Open Thread: Ron Paul Claims OBL Killing Was Unnecessary and Possibly Illegal
The eccentric Texas libertarian is up to his usual antics, this time speaking out against the US operation that killed Osama bin Laden. According to Politico, the congressman - a contender for the Republican presidential nomination - said the operation "absolutely was not necessary," and that "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law" should apparently preclude any such operation. Check out more from Politico below the break.
"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"
Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."
"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"
Putting aside political questions, is there any validity at all to what Paul is claiming? Was the operation illegal under either US or international law? Do you think killing OBL was, in fact, necessary?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Morally? Yes. Legally? ...hmmmmm... I dunno...
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:28am.
It does me no pleasure to say this, since the foundational security, the trust that we always had in our safety, the sheer horror of that day can still bring me to tears quickly just talking about it, but the moral and the legal in this matter MUST be separated.
Morally, OBL deserved worse. Two in the hat was too quick & easy an out for him. But legally? I don't know how you can say with 100% certainty that we were within our rights. It would be one thing if we had the PERMISSION & ASSISTANCE of the host nation. THEN, I don't see ANY difficulty. It's the violation of sovereignty I've got trouble with. Because, based on the argument: "He killed our people on our soil, therefore we can kill him wherever we find him based on the fact that what he did was an act of war." then why couldn't Pakistan turn right around and come kill Obama? Why couldn't they, based on that reasoning, follow Obama to a campaign rally somewhere here in the USA ("the battlefield") and put two in HIS hat? He committed an "act of war" based on that reasoning, and, based on that reasoning, Pakistan can kill him with impunity.
This is a VERY dangerous precedent. I don't like it. Never MIND the American Al-awaki! They're OPENLY trying to kill him. Again, NOT a good hombre, but we can't be killing people at will. We are a NATION OF LAWS, not of MEN.
http://www.anniefields.com/blog
Pakistan was harboring a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:41am.
Pakistan was harboring a dangerous war criminal and as such we have the legal authority to go in and extract him or smoke him as we see fit. This was the legal authority we had to extract him from Afghanistan in the first place. And we had agreements with Pakistan to go in and kill terrorists at will, we do it with drones all the time.
And you are posing here as a "conservative?"
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:59am.
The drones are illegal and your fictionalized Dirty Harry anology with a big magnum my nuke happy friend isn't cutting it. Save us from your international law routine.
#!) Paul is correct in that congress has to declare war according to the Constitution. But in your Dirty Harry mind of diplomacy what the hey,"nuke em til lthey glow." You want to kill defenseless women and babies too? Dop you dream of killing kids all the time or just when you are asleep which is most of the time I suspect.
And you are posing here as a troll
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:03am.
No backing for your arguments, and now you've added insults.
plenty of arguments
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:51pm.
Bin Laden is first exposed in this 1998 article linked below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49602094/TNA-14-21-1998101
Fox News' Gretta Van Sustern interviews Hillary Clinton who tells her that we created the enemy back in the 80's that we are at war with today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A__vw5Vuwp0
Compare the two sources and see if it makes sense to you that we should be creating enemies that years later our troops may have to die fighting against?
We know US civilians died as a result of aid and trading and maquerading around with them. Shouldn't that be evidence that we need to change our foreign policy to stop the foreign aid?
Clinton says that the US policy makers were naive, but naivete is not a good analysis. Highly intelligent people that designed US foreign policy designed it to get a "blowback" (CIA term) from the foreign policy of interventionism.
Obama's foreign policy mentors want a violent reaction from Libyans, Syrians,Iraqis and et al. They expect them to react violently.
Gung ho for more war is not a good box to dutifully allow yourselves to be put in.
The liberal news media dances to the tune of whatever the interventionists in government power centers play. Forget the play acting by Matthews and company they support BOs war and insane foreign policy.
I don't see why conservatives (some not all) buy this bill of goods?
The drones are not illegal as
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:11am.
The drones are not illegal as Pakistan allows us to operate within their borders and kill terrorists that will and do terrorize them. We give them billions for this privilege. I guess you are a Ron Paul Loonie. Thomas Jefferson sent troops over to Tripoli for 2 years before congress gave him funds and authorization to do so. I guess if its good enough for one of the founders and first
Presidents its good enough for any other President.
However, the conventions of confessional approval and the ability of the President to take action have been codified and these days the President has 60 days to get congress to authorize a war. President Obama is coming against the time limit for Libya. In addition do you think congress would not have stayed quiet about the drones if Pakistan had not approved of them?
Think man think.
Jefferson and and the Barbary Coast Pirates
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:24am.
