In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Ron Paul
SuburbanNoize
Member Posts: 10,142
Comments
Regardless of whatever treaty the U.N. creates the Constitution trumps it, even assuming the various nations of the U.N. could ever agree on the final wording and the president of the U.S. could be persuaded to sign it and the Senate adopted it. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the United States. Signed treaties have the effect of Federal Law. That means they are only valid insofar as they do not conflict with the Constitution. I wouldn't worry about the guys in Blue Helmets taking your gun collection or shutting down the local gun shop any time soon.
This looks like treaties might actually take precedence over the Constitution. I don't think there has ever been a case where the Supreme Court actually found a treaty to be superior to the Constitution, but in my opinion, it would be risky to test it.
The United States Constitution
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
He is the only one that will protect the constitution.
I agree with him on more issues than any other candidate.
He is the only one that will protect the constitution.
+1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA
Trinity +++
Trinity +++
Would you care to explain that so we can understand why you belive that? I would be interested to hear some dirt on Ron.
Trinity +++
I'll need to study the millitary comisions act before comenting on it.
He does not want an open border like clasical libertarians. He ran as a libertarian because it was the only way to get on the ballot.
Ronald Regan said "I didn't leave the democratic party it left me"
Ron Paul is saying the same thing about the repulicans.
The republican party has been stolen and does not represent me any more.
I have to wonder if anyone who is against the Patriot Act actually has read anything about it or has just sucked up what the left wing media sources have said about it.
Trinity +++
military commisions act
it is only 38 pages, I didn't find anything bad in a short scan, it mostly addresses non americans.
The patriot act however erodes our constitution on too many levels to list it violates 1,2,4,5 amendments.
I will consider tom, and fred, but at this point it is ron for me.
This a great source of short papers writen by ron ,on many topics over the years, check it out.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
I wonder how many ron haters are really familiar with his views or just saw tv clips or someone elses coments/opinions.
This a great source of short papers writen by ron ,on many topics over the years, check it out.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
I live here in Texas and supported Ron Paul for years. I will no longer support him and will do all I can to get him defeated after his comments in the first debate about us bringing 911 bombings on ourself. I suggest the old pooper pick up a weapon and stand a post to see who our enemy is and why. I'm through with him as a politician and a man human being awww, forget it!
C&P Commentary And Insights On A Troubled World
By Joel Skousen
Editor - World Affairs Brief
5-19-7
In the first GOP debate, Ron Paul came out of nowhere to capture the growing pro-Constitutional and anti-war sentiment of the viewers. His poll numbers doubled the others and had to be suppressed. In the second debate this week Fox News hosts were gunning for him, jabbing with questions tainted by skepticism and innuendo about his "being out of step with the Republican party." When Paul dared utter that American interventionist foreign policy was in large part responsible for 9/11, they allowed Rudolph Giuliani to jump into the debate out of turn to denounce him. The denunciations have been non-stop ever since, even threatening to deny Paul a place in any future debates.
As Andrew Sullivan, perennial GOP critic said of Paul's rising star, "They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real support for him [Paul]. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers [actually Paul was running first with 30%, well into the polling]. We have a real phenomenon here -- because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for."
Presidential candidate Ron Paul merely uttered the mildest form of criticism -- that US incessant interference in the Middle East provided a major provocation for terrorists--a conclusion backed up by the establishment's own 9/11 Commission! Yet Rudolph Giuliani had the gall to say, "I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
During the debate, Paul specifically said that terrorists attacked the United States "because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [intervening]." Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler jumped on this opportunity to make Paul look extreme: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9-11 attack?"
Paul replied: "No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there..." He then recounted Reagan's decision to pull out of Middle East intervention after the Beruit bombing of Marines, that "we don't understand Middle East politics."
"I think Reagan was right," Paul said. "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (some applause.)Then Giuliani jumps in and is given time to rebut (improperly--magically his microphone is live, while all others are off): "Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11 [Giuliani never misses an opportunity to say 'I was there' though he never admits having known the WTC were going to collapse and having failed to pull his first responders out of the buildings in time to save their lives.], that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause and cheers.) Then he demands that Ron Paul renounce his statement (even greater applause from the pro-Bush audience), but, Ron Paul sticks to his assertions.
