sucks,
  
  “Ron Paul continues to expose the Libertarian that he is, not a representative of the Republican Party.”
  
  Again, the Republicans have left Libertarianism. Conservatism used to be based in Libertarianism.
  Report Post »
- IntegrityFirst08
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:51pm
  @ Islesforidian – I appriciate you bringing common sence to the discussion. You have been exactly right in every aspect and all Ron Paul guys can say well if that then they can kill you and I. This is obsurd. Im not as well versed in the act that was passed in 2001 but if its what you posted, end of discussion.
  
  Heres a comment from V-MAN MACE, “We‘re being treated like criminals ourselves based on a farce and you’re more likely to die from bee stings than being attacked by a terrorist…”. So this is how you justify your point?? He might have more chance but not me and my friends overseas.
  
  Here is another. From V-MAN MACE, “What country are we “at war” with? What nation attacked us?” Another fantastic comment that anyone with common sence will tell you we are at war with NO nation. Al Qaeda hides in host countried that deny there existance for protection. This is how this war is being fought because of the people we fight against know how to use our weaknesses against us. The act was made and this guy was operational. End of story.
  
  This is why Ron Paul will never get voted in. Something so emotional, that everyone Involved then took the right steps to be in compliance with the constituion. We get the bad guys and then you come out screaming like babies that they might come after us now.
  
  This is just crazy. I have never met anyone like you people other than 9/11 truthers who think everything is a conspiracy. Unbeleivable.
  Report Post »
- IntegrityFirst08
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:54pm
  When BO said “soft” he was talking to you guys. This just makes me sick. Soft as baby ****
  Report Post »
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:34pm
  @ INTEGRITYFIRST… So in the Air Force you get to choose when you have integrity? Integrity is doing what’s right LEGALLY and morally. Oh wait, or is that just the Army’s definition? I was taught to have integrity even when it is inconvenient. Do I wish for this guy to pay for his rhetoric? YES. But I do not want to throw away our country’s values and supreme laws to do it. Now how much propaganda will terrorists be able to make out of this assassination for recruitment? And the worst part? They won’t have to lie to do it.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:34pm
  @IsLesFordian
  
  Was there a trial in Ex Parte Quirin? YES!
  
  When this beast uses his power on you don’t be mad and know there were those who told you it would occur. Satan wants nothing more then to turn a law abiding country into a beast taking out who it desires. You are encouraging just that…….You are advocating giving Hitler power because Hitler would surely never use it against us….I D I O T, no other way of saying it….
  
  As for your Whiskey Rebellion reference: Washington first sent commissioners to find peace and then sent a militia. People were ARRESTED and later pardoned and acquitted! All you did was mimic Charles of Fox News. You don’t know diddly what you speak of…You are just a parrot…..
  
  These terrorists have won, for a country that once sacred liberty and rule of law has left it for a dictator doing as he pleases regardless of law. They made us leave what our founders fought so hard for….
  
  @Integrity
  
  Strong men follow law. It is called INTEGRITY…doing the right thing even when it is hard. Weak sidewalk sissies hide from the law and use it and ignore it for their agenda. Something to ponder.
  Report Post »
- GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:10pm
  This guy has ninelives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0rkjUhWbiA&feature=feedf
  
  and an “Inspire” mag reporter calls Amadenajad a crazy CT for denying AQ pulled of the crime of the century. Coincidence, I THINK NOT!
  Report Post »
- rlduncanjr
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:10pm
  There was no declaration of war in Libya either but that didn’t stop us there did it? This man was a traitor and deserved death. Good riddance.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:17pm
  All you girls have your panties in a wad thinking that if we let the President do this to a dirt bag US citizen like thgis then he could do it to us.
  
  News flash! He CAN do it to us just the same as he did it to him. What’s to stop him? Certainly not the whining and arnchair legal reasoning of you or me.
  
  What will stop him is the only thing that CAN stop him CONSTITUTIONALLY. The Supreme Court will haul his a** on the rug or the Congress will impeach him. Short of that we are really depending that his sense of the law and of his authority matches ours. But in an argument, whether he is rght or wrong, he has the POWER and thus the AUTHORITY until those other constitutional powers say otherwise.
  
  Neither you or I are Constitutional powers, so we don’t get to tell the President what he can or cannot do until we get to the POLLING BOOTH. THAT is where OUR power lies. That’s how our system is set up.
  
  But I wonder what you think a President should do if an American citizen sides with the enemy and is fighting us on the battlefield. Should we suspend military operations so we can take him alive somehow and bring him to trial, or should we lob a missle at him, save ourselves the trouble. That’s what we did here. If we had to go in and capture him we could have lost a lot of decent loyal American soldiers. YOU tell their widows that was the price they had to pay to preserve the “due process” of an American traitor that wanted to destroy us.
- FlamingFartSyndrome
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:26pm
  well said liberty, well said
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:31pm
  Okie, you’ve let your emotions get the best of you. BO’s not even close to Hitler. You’re switching from specific to general without keeping the two separate. You want the constitution to protect you from a theoretical Hitler in the White House, but then you use the concrete fact of Al-Awlaki’s citizenship to prove BO could do that. Theory: there are 3 branches, Isles is right that the other two are the check, not you. Specific: you’re not on the terror list, stop listening to Alex Jones.
  Doc’s Labor, I respect your arguments more than most, so let me agree with Isles on the grounds that you have missed an important concept in your analysis. Declaring war on a STATE is something we haven’t NEEDED to do for a long time, but using military force to ensure freedoms for Americans against OTHER kinds of entities is a power the president WAS expressly granted. Al-Qaeda’s not a state. This guy joined Al-Qaeda, and therefore abdicated citizen rights, got himself put on the terrorist list (which is a pretty SMALL list, no? With input from MORE than just the POTUS–review by select Congressional committee members, if I’m not mistaken). Viewed from that perspective the modern nature of the war against terror necessitates some powers to the executive branch that go beyond your insistence on the semantics of “declare war”. Al-Awlaki is an enemy combattant by every definition except his passport, his nationality should be stripped ex post facto anyway.
  Report Post »
- resme
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:43pm
  Okie thank you for bringing some truth to the blaze. One day this will be used on us. If the headline read, Obama passes gay marriage bill. You’d all be flipping out. But when he tramples the constitution in a obvious way, Who cares he’s just a American terrorist. Admit it, Conservatives, What’s left of the republican party, Only care about social issues, And corporate safety nets. Basically the same as democrats, Both support some sort of tyrannical government. Accept the constitution as a whole, Instead of choosing bits and pieces.
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:47pm
  @Islesfordian,
  
  “… what are the flaws in Ex Parte Quirin? I would so love to know.”
  
  See here.
  
  Oath-Keeper Stewart Rhodes on the Rise of Authoritarianism and How US Law Enforcement Can Take a Stand for Freedom
  http://www.thedailybell.com/1541/Oath-Keeper-Stewart-Rhodes-on-the-Rise-of-Authoritarianism-and-How-US-Law-Enforcement-Can-Take-a-Stand-for-Freedom.html
  
  (Linked from here: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/11/22/the-rise-of-authoritarianism-and-how-us-law-enforcement-can-take-a-stand-for-freedom/)
  
  (Continued on next post)
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:56pm
  (Continued from prior post)
  
  And here.
  
  Federalist Papers #84
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
  
  “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: “To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution.”"
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:04pm
  IntegrityFirst08
  
  You can quote me all you want, your argument doesn’t hold any water.
  
  You and your friends…AKA MY taxpayer-funded soldiers that work for ME and the American people in general… shouldn’t be over there to start with involved in illegal incursions. Then you wouldn’t be in so much “danger” nation building overseas and killing civilians as you would be protecting our borders from millions of illegal immigrants flowing across.
  
  Secondly, the POINT of my comment about our not-at-war-at-kinetic-action garbage is to illustrate exactly that. It was a rhetorical question. We have an amorphous enemy created by the CIA. We can never win against internal saboteurs unless we EXPOSE them as we have.
  
  If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that Al Qaeda wa sCREATED by the CIA and “Al Qaeda” translates as “the Database”, meaning the database of CIA double agents operating on behalf of the Federal Government. The people we “fight” WITH in Libya…AL QAEDA..the people WE CREATED… know how to “use our weaknesses against us” and are successful at it because THEY ARE ARE THE CIA.
  
  END OF STORY, KNOW IT ALL. Who has more credibility? You or General Hamid Gul? You or Steve Pieczenik? You ain’t NOBODY but cannon fodder for wars based on lies.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:05pm
  @Happy
  
  Ya they said Hitler wasn’t nothing either until he began slaughtering everyone. Is BO a Hitler? You can’t say no anymore then I can say yes. The power now lies in the hands of BO to decide who is a terrorist, so if he does start attacking Jews I sure hope to see IslesFordian cheering and praising him for doing so.
  
  The point being Congress again shrugged it’s authority, responsibility, to the President. They gave him an open ended authority to kill who he desires. If he deems you a terrorist you will vanish.
  
  I actually do not listen to Alex Jones. Heard him a few times a while back but nothing I run to listen to. I suppose you listen to winey Levin? Please tell him to let go of his nose when he speaks.
  
  For you and IslesFordian to say we should hush and not speak about this abuse of power is offensive. We the People should speak out about it, that is our duty.
  
  Killing a Citizen without due process is wrong no matter how you try to twist it. But hey what do we the people know, according to you and IsLesFordian we the people are irrelevant. Sounds like a dictatorship. Have a great night!
  
  @IslesFordian
  
  Don‘t cry at all about Jews when BO tells them ’67 borders or you are deemed a terrorist. I only want to hear cheering from you like today. Take care.
  Report Post »
- rose-ellen
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:08pm
  We’re no different or better then them when they issue fatwas against people who express views that they deem are a threat to their “security” as muslim people.Just more hypocritcal!
  Report Post »
- rose-ellen
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:35pm
  He wasn’t fighting against this country. We havn’t declared war on yemen.he didn’t join any arny or even an organization.he spoke out against america. So what. he spoke out against america in yemen .so what. He gave would be terrorists his opinions on theology and politics and ethics. So what.His dual citizenship is irrelevent here[except maybe it got him into yemen easier].Being anti american can not be grounds for capture or murder .If it now does then we are the worlds biggest tyrants and we have taken over the world.We have nothing to complain about then if people oppose us.We have become that which we professed to oppose. The world has noted your lawlessness and your hypocrisy.Next time there’s a fatwa on one of you ,you have nothing to complain about. you got your playbook from your professed enemies. Hypocrites!
  Report Post »
- wethepeoplepress
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:36pm
  He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.-Thomas Paine
  Report Post »
- The-Monk
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:51pm
  I thought all this was settled back in 1993 when the precedent was set in Clinton v Foster.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:56pm
  Again with the emotion, Okie. You keep saying you’re done, and then feel compelled to continue. You’re sounding more and more like a lib. Not name-calling, just accuracy. They can’t distinguish right from wrong in the EXACT same way you seem to make no difference between Hitler and Obama. BO doesn’t intend what Hitler did, doesn’t SAY he intends what Hitler did, and no one should have to point any of this out to you.
  Now if you want to say the institutional STRUCTURES in which he’s operating have some comparison to the Nazi state, there’s a lot of parallels it would be dangerous for us to ignore, you’re right. One of them is NOT that their constitution should have protected them from Hitler’s abuses.
  Another way you’re like a lib: you misread and twist almost everything. Isles was the one SAYING Congress had the power to stop POTUS. He was the one SAYING attacking the Nazis was right even if it wasn’t in the isolated US interest at the time. Reading Isles carefully, it‘s clear he’d leap up to Israel’s defense. You, on the other hand read our reasonable arguments, and somehow imagine we also told you to shut up. No, you inserted that because your reading skills pass through a purist ideological filter just like with libs. We didn’t say stop talking, we just said you’re wrong.
  It’s not ALWAYS wrong, “no matter” what, as you say. And he’s not the first American to lose his “due process” through his own actions either…
  Report Post »
- techengineer11
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:00pm
  I see that Ron Paul supporters are well represented here by the intelligence displayed in most posts. We must continue to persuade one America loving Patriot at a time. Most mean well but they simply do not appreciate the Liberties which have been attained for us enough.. They do not appreciate how fragile and precarious they are and they have very little understanding of history so we have our work cut out for us.
  
  Unfortunately they are so caught up in group think that the mere mention of Ron Paul’s name brings out revulsion among most knuckle dragging Blaze regulars. If John McCain, Beck, FOX News or some other Establishment Republican had voiced the concern they’d all be on aboard with idea and would be eager to defend our Constitution but as it stands now they are just extremely ignorant and easily deceived by popular propaganda.
  Report Post »
- KTsayz
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:27pm
  IslesFordian your 5:38 quote “So, Okie, I gather from your logic that we don’t need to have Congress repeal it or the Supreme Court overrule it. You and I can just decide that it’s unconstitutional and that settles it. Hogwash.”
  
  You really don’t understand a thing about our Constitution. Ours is still a ‘government of the people’ regardless of what Congress or the Supremes or the president may say or do.
  
  In 1789 Thomas Jefferson wrote:
  “But we all know that permanent judges acquire an Esprit de corps (a common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of a group); that being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative power… It is in the power, therefore of the juries… to judge the law as well as the fact.”
  
  In 1794 First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Jay said, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
  
  “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” — John Locke
  
  Perhaps you prefer this quote: “We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society.” — Hillary Clinton
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:53pm
  Your argument basically boils down to, “if we let them get away with this against Al Qaeda they could do it against us”. That is the basic argument that Jefferson made: “The power to do good is the power to do harm”. But that applies to EVERY power we give to the State. All those powers can be used against the people. We give the President the power to bomb whole cities in a state of war. That’s a power much bigger than knocking off one guy! If you can’t trust the President to take out an enemy combatant because he could take out you too then you are effectively arguing against the very foundation of his having executive power with military applications, with his role as Commander in Chief.
  
  And contra some who says that Congresses power to declare war means that only they can determine who is the enemy let me point out htis obvious fact: Congress never names each and every soldier on the enemy’s side, nor has it ever stated how such enemies are to be identified in battle or on the stage of war. So whose job is it to do that? That’s an executive function. If congress says the German’s are the enemy then the President is in his right to determine that includes Americans working with them against us, which is just what FDR did. There was no trial to determine if he had the rights of due process and civil trial. FDR determined on his own that he should be treated like a German spy, with a swift military trial. And the Supreme Court agreed, after the fact
  Report Post »
- enraged8hobbit
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:54pm
  Right or wrong matters not at all. We are at WAR with terrorist organizations. Killing a leader of the opposition is a just cause like it or not. If you do not understand what war is watch the military channel. In your face war as provided by media and war correspondents.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:57pm
  HappyStretched
  
  I will speak my spirit all I want. Who are you to tell me not to speak with emotion or say, “again with the emotion”. So take your emotion and stick it.
  
  I said I was finished, cakes are done. I was finished and I decided to begin again. Who are you to say I can or not? Stick it!
  
  I am a Libertarian. You sound like a progressive, no name calling, just accuracy. Progressives don’t have right or wrong, they have do as I say or shut up which is seen in your posts. You defending BO is hilarious. You do not know what BO will do, be, or act as tomorrow. You are guessing. He could be Hitler tomorrow, if he chooses. All power was allocated to Hitler, kind of like all power is allocated to the Pres In this “war on terror”.
  
  I read fine. Congress can cut the purse but how long does it take Congress to do anything? FOREVER! I don‘t wanna wait around for them to say let’s stop funding and then the other side to say, you aren’t supporting the troops. Heard that before haven’t we!
  
  You are wrong! And thru your incompetent writings you insinuate for us to hush, you mock us, and you TRY to ridicule us. I won’t hush, I won‘t shut up and I won’t sit down. You and your progressive agenda will be the ax that takes your head. You do not think so, your choice but when it happens, don’t complain and take it. Until then, stick it. And IslesFordian you are fooling no one. One in the same.
  
  @V Man
  
  V for victory!!!
  Report Post »
- IntegrityFirst08
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:01pm
  @ V-MAN MACE – You are a PoS. I cant see how other libertarians could agree with you’re cowardly paranoid comments. You are a lunatic by the comments you make.
  
  V-MAN MACE wrote :
  
  “Then you wouldn’t be in so much “danger” nation building overseas and killing civilians as you would be protecting our borders from millions of illegal immigrants flowing across.”
  
  “You ain’t NOBODY but cannon fodder for wars based on lies.”
  
  You Libertarians support this guy? I’m not angry at the guy for making the comments. Its easy to sit behind the computer and make these kinds of comments. Okee you agree with this guy?
  
  So Alwalaki has direct contact with some of the 9/11 hijackers a few times before 9/11. He then flees the country to Yemen. There he establishes himself in the terrorist group Al Qaeda. He directs the Detroit Underwear bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). He aslo directs Faisal Shahzad in the NYC car bomb plot. His range includes London 2005 bombings, Fort dixx plot, the little rock military recruiting office shooting. He had emails with Nidal Hassanwho killed 13 servicemen. We had a signed Act PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001 clearly staing the constitutional right to go after these people. So we did and yet you still cry and want to tie up the system with BS.
  Report Post »
- Uriel
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:07pm
  NO, Ron Paul has NOT been “right all along” ……
  
  But he was right today.
  Report Post »
- Rumrunner3
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:09pm
  The biggest problem I see, is that people think the Constitution applies world wide. It applies to our citizens here in this country or lawful territories. When a citizen goes to a foreign land and takes up arms or plots against this nation, his right to protection by the Constitution is superceded but Our rights to be protected from such idiots. Its not like it is questionable as to his intentions. And millions of dollars need not be spent to prove his guilt when he has done so in his own words and actions. Explosives well placed great shot guys and thanks.
  Report Post »
- ishka4me
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:28pm
  from what i read we attacked a convoy of alqaeda. this american bornjihadist happened to be in one of the cars. he wasn’t assignated, he was blown to smithereens from a hellfire missle. sucks for him, and congress did authorize use of force against alqaeda. My advice to the foolish ones is call your congressmen and urge them to vote against use of force against alqaeda. stop acting like drama queens
  Report Post »
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:28pm
  @Islesfordian You represented yourself very well here. Congratulations!
  Report Post »
- The Eradicator
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:04am
  Ron Paul 2012!
  
  Ha ha, yeah right!
  
  Dope.
  Report Post »
- LIBERTYFADING
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:05am
  To the guy who mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion to “strengthen” his position, I think you just shot yourself in the foot. For those of you who don’t know, It was about a tax put on corn farmers who made whiskey. It was put in by Alexander Hamilton to pay off national debt. They didn’t like it, so they rebelled and took over the tax collectors house. About 20 or so men were ARRESTED, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Look it up yourself. Washington DID call on the Governors in the area to send a militia to suppress the VIOLENCE, but were never needed because it collapsed way before. Read up on it, don’t let random people quote a random point in history and use it against you. Do your homework and understand “The rest of the story”!
  Report Post »
- Jefferson
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:07am
  This is pretty simple folks.
  YOU EITHER STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION OR YOU DON’T.
  You can’t just pick and choose the parts that are convenient, and discard the rest.
  WHAT ARE WE IF NOT A NATION OF LAWS??
  If we do not follow our our OWN laws, then we are no different than the “alleged” criminals we go after.
  MEN HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED TO PROTECT THE FREEDOMS WE HAVE LOST IN THIS COUNTRY, AND SOME OF YOU JUST URINATE ON THEIR GRAVES.
  The President, Elected Officials, and the Military SWEAR AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
  Our Constitution has been SHAT UPON… USED FOR TOILET PAPER.
  
  There is a REASON Ron Paul has more support from the military than ALL OF THE OTHER REPUGS COMBINED,and even more than this criminal Ohmamma.
  He is THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS BEEN FAITHFUL TO HIS OATH.
  
  Some of you phony conservatives make me sick. Half of you have probably never even READ the Constitution.
  Vote for some slicked up used car salesman, and watch this country go up in flames. Mark my words. That’s where we are headed.
  Report Post »
- adidell
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:16am
  @Islesfordian:
  You stated: “What? Are YOU guys the ones who get to decide what is constitutional and not the Supreme Court of the President? They at least, are part of our constitutional government. So, if Congress passed it and SCOTUS passed on it who are you or any of us say that the President, a Constitutional officer, can’t act on it?”
  
  Actually, the answer is Yes. But not via anarchy. The States and the people of the States have the right to refuse to do anything unconstitutional via the vote by their legislature or their State Supreme Court.
  WE are the 4th check and balance envisioned by our forefathers as recorded in the 10th Amendment.
  Finally we are beginning to use this check on centralized power.
  
  In regards to this killing, they should have revoked his citizenship based on his actions of treason and aiding the enemy, while also taking up arms against his fellow citizens. Once revoked, and that revocation was done by established code…he should be made into a steaming pile of goo
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:48am
  “In regards to this killing, they should have revoked his citizenship based on his actions of treason and aiding the enemy, while also taking up arms against his fellow citizens. Once revoked, and that revocation was done by established code…he should be made into a steaming pile of goo”
  
  That‘s actually the only interesting argument I’ve seen. It seems you are arguing for a basic bureaucratice procedure to follow. I’m not sure that would satisfy many here, as the same person who authorized his killing would authorize the revocation of his citizenship, and then they cry would come up, “By what Constitutional power can you revoke a person’s citizenship?” blah, blah balh.
  
  It seems to me, in responce to your idea of revoking his citizenship, that such action is implied in the very act to take hostile actions against him. Like FDR before, he is declared a virtual non-citizen by executive authority. Who exactly did you have in mind would revoke his citizenship? Congress or the State Department? Maybe the President ordered the Sec of State to sign off on it, thereby makinh him a non-citizen.
  
  Would that fulfill all righteousness?
  
  Either way, the initiative to burn him lies with the President. Like it or not folks, there’s not a thing in the Constitution that specifically forbids it and a hell of a lot of precedent and Supreme Court rulings that supports it.
  Report Post »
- Watchingtheweasels
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 1:39am
  Ron Paul is right. Nobody is arguing that Al whatever is name is is in fact a good guy. However, no American citizen should be able to be executed without due process, period. If anything, this is an argument for how we shouldn’t be dispensing American citizenship in vending machines in the middle east.
  Report Post »
- dr_funk
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 1:43am
  Al Awlaki lost his citizenship the moment he joined the armed forces of an enemy of the United States. By law, he automatically rescinded his citizenship in that single act.
  Report Post »
- Jefferson
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 1:46am
  Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers ‘was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks’
  
  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1ZVRjGHPj
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 1:54am
  @adidell,
  
  “Actually, the answer is Yes. But not via anarchy. The States and the people of the States have the right to refuse to do anything unconstitutional via the vote by their legislature or their State Supreme Court.
  “WE are the 4th check and balance envisioned by our forefathers as recorded in the 10th Amendment.”
  
  Agreed.
  
  Regarding violations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, as well as the rest of the national courts, see here.
  
  Federalist Papers #81
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa81.htm
  
  “In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”
  
  (Continued on next post)
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:01am
  (Continued from prior post)
  
  Regarding betrayal by our federal representatives.
  
  Federalist Papers #28
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm
  
  “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.”
  
  Regarding usurpation by our respective State governments.
  
  Federalist Papers #28
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm
  
  “The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.”
  
  (Continued on next post)
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:02am
  (Continued from prior post)
  
  Here’s something important: Because the national courts cannot forcibly support usurpations of the Constitution, the responsibility to hold the Supreme Court accountable to the Constitution, unlike with State governments and with federal representatives, does NOT ultimately extend to the citizens, themselves.
  
  The federal legislature is to hold the Supreme Court accountable via impeachments, and has a responsibility to enforce Constitutional laws as well as refuse to enforce unConstitutional laws; The federal legislature is, IN TURN, ultimately accountable to the citizens, themselves.
  
  Federalist Papers #81
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa81.htm
  
  “It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. …”
  
  (Continued on next post)
  Report Post »
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:08am
  (Continued from prior post)
  
  “… And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.”
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:34am
  Obama is an arrogant tyrant. Period.
  
  Next…
  
  IntegrityFirst08
  
  The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
  
  Cuts you right to the bone, doesn’t it?
  
  Think I feel sorry for idiots carrying out illegal orders? Not anymore than I would feel sorry for the Nazis at Nuremburg.
  
  Call me all the names you want, your blind allegiance makes you cannon fodder for false pretexts.
  
  Do you think that I’m at all affected by others opinions about my comments? You don’t know me very well, do you? Absolutely nonplussed.
  
  Ron Paul is always right on the Constitution. Always.And he is the only candidate that has that record, the rest would DIE to have his record of integrity to the constitution.
  
  The US Federal government has declared war on US citizens and it is the most corrupt government on earth. They cannot be trusted at all, whatsoever.
  
  For idiots, Al Awlaki was ASSASSINATED by a robotic COWARD-DRONE.
  
  For other idiots, there is NO CHECKS AND BALANCES on the unconstitutional 4th branch of government …the financier of foreign illegal wars…the FEDERAL RESERVE.
  
  Federal agents should have THEIR citizenship REVOKED for creating and plotting WITH Al Qaeda and giving them a new base in Libya.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 6:42am
  the political accountability that I laid out above will work in the case of killing Awlaki and in the wild scenario of the President of Congres coming after the Tea Party. Ultimately it is the power of the people to vote that is the political check on all abuses of our freedoms and of the Constitution. If the people decide that this killing was a dangerous violation of the Constitution they will make that known through the elections. (Well ,our guns are the real final check)
  
  But merely saying that a power to declare a citizen an enemy could be used against ANYBODY is a pointless argument. That argument is axiomatic. One could just as easily say that a homewoner’s right to defend himself with lethal force gives him the power to go against his neighbor. And yet we free people still would allor him the use of a gun for defense. What’s to stop him from declaring his neighbor a dangerous threat and shooting him? Not much, unless his neighbor has a gun too. But legally the law doesn’t tell the homeowner beforehand who he can judge a threat. It will give guidelines, but these guidelines won’t stop him abusing or violating them. The law will step in after the fact and judge his actions and hold him accounatbel. His knowledge of that we trust to be sufficient deterrent to the abuse of his freedom
  
  The same factors exist with the President. His knowledge that Congress and/or the people will judge him afterwards we trust will restrain him.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 6:53am
  For crying out loud, that’s the SECOND time that the Blaze has let my second of two consecutive comment go through while not letting the first one.
  
  Blaze, you suck. It’s impossible to make a coherent argument with your ridiculous word limit and if you drop posts made in quick succession.
  
  I was saying before that the political layout A DOCTORS LABOR lays out is straightforward but does not answer the question as to whether Awlaki’s death was Constitutional. It simply shows how each body is accountable politically. The President is accounatble to Congress. Congress is accountable to the Supreme Court and the court is accountabel to Congress, and all are ultimately accountable to the people.
  
  The saying that we are a nation of laws not men is false. We are a nation of liberty, which liberty is preserved by distributing the power over the political spectrum and giving each body the power to weigh in time. If the President viol,ated the Constitution it is not for us to say until after the Congress has had its say. We wait for them to make the determination as to whether this was Constitutional. If we vehemently disagree with their decision we express our judgment at the ballot box.
  
  So all these arguments can only serve a purpose if they onvince a majority of the people to agree and use their political power to that effect.
  Report Post »
- techengineer11
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 9:16am
  Sort of funny that everyone you see on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS all say that while don’t agree with everything Obama does they all believe he has the right to slaughter American citizens whom he deems to be a terrorist. Interesting isn’t it? Especially given the concerted effort to brand all Tea Party elements domestic terrorists.
  
  Many of you idiots condoning these actions I fear one day will be choking upon them. Do you simply hate Ron Paul and Constitutional minded people so much who care deeply about this country that you simply despise everything we say simply because of we are?
  
  I don’t even believe we are really fighting over issues as much as we are perceptions. I really believe that if FOX, McCain or some other Establishment candidate would have come out and condemned this attack as an attack on Liberty and Freedom then those supporting it would probably be condemning it as well.
  
  It’s simply group think gone awry. I never dreamed that so many Conservative people would fall prey to this sort of mind control. I always thought that it was only Liberals who were brain dead.
  Report Post »
- AOL_REFUGEE
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:35am
  This schmuck was an erstatz (immitation; phony) American citizen – and an ANTI-American one at that, which, as far as I’m concerned, DISQUALIFIES him as a citizen despite the technicalities. Sometimes common sense trumps technicality, which is why I think this schmuck got what he deserved and why I’ve completely written off Paul and Johnson as great, big, nincompoopy ZEROS in this election.
  Report Post »
- Cat
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:49am
  @A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  
  My point exactly.
  Know you enemy …
  Report Post »
- rsig
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:51am
  ” The thing is, are you really willing to let the government decide who‘s a terrorist and who’s not?”
  
  “The government” is quite a broad term. Maybe you could be more specific. The president? Our elected representatives? A non-elected bureaucrat? A military officer in the field?
  
  A Ron Paul cultist, like yourself, prefers that a jury of twelve make that decision. I might go along with that if I could be assured that only Ron Paul cultists and their families would be the only people butchered by Islamic terrorists, but since that‘s not likely I’m going to go with “the government’s” current policy of killing them before they kill those of us that believe Ron Paul and his minions are idiots.
  Report Post »
- hidden_lion
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 11:10am
  The constitution is the law of the land, you are either for it or you are against it. There is no in-between or room for grey area. People are so ready to ruled by a king. Tyranny is on the rise here and abroad, the acceptance of dictators and butchers are becoming so common it is scary. Villains are the new heros and the heros are now the villains….
  Report Post »
- hidden_lion
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 11:43am
  If this is OK, then why are they bothering to give Maj Hassan a trial? Just shoot him. He was caught in the act of actually doing it. They didn’t even indict Al-Alawaki. That at least would have had evidence presented against the guy. All we have is conjecture and what the media says about the guy. And the media always tells us the truth, right? The constitution only has meaning and power if the people exercise their rights. The government has failed to live up to their oaths of office, not just the president. Congress has failed to do what they were hired for, in Libya and in this case. If he had real ties to Al-Qaeda before he went to Yemen, why was he allowed to leave the country when they had 8 year old boys on the no fly list? Maybe they should have arrested him when he was eating lunch at the white house. They might as well stop all terrorist trials and just put a bullet in them, no sense wasting time with due process. Heck, might as well get rid of the constitution as well, it seems it is outdated to all you traitorous fake conservatives.
  Report Post »
- Dissent954
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:31pm
  U r so right libertyfading, we need to stick to the constitution even if it hurts a little ! For the sake of freedom and liberty. Those who give up essential liberty for security deserve neither!!
  
