Ron Paul’s Latest Insane Claims: The U.S. Government Assinated Anwar al-Awlaki And U.S. Journalists Might Be on Government Hit Listsby lisarichardsusa |
In the typical fashion of radical libertarianism, Ron Paul’s unhinged beliefs are once again demonizing America.
The man who claims to be America’s constitutional savior while constantly blaming America for 9/11 has made two radically anti-American statements this past week: The United State assassinated an American-born Islamic terrorist and journalist may be next if they speak out against the government.
First: it's not enough Ron Paul claims America created radical Islam and Islam is not America’s enemy; rather, radical Islamists hate America because “they [Islamists] are motivated by our [U.S.] invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate,” Paul is taking the side of al-Qaeda figurehead Anwar al- Awlaki, the American-born terrorist linked with terrorist plots that include the 9/11 attacks.
Although he agrees Awlaki was a threat to America, Paul insists the terrorist may not have been a killer:
Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody. If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.
Plotting to attack America with airliners is not an attempt to kill anyone, it's simply a misdemeanor by a misunderstood criminal.
Paul went on to assert:
I don’t think that’s [killing Awlaki] a good way to deal with our problems. Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad, [because] They [the government] won’t even tell us what the rules are.
It’s no surprise Paul would side with Awlaki. During presidential debates, Paul defends Iran as some helpless victim incapable of attaining nuclear warfare, Paul demands should have rights to produce in order to defend itself against U.S. and Israeli bullies. Paul's radical anti-American claims are typical of radical libertarians, who, unlike true Jeffersonian libertarians, throw their support to radical Islamists over their own nation. So it’s no bombshell revelation that Ron Paul is making yet another radical claim against the United States.
Get the memo Ron Paul. If the U.S. government discloses the rules of engagement to the American people, every enemy of the United States, including Islamic terrorist inside the U.S., will be privy to that knowledge and use it against America. Apparently that's not a reasonable policy for Ron Paul's radical libertarian thinking. Paul's empathy tends to lean toward America’s enemies versus his own nation and its laws against committing treason and terror. State Department evidence of Awlaki’s al-Qaeda affiliations means nothing unless Awlaki was caught red-handed after the terrorist attack, as Timothy McVeigh was. Paul says Awlaki should have been afforded the same constitutional rightsas McVeigh-- tried and convicted in a U.S. court.
That would stand under Jefferson's death penalty for treason laws if Awlaki was caught impressing men into terrorism on U.S. soil as Aaron Burr was when caught enlisting Americans to the British side in 1806. But Awlaki defected to Yemen specifically to recruit and train terrorists to fight against the United States. The act of treason was committed on foreign soil. Awlaki gave up his constitutional rights in favor of fighting against his homeland he plotted to destroy. The U.S. Military had every right to kill the traitor on foreign soil.
Facts purposely elude Ron Paul. He is more concerned an anti-American citizen terrorist was killed overseas by a drone rather than given Fourth Amendment rights, tried in court, and imprisoned for treason. Nevertheless, Paul chooses to discount the fact Awlaki intentionally fled to another country to fight against America and killing him was justified.
Ron Paul disagrees. His radical beliefs actually compare Awlaki to imprisoned Nazi soldiers who fought against U.S. allies:
All the Nazi criminals were tried. They were taken to court and then executed. The reason we do this is because we want to protect the rule of law.
Nazi soldiers who stood trial were not captured on a foreign battle field fighting againstGermany. They fought for Germany and Hitler, their homeland and leader. Those Nazi soldiers were not tried for treason against Germany, but crimes against humanity. Again, Awlaki was an American-born terrorist who left America for a terrorist nation to fight with foreign terrorists against the U.S.
Awlaki was a traitor and terrorist who wanted America extinct.
E-mail records prove he was directly connected to attacks against the United States, including Fort Hood. From December 2008 through June 2009, Awlaki had contact with Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. In one of Hasan’s e-mails, he told Awlaki “I can’t wait to join you” in paradise, a statement made only by jihadists planning to commit terror.
Further evidence shows Awlaki
...was a key player in the [9/11] plot itself… [and]… Declassified documents, exclusives interviews and phone records present a compelling case that al-Awlaki was an overlooked key player in the 9/11 plot. The cleric’s contacts with three of the 19 hijackers were not a series of coincidences but rather evidence of a purposeful relationship.
Then there is the connection to the British Airways Christmas Day Underwear Bomb Plot. Awlaki said Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab was one of his “students.”
Plotting to commit terror is engaging in warfare against humanity. Terrorism is committed by violent individuals’ intent on world destruction, not shoplifters and criminals knocking over the local 7-Eleven.
Two: if the above evidence against Awlaki is not enough, Ron Paul is taking his wild accusations further, alleging that if the U.S. government kills American-born terrorists, the government might begin shooting and killing U.S. journalists for speaking out against the government:
Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat? Someday that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism. ... It’s slipping and sliding, let me tell ya.
If an American poses a dire threat to the United States, and there is evidence against that person demonstrating plots to destroy the nation, that person must be found and stopped before great harm can be committed. That has nothing to do with expressing opinions about the war. Terrorism a far cry from citizens and journalists speaking out against the government or a radical libertarian presidential candidate who makes fanatical accusations against the government. Those rights are protected under the First Amendment and Ron Paul knows this. Plotting to destroy America is not a protected constitutional right, it is terrorism.
Rather than acknowledge protected Constitutional facts, Paul is attempting to create fear by declaring American journalists may become targeted in a Putinesque Russian-style assassination if journalists dare speak out against the U.S. government.
Note to Ron Paul: if speaking out against the United States government was a death sentence, you Ron Paul would have been six feet under many debates-ago.
The radical libertarian is a far cry from Jeffersonian reason, yet this never stops Ron Paul from condemning the United States as the bully against poor mistreated Islamic terrorists, and now, possibly murdering journalists exercising their First Amendment rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment