Comments on: Ron Paul Says Obama Has Committed an Impeachable Offense

By: Gaynell Huhtala

Gaynell Huhtala — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:08:22 +0000

hi everyone, my patois is weenie and i virtuous want to say that this is an excellent journal aggregation and i really saved it attending, would it be okay if i submitted posts to this diary most topics i initiate gripping?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:25:34 +0000

RON PAUL 2012

By: DamienMaddox

DamienMaddox — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:17:59 +0000

Keep in mind, the difference between al-awlaki and bin laden are that al-awlaki was still an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

If the president can drone attack any american so long as it’s not on american soil, then whats next? Maybe Paul is right about the border fence being used to keep us in, and if we do get out, Mr. President can just kill us.

By: Follow The Law

Follow The Law — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:06:33 +0000

What are judges and juries for? What are fingerprints for? Innocent until proven guilty, and to make sure you have the right person. Did the drone take the man’s fingerprints? How does anyone know if he was killed or not, but there were also other people killed, and did they commit any crime?

Let me see. He was accused of inciting people to murder Americans. Does anyone see the irony in that?

By: Don

Don — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:45:02 +0000

The American psychy is not educated to understand the most basic social principles. Ron Paul supporters are consistently the exception. They understand that, in a civilized society, you don’t have to agree with what someone says or does, but you have to respect their rights until it’s been proven that they have violated or made a credible threat to violate someone else’s rights. They also do not play party politics. I can’t say I’ve heard another Ron Paul supporter judge Obama and then support Bush. Nor have I ever heard a Ron Paul supporter cry for help from the law or the gov. when they failed to take personal responsibility for themselves. They tend to be the most informed – not only can a Ron Paul supporter tell in great detail everything about his platform from economic, to monetary to foreign policy – most likely so can their kids! They are the informed voters that every American has a responsiblity to be but isn’t.

By: beowulf

beowulf — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:41:56 +0000

“Hmmmm, let’s see….Isn’t there an article of the Constitution that stats (sic)”

No there’s not. What does apply to this case is this:
18 USC 1119. Foreign murder of United States nationals

By: pel

pel — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:29:37 +0000

Everyone calling the killed person “a terrorist” : source, please?
All I “know” about him comes from executive branch of power and had never been put to test by either jurors or the Congress. I have little doubt the Congress would rubber-stump the authorization: the scary part is that the administration did not feel obliged to ask. They are just bragging with this killing — how abhorring is that?

By contrast, the Congress tested the Bush’s case against Osama Bin Laden and essentially gave him green light to go after him. Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden was not an American citizen.

Now such a claim can be made about any of us — and we won’t be given an opportunity to call our lawyer. We will just disappear with little or no noise — how convenient is that? Get awaken until it’s too late.

By: Drew

Drew — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:37:15 +0000

Don’t you all realize that “rights” don’t come from government? This is what Jefferson meant when he said they were “inalienable.” The Declaration of Independence was an explicit statement of these rights, and the U.S. Constitution was an attempt to establish a government to PROTECT these rights for both citizens and non-citizens alike. If you read the documents you will notice neither uses the word “citizen,” but instead the words “people” or “men” — a generic term used at the time in place of the word “humans.” Nowhere in either document does it say that any of our rights come from the government (unless you consider the government our “Creator”), nor does it say that any of the rights for which the U.S. government was established to PROTECT apply only to citizens of the United States. Whether or not al-Awaki was a U.S. citizen is immaterial, as are any preconceived notions regarding his guilt or innocence or his alleged membership in a terrorist organization. None of this deprives him of his inalienable right to due process before being summarily executed.

By: angelatc (@AngelaTC)

angelatc (@AngelaTC) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:05:12 +0000

Article 3, section 3 specifically spells out the constitutional procedures in regards to treason. Nowhere does it say that citizenship is revoked when a citizen aligns with an enemy of the state. It does say that Congress gets to decide the penalty. I wonder why so many Americans love Obama more than the Constitution?

By: Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:09:31 +0000

The only reason you people think he was a terrorist is because the government told you he was.

Where is the jury? Where is the judge? Where is the evidence for the prosecution? Where is the chance for the accused to defend himself?

You all worry about torture, but now they just kill people. What a sad state this country has entered due to irrational fear. The 5th and 6th ammendments were created because the king was assassinating and imprisoning Americans without trial.

When we forget this lesson, we have lost more freedom. Now you can be a terrorist too, with no evidence. Now, you can be killed, without evidence.

Congratulations! We are now living in a tyranny that is even perhaps worse than the British rule in 1770s.