Journalism Should be Subject to the Criminal Justice System: Cain Did Flip Flip on Killing Al Awlaki

Fox News spent a whole Sunday segment on the legality of President Obama’s killing of Al Awlaki, an American citizen. Bill Kristol chuckled condescendingly and said that no candidate except for Ron Paul is complaining about it and therefore it is a non-issue. Kristol implied that the killing was legal and morally justified. Everyone else on the panel agreed. No one explained why they spent a whole segment talking about something that was supposed to be a non-issue.

But it turns out that Bill Kristol was wrong. Herman Cain was asked about the killing of Al Awlaki several months ago and stated clearly that it was wrong and unconstitutional. I am posting the Youtube of the Herman Cain interview below for you to see for yourself.

So get this straight. President Obama must get a federal judge to sign a warrant before he can listen in on the telephone conversations of an American citizen but he can kill an American citizen without it. He just need support from the American news media.

Interesting.

This is about as far from the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as one can get. This is running the country by the news media and a popular leader.

Ron Paul made it very clear today that he condemns what Al Awlaki did and what he stands for. He voted to go into Afghanistan and to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. But he pointed out that even with Timothy McVeigh, we brought him to trial and he was convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge. And he was executed. He was not killed on an order of the president.

During the Nuremberg Trials the prosecution took great pains to show how Nazi Germany started its fall into the abyss. A great amount of time was taken to explain how gullible the German people were to accept Hitler’s actions during the Blood Purge when Ernst Rohm and other SA leaders were summarily killed without trial. This should have been a warning, the court was told. Instead it was applauded by the population. After all, the men that Hitler had killed were bad men.

One of the four major counts against the Nuremberg defendants was the waging of an aggressive (preemptive) war. It is now our American foreign policy.

We are at an interesting point in our history. It is worth a discussion before we race ahead.

If the press and journalists were subject to perjury charges as others who are entrusted to give good information are, held to the same standard as those on the witness stand perhaps, most on the nightly news would be in prison. Many of those with criminal justice degrees would have to study nothing but press law and entire task forces would need to work tirelessly to patrol the airwaves seeking out those who sought to confound and confuse the public. Commentators, pundits and talking heads just no longer tell the truth and those getting a journalism education should leave them out of it. In 2009 only 1 in 5 would admit to putting considerable trust in the media. The case of Al Awlaki is a perfect explanation as to why. FOX reported no one flip flopped, even though Herman Cain actually did, but instead of spending the news day analyzing a morally questionable act, they rehashed the candidate’s comments and the feud between Democrats and Republicans.

About these ads

53 Responses to Journalism Should be Subject to the Criminal Justice System: Cain Did Flip Flip on Killing Al Awlaki

  1. What an absurd thread. Have you ever heard of imminent threat? Seriously Doug, this campaign for Ron Paul is making you look like a nut-job.

    It would have been very difficult and risky to take Al Awlaki out where we don’t have the forward forces as we do in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but don’t let any operational and logistical military details get in the way of putting down someone who has gone right past Ron Paul in the polls! LOL

    I don’t know Herman’s current opinion on this issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this BUSINESSMAN didn’t change his mind now that he is more aware of some of these details. I’ll take Herman’s lack of knowledge in the Constitution and military factors over Barry’s socialist bent or Ron Paul’s positions that don’t have a prayer of getting approved by Congress any day. Herman will get plenty of advice from various sources, I have confidence he will make the right informed decision a much higher percentage of time than Barry or Ron!

    • Read article 3, section 3 of the Constitution

      • Where were all you people BEFORE we killed Al Awlaki? Now that he’s dead, you like to play armchair quarterback. The fact is we’ve been chasing this rabid raghead for YEARS, and he has been linked to at least 3 known (and who knows how many unknown) attacks/attempted attacks, the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber. It was only our dumb luck and their incompetence that made the latter 2 unsuccessful. If that’s not imminent threat, I don’t know what is! I doubt hardly ANY of our founding fathers would be on your side in this case, as it is fundamental we are allowed to defend ourselves. You need to read up on this law, which was passed by CONGRESS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

        It’s only wimps like Ron Paul who, if they can’t find the EXACT words spelled out for a given situation in the US Constitution, written before flight was even invented, that our hands are tied. No, we have laws that further define situations. Plus, we are allowed to use common sense.

        We are at war, and it is a different kind of war, as we are not fighting another sovereign nation, but a band of quasi-religious fruitcakes.