  All I know is after the shoe bomber they implemented shoe searches , after the underwear bomber they started checking our underwear, after new York city plot , they want security everywhere . And this guy is supposedly responsible for all the failed attempts but who benefited from all these failed attempts?
  
  Now everyone’s cheering on a the trampling of our constitution and the demise of the 4th and 5th amendment. What happened to do process and habeus corpus ?
  
  “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
  ― Thomas Paine
  Report Post »
- Zorro6821
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 6:35pm
  Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are in my opinion correct. The constitution is clear on the right afforded to all citizens, good, bad. or evil. There is no ambiguity about matters of life and death. For example, why did we not just assonate Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber and a whole host of American Terrorists and bad guys. Picking and choosing when the constitution should apply can never be accepted. I think we are far beyond the point where the constitution is respected and enforced on so many issues. A great example protecting our sovereignty as is border issues and upholding states rights etc. At least Ron Paul and Gary Johnson try to point these out, no matter how distressful it is for the layperson to comprehend.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 8:03pm
  If we are in a war on “terror” and the State Department has a list of supporters of terror, North Korea, Iran, etc why do we not assassinate the leaders of these countries?
  
  If the President can determine anyone a terrorist why choose to assassinate an us citizen in Yemen over assassinating Kim Jon ill or the Ayatollah or the drug cartel leaders?
  
  Do we value world law over our own country’s law?
  
  Executing a Citizen without trial or tribunal violates our Constitution just as assassinating leaders of foreign countries violates international law.
  
  Under Progressive FDR who IsledFordian touts, there was a trial.
  Under the Whiskey rebellion, there was a trial.
  With Saddam, there was a trial.
  
  The guy is a dirtbag we get that but we must prove that and we do so thru the court of law. If you think he could not be caught you are wrong. We were face to face with Bin Laden so we surely could have gotten face to face with this guy in Yemen, our puppet. The guy was violating American law 1st by being a Citizen and should be held accountable by such law.
  
  Why did Yemen not capture or deal with this terrorist? If the State came and said IsLesFordian is a terrorist should we believe Government and execute IsLesFordian on the spot without trial?
  
  @Integrity
  
  V Man and I do not agree on everything but we do agree on this perpetual war is destroying our country and that it is abusing many powers, this being one. I’ll stand with V Man all day on this.
  Report Post »
- LeJimster
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 8:29pm
  The trouble with Al Qaeda is, they are whoever the Government says they are. In fact it was the US government who invented the name Al Qaeda as a way to link separate Islamic terror groups together. Awlaki was never a Al Qaeda leader, just as Osama Bin Laden was never a leader. Because they simply don’t exist in the manner the US portray them. Sure Islamic terrorists exist. But Al Qaeda is a work of fiction. There are just a bunch of individuals who often run different terror plots against the US, not one homogenized army. And this is the problem. Anyone can be potentially labelled an Al Qaeda operative without proof or trial and simply just erased.
  
  I’ve seen the US do some horrible acts, but I think we are scraping the barrel now. We have seen this type of action in Communist countries, but never in the leader(former) of the free world.
  
  The power now granted to the President by the President allows Obama or any future President to label *anyone* they deem a threat for death. Without any kind of oversight. Pure dictatorial control. And you thought Bush was joking when he said “It would be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I’M THE DICTATOR” – Well he was close, but Obama beat him to that one.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 8:57pm
  ”No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
  Ronald Reagan 1981 Executive Order 12333
  
  “The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.”
  Abraham Lincoln 1863 Section IX of General Order 100
  
  It seems “Conservatives” don’t want to listen to the two Presidents they hug onto the most, Lincoln and Reagan.
  Report Post »
- Sheepdog911
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 9:28pm
  Awlaki is the perfect example of an anchor baby … child born in U.S. to Yemeni parents, grows up to be one of the major enemies of the U.S. Then, in killing an enemy of the U.S., the U.S. seems to have violated the words of the 5th Amendment. Would you care for a better reason why the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with giving U.S. Citizenship to the children of foreign nationals in the U.S., even if they are legally present in the U.S. The 14th Amendment was NEVER intended to do what it has done … give U.S. Citeizenship to children who are legally citizens of another country based on their parent’s citizenship, just because they were born here. Sorry Ron, you are nuts, you do not represent me as a Conservative, you embarrass me by claiming to be such.
  Report Post »
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:20pm
  Glenn Beck has told us George Bush, who started this perpetual war, was Progressive. BO is carrying the torch. Progressives want what again as said by Van Jones:
  
  Bottom up
  Top down
  Inside out
  
  Those cheering for the TOP to come DOWN on Citizens are doing exactly what is wanted by Progressives. Violate your own laws for more authoritative Government.
  
  Please, please top, come clamp down on Citizens and assassinate them with out trial.
  
  Wake up America, wake up. Listen to Lincoln and Reagan quoted above and then see how far “conservatives” have progressed, like George Bush, McCain, Graham. Wake up!
  Report Post »
- zeke440
  Posted on October 2, 2011 at 12:26am
  Well first of all the government didnt go scowring the country side here in the US looking for this guy… He made it very plane he was a terrorist living and working in another country… one I might add that had identifiedim as a member of terrorist orginization… Mr Paul dosent have all the facts at his disposal in a matter he pronounces as something wrong… When you are outside the USA calling for Jihad… YOU are a terrorist ! and we are wageing a war Dont get in the crosshairs of a HELLFIRE… you can do that by acting like an AMERICAN…
  Report Post »
- techengineer11
  Posted on October 2, 2011 at 9:52am
  FOX just finished their round table of promoting the Police State while bashing and marginalizing Ron Paul.
  
  These Neo-Cons make me sick and there’s no way to combat them while they have the Media to promote their agenda. All they have to do is make suggestions and the Sheep blindly follow. Their reasoning and arguments sound good but there’s no opposition no counter arguments..
  
  Just sad.. I don’t even know if I can support these people any longer. I‘d never vote for a Dem but I don’t know if I can support these establishment Republicans which FOX news and their ilk are choosing for us. Just seems hopeless for those of us who cherish our Constitution.
  
  Who was the statesman that said and I’m paraprhasing that ” If tyranny comes it will come dressed in red, white, and blue and will seem extremely Patriotic…” I know this blog is dead now but I’ll check back a day or two to see if anyone has an answer..
  Report Post »
- Jefferson
  Posted on October 2, 2011 at 9:56am
  Here’s your fearless leader Glenn Beck, decrying to drone attack. I guess HE “stands with the terrorists” as well?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xf56nWU0E&feature=related
  We have a Prez the recklessly jokes about using predator drones on the Jonas brothers, because his daughters are in love with them. We have certain groups calling Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists, returning disgruntled veterans, “domestic terrorists”.
  Who’s next on this slippery slope?
  Some of you are so busy foaming at the mouth just to kill a “*******”, that you don’t even realize the dangerous precedent that has been set here. How do you know that you wont be on the list next?
  Oh….that would NEVER happen here….Yeah RIGHT. They probably said that in Germany too.
  A couple of you people couldn’t put the noose around your own necks fast enough.
  Ron Paul is the ONLY one who understands that “Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master”
  Oh….but we like the Federal Reserve guy!! He’s black, and shows that we’re not racist, because we picked a black guy. We‘re scared of people calling us racist because they don’t have a policy argument to stand on. So we’ll vote for a puppet of a different color to show them!!
  DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN AMERICA!!
  Report Post »
- techengineer11
  Posted on October 2, 2011 at 10:02am
  Excellent post Jefferson.
  
  Problem is that those who would listen and understand the concerns won’t because Ron Paul is the one making it. Rand is a better statesman.. Glenn has expressed legitimate concern for our Constitution on occasion as well… Anyway we need more statesmen in our corner to counter the Neo-Cons on FOX.
  Report Post »
- sickoftalking
  Posted on October 3, 2011 at 1:03am
  Islesfordian said: “Some of you people might have heard of the Whiskey Rebellion … which Washington put down without any hearings or due process …You won’t find that in the Constitution, but it was Constitutional nonetheless.”
  
  The executive is authorized the power by the Constitution to enforce laws and use physical force to accomplish that, as not only being the commander of the Army but also the Militia, and the Militia of the time was used to enforce laws (it was used as a police force).
  
  The primary aim of Washington in sending the military was to arrest the leaders of the rebellion. Once the situation was contained, they were in fact arrested and brought to trial in Philadelphia for charges of high treason. In other words, the military action was necessary to bring the actors under arrest, and once under arrest, they were given their full due process rights.
  
  Those who complain about the al-Alwaki killing argue that if he was killed as the result of a violent conflict during an attempted arrest, it would be perfectly Constitutional. But, the President never tried to make an arrest, and simply authorized an act of assassination.
  
  And, no, I’m not a libertarian, although I think they’re right on this. Though, eyond the Constitutional issue, I don’t think the government should be in the business of assassination at all, whether of citizens or non-citizens. In fact, historically this has been considered against the rules of war and is prohibited in the Ge
  Report Post »
dancermommd
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:11pm
He was an american citizen who moved to another country to fight in a war against us. I think he gave up his right to call himself a US citizen at that point. When we bomb the enemy it means you could lose your life. Are we trying to catch and bring back any US citizen for trial just cause they are our citizen? War sucks. And for him it just sucked a lot!
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- hauschild
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:21pm
  I happen to agree with you. However, what you have just done is justify the assassination in your mind. What if there comes a day when the justification in the majority’s minds is not so rational or reasonable???
  Report Post »
- deepesq
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:42pm
  This shows why we should NOT allow any person to hold dual citizenship with the U.S.! Why we would ever let someone be a citizen of Yemen and the U.S.A. is beyond me!!! That is something that needs sharp and prompt correction after the 2012 election — assuming we get common sense conservatives to take Congress and the White House!!!
  Report Post »
- Will4Freedom
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:42pm
  I agree. If they have proof, give him his day in court.
  