Quoting Dan:
"Thomas Jefferson sent troops over to Tripoli for 2 years before congress gave him funds and authorization to do so." >>>Dan
Correction to Dan;
Congress acted first
Prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.”
Congress gave the orders and authority that Jefferson followed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean.
In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.”
In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense."
It's not only nice when presidents follow and obey the rules of the Constitution but it aso protects Americans from presidents carrying on like emperors.
Jefferson told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”
Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates.
It's a neocon generated myth that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress.
At the Tom woods.com site you'll find this quote:
"'... in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.’”
How is Las Vegas anyways?
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:34am.
How is Las Vegas anyways? It is not a neocon myth.
Barbary Coast now is Bill's
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:59am.
The one in Vegas, that is. I think the one in Africa wanted to change too, but is fighting the ACLU over copyright infringement.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Irgon The war was caused
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:19pm.
Irgon
The war was caused by the Barbary pirates’ attacks upon American merchant shipping. It was an attempt to collect ransom for captured sailors, and they figured they could collect a regular payout from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like they were getting away with the various European states. War was never declared by either Morocco or the Ottomans, who governed that area of the Med. sea.
Your "war" premise is wrong. And Jefferson used 400 mercenaries at Tripoli.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
remember to bow low for your emperor -BO
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:19pm.
The point of having a contract is that parties to the contract understand in clear terms what is required of them.The law of the land is the US Constitution that has has been in force longer than any elected president and that includes your hero Barry O.
BO sent troops back to Libya where today we have no business being there. Did your hero Barry O even consult with congress? No and therefore he violated the contract did he not?
Jefferson
Even if Jefferson had acted as you claim outside Congress's orders, the Constitution is still the law of the land not a sitting president.
Only Congress is given the power to declare war. The war powers act nonsense was invented by war mongers and cowards in congress,most by the way are liberal warmongers, to give the president an easy way to keep the nation in a state of continous war.
The Seal of Dishonor is that US troops are being misued and the WarPowersAct has allowed the president to loan out our troops to fight under the UN charter.
Korea UN charter ----NATO treat and organization rules bind it to the UN
VietNam UN Charter SEATO treat binded it to UN
Bosnia UN Charter
Gulf War I UNCharter Bush senior gives speech at UN saying this war will strenthen UN
Gulf War II UN Charter Bush junior ditto to big daddys UN cheerleading
Espansion of GW I & II Barry O is now a lose canon. Is Syria , Iran, next
Cost of war will be the economy will suffer and government police state will grow in the USA caused by more terror attacks at home.
Didn't Congress vote on both Gulf Wars?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 12:51pm.
Does the word, "WAR", have to be in declaration voted on by Congress?
it's perfectly OK to be against anything the President and Congress does, but isn't it being disingenuous to say that the Constitution wasn't followed in either Gulf War?
Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I couldn't really follow the last part of your post.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Original contract says War must be declared by Congress
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 1:19am.
WAR as stated in the original contract (Constitution) is still in power since there has been no amendment changing the intent of the Founders' as to which branch is granted the power to "declare war."
Congress is not a rubber stamp to the executive's aggressive warfare. I realize there are those in congress, and I suppose you too, think the president should possess the power of a king. But Hamilton said NO in the Federalist Papers #69 >>>>
The president’s authority as commander-in-chief amounts “to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral … 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.”
I know that you think that settling a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was reason enough for Bush senior to take the nation to war; that Bush junior's attack of Iraq looking for WMDs (haven't been found) trumps the Constitution and the words of Alexander Hamilton,James Madison and John Jay, but you are wrong.
Bush Senior's real reasons was laid out by him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRp7xlhgbo
CHECKING YOUR NEXT MOVE: When congress is not in session the constitution does state the executive can "repel a sudden attack or invasion." That is a defensive not an aggressive power.
The constitution does not give war making (aggressive power) to the executive branch.
A "war powers act " is not a constitutional amendment since only an amendment can change the language of article I SECTION 8 >>>
" The Congress shall have Power to .....To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;....
FULL TEXT >>>http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Reality check -
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:45am.
When one declares war, multiple times, and takes multiple actions killing literally thousands of people, one is a legitimate target in the act of self defense.
That said, I am of a firm belief that if it was Binny at that "compound", Soetoro cherry picked a man who was on an
A Q Kahn style "house arrest".
Nation of Laws? You Betcha. Self defense is paramount among those laws as the Natural Law it is, and while I don't know where you come from, I do know where I come from. Where I come from, when someone says they are going to kill you, especially when they actually try and do kill you, you are WELL within your natural rights to destroy them any chance by any means you have available to you.