    • Jgi Gilmore says:

      TexTex – you forgot to link all the sources to your imminent threat accusation. and you do know the supreme court has upheld any and all immenent threat speech twice so far in history, once for a KKK leader saying america better change its ways or they attack and another was a Black leader who said stuff and other blacks then went and set fires to businesses. The supreme court found for both the KKK leader and the Black leader. So other than Alwaki’s speech, you need to link your sources and facts before you make accusations

    • Tyler says:

      ahah.. Ron Paul doesn’t need the congress to withdrawal the troops and end this otherwise perpetual war.. fear is a strong emotion, and you’re letting yourself become way too scared of terrorists. They’re capable of some pretty heinous shit, but you don’t even understand why they do it, or they get the support they do, or why they target the US.. it’s a bit deeper than “they hate us because we’re free” .. try more along the lines of “they hate us because we occupy their lands, kill their innocents, and support Israel (which ought to be able to defend themselves by now).

      And you’re trying to defend a complete disregard of the 5th amendment.. good luck with that.

      • Ron Paul will also never be in a position to withdraw our troops and make those who gave life and limb a completely worthless sacrifice. We withdraw, and we have Afghanistan circa 1980s all over again. Been there, done that. Read your history books.

      • Neville says:

        “We withdraw, and we have Afghanistan circa 1980s all over again.”

        What, exactly, would be the problem with that? Except for the Russians, of course.

      • The problem is we help Afghanistan kick out the Russians, but then we just left, and allowed the country to taken over by the Taliban and become a home base for terrorists and their training camps, which led to 9/11. Do you want to know what the problem with 9/11 was as well? Hint: It has nothing to do with the Russians. LOL

      • Neville says:

        We weren’t really there to help the Afghan people “kick out the Russians”; that is very clear. We were there to help them make their latest war against occupation (this time, with the Russians) as difficult for the Russians as we could possibly make it. It was a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, pure and simple. And it was the wrong thing to do.

        We went into Afghanistan this time ostensibly to locate and bring to justice the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks (even though the attackers were Saudis, not Afghans), not to try to make them the 58th state.

      • Of course we were involved in Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians, it was the Cold War and we didn’t want them to expand their influence. It was the right thing to do, and we had every intent on being successful, and we were successful. But we didn’t stay to clean up the mess, and Afghanistan was then used to train terrorists. The Saudi terrorists were in Afghanistan, just like al awlaki was in Yemen. It’s hard to kill a terrorist in a place they don’t live. LOL

  2. TexMex says:

    The only detail Cain learned was that he’d sell more books if he flip-flopped. By the way, Congress passed Obamacare – does that make it Constitutional?

    • You’re an idiot if you think Herman Cain changed his position only to sell more books. Obamacare is going to the Supreme Court, why don’t you start a lawsuit and bring Al Awlaki’s case to the Supreme Court? LOL

  3. TexTex, the administration or their order to the CIA to kill him makes no mention of him being an imminent threat. It also says they can kill him anywhere, near a battlefield or not. They’ve also released no new information relating to the assasination. What you’re essentially saying is, “shoot, it’s easier to just kill these sombitches”. I just hope you understand that this is a war without end because we’re not toppling a government. Terrorism will go on as long as we’re in the Middle East. And as such this President, and all others after him will have this power now to label you a terrorist and kill you anytime and anywhere. Then following your slaughter, they don’t even have to produce any evidence. Even given that, they could concievably fabricate evidence and your family and friends would have no way to counter it because there’d be no trial. I’m sure what the Nazi’s did to the Jews sounded incredible and unlikely, yet it happened.

    • See imminent threat discussion above. These guys don’t operate on a battlefield, they hide among the civilians and use them as human shields. If the civilians don’t comply, they shoot their families. These are BARBARIANS, and the Geneva Convention rules DO NOT APPLY! We used a drone and fired a missile into his vehicle, what more do you want to know? How many pieces of him there were after the missile hit? I’m not at all saying, “shoot, it’s easier to just kill these sombitches.” These guys hide among tribes that are sympathetic to their terrorist cause. George Bush SAID it was going to be a long term war shortly after 9/11, because he recognized it was not a war with another government, it was a war with psycho-terrorists. It is ridiculous to think killing a known overseas terrorist leader after hunting him down for YEARS is the equivalent of killing millions of other American citizens in this country. But you Ron Paul people sure are fun to play with!

  4. Michael says:

    TexTex, you my friend are a horrible American. You don’t understand the implications of killing a U.S. Citizen do you? It basically has set the precedent that a US President can kill anyone he disagrees with.