  I’m afraid giving the Government the power to decide who should be killed, when and where is not a can of worms I’d care to open. They grab more power every day. What if one wacko commits a terror like crime and has a Tea Party pamphlet in his pocket. It doesn’t matter where he got it or if he agrees with the TP. Some Government official declares the TP as a terrorist organization and the US as we knew it is gone.
  Report Post »
- stopspendingourmoney
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:08pm
  The “CONSTITUTION” clearly states that all us citizens are entitled to a fair and speedy trial, so it is going against the United States Constitution, but the obama admin never did care for that old piece of paper that made America great and fair. Now we are letting the Government choose who they can kill or not with out a trial? scary this is unlawful. those that are for this, I hope you do nothing to tick off the government , or oppose there high taxes or anything else they do, or you may get killed by the government without a trial.
  
  Restore America Ron Paul 2012!!!
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:16pm
  “This shows why we should NOT allow any person to hold dual citizenship with the U.S.! ”
  
  1. US law does not recognize the issue of dual citizenship because it has no business in it if it is citizenship granted by birth. A lot of people seem to think that renouncing or changing citizenship is like changing one’s residency her in the US, but it isn’t because there are no international laws governing it. So a person born in Yemen can become a citizen over here and Yemen will still recognize him as a citizen over there. We can’t control that. Neither can the “ex”Yemeni. He can’t “renounce” his Yemeni citizenship and make it impossible to regain at a later date because Yemen can ignore his renunciation, just as US law doesn‘t accept a person’s renunciation of citizenship until it has been officially and legally confirmed (You can’t lose it unintentionally or thoughtlessly).
  
  2. What harm came from this man having dual citizenship that couldn’t have come from his only being an American citizen and an immigrant to Yemen? Walker, the American Taliban, had no dual citizenship with Afghanistan.
  
  Let‘s not get up in arms fighting things that aren’t problems.
  Report Post »
- booger71
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:42pm
  This is know different than a cop killing a fleeing felon
  Report Post »
- theperch
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:52pm
  I do not see this as an assassination.This guy left his country behind to fight against it. He got what he deserved.
  Report Post »
- jb.kibs
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:14pm
  yeah, i personally don’t care what nationality he is, our government is way out of line, assassinations of people who are not guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt… he wasn’t even hiding from us. he could have been brought to trial if he has truly commited crimes against the US… the same as everyone else.
  
  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (if obumma followed that rule, what would he be inviting upon himself?)
  
  … Lead by example, not by force.
  Report Post »
- chazman
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:23pm
  @OKIE
  
  Thanks, but this turd is not worth ONE American Navy SEAL. I say ‘NO.’ This creep must be deemed a traitor and dealt with with extreme prejudice … which happened from a great distance.
  
  @A DOC
  
  … thanks for the link, DOC.
  
  You and OKIE enjoy the rest of the day …
  Report Post »
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:59pm
  Ron Paul in no shape, manner or form reflects conservatism. This POS declared war on us so we don’t need to declare war on him to kill him. Why would we risk the life of one American to capture him? Also it isn’t like this guy was turning himself in…..he was on the run. Paul & his Paulbots don‘t point out that the constitution doesn’t protect anyone *in the act of harming others*, in Florida you have the right to kill someone kicking in your front door, you have no obligation to capture them. Is that unconstitutional? No!
  Report Post »
SavingtheRepublic.com
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:10pm
~^~v~~^~~v~^~
RP has a cop mentality. Dont do anything until after the fact.

Person A: I was threatened officer, this guy threatened to kill me!
Officer: Yes well we cant do anything about it. They havent touched you, dont have a weapon. We can give them a warning and tell them to leave for trespassing. Its their right of free speech they havent done anything we cant really do anything.
Person A: But some of the people this guy has had direct contact with say the same things and acted on them.
Officer: Yes and they were arrested
Person A: Arrested after committing crimes he ordered!
Officer: Sorry I have to go and write a report now on a person that was murdered by what a coincidence we got the killer who actually knows this guy that threatened you!! Huh what a small world!

That IS how it goes. Anyone here who is pro gun understands it too. Cops arent there to save you they are usually there to write reports, mark evidence, note the placement of the victims body and arrest the criminal AFTER the crime is committed! This is Paul and Johnsons mentality, this is the mindset of hardcore right Libertarians. Remember Libertarians are extreme right of the true political spectrum… a hash mark from Anarchy. The Founders put us farther left from that b/c they know we cant survive on the edge of anarchy. This policy will be argued for a long time but consider this, Paul and Johnson will wait till after the radioactive dust settles to do something! http://SavingtheRepublic
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- LIBERTYFADING
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:15pm
  Are you not innocent until proven guilty? If he was guilty, he would have been FOUND guilty in a court of law. He was an American citizen like you and me, and was deemed a terrorist. What if the tea party was deemed “domestic terrorists” and were to be assassinated?… Oh wait… they were called that, and more….
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:17pm
  In other words, you have no respect for due process, an ideal we hold but neocons and warmongers don’t think applies to anyone else around the world.
  
  We just shoot Americans with hellfire missiles now. Because the corrupt CIA, FBI, NSA, military, whatever says so.
  
  The same corrupt bastards shipping guns to Mexico, helping the Cartels move drugs and cash, and helping the Taliban grow poppy.
  
  Wow.
  Report Post »
- SavingtheRepublic.com
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:37pm
  Its a tough call that why I said this policy will be argued for years to come. Im just glad its a democrat, Obama, who put it in place! Imagine if GWB did this, the left would be insane right about now. Im sure there is more to this executive order than we know. Im sure you just cant put someone on this hit list, if that were so we would all be dead by now! You make some valid points, but point of my post was to show the extreme position of 2 individuals running for office will wait to do anything. RP has made it clear anything bad that happens is our fault. So we need to take a our licks and move on, even if that means turning the other cheek when a bully is in your face with a history of violence saying I will kill you! Sorry but when you take away the sugarcoating of what he says this IS what it comes down to. That is a dangerous policy for this or any country!
  Report Post »
- Rightallalong
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:42pm
  @Savingtherepublic – if your vision of saving the republic is to arrest people becasue they may do something bad is sadly the vision not of a repoblic but of a dictatorship. It is sad to see people so willing to give up their right to due process as long as its ‘the other guy’.
  Report Post »
- Vindex.Dogood
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:54pm
  @savingtherepublic You said “RP has made it clear anything bad that happens is our fault. So we need to take a our licks and move on”. Where did you get that? Is there a quote somewhere that you can produce? Sounds like neocon propaganda. Ron Paul has said no such thing. He is warning us that our government must return to the constraints of the constitution without compromise or the end result will be the loss of what your handle clams to be saving. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
  Report Post »
- SavingtheRepublic.com
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:56pm
  V I didnt say that dont put words in my mouth. Im for due process and its why we cannot assume the assassination order is as simple as just putting someone’s name on it. This guy is no angel or would you willingly hand your children over to him? Im sure there is more to the order that they have to have a substantial amount of intel to put someone on this hitlist. Again if what you and others say we ALL would be targeted for termination!
  
  Curious RP attacks the CIA for saying things and misleading govt & public yet he cites them as a resource of info on other issues like Irans nuke program. Whats the deal with his flip flopping on them? (not here to argue the nuke program or anything else)
  
  Sounds like he is pulling a John Kerry “I was for it before I was against it”. This is just another sign that RP is not who you all think he is. You RP ppl make it clear we neocons are being played as, well you NEOLIBS are being played by RP. I am looking and one day I will find the dirt I need on him to prove he is shill using the Constitution as others use the Bible, immigration, race etc to gain followers! Cmon guys wake up get out of the Matrix!
  Report Post »
- American_Made
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:20pm
  You you fail to realize is in this country you are responsible for your own safety. Police are not your personal body guards.
  The fact is these guys were American citizens and should have been afforded the rights that go with that. They should not of had an illegal hit put on them by the president of the united states. There right to trial has not been afforded them. Congress under the constitution cannot pass laws in conflict with the constitution without first amending the constitution. As far as I know there has been no amendment to the constitution to take these individuals rights to a trial away and have them killed. That makes what Obama did Illegal. Plain and simple. I am no fan of these guys and quite frankly and glad they are dead. But the fact remains their rights afforded them under the constitution of the United States were violated and that is a very slippery slope indeed. That is the same kind of thing dictators do to dissidents. Read the Constitution, Bill of rights and the federalist papers and you will have a better understanding.
  Report Post »
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:29pm
  You make a good point here.
  
  Did not Obama just deprive a US Citizen of his civil rights? Do not government-types get fired for such actions?
  
  Hmm.
  Report Post »
- teapartyconservatism
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:57pm
  @ SavingtheRepublic.com
  
  Your comment regarding Dr. Paul’s reliance on CIA intel concerning the Iranian nuclear program possibly being contradictory, is apparently predicated upon the false assumption that we are currently preventing or intend to prevent, Iran from finalizing the creation of their own nuclear arms arsenal.
  
  Iran, essentially unaffected by sanctions and dismissive of western warnings, is merrily chugging right along with their nuclear enrichment and missile development programs. Indeed, Iran is unabated and apparently acting with absolute impunity as a primary exporter of terrorism. Iran also defiantly continues to fund and arm our enemy in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems Iran‘s tyrannical Islamic leaders are unconcerned that America’s military power certainly long ago should have and still could be, brought to bear on them.
  
  Granted Iraq and Afghanistan do bracket Iran on their western and eastern borders respectively, which could be a huge militarily advantage to us, if we ever decide to actually stop Iran’s exportation of terrorism and their nuclear weapons development program by striking them militarily.
  
  Do you see that happening or is Ron Paul correct by default?
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:04pm
  It’s like you people never read what the Supreme Court has written about Presidential powers in war. You just assume that our constitutional protections in peacetime and at home apply in war and abroad just the same.
  
  No they don’t, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly for decades said that they don’t. If you are an enemy of the US in war you have no right sto due process, and the President and those under him determine if you are an enemy. The Court has declared itself to have no jurisdiction in this matter.
  