As Pat Buchanan said, "After the debate, on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate. Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
Doug Kendall thinks there is a smear campaign against Paul: "By now, it is painfully obvious to most people in the freedom movement that Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, has been targeted for elimination--by his own Party. The politically-connected elite within the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives, are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.
"In all honesty, Dr. Paul should have known that he would be set up in the second debate--after he scored so high in poll after poll, following the first debate--and after he made it clear that he would not tow the neo-con, police-state, Giuliani-style 'war' on terror line.
"Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative" news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a 'nut-job,' 'dope,' and 'moron,' calling for his removal from the debates because his views are supposedly 'dangerous' for the country."
Alex wallenwein adds more: "After the debate, Ron Paul appears as a guest on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes show. Hannity goes wild on Paul and Paul again refuses to back down, but can't hardly get a word in sideways between Hannity's irate rants.
"The following day, Paul is interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN and is asked whether he will take the opportunity to back away from his statements. Ron Paul retorts that it is Rudy Giuliani who needs to apologize to him for unjustifiably blowing his top on him and insinuating that he is 'un-American.' Ron affirms that he is indeed an American because Americans have the right to disagree with bad policy, and America's foreign interventionism in the Middle East is bad policy and therefore can and should be challenged.
"Fox News anchor, John Gibson, recently stated that the second presidential debate got a little 'spicy' after 'Paul suggested that the US actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks.' He even went so far as to attempt to link Paul to the 911 Truth crowd and Rosie O'Donnell--whose picture they flashed, twice, during the five-minute segment, along with the tagline, 'ROSIE O'DONNELL STRONGLY BELIEVES IN 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES.'
Gibson said that the 911 Truth movement has infected people like Rosie O'Donnell, and one in three Democrats, and many other Americans evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul. To make matters worse, he brought columnist and Fox News contributor, Michele Malkin, into the segment and said he would have expected to hear something like this from the Democrat debates.
In perfect neo-con style, Malkin stated, 'Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a representative of Republicans,' apparently because of the 911 Truth movement 'virus.'
Paul Joseph Watson explains what Malkin means: "Malkin defines 9/11 truth as a 'virus' and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox's geriatric 80-plus viewers don't forget it. Malkin resorts to the usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement, despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the liberal media, both mainstream and alternative. Gibson and Malkin then recoil at the temerity of the suggestion that bombing third world countries breeds hatred and characterize it as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory! Of course, those poor people in the Middle East love being bombed and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic!
"Malkin cites Popular Mechanics, the Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as her bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
The Giuliani Setup: One of my subscribers is a producer and explained that the debate was clearly rigged, judging by the tainted questions asked of Ron Paul and the favorable "opportunities" given to the top candidates. He also noted that the attack on Paul showed some signs of collusion by Fox because Giuliani's microphone was turned on so that he could rebut Paul. How did Giuliani get an open mic? The microphones of non speakers are always in the off position when their turn is over so as to not feed in noise to the system. His was left on when Paul was speaking. I think Fox was just waiting for something Paul would say that would give Giuliani a chance to respond and denounce.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media tends to agree: "Fox News has a reputation as a conservative news channel and many Republicans rely on it for news and information. But its handling of this debate raises serious questions about the channel's commitment to being 'fair and balanced.' It seems to be emerging as an arm of the Giuliani-for-president campaign. Honest conservatives should demand better coverage."
Ron Paul's rising star has to be shot down before it gets out of hand and now they have the issue to use against him. This intolerance for dissent is telling about how rigid and unprincipled the media has become. Patriotism has become so sacrosanct that the media will brook no opposition at all without inferring treason--mindless patriotism is essential toward herding the masses into more war and globalist intervention.