    As far as Herman Cain, he is a nothing and has no shot to win the GOP nomination. You need to stop watching FOX News and think for yourself.

    • Michael,

      See my response to Fat Libertarian above. Besides, “the president” didn’t kill anybody, there were at least hundreds, if not thousands of other Americans who hunted this guy down. Most, if not all of them, took the same oath I did, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. However, any military person is obligated to NOT carry out an illegal order. I think there are enough thinking men and women that we need not be concerned with “a US President can kill anyone he disagrees with.”

      I don’t know if Cain will win the GOP nomination or not, but I would vote for him before I voted for Ron Paul or the current man-child we have in the office now. You need to start listening to Rush Limbaugh and start thinking, period. LOL

  5. Carmen says:

    TexTex says: “It would have been very difficult and risky to take Al Awlaki out where we don’t have the forward forces as we do in Afghanistan/Pakistan”

    What do you know that Obama doesn’t know? NOTHING!

    “Obama has declined to give any precise details of the attack and his role in the chain of command, which stands in contrast to the aftermath of the death of Bin Laden. “I can’t talk about operation details,” he told a radio interviewer on Friday, and then stressed the involvement of the Yemeni government in the strike.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/01/yemen-drone-killing-ibrahim-al-asiriri

    The less we know, the less safe we are. Due process to an American not only protects the accused but it protects “We the People.” We are deprived from the TRUTH. We’ve become, as a nation, complacent with whatever our government feeds us. We don’t ask questions and we don’t want to know the truth. Due process would have given us the TRUTH. It would have served this country well to have had the bad guy, al-Awlaki, charged, convicted and sentenced to the maximum the law allowed. But we love to be lied to. We killed the bad guy!! Yayyyy!!! OK, back to my reality show channel.

    • I know plenty more that Barry doesn’t know. Besides, it isn’t just what you know, but your judgment.

      We talked too much after taking out bin Laden. We don’t need to give away every operational/tactical/strategic detail to the enemy.

      Have fun with your reality show channel, I’ve found those shows to be the exact opposite of reality, which is probably why you watch them and then vote for Ron Paul! LOL

      • Carmen says:

        “I know plenty more that Barry doesn’t know.” ~TexTex LMAO!!!!!!!!

        You have all the answers huh? You should run for office, see how far you get. :OD

      • tex2 says:

        I didn’t say that, numb-skull. I’m not interested in running for political office, and that’s part of the problem – there are many good people out there who aren’t interested, because they know the political process is so corrupt and broken. How do you think Barry got elected? LOL

      • Carmen says:

        TExTEx:
        “I didn’t say that, numb-skull. I’m not interested in running for political office, and that’s part of the problem – there are many good people out there who aren’t interested, because they know the political process is so corrupt and broken. How do you think Barry got elected? LOL”

        Sounds like you’re running from something. So what are you interested in? Besides getting on here and dissing Barry (which I really don’t mind) and Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn’t get his money for bankers like Barry does. They wouldn’t dare.

        LOL (I’m gonna steal that from you).

        By the way, cheer up, you come across so bitter. SHEESH!!

        LOL

      • tex2 says:

        Anybody who doesn’t run for political office is running from something? LOL

        Looks like I missed figuring you out, you’re not a numb-skull, you’re an empty-skull.

        Don’t worry about me, you Paulites are a laugh a minute! LOL

  6. Neville says:

    Doug,

    It is actually worse. He made that statement in the May interview, and then shortly AFTERWARD, he had already forgotten that he’d ever even heard the issue brought up. However, he reiterated his previous stance.

    Now, he says he never said anything of the sort. Not that he changed his mind, but that he never said it.

    The man either has one of the worse memories since John McCain forgot that he gave up the fighter air routes under torture so that they had to be changed, or else he is simply a liar.

    He love me:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/herman-cain-criticized-the-al-awlaki-kill-order-twice/246082/

    He loves me not:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/herman-cain-awlaki-iowa-and-9-9-9-plan_595029.html

    • Instead of picking apart a candidate, why don’t you arrest Barry for ordering this “unconstitutional” act? Where are all the protests over this decision? Just from the Ron Paul fruitcakes, and only AFTER the camel-jockey psycho was killed. LOL

      • Neville says:

        So sad that you would LOL over the idea of having a[nother] liar elected as president. Of course it’s a big deal, and the whole point of the primary campaign is to get all the important stuff out on the table to be picked apart to see what is actually good and what stinks. Cain stinks.