  Whine all you want about it but that is the state of the law we live under.
  Report Post »
- A Conservatarian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:23pm
  @ saving the republic – - “Its a tough call that why I said this policy will be argued for years to come. Im just glad its a democrat, Obama, who put it in place! Imagine if GWB did this, the left would be insane right about now” Wow, what Constitutional Republic are you trying to save with that nonsense? Thank you so much for proving my point that left or right in most everyone’s brainwashed mind today refers to the federalist party aisle in congress. And everyone thought they ‘lost’ back in the day and disappeared, pffft.
  Report Post »
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:07am
  LIBERTYFADING
  Are you not innocent until proven guilty? Only if you are captured. If you are in the act committing a crime then it is legal to kill you to protect others. It happens every day. Paul is a kook
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 2:16am
  Neoconcorp
  
  Ron Paul isn’t a “kook” just because you say so.
  
  You’re just a warmonger. That’s all. As long as you percieve that the warmongering serves your interest.
  
  Well, Obama just gave Al Qaeda an entire country in Libya and at the same time doing a victory lap around Al Awlaki’s death, which should be no great surprise considering that the man worked for the CIA, so they knew exactly where he was, what he was doing, what he ate his last night…etc.
  
  You warmongers will make any excuse to continue warmongering.
  
  Anybody who doesn’t agree with your warmongering you call a kook, soft, unamerican, doesn’t support the troops, etc. etc. etc., rhetoric.
  Report Post »
- Jefferson
  Posted on October 2, 2011 at 10:15am
  @REPUBLICRAP
  You are about as dumb as a bag of hammers. What about your fearless leader Beck, saying the SAME THING Ron Paul said about the drone attacks? Is Glenn a “kook” too.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xf56nWU0E&feature=related
  
  Only simpletons use words like “kook”, “racist”, etc. when they aren’t intelligent enough argue the Constitutionality, specifics of the policy. You’re like the Janine Garbarfelo of the blaze..
  
  You’ve probably got your little world view divided up into “pinheads” and “patriots”, just like a useful tool would.
  
  “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of an idiot, rather than open it and remove all doubt” Mark Twain
  Report Post »
KickinBack
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:09pm
In my opinion, this man rescinded his citizenship when he went over to the enemy. He is not an American, he only believes in killing Americans. He does not have to have killed himself, he eats, sleeps, and trains with those who have slaughtered Americans, and is now one more piece of trash that this world does not have to worry about. With that said, may God have mercy on his soul.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Vindex.Dogood
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:41pm
  Keep drinking the kool-aid and chanting “We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.. errr Muslim Terrorists”. The Republic is lost if we do not wake up now People!
  Report Post »
- Rightallalong
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:44pm
  So how long until the OBAMER in the whitehouse says if you are a teaparty member then you have gone over to the enemy and want to destroy the republic… Its a path to destruction and it seems we will lose all of our freedoms to the Chant of USA USA USA …
  Report Post »
- standupbcounted
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:48pm
  I agree and I am glad he is gone. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are weak and they just don’t get it.
  Report Post »
Fusion Center Commander
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:08pm
This guy had CIA ties and was at the White House before 9/11 happened. If this story doesnt raise some eyebrows, we are truely sheeple.And if Obama can do this to anyone..you think you are exempt? Time to wake up and support Ron Paul.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- standupbcounted
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:51pm
  I will not support Ron Paul and I am sure that he will never get the independent vote that we need if we are to win. Obama won’t be as easy to beat as you think.
  Report Post »
- Faith1029
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:56pm
  How many can say they know every detail about this mission? Do you haved privileged information? Keep in mind the President has inside information that is not shared with the public. He was a U.S. citizen. Really? This man moved to another country to declare war on the U.S. This makes him a traitor to the U.S. Yes, let’s bring him here and give him a trial that costs millions all the while attracting even more terrorists here for doing so, and putting the American citizens in harms way. Ridiculous. The man was a terrorist. We declare war on terrorists. I would never vote for Ron Paul, a man more concerned with the rights of a terrorist than the safety of the American people. To those who would say Paul is concerned only with the constitution I would say, would you have changed your mind about that if this thug killed one of your own? Would you still want him to have a trial? I doubt it. I am not an Obama fan but I am grateful there is one less thug we have to deal with.
  Report Post »
jay1975
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:07pm
It is unfortunate that so many “conservatives” are cheering this assassination. This guy could have been tried in absentia, then convicted and sentenced to death first. This has set a terrible precedent for the government to be able to assassinate anyone they deem a terrorist (didn’t Biden call the TEA Party terrorists no too long ago?). Did al-Awlaki get what he deserved? Yes. Am I willing to give up my liberty or freedom in order for the government to get that guy? Hell no.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- American_Made
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:12pm
  Your are correct,. Were these guys trash? Yup, so was Tim McVeigh. He had his trial and was put to death under the constitution. Just because these guys are worthless trash does not give the president of the US the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. Or great constitution assures this or should I say used to.
  Report Post »
Dozer 2012
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:07pm
So no more due process? Granted he was a pos but so was Charles Manson. The U.S. just murdered two of its own citizens. I wonder who they will deem a terrorist next. the department of homeland security might know.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- ishka4me
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:16pm
  silly! makes Mr.Paul look like an idiot. This terrorist joined alqaeda, was in active war on the U.S, world and aided in the mueder of americans. Were we to send over the 82nd Airborne to get this guy? Ron Paul should think things through before he says dumb things
  Report Post »
- rose-ellen
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:18pm
  He was murdered for his beliefs. No different then if after that anti-abortion christian murdered that abortionist-if the government would have assassinated a priest or bishop for preachng that abortion is murder and abortion is wrong and goes against Christ.And to this day ther are prists who say killing an abortionist is morally/religiously justified.This muslim cleric simply expressed the view[when hasan asked him] that resistence to american agression in iraq or afghanistan was just in the eyes of God. That is a religious belief and his expressed anti-americanism [against american policies] is protected political speech.he was not part of a plot [buying weapons,planning the logistics of an attack]with anyone. He simply expressed a theological and ethical belief about when “terrorism” is justified and a belief that american policies were wrong.
  Report Post »
- Wakawl
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:58pm
  Seems ishka4me forgot who decides whats right and wrong, and it sure as hell isnt the people.
  
  The government decides whats right and wrong.
  
  People like ishka4me are the sort that would allow the government to put cameras on every streetcorner just so they can catch bad guys.
  Report Post »
- Faith1029
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:31pm
  ROSE-ELLEN: “Hope one day you americans are brought to justice for crimes against humanity. You’re showing yourselves to be alot like these dictators who murder dissidents. Not surprising since you’ve propped them up all along. The world is a witness to your true colors.”
  
  Your compassion for this man is disturbing and equally disturbing is your distane for Americans who oppose terrorism. It seems your concern is with the thugs and not the American people. I think this is a witness to your true colors.
  Report Post »
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:18am
  ROSE-ELLEN and the Bots have a lot in common…..America is the bad guy
  Report Post »
tankyjo
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:05pm
Dangerous, precedent, esp when coming from this admin.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
  No precedent. Enemies of the US on and off the battle field, whether citizens or not, can be punished and executed as a matter of war. FDR did it to a US citizen working as a Nazi sabotuer in the States and the Supreme Court upheld it.
  Report Post »
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:31pm
  1) War. No declared State of War. Moot.
  2) Trial. Conviction. THEN Execution.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:43pm
  “No declared state of war”
  
  What do you think Congress’ authorization of armed force against Al Qaeda is? Do you think a declaration of war must involve a certain formula of words like a magical spell? Unless the right words are said we aren’t at war, despite Congress telling the President he has the authorization to use “War Powers”(that’s in the Act), is that what you are saying?
  
  You libertarians/liberals inhabit your own lttle world, don’t you?
  Report Post »
- We are Americans
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:19pm
  This guys father tried to sue our government
  when we put this guy on our hit list. A judge has
  already ruled it was legal. If a law is passed and
  challenged and a court upholds it. It is constitutional.
  That’s the system our fore fathers set up.
  If you join al quida and take up arms against
  us in another country you will be targeted and killed.
  Pretty simple.
  Report Post »
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 3:09am
  @ Islesfordian
  I have enjoyed your “Horatio at the Bridge” effort here. I share your exasperation with the many folks who set themselves up as a “Supreme Court of One.” If you ever talk with a tax protestor (not the kind that wants lower taxes, but the kind who thinks he doesn’t need to pay), you will experience the same frustration.
  Report Post »
- Islesfordian
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 9:37am
  Chuck, sometimes I wonder if there is a certain type of person drawn to such irrationality. We’re told that some have a predisposition to alchoholism or addiction to substances. Maybe some have a predisposition to irrationality and are compelled to take fanatical stands impervious to argument, and fall for conspiracy theories whether it be Truthers, Birthers or Grassy Knollers. They’re more likely to believe in alien landings being covered up and in the evil machinations of the Tri-lateral commision and Bildeburgers.
  
  Someone said, maybe CS Lewis or GK Chesterton, that the problem with madmen isn‘t that they can’t think logically. It’s that they can ONLY think logically, meaning that they will admit to no reasoning that isn’t fully comprehensible to them and they insist on inflexible consistency. They have no room for complexity or mystery. “Stuff happens” is never an explanation for them. They know there is always a reason and they are sure they have found it.
  
  And I generally find tat they are dificient in a sense of humor, the good kind of humor, not the nasty bitter kind that Bill Maher exhibits so frequently.
  Report Post »
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 6:49pm
  @ Islesfordian
  Interestingly, your reference sounds very much like today’s “Notable & Quotable” piece in the Wall Street Journal (page A13) — it was from G.K. Chesterton in “Orthodoxy,” 1908.
  Report Post »
matinva
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:03pm
This is why neither of you will ever be elected president. Most of the rest of America ‘gets it’ about al Qaeda. They will kill or attempt to kill Americans at any and every opportunity and they won’t stop until we make it clear that attaining leadership in that mob automatically puts a bulls-eye on your a$$ and we’re just going to take you out. Period. Next! When these barbarians finally figure out their real reward is going to be 72 Virginians, maybe they’ll change their tune. Until then, I support the continued use of drones and Hellfire missiles. Call it whatever you like.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- WVRob
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:11pm
  Just hope that someone in the government doesn’t decide you are a member of a terrorist organization… *BOOM*
  Report Post »
- kentuckypatriot
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
  Good point! Maybe they should have watched GBTV yesterday, then they might have understood.
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:13pm
  What exactly do you think “most” of America “gets” about Al Qaeda? Do you speak for “most” Americans?
  