There is no justifiable illegality that can ever punish self defense. The day there is is the day Lawful is truly supplanted by legal. And that is the day the Republic and inalienable rights are truly dead. Do please reconsider Annie. War and police actions are two very very very different things.
moral/legal
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:28am.
Then there is this: "In an AP interview in January 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders, including bin Laden. At the time, Pakistan denied such a deal existed."
Musharraf is of course denying this ever occurred but what else could Pakistan or Musharraf do without becoming a target. Of course Pakistan's 'friendship" with the us is always questionable and quite possibly part of the reason Bin Laden was downgraded in importance to begin with.
We can't be killing "people"? You mean terrorists?
Submitted by SFCMAC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:02pm.
We knew Bin Laden was in Pakistan for years, we just weren’t sure where. Thanks to the Pakistanis who sheltered him, it took a while to find his hideout. Pakistan’s military, intelligence agencies, and government, are saturated with Taliban. They built his fortress, kept quiet about his activities, and protected the @sshole. They also threatened us over the raids we’ve done to get at the very terrorists they harbor.
This filthy Islamofascist pig who masterminded the slaughter of 3000 people on our soil, deserved a worse death than he got.
I wanted to see that SOB's head on a stick. I want edto see his body strapped with dynamite and blown to smithereens. I want to see that rotten piec of excrement take a bullet for every American he had killed on 9/11. I want to see pictures. I want to see videos.
When Saddam Hussein and his evil spawns were killed, the bodies were on full display. “Islamic tradition” damned sure didn’t make a difference then, and it shouldn’t now. We are at war. We should never accommodate an enemy responsible for some of the most heinous atrocities on the planet. We should never hide the evidence of their death.
If you think that Bin Laden’s death will stop muslim terrorists from continuing their jihad on the West, don’t bet on it. Unfortunately, we did not make our point after 9/11. Every Islamic nation-state that harbors, funds, breeds, and trains terrorists should have been bombed back to the stone age. Of course, that would only set them back a couple of weeks, but what the hell. This war ain’t over by a long shot, and it won’t be until they understand that it isn’t a good idea to mess with the Great Satan.
I know that Ron Paul won't be
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:29am.
I know that Ron Paul won't be the nominee of the Republican Party in 2012.
Agreed, Chris!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:05am.
that was my first thought: he can kiss whatever chance he had goodbye.
Yep...I've always thought that Ron Paul...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:47pm.
is a loon. As far as I'm concerned, he's never been a serious candidate, long before he made these asinine comments. Paul is the Repub party's crazy old uncle in the attic, and hopefully these latest statements of his will be the nail in the coffin concerning his presidential aspirations, once and for all.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
What is the deal?
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:36am.
I just saw a retired Military fella on FOX News (@ about 8:19) Nicknamed "spider" claim that we "have to admire Osama Bin Laden" for his dedication to staying hidden in his compound for so long. (Think Bill Maher in the wake of 9-11 saying that the 9-11 hijackers weren't cowards but instead courageous). UNREAL! Admire Bin Laden? Seriously? And on FOX, by retired military? Sickening!
Add to the list, Ron Paul saying this foolishness. Republicans in general are playing both ends against the middle as if they are playing a fiddle - going so far as to sponsor National Popular Vote Legislation introducing gun bans and even supporting cap and trade fiascoes. WTF?
Keep in mind, Ron Paul also contends that "the rich" should have bought up all the slaves and then freed them, rather than continue the war for Individual Independence Equality and Liberty itself. I don't think Ron Paul is nuts. I think he goes off the deep end on things like this because he is afraid he just might be elected and he has to offer up humdingers like this to make sure he isn't, while at the same time keeping enough support to be re-elected to the House (so he can put in for pork and then vote against something he knows will pass trying to pass responsibility off on others. Ron Paul is a joke and he is as devious and double talking as Soetoro. No Doubt.
Another reason Ron Paul is a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:42am.
Another reason Ron Paul is a loon and should not be in charge of our country. I would put him in charge of finances as he seems good at that.
So your new non "loon" candidate for 2012
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:11am.
is Barry Obama, the friend of former terrorist Weather Underground man Bill Ayers?
Is Barry the one you so admire for sending seals to put on that staged event at the compound?
RESTORE SANITY TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY
Paul wants to end all foreign aid to countries. Look what the "smart" aid has done for us in Pakistan!
Why they hid out Bush's most wanted millionaire for years it appears. But hey,to you Obama is the hero,right? He uses "smart bombs" to blow up people who aren't doing anything but hiding from the manned bombers and missles.
BRING THE TROOPS HOME!
Bush's wars and deficits cost us the Congress and the presidency. You want a repeat of that by electing anotherbig spending GOP war monger?