        Let me ask you this…

        What happens when it is you that is accused of a crime, TexTex? Should Mr. Obama just send a drone after you, with some soldier behind a joystick in Houston pushing the buttons and pulling the trigger? Or should we give you a trial, facing your accuser(s), judged by a jury of your peers?

        What if, say, Pres. Perry unilaterally ordered your daughter sterilized because she fell into a demographic segment likely to have handicapped children and thus put a drain on the new government healthcare system? And suppose you refused and told the doctors and policemen they would have to take her after your last bullet and over your dead body? Suppose they labeled you a domestic terrorist because you dared to protect your family with weapons and essentially threatened a law enforcement officer? Suppose instead of tear gas, they simply came for you with snipers given a shoot-to-kill-on-sight order, justified because you were a domestic terrorist, after all, and not worthy of arrest and trial?

        How would you feel about the clear black-and-white 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th-Amendment protections then?

      • If you tried to read for comprehension, you would realize the LOL was because the Ron Paul fruitcakes protested only AFTER the camel-jockey psycho was killed. I’ll take Cain over Barry or Ron Paul any day. LOL

        Barry would be welcome to put a drone on me if I was associated with a killer at Fort Hood and the attempted underwear bomber and Times Square bomber, while I hide in a terrorist ridden country like Yemen. Don’t be ridiculous in thinking being accused of any crime would result in a similar attack on me or any other American. You should have read my October 7 response to Michael, or you wouldn’t have asked such a stupid question again. LOL No wonder Ron Paul never gets elected to be president, he has nutty positions and nutty followers. LOL

        Speaking of sterilization, have YOU ever considered it for ALL Ron Paul followers? I just did! LOL

        You Ron Paul followers truly are nutzoid, thanks for exposing Ron Paul’s views for all to see. LOL

      • Neville says:

        @TexTex said “Barry would be welcome to put a drone on me if I was associated with a killer at Fort Hood and the attempted underwear bomber”

        If you were “associated”? Only “associated”, TexTex? I seriously doubt that. I think your mouth is writing checks your heart couldn’t cash.

        As for this issue being discussed only by Johnny-come-latelys, you couldn’t be more wrong. All you have to do is read archives from article comments and blog posts for the past 6 years or so.

        But back to that first item. You know, many of the people who read and comment right here are considered homegrown terrorists by our federal government. You have voluntarily associated with us, whatever your motives may be. Maybe you should stay indoors during drone-friendly weather, as you never know what Mr. Obama might do these days.

      • How many people on the planet do YOU think were associated with all 3 of the attacks/attempted attacks I mentioned? The Fort Hood shooting resulted in numerous dead/wounded, the other two could have resulted in dozens, if not hundreds killed/wounded. I think you’re sitting on your brain, assuming you even have one, which is also a real stretch.

        Go ahead, give me a few examples of this issue being discussed before his death, especially in Ron Paul speeches.

        You speak as if Barry is running around ordering drone attacks and everybody else is a mindless robot following his orders. Perhaps that explains how Ron Paul followers think, but not the rest of the country’s people! LOL

        Neville, what’s your last name? Chamberlain? LOL

      • The dead terrorist being discussed isn’t bin laden. Another Paulite who can’t even keep on topic. Try again. Idiot. LOL

      • Neville says:

        The general topic is assassination by the US Government. The latest specific instance is al Alwaki. It would have been rather difficult to discuss Mr. Obama’s secret order to assassinate Al Alwaki before the event happened and it became public. The basic issue is the improper issuance of the death penalty without the rule of law. If we are different (than other countries) because of our overt Christian founding and our founders structuring a government that placed the rule of law above everything else, then if we want to remain such we must take back and then keep the moral high ground. I maintain that capturing bin Laden (instead of double-tapping him for convenience sake), and then putting our legal system to work to determine and effect justice, would have put the U.S.ofA. in a far stronger and more enviable position on the world stage.

        The same argument can be made re. al Awlaki, except it provides an even greater opportunity for the U.S.ofA. to say to the world “we believe we created the greatest system of government on earth, and we’re willing to step up to the line to prove it by playing by our own rules.” I believe that by doing these things as we did, rather than as we should, we lost face and credibility on the world stage.

      • The general topic is assassination by the US Government. —> No, it isn’t. The topic is whether it was proper to kill Al Alwaki, an American citizen, which is somewhat different than killing bin Laden. And these are NOT assassinations, this is WAR.

        The latest specific instance is al Alwaki. —> It is also the instance that is identified in this thread.

        It would have been rather difficult to discuss Mr. Obama’s secret order to assassinate Al Alwaki before the event happened and it became public. —> Secret? It was NO secret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki We even missed him earlier this year before being successful, as described in the above link.

        The basic issue is the improper issuance of the death penalty without the rule of law. —> No, this is WAR.

        If we are different (than other countries) because of our overt Christian founding and our founders structuring a government that placed the rule of law above everything else, then if we want to remain such we must take back and then keep the moral high ground. —> We do, this is WAR.

        I maintain that capturing bin Laden (instead of double-tapping him for convenience sake), and then putting our legal system to work to determine and effect justice, would have put the U.S.ofA. in a far stronger and more enviable position on the world stage. —> It also could have fomented the crazies to attack us. Taking him out left the message, “Who wants to be the next “whack-a-mole” to raise his head as the new leader?” Remember, this is WAR. And since neither of us were in his bunker, we don’t know whether he was reaching for a weapon, which would have been another reason for the Navy Seals to protect themselves and take him out. Remember, this is WAR.

        The same argument can be made re. al Awlaki, except it provides an even greater opportunity for the U.S.ofA. to say to the world “we believe we created the greatest system of government on earth, and we’re willing to step up to the line to prove it by playing by our own rules.” —> You can’t go into these countries, especially without a forward operating base, as is the case with Yemen, and just hand out a subpoena and expect the locals to go grab him. He was being hidden by various tribal factions sympathetic to jihad. How many of our people do you want to put at risk to capture this dirtbag? This is WAR.

        I believe that by doing these things as we did, rather than as we should, we lost face and credibility on the world stage. —> Quite the contrary. We won respect with our enemies, as it should be. It must be nice to be so incredibly naive that everything is unicorns and rainbows in the land of Paulites! LOL

        For the rest of us, this is WAR.

      • Neville says:

        It is not WAR. We are not at war. Not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan, not in Libya, not in Uganda. We are not protecting our porous borders. “We” are not even protecting our air passengers, if “we” means the government security bureaucracy; the foiled air bombings were the result of a vigilant citizenry acting where an incompetent government did not. What we are doing is strutting around the world like arrogant street thugs, leaving our homeland undefended (of course, I fully understand the counter-argument-from-lack-of-an-exception, but by definition such arguments can not offer proof).

        You have won, Tex. You have tired me out with your hyperbole, your sweeping generalities, your incessant maniacal LOL-ing, and your childish reliance on ad hominem “punch lines”.

        I concede. If those things are the measure of a man, then you are The Man.

        Doug, I apologize for fanning these flames on your blog.

      • It is not WAR. —> Tell that to the families of thousands of dead military warriors, or the tens of thousands of wounded.

        We are not at war. —> What would YOU call it, a picnic? Just like Korea and Vietnam were picnics. LOL

        Not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan, not in Libya, not in Uganda. —> Yes, yes, yes, and probably soon.

        We are not protecting our porous borders. —> Of course we are, we’re just not doing an effective enough job.

        “We” are not even protecting our air passengers, if “we” means the government security bureaucracy; the foiled air bombings were the result of a vigilant citizenry acting where an incompetent government did not. —> How many terrorists did NOT attack because of our security measures? Zero? LOL The foiled are bombing was a result of a poorly constructed bomb, you flaming IDIOT! Since we can’t stop all of them, we should allow all of them to blow up every single airplane? Sounds like Ron Paul “logic.” LOL

        What we are doing is strutting around the world like arrogant street thugs, leaving our homeland undefended (of course, I fully understand the counter-argument-from-lack-of-an-exception, but by definition such arguments can not offer proof). —> Only in your deformed mind are we “strutting around the world like arrogant street thugs.” The Iraqis are even requesting we can MORE troops there for a while. What you can’t offer is any logic based on the facts.

        You have won, Tex. —> That happened a LONG time ago. You have left numerous questions unanswered throughout this thread. LOL

        You have tired me out with your hyperbole, your sweeping generalities, your incessant maniacal LOL-ing, and your childish reliance on ad hominem “punch lines”. —> Nice try. Accuse me of misbehavior when it is YOU who has been shown to be in error over and over and over and over again. LOL

        I concede. —> And I accept your admission of being wrong.

        If those things are the measure of a man, then you are The Man. —> I already knew this. LOL

        Doug, I apologize for fanning these flames on your blog. —> Doug, I apologize for these Ron Paul followers defining Ron Paul. LOL

  7. Nlanigan says:

    Vex still trolling with his vitriol??? LMAO I swear he needs to get an education that doesn’t include lube and his mommy’s basement.

