Scratch Ron Paul Off the Candidates List

I’m done with Ron Paul. If you don’t recognize that we are at war and we are going to be killing people for being the enemy, you don’t need to be trying to run for any elected office. Ron thinks we should be arresting them and putting them on trial. I think we should be finding them and killing them at every opportunity. If that is assassination, I’m in favor of it. They weren’t just Muslim terrorists, either. They were traitors. Self described “proud traitors” who had thrown away their citizenship in the United States to go and join al-Qaeda.


8 thoughts on “Scratch Ron Paul Off the Candidates List

  1. Don't you recall that the government is trying to label you – a right wing gun loving citizen – citizen as a terrorist? These hard line tactics seem great when they are headed one way, but this is always a 2 way street. The powers given to the gov't after 9/11 are now being used against people like you. Our own government assissinated a US citizen in Yemen yesterday.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  2. May I offer a slight disagreement? I emphasize “slight”

    From Article 3 of the Constitution:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist … in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    I have a problem with the President having the authority to order the assassination of a US citizen without trial. The Constitution seems to imply the necessity of a trial. The Constitution also defines “treason” as “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”

    As such, I believe an American citizen is entitled to a trial for treason – the evidence of treason should be pretty clear – and the convicted should have the privilege of hanging from a new rope.

    Not that the Constitution is much more than an seeming inconvenience anymore…

    In this specific case, said American citizen was off US soil in a war zone in the voluntary company of the enemy and in vocal support of said enemy – the “adhering to” and giving of “aid and comfort”. This amounts to a denunciation of US citizenship.

    This is something to be approached very carefully, but this person was still entitled to due process in the stripping of his citizenship and the opportunity to return to the US to defend himself.

    A non-return within some reasonable time is an admittance of guilt, then said person is a non-US citizen enemy combatant and fair target.

    But the President does not – and should not – have the authority to order an assassination of US citizens. Article 3 also states “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason


  3. I agree with Falling Off the Grid. Everything he says is true.

    I was opposed to the 1st Patriot Act under the Bush administration. I am opposed to the increasing police state I see happening now. I am not wishing for more of that.

    Where I draw the line is with enemies that come out in support of Al Queda, that are working to replace the U.S. with an Islamic state.

    I don't see how we cannot fight this like a war. I do not support the use of the tactics or policies we would use in a war zone here at home, but if you renounce the United States, declare allegiance to a foreign state and advocate the indiscriminate killing of Americans, you should expect the outcome to be something like this.

    This guy wasn't in the United States, where he could have been easily arrested, investigated, and tried for treason, bomb making, or any other crime he is alleged to have committed. What would you have our military do in this situation?

    If you agree with Ron Paul that we should bring the regular troops home, then we are left with high tech assets, drones, and special ops teams to defend the frontier. What level of evidence is enough? And who decides?

  4. Frikkin ridiculous… I'm done with him too after that statement! What does he not understand about ENEMY combatant, regardless of nationality???

  5. There is something about a treason trial that focuses the mind. Subjecting the Republic to that focus is a healthy thing.

    Even if it's in absentia.

    Because as we all know, the Organs of the State are lazy and incompetent, and its leaders impatient. Requiring the bracing rigor of an actual trial will bring the matter to the fore.

    Another outcome to be welcomed is that the population will then either agree that an assassination is required and just, or will not agree. If they don't, then we should ask ourselves whether it should be done at all.

    My $0.02 worth, a day late and a dollar short.

  6. Then again, you have to admit that Paul is standing by his principles, no matter how unpopular. That's something to admire, I believe. Think about it: we are happy that President Obama is unprincipled enough to kill US citizens overseas without trying to arrest, extradite and try them, yet we're unhappy that President Obama is unprincipled enough to allow gunwalking to Mexican drug cartels as part of his “gun control under the radar” effort.

Comments are closed.