Paul is the only sane choice.
Looks like I have my own
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:24am.
Looks like I have my own stalker. What is the care and feeding for these fellas?
Hikari Cichlid Staple Pellets, twice daily.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:27pm.
Or Hikari Cichlid Gold, which while more expensive, really enhances their natural colors.
Dan
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:10pm.
Did Incestmo get banned?
Because this one sounds exactly like the last one, uber pseudo-libertarian.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
He's not banned at the moment
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:40pm.
He's not banned at the moment I am typing this. Although it would be a good thing if he was.
Are you channeling your inner
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:32am.
Are you channeling your inner Chamberlain? He would have been proud.
Paul is the only sane choice
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:13pm.
Talk about a huge contradiction, lol. There's nothing sane about Rupaul. And if Paul is the sane choice, I guess he doesn't have the vote of Paulbots like you then, as you guys are borderline INsane.
It's a moot point anyway. Unfortunately for Paul and his band of idiot followers, straw polls don't elect candidates.
Speaking of Loons, who gave
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:07pm.
Speaking of Loons, who gave the moron a computer with internet?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
*** Paulbot Alert ***
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:32pm.
"Bush's wars and deficits cost ***us*** the Congress and the presidency. You want a repeat of that by electing another big spending GOP war monger?"
You ain't us, you friggin' Paulbot dingbat.
Anyone spewing leftist talking point labels like "neocon" and "big spending GOP war monger" is the furthest thing from us. Got that? I'm sure you do, but you'll stick around here and keep peddling your farcical pansy of a candidate.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Haven't heard from you in
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:47pm.
Haven't heard from you in awhile. Are you just now getting over the wedding? By the way the hats at the wedding have nothing on those at Churchill Downs last Saturday. Eugenie or Beatrice had nothing on some of these gals.
Talking like a conservative doesn't make you one
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 1:39am.
Russell Kirk epitimized the conservative ideal. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/The-Neoconservatives-An-Endange...
To argue the points and the facts is all anyone who is conservative can ask.
Liberals behave just as badly and come unglued at any challenge to their rose colored glass world. Superior arguments versus inferior arguments; superior philosophy versus an inferior philosophy is what this word has been at war since creation.
Here's one from our Lord that conservatives agree with: "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
And this one from Matthew >>> Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV
There's just no way I can
Submitted by Maideneer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:44am.
There's just no way I can bring myself to vote for someone like this if he were the nominee.
Why?
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:49am.
He stands for personal freedom and the clear rule of law as stated in the Constitution. He doesn't let emotion govern his actions.
No emotion? So, he isn't
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:51am.
No emotion? So, he isn't human? That should inspire voters.
What clear rule of law in the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:16am.
What clear rule of law in the Constitution?
Technicality
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:30pm.
Look I don't mean to split hairs here..but from what I've read the take down of OBL was a military operation in Pakistan. And as far as I know the USA was not at war with Pakistan...and only Congresss can declare war on behalf of the USA...that is in the Constitution.
Having said that..I really don't care since I am not eligible to vote for Ron Paul anyway.
The technicality of which you
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:13pm.
The technicality of which you speak is non existent. The OBL killing is simply the eradication of a terrorists in Pakistan. OBL was not under the protection of Pakistan and was not a citizen. Your reasoning is convoluted to come to a conclusion about being at war. And as far as I know, Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And OBL was a member of Al Qaeda.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No GOP nod for Paul
Submitted by CarolinaJimbo on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:05am.
With that statement, Ron Paul's chances of gaining the GOP nomination were just flushed. Any bets that he has another "alternative" convention in 2012?
I know this isn't really
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:10am.
I know this isn't really about Paul's chances at the nomination, but you make a good point with the "alternative convention."
Paul's ego is such that he is compelled to run again, no matter what.
mb,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:14am.
Ron Paul would be better as some academic writing papers on monetary and fiscal policy for a think tank. As a public political figure or a potential leader, he is just too politically eccentric.
Dr. Paul's "Ego"
Submitted by EllisWyatt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:30am.
If that were true, he probably would have run as a third party candidate in 2008. But he didn't do that.
"Elections have consequences" ... unless the Republicans win
"Dissent is Patriotic" ... when it's against conservative policies.
Point taken.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:50am.
Point taken.
Remember: Blacks can't be racist!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:20am.
When my friend told me his wife was Caucasian, I felt my spirit wince.
But it had NOTHING to do with racism, you understand....
It's all about the African story in America....or something.
SEMI GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:37am.