DISTORTIONS: Now they've got Ron Paul where they want him. They will brand him as some kind of "Holocaust Denier." They will continue to denigrate and distort his position and trumpet it to the world. He won't be given enough time to refute the charges. Remember, it takes lots of time to recite the small bits of evidence pointing to US involvement in 9/11, and even if people had the will to listen (which they do not) it's impossible to do on TV when you are only given some 30 seconds to respond. The distortions have already begun. Justin Raimondo of anti-war.com summarizes:
Several media figures mischaracterized a response that Rep. Ron Paul gave at the Republican debate, with some asserting that Paul had 'blamed' the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks and others simply accepting Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's statement that the United States had 'invited the attack.' In fact, Paul did not blame the United States for the 9-11 attacks or say that the United States had 'invited' the attacks. He said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. Moreover, the media largely ignored Paul's further comments on those remarks after the debate, including his assertion that 'Americans didn't do anything to cause' the attacks [referring to ordinary Americans, and not the leaders, who Paul privately knows were complicit].
"During a post debate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul: 'Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?' Paul responded: 'I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us.'Yet when describing the confrontation between Paul and Giuliani during the debate, numerous media figures claimed that Paul 'blamed' the United States for 9-11 or said that the United States was 'responsible' for the attacks, and they made no mention of his subsequent clarification. In addition, some not only accepted Giuliani's interpretation of what Paul said but praised Giuliani's response."
The "kick him out" club is growing. The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party Saul Anuzis said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy. Go here to sign a counter petition to ensure Ron Paul stays in the debates:
http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html
While most of the establishment world is crowing that "this was Giuliani's night" the internet crowd hardly agrees. Justin Raimondo has a few choice comments about Rudolph "the Thug" Giuliani: "In response to Ron Paul's reasonable and informed contention that our interventionist foreign policy created the 'blowback' that gave rise to Al Qaeda, and 9/11, Rudy Giuliani burbled 'I don't think I've ever heard that!'
"Of course he hasn't heard it: he's so busy pandering to the worst instincts of red-state fascists Republicans, calling for a national ID card, and drooling at the thought of torture that he has no time for a reality-based assessment of American foreign policy. That bullying would-be Mafia don, who looks and acts like someone out of 'The Sopranos,' demanded that Ron Paul 'withdraw his remarks and tell us he didn't mean it.' Paul's answer, 'I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They're not attacking us because we're rich and free, they're attacking us because we're over there [overthrowing governments].'
"As even the dumbos [Bush cheerleaders] over at FreeRepublic.com acknowledge, Rep. Paul is factually correct. Bin Laden's fatwa gave his reasons for the attack, and the savaging of Iraq -- pre-invasion -- is front-and -center.."
RON PAUL IS THE TALK OF THE TOWN: Paul is being interviewed constantly as the media keeps trying to vilify his position. I'm not sure its working. But, this uproar isn't going away. They will build upon it and distort it until Ron Paul is transformed into an "unpatriotic extremist." Think how they would crucify your editor and the other millions of Americans who are convinced that US government involvement was much more than mere provocation.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
editor@worldaffairsbrief.com
I think this is what dheffley is refering to?
No, what you posted is a one sided, Pro-Paul spin on his comments. What I'm referring to is what I heard out of his mouth with my own ears while watching him and his reaction. Spin it any way you want, he's toast and he should be. He said, It's our own fault, and We brought it on ourselves.
He said it, and he believes it. He needs to take his sorry butt up to Manhatten and look at the hole in the ground. He's an idiot and a moron who should be strung up by his testicles until they fall off.
I supported him for years, but I also hold him accountable for his words. Those words far outweigh all of the good he has ever done, in my eyes. He's out of touch with the real world and would be the worst President this country could ever put in office.
The politically-connected elite within the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives, are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.
Ya, who wants someone in the white house that actually believes in the constitution? And has the voting record to PROVE it.
Trinity +++
Maybe even in the Politics forum.
By chance, possibly in this forum.
But I have to wonder WHY it was even moved? WTH?
The main reason I can't stand him is because he is a Yankee from PA, who claims he is from Texas.[;)]
Trinity +++
But I bet you just love the NorthEast Liberal, who claims to be from Texas, presently occupying the white house??
Paul actually believes that the government and its functions should be limited as the constitution describes. That is not a stance of the GOP, the Libertarians, or the democrats.
