What Ron Paul Did For Me

An Administration Gone Rogue
by Rep. Ron Paul
March 23, 2012
 

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission". Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years. When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven’t had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress’s only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops".

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people’s branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king’s army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!
 

Ron Paul: "I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"

 Romulus wrote:

 
Glad to hear.

There is only one real definition of evil, not the ones that are made up for someone's own benefits.

 hippiechick wrote: 
"evil" can be a loosely subjective term, defined by who benefits off of a said 'evil'.

She's doing better, thanks. 3/4 chemo's down. Her hair will start growing back in April. Then its another 4 rounds of light chemo. Her spirits are better than before.

 Romulus wrote:

 
Thanks.

The trick is preventing them from being used for evil. Good luck with that

Threadjack: How is your wife doing?

 hippiechick wrote:

 
Something's up.. try this

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhQUi2004-KOW2m6Yzu467VugN6g?docId=9d0705e19e134d7d9ec0e7392cede6b8

copy and paste it... links aren't working.

 Romulus wrote: 
Either your link doesn't work, or I think there is a problem with clicking through in 2.0.

 hippiechick wrote:

 
We need to get real.

Drones come in all sizes, from the high-flying Global Hawk with its 116-foot wingspan to a hummingbird-like drone that weighs less than an AA battery and can perch on a window ledge to record sound and video. Lockheed Martin has developed a fake maple leaf seed, or "whirly bird," equipped with imaging sensors, that weighs less than an ounce.

 Romulus wrote:

 
skies

Drones in and of themselves are a valuable tool for a number of reasons (see my article in Drones thread) but the possibilities for abuse are limitless.

 romeotuma wrote: 
Ron Paul isn't so much anti-war. He does believe in declaration of war by Congress, winning it and then coming home. And that is IF they are an honest, direct threat to us. But in the big picture, these wars and hell on an economy and our civil liberty. It's ALL connected. It's why we have this big brother police state and drones soon to be in the sky's. It's big business, and it ties into corporatism. THAT is why he is for free markets, so the people and the courts can regulate the corporations, wheras the mega corps are NOT protected by some favorable unconstitutional law that someone in Congress was bribed to draft a bill on. That's how it's all connected.

 sirdroseph wrote:

 
Any talk of them being besties is nothing more than the media making its own conspiracy theories. The are civil to each other, the way all people should be! He has said that even though he does not agree with his policy's, Paul respect Mitts 'management style'. I can only take that as Romney isn't a jerk like Noot and Froth.

 

Rand wont take a VP offer from Romney, even though it would boost him. Neocons love Rand for some reason, even though Rand is very libertarian.

 romeotuma wrote: 

Uh-uh, but of course... (it seems the smileys are gone too. I needed the one that slaps itself on the head/face palm)

Energy. Well, it just so happens I learned a new word today, used to describe Putin in a review of two new books on him.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

 romeotuma wrote:

 
Interesting, 'cause it should be a no-brainer. Militarism, empire (a rather old-fashioned word. Go with Superpower. More modern, and even more grandiose), corporatism, and civil liberties are all connected.

It's hard to not be sympathetic toward 'civil libertarianism'. Only terrorists hate freedom...

If we're going to have babies with Naomis, then I'd go for Klein. Better looking.

It seems you might (still) end up safe (for now): Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

 RichardPrins wrote: 

 romeotuma wrote: 
Hell would freeze over and Jesus himself would return to give Dr. Ron a manly hug...

 

Ron Paul on Drugs
by: Mike Ludwig
Truthout
March 1, 2012

Rep. Ron Paul's outspoken opposition to the war on drugs and federal drug prohibition sets him far apart from his opponents in the Republican primaries and President Obama. Paul's frank libertarianism — and his willingness to boldly step outside the Washington status quo — has not translated to primary victories, but has earned him a legion of young followers of all political stripes who want to see a change in the Republican Party and the way government deals with drugs.

"We're the DARE generation. We went to school and we were taught that marijuana would kill you, and then we found out that it didn't, and then a bunch of our friends got thrown into jail," said Irina Alexander, a leading member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). "For us, it's a really, really personal issue."

Despite some close calls, Paul has yet to win a GOP primary. Paul is still a long shot, but Alexander said a lot of young people support him simply because of has stance on drug policies, and if he were to win the nomination, he could rob Obama of a portion of the youth vote the president took for granted in 2008...

 

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Rand Paul For Veep?