Here's a link to the school that 3 of my grandchildren attend , Lincoln Charter School in Lincolnton, NC, doing a patriotic program. I guess you could call this a semi government school. They are not required to follow all the regulations and red tape that the public schools here in NC do. My grandson, Connor, is in a white shirt last one on the far left. I feel good knowing they are getting an education in patriotism. I am not so sure what the others grandkids are learning.
My Grandma USE to like Glenn Beck
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:37am.
My Grandam listens to Glenn Beck all the time. Her basement is stockpiled with survival seeds. She had a little money saved up for a rainy day, and finally, based on Beck's advice, she bought silver. Problem is, she bought it at almost $50 an ounce when it peaked. Now, silver is trading at close to $33 an ounce, down almost a third from where she bought it.
What should she do?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Apparently she never learned
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:20am.
Apparently she never learned to look before leaping. She should understand that Beck and his advertisers are fa-liable and commodities fluctuate.
I guessed wrong.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:03pm.
I thought someone was going to say she should plant her survival seeds.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I feel sorry for you mom. I
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:43pm.
I feel sorry for you mom. I see many seniors that have lost a lot because of things like this. I guess since I was a kid I didn't want anything to do with gold or silver. I remember James chapter 5 where he talked about your gold and silver were cankered. That is just me.
Reality check
Submitted by buttercup815 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:15pm.
Are we really suppose to believe your grandma stockpiles survival seeds and buys silver.?? Get a better story line will ya.
So...
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:53pm.
you are calling King a liar? That is a non-starter here. So you know all about King and his family, huh? Piss off troll! You don't know anything about any of us, don't even pretend to! You own an apology for calling King a liar! You just did the impossible and lowered yourself even lower... way to go zippers!
Thanks for defending me Rukus
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:44pm.
I may have been engaging in a wee tad bit of hyperbole.
But I would rather my Grandmother have bought silver at the top, then have purchased "rare" French Franc Rooster coins through Goldline, marked up 42% over the value of the actual gold in the coins. Then she would only be down 33% instead of down 42%, even if Beck threw in the survival seeds for free.
I figured my post was so over the top that I didn't need to put in any "/sarc" comments. I bet you knew I was kidding all along.
And Grandma would never store her survival seeds in the basement! She would probably seal them in mason jars or something so they wouldn't sprout on accident. That was the sure give-away I was joking.
But I am concerned that Beck's connection to Goldline is going to be his downfall. I like him a lot, but I think he got sold a bill of goods from this advertiser.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The cheering ebbs and criticism rushes in
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:35am.
I'm glad UBL was dispatched with great expediency. Nothing but honor and praise for our SEALS.
But, it's the on-going and blatant lack of discretion in Washington D.C. coupled with Obama's obsession for basking in the limelight that has taken a secret, successful operation and turned it into an international football. I'm embarrassed to think that this collective "brain trust" leading our Nation is more concerned with having something to flap its gums over than with the fallout all the needless blather is creating.
Too much talking!
And, all this "loose talk" and posturing have created more questions here among Americans than there are answers to be given. So, we are now going to spend decades wading through all of theories, what if's, suppositions, allegations, etc. and we'll be dealing with this on the international stage as well.
Well said
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:35pm.
The only thing I'd add is that the only "fog of war" that applies is to this White House's PR campaign. They backpedal worse than some of our trolls, here.
It's really too bad that chopper crashed, this whole thing should have been totally secret except for a photo of the dead UBL.
But the incessant chatter (Joe BiteMe of course was the first and loudest leaker, publicly praising the SeALS) is insane.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:24pm.
They backpedal worse than some of our trolls, here.
Sometimes I truly wonder if they might just be some of our trolls here.
These WH idiots have given so much useful info to our enemies it's criminal. Somebody needs to tell them to keep their traps shut - unless they are doing this intentionally, in which case they need to all be thrown head-first into the slammer.
Americans are going to die because of the information they are releasing.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I know, Dave
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:31pm.
It's insane. They should have never uttered a word about how much and what sort of intel they gathered in OBL's compound.
For all some of the lower down Al-Q's know, OBL didn't keep records. So if they hadn't said anything, many of the tentacles may have remained in place.
It's truly criminal the information that this Administration has been leaking, all in an effort to make Obama look competent. I would love to see some of these people prosecuted, truly.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
He's not a Republican . . .
Submitted by Kylerk on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:40am.
He’s not a Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and I believe the primary reason that the msm enjoys calling him a Republican is because it advances their constant mantra of “a dissenter within the split GOP!”, and the primary reason why Paul is still runs as a member of the Republican Party and never switched to the Libertarian Party is because he enjoys that label (and he also knows he will not be taken as seriously and will lose a lot of financial support if he does switch). I have a lot of respect for Libertarians and their just about all of their views except their isolationist foreign policy stance. I don’t have a lot of respect for Paul because of the reasons mentioned above I believe he is using the GOP and in the process he is dividing us and feeding the msm.