  Hell no. You don’t. You speak for yourself and most Americans speak for themselves.
  
  9-11 was an inside job.
  
  Ron paul “gets” that the War on Terror and interventionist foreign policy is NOT in Americans’ interest.
  
  Most Americans want the TSA abolished.
  
  A recent poll suggests that over 80%+ of Americans don’t trust the government.
  Report Post »
- booger71
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:44pm
  9-11 was an inside job.
  ———————————
  You mean because the Jesuit/CIA asset Alex Jones with his buddies Charlie and Martin Sheen says it was?
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:41pm
  booger71
  
  ROTFLMFAO @ Jesuit/CIA/Vatican Assassin.
  
  What do you live in a video game?
  
  Alex Jones tells the truth, and his facts are easily backed up and corroborated by reputable sources.
  
  Stop regurgitating unfounded baseless attacks against Alex Jones.
  Report Post »
- rose-ellen
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:34pm
  Declaring war against alquada when anyone you choose can be labeled a member of alquada- shows we are not a nation of laws[principles of due process, fairness, universal human rights, innocent till proven guilty etc]Unlike declaring a war against a country or armed militia in a civil war say- a declared war on alquada is a way to void all laws. a soldier can be recognized by a uniform or flag .Alquada can mean anything we want it to mean and include anyone we want to to include. This is totalitarian police state thuggery-pure and simple. We have become the true terrorists in declaring a war on terror and alquada.If you don’t see it, it is because you’re are not impacted.But this violates everything we believe in as americans. We are complicit with police state tyrany if you accept this.The opposite of americanism .Wake up!
  Report Post »
thegreatcarnac
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:01pm
Ron has a point. This clown was a citizen but he did join another side in war and in a sense….he is a traitor. He was behind the death of many American citizens. He should be dead and I am glad he is dead:…..however…do you want the likes of obama deciding which US citizen he is going to kill and when. This little worm will be killing people who talk against him. Drones will be striking regular homes in the US if obama could get away with it.. Perhaps they should have given Alawki a quick trial in abstentia and then kill him. Don’t count from any words of wisdom from the DOJ….all they care about are black panthers and stomping on white people.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- momprayn
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
  Yes, that’s what my husband said – they should have tried him “abstentia” & then killed him. I hadn’t ever heard that before & then I saw your post. Don’t think most non-military ppl know about that either but surely the ones “in charge” knew it. No, do not count on the DOJ – Dept. of INjustice — they are all corrupt under the criminal regime of Holder/Obama Admin.
  Report Post »
- louise
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:15pm
  Thegreatcarnac,
  Good observations. Just a few years ago people who supported Ron Paul or anything else related to the liberty movement, were considered domestic terrorists. We are a tiny step away from this happening to any of us who are working to restore our Republic. People have got to understand that they do not want the Republic restored. They want us to march in step with the rest of the world towards the one world government.
  Report Post »
AzCowboy
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:00pm
5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER (thats the sticky part)
jH…
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- AzCowboy
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:05pm
  Remember We Need To Live By Our Constitution…….
  jH…
  Report Post »
- IntegrityFirst08
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:15pm
  That is exactly right bro. This is where Ron Paul falls short. Always will and a main reason why a lot of the public cant see eye to eye with him. These kooky statements keep comming out of his mouth. Libertarians take it to the extreems.
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:23pm
  But you’re wrong, marine.
  
  We aren’t at war.
  
  This is “Kinetic Action” and “Humanitarian Obligation”.
  
  What country are we “at war” with?
  
  What nation attacked us?
  
  We‘re being treated like criminals ourselves based on a farce and you’re more likely to die from bee stings than being attacked by a terrorist… but our rights are being trampled. Absolutely trampled.
  
  Those who would sacrifice freedom and liberty for “security” will get neither and deserve neither.
  
  That includes being assassinated by your own governemnt without due process, a trial, or anything.
  Report Post »
- hidden_lion
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:31pm
  It say when in service in the militia or armed forces, not everyday citizens. It means soldiers can be shot for desertion, or hung as traitors on the fly during battle or such where expediency is required.
  Report Post »
MarketsClear
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:59pm
I agree with Ron Paul. We are a country built on the rule of law and respect for due process. We do not set those aside because of emotion and fear. Suspicion is not the same as guilt. Even the most heinous murderer deserves a trial rather than summary execution or assassination.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Islesfordian
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:18pm
  War is an entirely different situation than what “due process” assumes. No battlefield combatant gets dues process, nor does a citizen acting as an enemy combabtabt outside the US. Nor in fact does a citizen acting as a traitor in collusion with the enemy in wartime. See FDR and Herbert Haupt.
  Report Post »
- vennoye
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:18pm
  This is just another time of trampling the Constitution. It is not about Anwar al-Alwalaki, it is about trashing the Constitution! Make them live by the Constitution…you take away their power. Trample the Constitution enough, they have unlimited power–like they want now!!
  Report Post »
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:42pm
  Then why are any of you crying about the violation of the 6th Amendment for the Gitmo detainees?
  Report Post »
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:47pm
  Never mind, not citizens, DUH!
  Report Post »
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:16pm
  However, there is NO declared State of War. So chest-beating and arm-flapping about “wartime” is moot.
  Report Post »
- Rightallalong
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:04pm
  The fact that so many well intentioned conservatives are ‘cool’ with the US Government assasinating a US Citizen as repunent as he may be means that the terrorist have won. If they hated the US becasue of our freedoms then they should be happy now, one of the most imprtant freedoms has now been removed and to the cheers of the conservatives and liberals.
  
  It is ceratinly a sad day for the Republic and what is unfortunate is that so many people will not see it until it impacts them or their family directly.
  
  Remember, as Big Brother said – War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength – I never thought I would see the day but alas it is here …
  Report Post »
Patriotmom54
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:58pm
I’m okay with the “execution” of this man who has not lived in the US lately and who has obviously caused terrorism against our nation, but what I want to know is why have we not tried and convicted the guy who killed those soldiers at Ft. Hood? Obama will take all kinds of credit for the killing of this terrorist to make himself look stronger for the election and yet he doesn’t have the guts to call this Islamic terrorist (who had actually infiltrated our military & repeatedly showed his true colors) what he is. Beyond that we have people in the Muslim Brotherhood who have infiltrated our government at very high levels under this president.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:17pm
  My take on this, especially in light of the fact that this very individual was dining with generals at the Pentagon a few months AFTER 9/11, is simply this:
  
  “Dead men tell no tales.”
  Report Post »
Logic77
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:58pm
Ron Paul is koo koo for coco puffs! He is 100% unelectable, he is way too kooky for most normal people, he is a kook.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- MarketsClear
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:01pm
  I know the vast majority of the public has no idea what the term logical consistency even means, but that is one of the major goals of the Paul campaign: to educate the public on logical political thought based on base principles, in his case private property rights.
  Report Post »
- Vechorik
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:02pm
  You need a lesson in the US Constitution!
  
  This might help.
  Report Post »
- smithclar3nc3
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:02pm
  Someone tell Dr. Paul when you have cancer you cut it out..aka assassinate it.
  So he77 yeah we assassinated him …HE HAD IT COMING
  Report Post »
- HKS
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:06pm
  I think the life’s of our citizens fit that definition, that’s as personal as it gets. The right thing was done. Kudos.
  Report Post »
- HKS
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:09pm
  I might add, I had some respect for Pauls positions on some things but this dun him in for me.
  Report Post »
- MarketsClear
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:10pm
  @smithclar3nc3
  
  Clearly your understanding of natural philosophy and common law is lacking. Is cancer an individual with free will and property rights? Your attempted analogy reveals your collectivist premise. We are individuals, not a collective. The assumed crimes of an individual cannot be punished without injury to liberty unless they are proven through due process.
  Report Post »
- stopspendingourmoney
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:19pm
  Hmmm he Ron Paul is koo koo for coco puffs! Huh? And He is 100% unelectable.
  He actually votes on principle and what he thinks is right and constitutional as opposed to just saying what he thinks voters want to hear and he has been consistent voting the same way for as long as he’s been in office.
  When asked if he’s unelectable he said, “Actually, I’ve been elected quite a few times”
  If you believe in liberty only when it comes to things you agree with, you don’t believe in liberty at all. Ron Paul 2012!!! Only kooky if you don’t believe in the Constitution.
  Report Post »
- Logic77
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:47pm
  Ron finally did himself in for good, I am glad! He’s a kook.
  Report Post »
inferno
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:56pm
Of course it was an assination. My only concern is that we are eliminating intelligence sources. As to due process, it is exactly that. Trying someone like this animal, would cost US taxpyers much more than a drone and a 500 pound bomb. Another plus it prevents giving him a platform from which to
spout his anti western rhetoric.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
geonj
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:55pm
mr. seidl, who is al-Alwalaki.?
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
geonj
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:54pm
“This is the first U.S. citizen that has ever been targeted for death by the United States government,” he said.” gary johnson is too naive to lead a brownie troop if he believes that. now if we could get obama to sign off on killing enemy leaders of countries in the middle east that want US citizens and israelis dead, we would be much safer. and really, don’t you believe the safety of your family comes first?
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:53pm
Assassination has never been our policy.If Bush had done this Nancy Pelosi would have had him up for impeachment.Barry does it he is a hero?
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- WVRob
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:56pm
  Conservatives were outraged when Liberals wanted to grant due process to Gitmo detainees (non-US citizens)… but conservatives are ok with removing due process for American citizens?
  Report Post »
- jay1975
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:00pm
  The hypocrisy from both sides is why I can never be a part of either party. They both espouse “liberty for me, but not for thee”.
  Report Post »
backward
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:53pm
If I make any kind of threat to anyone on video I’m guilty.This man has been doing it for years and people have died.Lets just wait until we can prove he killed someone. mean while another 1000 people die
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- jay1975
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:01pm
  So you are saying that anyone who made a threat on video should be assassinated by the government?
  Report Post »
- wiggie89
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:03pm
  @OOGABOOGA,
  I think thats gotten us where we are today. Not sticking to our principles. Letting things slide for the “Greater Good” but in the end, that 30% of things you don’t like becomes 60-70%. And lets face it, If it was not for the main stream media no one would have known who this ***** was. Just like Casey Anthony without the MMS she is nobody, and that’s what they are trying to do to Ron Paul.
  Report Post »
WVRob
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:52pm
The US government should be able to just kill any citizen they want right? We trust EVERYONE who ever has or ever will hold power right? No trial, no due process… just kill any citizen they deem in need of killing… RIGHT?
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:07pm
  Joseph Stalin also had the power to kill any Soviet citizen at any time that he wanted to….
  