The smear campaign by the Republicans, and their bull dogs (Malkim, Hanity, etc) is so transparent-you gotta be a real nit wit not to see it.
quote:Originally posted by longsantafe
I think this is what dheffley is refering to?
No, what you posted is a one sided, Pro-Paul spin on his comments. What I'm referring to is what I heard out of his mouth with my own ears while watching him and his reaction. Spin it any way you want, he's toast and he should be. He said, It's our own fault, and We brought it on ourselves.
He said it, and he believes it. He needs to take his sorry butt up to Manhatten and look at the hole in the ground. He's an idiot and a moron who should be strung up by his testicles until they fall off.
I supported him for years, but I also hold him accountable for his words. Those words far outweigh all of the good he has ever done, in my eyes. He's out of touch with the real world and would be the worst President this country could ever put in office.
So heffely...
We have sided with Israel, and done so during peacetime, against George Washington's best advice, and the problem with that is, when you ally yourself with another country and support it, you inherit all of that country's enemies. This is what happens when we insist on policing the world.
We did it on ourself. Unfortunately, that's the truth. Had we minded our own damned business and left Israel to fend for itself, September 11th would be just another day to us.
Unfortunately he stepped in it a few weeks ago with his anti-war comments. He will forever have a black mark with the mainstream American voter. There are 6 wars and dozens of conflicts we would likely have never been involved in over this last century or so if we had not strayed from the original instructions of our Founding Fathers.
I think Salzo hit it about right. I have found few issues on which to disagree with Ron Paul over the years. I believe him to be a true Constitutional originalist, which is what makes him so controversial to the mainstream. This country hasn't had a true Consitutional government in almost 150 years.
Unfortunately he stepped in it a few weeks ago with his anti-war comments. He will forever have a black mark with the mainstream American voter. There are 6 wars and dozens of conflicts we would likely have never been involved in over this last century or so if we had not strayed from the original instructions of our Founding Fathers.
I wouldn't be too sure about all that, WW. We no longer control Congress, and the main reason is because of the Iraq war. If there is a candidate ready to withdraw from Iraq and let them fend for themselves, and leave the middle east alone, he may end up the nominee. Consider that there are lots of people on both sides opposed to the war and against our intercession on the welfare state of Israel, people have just had enough....
If he starts to receive any serious support then the media and the party will have all of his statements scrutinized and publicized in a context that makes him sound like even more of an extremist whacko. If that fails, then the political machine will set up some sort of scandal surrounding him. If that fails they will simply outspend him.
At least GWB was born in Texas. His Daddy wasn't, but he was, and yes I do like him. I have not found very much to disagree with, except if the "amnesty" immigration bill gets passed.
Trinity +++
The guy has virtually outspent any Dem that has existed,.......and I DO NOT like Dems.
Have a feeling your only concern is that he is "anti-abortion".
Me too,.......but I don't base my life on one subject. Are you also in favor of another 30 billion to Africa for AIDS? There is no cure, or vaccine,........we are burning money to prolong their lives, so they can infect more.
People like this will be the end of the conservative party, as we will fragment further, and further, over "side issues", until there is no cohesiveness left.
Time for a third party movement to become serious, IMHO!
I am 100% against the patriot act. I am 100% pro-gun. I would much prefer Ron Paul to the anti-gunners like McCain, Giuliani, Hitlery, or Barak Osama.
Salzo,
At least GWB was born in Texas. His Daddy wasn't, but he was, and yes I do like him. I have not found very much to disagree with, except if the "amnesty" immigration bill gets passed.
So you like big federal government.
The increase of ALL ASPECTS of federal government has increased so much with your boy Bush in the white house-it makes the clinton years look like there was no federal government at all.
Now I understand why you dont like Ron Paul.
You only have to read up on him to understand his political stance. He isn't even a Republican. He is an Libertarian running as a Republican so that he can get his face on T/V. Don't be fooled by what he says on debates. He has consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War. I know there are a lot of folks here that don't agree with these laws, but for me that sends the signal that he will not be there when the crap hits the fan.
Trinity +++
To me, these seem like reasons to flock in droves towards him, not run away from him.