Where is the outrage?
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:43am.
I have not seen any outrage from the MSM over this thug rapper, Common, appearing at the WH for poetry reading. One of his songs praises the black Panther Assata Shakur who killed a NJ state patrolman in 1973 and escaped prison and is now living in Cuba. Obama's says he does not condone the lyrics. Then why the hell was he invited? Why couldn't they have found some of Dingy Harry's cowboy poets. I know they don't write about killing cops.
He doesn't "condone" his
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:11am.
He doesn't "condone" his work, but invites him anyway, because he's a "socially conscious" rapper and apparently is getting kids interested in poetry. Who cares what kind of poetry!
I guess that poems like
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:00pm.
I guess that poems like The Highwayman, Casey at the Bat, Ryme of the Ancient Mariner, is not considered poetry to them. In love the classics.
I like to read to my grandkids but I'd never read any of he crap that rapper put out. Heck I wouldn't read anything Mia Angelou wrote.
Ron, you're wrong. This alone
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:58am.
Ron, you're wrong. This alone has probably killed your chances for Republican nod for POTUS and may even hurt your chances of being re-elected to your current position.
WH on line three...................
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:11am.
There was scant coverage in the MSM about Common because it didn't fit the current meme and by them ignoring it and Faux Noise pushing it, then it became the mean ol' racists and Faux noise "trying to hurt" Obambi.
One of the pussies on Morning Joe mentioned it this morning "Have you heard about the supposed controversy with Common at the WH.......................".
And they showed Jon Stewart cherry picking a Hannity point about Common and his rantings and it was all funny and gee, nothing here..........
MB posted earlier about another female poet............................................ that was there last night who is against interracial relationships and COMMON IS ALSO AGAINST THEM and has waxed "poetic" about that fact.
BOTH HAVE had this written in print, but we are just the bigots............
Laura Bush had to cancel a poetry reading because some leftitst NO HAIR WASHING "ladies" were going to picket and disrupt the event because they were not invited.
Not Faux noise spin, just simple facts.
Selected, elected and protected.
Just another reason to not vote for him
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:13am.
To Ron Paul's errrr point......
THAT WOULD BE EXACTLY WHAT THE MEDIA WOULD BE SAYING IF THIS WERE Boooooosh.
So he is kind of "right".
Ron Paul
Submitted by NVRAT on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:15am.
Be careful Ron you might be hurting your chances at the presidency. With your abysmal record on illegal immigration choices and this UBL story it could all work against you.
Good point. He was a shoo-in
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:44am.
Good point. He was a shoo-in otherwise.
Ron Paul is wrong
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:14am.
While he is probably Constitutionally accurate, in that Congress never declared war so therefore we are not at war, he is naive in thinking that it really matters to UBL and Al Qeada.
They declared war on us, so we MUST act and behave in accordance with being at war. Being in a war while trying to pretend that you are not is what lead France and Poland to fall in a matter of hours to the Nazi war machine.
Could he have been taken alive? Probably. But the question is...what do you do with him then? There would be a whole lot of wing-nuts that would want him tried in a court as if he were a mass murderer instead of the commanding general of opposing forces in a war.
Paul has ruined any chances that he has of getting the nomination. You can't be such a purist that you would allow citizens to be killed just because of a "constitutional technicality".
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
However.....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:21am.
I am no Ron Paul fan..... at all.
But here's the problem I see. Secretly flying across a sovereign border and entering a house and shooting unarmed civilians may seem like a justifiable action in this case.
BUT....
What if China, Iran, Russia or even Cuba can now use the same justification to do the same actions based on their political viewpoints?
The USA has always been a haven for the politically oppressed. Are we now to accept as justifiable that a military operation from another country can secretly enter our country, break into a home, shoot the occupants and take the contents of the house and when the action is discovered are we to just shrug our shoulders because it was deemed necessary by a foreign government?
MidAmerica, Should be a bit easer for China to fly into the USA
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:46pm.
Pakistani security officials were seen loading what appears to be the tail of the helicopter into trucks and covering them with large cloths.
However the attempts at covering up the parts came too late as some photos of the parts were leaked to the media, eventually winding up on major news services.
What materials the remaining parts are made of, what manufacturig techniques and how those parts may reduce their ability to be detected have yet to be determined.
U.S. officials have already asked for the wreckage back, an unnamed Pakistani official said on Tuesday, according to ABC News.
However that's not the only government with a desire to interact with the wreckage.