  What’s so bad about that?
  Report Post »
AnAppealToGod
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:50pm
Obama is a pansy with terrorists, but this is even worse.

Good bye Ron Paul. You‘ll be seeing a significant drop in support if this get’s more publicity.

Gary, not sure why you are even in the race. LOL
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Vechorik
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:57pm
  I’m appalled. The killing was a direct violation of the US Constitution.
  Don’t you want the Constitution upheld?
  If the politicians can do this to ONE American (as hated as he was) then they can do it to you.
  Report Post »
- DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:03pm
  No way! Is that a “Don’t Tread On Me” snake in the image also???
  
  This ***hole that just got killed is a citizen (“we the people”) and has RIGHTS. Right cannot be removed, that’s why they are rights. So a, “we the people” just got “treaded on” and you post that you think Paul is wrong with that avatar? LMFAO!
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:05pm
  “dips**”? what are you a teenager going through puberty? Tough on internet criticism but not in terrorists?
  
  Progressive pushover.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:08pm
  Vechorik,
  
  I’m going to take a wild guess that you and the DTOM know nothing about this guy. Best do your research before defending a guilty person. I think you’ve been reading too many liberal websites.
  
  and yes, it’s WE THE PEOPLE not WE THE TERRORISTS.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:22pm
  DTOM is arguing about avatars now. Brilliant.
  
  Let’s just change it to “Don’t Tread on Me…unless you’re a terrorist.” Which in that case let’s put you up in a room, feed you, and let you pray to Allah in peace all on the tax payer’s dime.
  Report Post »
- DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:32pm
  Yeah. It’s all about avatars. You got it. Ignorant tool. Not about your ironic sense of “justice”… no. I would not expect you to get that even thought I typed it out for you. Your arguments don’t even make sense. Due process is; try them, free them or kill them, based on guilt. For an AMERICAN, terrorist. ‘Inalienable’ is a word you should really, really, look up.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:53pm
  DTOM – wtf? You’re the one that brought up the avatar. You’re whining like a little baby because someone shares a similar piece of American Iconography as you.
  
  I think you’re too soft on terrorism. Someone engaging and inspiring acts of terrorism in the PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE tense is an imminent threat.
  
  Arguments? Other than just saying “due process” you’re just name calling. That’s not arguing.
  Report Post »
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:38pm
  @AnAppealToGod:
  
  DTOM is correct, in every particular. Al-Wacky was a US Citizen, and as such has unalienable rights protected by the United States Constitution. Terrorist or not, the man deserved a fair trial for his crimes. If found guilty, then a sentence fitting his crimes.
  
  What has been done here is an abrogation of the civil rights of a US Citizen.
  
  Obama is DIRECTLY responsible for this.
  
  Fire him.
  
  NOW.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:10pm
  Norm,
  
  I’m not arguing what the definition of “due process” is. I assume (unlike rabid bully ranting DTOM) someone’s level of intelligence is high enough to understand what those principals are. If this nutjob decided to become a regular criminal and decided to kill people, I feel due process would be more valid. But this is NOT the case with AlWackjob. He joined a terrorist organization (and became a leader)that has killed thousands of people and we are presently and actively at war with. That changes everything.
  
  Political correctness is at the root of this issue. It has how we call and how we handle Islamic extremists in shambles.
  Report Post »
- mils
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:19pm
  he was indeed a us citizen…i believe he gave up those rights with his terrorists/anti american actions.
  
  paul, although very intelligent, will never be elected, never win the nomination…the only thing he MIGHT do..is split the vote like Perot.
  Report Post »
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:10pm
  If you don’t want that to happen, you’d better pray that Paul gets the nomination for the Republican ticket.
  
  If he does not, people who love their country and its Constitution will vote for him on a third party ticket, if he should run that way, or sit at home and watch the rest of you guys pull the lever to destroy the country.
  
  A vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote FOR EVIL.
  
  We are tired of voting for evil. And we won’t do it again.
  
  Ron Paul, or nobody. Accept no substitute.
  Report Post »
- blaze7c
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:37pm
  Hey Anappealtogod,
  just how exactly is one progressive when they act only upon the constitution of the founding fathers. As fo Anwar al-Alwalaki, do you know personally what he has done? We know what the media tells us. The same thing goes for the people in the tea party. I personally know that tea party people are not racist hatemongers, but that doesn’t stop the media from pretending that we are. Whether you agree or not, the precedent set here will bite us all in the butt. Quit being such a punk and use your brain for something besides a cushion when you sit.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 1:06am
  BLAZE7C,
  
  I’ll retract the progressive statement. But I hold fast to my views on Al Wackjob. We declared war on terrorism. He joined and became a leader of an organization we are currently at war with. That changes things. He‘s not your typical criminal and if you can’t see that, you are completely blind.
  
  If I knew Al Wackjob personally, I’d probably be a terrorist too. What the hell kind of question is that? Do YOU know the facts? We know he was plotting, carrying out, and responsible for inspiring acts of terrorism on our soil. Read the reports. Good grief.
  Report Post »
- AnAppealToGod
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 12:58pm
  One other thing. I saw you quoting scripture in a different thread. Maybe you should check these out:
  
  Proverbs 15:1
  Colossians 3:12
  Romans 12: 9-13
  1 Corinthians 13: 4-7
  Ephesians 4:32
  Report Post »
spudwhite
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:49pm
Think it through instead of reacting with sheer emotion. Should a president legally be able to choose, at his whim, which American citizen should die? It’s Slippery Slope time. Ron Paul is simply pointing out the un-Constitutionality of this act. I agree, even though I do believe Sharia Islamists pose a real worldwide threat to us all.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- bilorites
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:04pm
  add to that bho and holder wanted to give the 9/11 FORIEGNERS CONSTITUTIONAL rights and a “trial” in NYC….. epitome of hypocrisy
  Report Post »
- BIGJAYINPA
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:05pm
  Spud, When you ally yourself with our enemies and take up arms against the US the fact that you are an American Citizen is irrelevant. Stand against America and the Constitution and neither should be able to protect you. Live by the sword of Allah, die by the Predator drone….Just sayin’
  Report Post »
00gabooga
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:46pm
Is it possible to just elect the 70% of Ron Paul that is sane and get rid of the 30% that is off his rocker?
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- FreedomOne
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:57pm
  Ill go for that!
  Report Post »
- Vechorik
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:14pm
  That’s what we do every election. Have you ever voted for a candidate that you agreed 100%? I surely haven’t. I’ll vote for Ron Paul, because I support the Constitution and I like his financial and foreign policy platform.
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:18pm
  What part of “assassinated American citizen” don’t you get?
  Report Post »
- hidden_lion
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:12pm
  That is what Congress/Senate and Supreme court are for..to balance the force. Paul is 100% right on his adherence to the constitution.
  Report Post »
Tagudinian
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:46pm
Ron Paul’s thoughts and ideas are way too strange for me to comprehend and to stomach. How does he do it? He should leave America and go live in the Middle East and I don’t care if he practiced what he preaches they will still kill his butt.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Vechorik
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:03pm
  Study the Constitution and you’ll understand Ron Paul perfectly.
  Report Post »
- MarketsClear
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:05pm
  Its not that his ideas are strange; they are logical. If you separate emotion and fear from how you analyze, you’ll find that obeying the rule of law and due process is necessary in all cases for the preservation of liberty and property. We should not be ruled by the emotions and fears of man or even situational expediency, but by a constant, set rule of law.
  Report Post »
- V-MAN MACE
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:18pm
  You should move to Nazi Germany if you think secret arrests and assassinations is “kewl”.
  Report Post »
- stopspendingourmoney
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:27pm
  Study the forefathers also, and you’ll understand Ron Paul, but for some, I don’t think they will ever get it no matter what they do, they will just go with what the media tells them to do, or what the other sheeple do, and before you know it we will have no rights at all.
  Report Post »
- Rightallalong
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:44pm
  It is unbelievable how ignorant you are in regard to history … quite frankly its scary. You are not for freedom you are for tyranny.
  Report Post »
- jb.kibs
  Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:57pm
  stopspendingourmoney
  i agree about the forefathers and Ron Paul, but what is stupid is that Glenn doesn’t support Ron… Glenn says if the media doesn’t like someone, it’s for a reason, because they are scared of them. well… Ron Paul is that man. even glenn himself is scared of him. I feel that Glenn thinks if Ron wins, glenns job will diminish greatly. this is a fact though, or will Glenn just start spewing hatred towards the constitution and how the president is cutting taxes and reforming the government, etc?…. that is why Ron Paul is the only real choice. do your research… Glenn says that all the time… well… then he completely ignores Paul and starts calling him names like the rest of the media? Glenn makes millions, he can buy Israel TONS of equipment if he so desires.. he could hold the largest Christian / Jewish fundraiser in history to support Israel, that is how capitalism works… but, his actions, against everything he preaches, show that he thinks OUR government needs to take care of Israel, and Israel should have no personal responsibility in their wars… even Israel wants us out of their way so they can settle this… Russia had nukes pointed at us and said they were going to wipe us out… yet… that never happened. we all know if Iran even attempts to launch a nuke, they are going to be exterminated.
  Report Post »
- alabamaslammer
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 8:05am
  Jb kibs—>I agree with your assessment of Beck. I may differ in your motive. Beck says don’t just look at one thing, lookat the whole picture. Well we have non-citizen folks being granted Constitutional rights . But a citizen can just be killed. Why are we trying to redefine citizen? Why is it that Beck says the government can do no right in domestic policy ( I agree ) but that they can do no wrong in foreign policy? These are legitimate criticism of Beck and I have not heard a honest answer from Beck. And I am a big fan. Maybe he enlightened us to much.
  Report Post »
- Vechorik
  Posted on October 1, 2011 at 3:03pm
  Want safety in America, protect Israel, wipe out Muslims?
  
  MUST SEE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV4Cxuu7VwU
  Report Post »

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.