The same official said China is "very interested" and indicated that they may indeed have the opportunity to examine it for themselves.
"We might let them [the Chinese] take a look," the official said.
EDIT: Scroll down for good photos
You Didn't Build That.
shooting unarmed civilians
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:31am.
shooting unarmed civilians may seem like a justifiable action in this case
Pakistan has been allowing us to operate in their country using drones for years so we have permission to do so. These people are terrorists and under the GC have no rights except what the country they attacked deem them to have. Immediate execution is permissible under the GC rules at the discretion of the country.
Well said!
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:34am.
Well said!
the problem being.....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:11pm.
Who gets to decide who is a terrorist?
Can Iran shoot on the spot anyone they deem a terrorist?
Is it now LEGAL and justified for North Korea to enter South Korea and kill North Korean dissidents?
You think you'll be voting for Obama in '12
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 1:46am.
if they're nuked in the glow of dawn?
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Our Lord as quoted in Matthew chapter 5
Ever read the Koran?
Submitted by SFCMAC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:55pm.
I'm an Iraq war veteran and retired Army SFC. Islamic terrorists are funded, supported, indoctrinated, and trained all across the Middle East. I'd have leveled 3/4th of those countries on 12 September 2001. THAT'S how you fight a jihad. "Conservative" doesn't mean mouthing apologies for doing what it takes to kill an enemy that declared war on us years ago. Nor does it mean hesitating to kill the ones responsible for the deaths of 3000 people on this soil. Islam is not a religion of peace. Muslims follow a 7th century screed that dictates death to the infidels and Jews. Fanaticism is at the core of Islam. They’re simply doing what the Koran instructs.
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.
Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.
Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us”
Matter of fact, they massacre people in the name of allah on a regular basis: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
As for Ron Paul: Yeah, I know he claims to be a Republican, but he’s in the same unique category as Kucinich: moonbat. He and his legion of “troofers” represent a fringe of the political spectrum usually reserved for the Greens and UFO fanatics.
I bet he thinks it was "unnecessary" to go after the Japanese, Italians, and Germans in WWII. If we had Hitler in our crosshairs, Paul would have philosophized ovcer the "uneccessary" nature of it all.
Another one of Paul's loony ideas:
He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and have private competing currencies, a recipe for disaster.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.1148:
From Ann Coulter's column:
"Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient answers when it comes to the taxpayers' obligations under Medicare and Social Security.
If they could only resist sucking up to Rolling Stone-reading, status-obsessed losers, they'd probably be interesting to talk to."
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-06-15.html
The trouble with Ron Paul is he'll make sense one minute then veer off into bat-sh!t craziness the next.
I'm a fan of the Tea Party principles, myself.
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/tea-party-principles-the-contract...
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/a-message-for-the-republican-majo...
In any case, if you believe that Ron Paul will ever make it into the White House, close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and say: “There’s no place like La-La Land”.
Is it time to roll out the
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:48am.
Is it time to roll out the Blimp? If the Paulbots start now, they might be able to fly the blimp all over the Northeast before autumn's first frost grounds it.
Do you think it will be piloted by
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:20pm.
Commander 'Hindenburg' Sarcasmo?
Jer
I think poor Sarky went off
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:04pm.
I think poor Sarky went off the grid and is hiding in a bunker under his mom's basement, hugging that one ounce of gold he could afford 3 years ago, calling it "my precious"...
Not true
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:37pm.
I hear from him occasionally, he's doing just fine.
I know a lot of my fellow NB'ers didn't care for him, but Sarcasmo is okay in my book. And he was right about the gold, too.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Actually, Blonde, Sarc was
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:55pm.
Actually, Blonde, Sarc was one of my favorites, too. It's nice to hear he's doing well.
Jer
I just don't trust Obama, so
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:08pm.
I just don't trust Obama, so I wonder if Obama had OBL killed when we found him to cover up something. Or is that Pakistan would not have let the Navy Seals take him out of their airspace without a fight. So killing OBL made it a mute point for Pakistan.
There are a number
Submitted by Bob K on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:27pm.
of presidential wannabes's that I consider to be little more than a source for funny stories and who have no chance in hell of ever being POTUS. Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. But what would a news day be without them?
Ron Paul: Don't think he
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:42pm.
Ron Paul: Don't think he would make a good POTUS
Rand Paul: Seems to be better grounded than Dad
Chris Paul: My favorite Hornet
RON PAUL=Nutcase
Submitted by cbeyer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:47pm.
While I admire some of his stands on the fiscal side of running the government, this isolationist has no credible chance to win the nomination much less the presidency. His position on the killing of Bin Laden being illegal is not only wrong (given agreements we had with Pakistan) but moves him completely out of the mainstream of the Republican party that believes in a strong stand against radical islamic terrorists.
Don't forget, this misguided nutcase....also sided with those who said the 9-11 attack on the twin towers in NYC was an inside job. He never renounced those theories. Amazing in view of the fact that OBL took full credit for the 9-11 attack and we have the one who actually planned them SKM who ultimately provided the intel after water boarding that led to the successful ending of life of the most dangerous terrorist in the world.
Congressman Paul never said any such thing
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 1:53am.
" the 9-11 attack on the twin towers in NYC was an inside job...."---cbeyer
Prove it. Paul never said it was an "inside job."
assassination has always been
Submitted by Vonu on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:05pm.
government policy. Lets be open about it.
Really?
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:19pm.
Is that in the USA Constitution? I don't remember reading that. Please show me where assassination is legal..enquiring minds want to know.
S.J. Res. 23
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:20pm.
Voted on by Congress on September 14th, 2001.
You may not agree with what Congress did, or with the broad authority given to the President to unleash the military vs. the perpetrators of the attack on September the 11th, but Congress voted almost unanimously to give the President just such authority to take these guys out.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Well, I do stand
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:42pm.
Well, I do stand corrected..sorry for wasting your time.
Obama SeAL Team 6 action
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:11pm.
Obama SeAL Team 6 action figure Rambo doesn't have a thing on him
Where are the stones?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:13pm.
CEOs from 5 oil companies are in the hot seat again with Congress.
Thus far, I haven't heard anyone say anything about how the Chairman and his EPA and his boy Salazar have been instrumental in the high costs of gas. Why don't the CEOs say something about that? Hell, for that matter, the Republicans too, this is common knowledge. Why don't they have the stones to make that statement?
I would never blame the oil companies for $4+ gas. They don't deserve the blame.
-Jon
You know as well as I do most
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:30pm.
You know as well as I do most of the Republican men in the Senate have no cojones. It is women like Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin that would ask questions like.
This exchange was pretty "stoney"
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:15pm.
Here's an excerpt of an exchange between James Mulva, chairman and chief executive office of ConocoPhillips and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia
*****************************
In his questioning, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, told the executives that, with Washington facing dreadful and painful choices in what to cut, "I think you're deeply profoundly out of touch and deeply and profoundly committed to sharing nothing, because if you share something, you're on the slippery slope, if you give up something you are on the slippery slope."
"How much profits do you need to make on a barrel of oil to not be needful of these subsidies that we think you don't need and you think your life depends on?" asked Rockefeller
"I don't think the American people want shared sacrifice, I think they want shared prosperity," replied Mulva.
"Do you understand how out of touch that statement is?" Rockefeller responded. "Before we have shared prosperity we have to have shared sacrifice."
Mulva responded that oil workers were sacrificing because of failure of industry to get government drilling permits.
"We're asking for access to get back to work," said Mulva.
******************************
I tried finding this exchange on YouTube to no avail. Too bad.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Waiting for a veto, from the.... lord of the fly.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:32pm.
The House of Representatives voted to open more of the nation's oceans for oil and gas exploration on Thursday by a vote of 243 to 179.
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/12/house-approves-bill-lift-dr...
You Didn't Build That.
I thought the Rockefellers
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:37pm.
I thought the Rockefellers made their money from oil, Standard Oil, ESSO at that time EXXON now.
What does he "we" when he talks about shared sacrifice? He ain't sacrificing anything.
BIG OIL makes most of their profits from the other things derived from crude oil. Gas is not all that profitable when you look at profits taking into consideration for refining, transportation ,etc. Hell the federal and state governments make more off a gallon than BIG OIL does.
Again with the sacrifice?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:32pm.
Rockerfeller may think it's out of touch(according to HIM) but this nonsense about shared sacrifice is just that, nonsense. That's a good response by Mulva(read his un-American comment and loved how Menendez took offense. I wish Mulva would have said "if the shoe fits...") about the workers wanting to get back to work. Goes against the grain of the Dems who want dependent people, not independent people.
We don't HAVE to have shared sacrifice at all. Maybe in a communist country, but not a capitalist country.
Good on Mulva! But he should be "demanding," not "asking." The Dems fighting against that IS anti-American. I'll even say that to their faces.
-Jon
Sherriff Dupnik
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:27pm.
Looks like Dupnik has screwed up again. This is from Jon at This ain't hell so it has some harsh language.
Oh man
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:37pm.
Now that was definitely a hit on the guy. I can't believe Dupnik is still there after his flapping his jaw all over the damn place..... can't fault the author for the language for any reason.
-Jon