    • Nlanigan still trolling with his stupidity??? LMAO I swear he needs to get an education that doesn’t include lube and his mommy’s basement.

      • nlanigan says:

        SHE..you disgusting mook. Let us all know when you jump off the teat. You say we were not occupying Iraq before 9/11? We have been occupying them since before Desert Storm. I knew soldiers on Fort Campbell that were going there for training in the 80′s. Get a grip-you don’t know jack, so give it up. You are a simpleton who only sees your own warmongering POV, and it’s a tiny one at that.

      • SHE…going somewhere for training is not occupation. Get a grip-you don’t know jack, so give it up. You are a simpleton who only sees your own warmongering POV, and it’s a tiny one at that.

  8. Maria says:

    Mr. Wead, Could you please address this on this Blog. Would be nice if perhaps Dr. Paul could work this into the next debate, with Cain’s flip flopping on auditing the Federal Reserve, Supporting TARP, 2008 Bailout Support, and now this:

    “Herman Cain to Occupy Wall Street protesters: If you’re not rich ‘blame yourself’

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html?r=news/politics

    Thank you.

  9. tex, many have shared their legitimate POV on your… asinine comments. please, sir, tell me WHERE IS THE IMMINENT THREAT?

    Did you know that although the FBI had OBL on their top 10 wanted list for various crimes, NOWHERE were there any accusations of being involved with 9/11, b/c there was NO EVIDENCE to support such a claim? They don’t hate us for our freedom, they hate us b/c we are occupying their homeland/ holy land! please see the video linked below.


    Foundation from 0.00 ff, specific reasons at 1.40 ff.

    the basic point is that WE are OVER THERE! tell me that Americans wouldn’t scream out, ”WOLVERINES!” if China invaded. That is Exactly what would happen. Then we would be the ‘domestic insurgents’. if they left, we wouldn’t hate them for occupying us or trying to control us through 10 years of continuous bombing and economic embargoes that destroy our country and kill our people.

    These, sir, are the underlying, foundational reasons why those types of people are trying to kill as many of us as possible. the only reason why we are still over there is b/c the Dollar is the world’s reserve currency and we can print as much as we want and don’t actually have to have anything that backs it.

    The idea that you can just go order someone killed b/c you say they are a threat is just plain NAZI and Anti-American. Every person deserves a fair trial by a jury of their peers. no matter what! who is to say that an enemy of yours will not say that YOU are the threat next time? Dangerous, slippery ground you are treading on sir.

    And on another note, did you know that in the early 90′s Hussein told Bush1 that he was going to take Kuwait and Bush1 said nothing about it; said go ahead, we won’t stop you? but all that changed when Iraq chose to start taking their oil payments with currencies other than the US Dollar. oh gee, lemme see, so did Libya recently, and Iran. The FED and the big banksters are basically behind almost all war and aggression in this world. please see the following link for an animated short history lesson:
    Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExBE651_vOY&feature=channel_video_title
    Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7HDTDDopA&NR=1

    please see this link for a very in depth history lesson of the worlds banks/ economics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

  10. See above for imminent threat discussion, “sir.”

    As far as OBL being involved in 9/11, I guess the FBI should have checked out this video: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877 LOL

    Where do you Paulites get off saying we are occupying their countries? We weren’t occupying Iraq or Afghanistan before 9/11, and we are NOT occupying them now. We have largely pulled out of Iraq and are training up the Afghanistan people (although this is a much more difficult chore) to maintain a measure of control.

    If you noticed, Ron got very little support for his positions in your video and the others got much more support. Do you have any questions why Ron wasn’t elected in 2008 and why he won’t be elected in 2012?

    You think 9/11 was a mere “threat”? How about the London bus bombings? Spanish train station? Detroit underwear bomber? Fort Hood shooter? Bali bombings? Times Square bomber? Are you all completely and utterly NUTSZOID?

    You are attempting to say our country and other countries are on the same moral ground. They are NOT, “sir.” We rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII, we rebuilt Iraq after the most recent war, we are doing the same in Afghanistan. When we are done, we will remove most of our military force. This does NOT describe “occupation” by any stretch of the imagination, “sir.”

    So, now you know the intricacies of the executive branch State Department communications with other governments? I doubt that, very much. I watched your sophomoric cartoon for a couple of minutes, it was quite stupid, but thanks for the entertainment. I’m sure Ron Paul would be proud of you, “sir.” LOL

  11. Video says:

    Thank you for great post.

  12. Carmen says:

    Not what I meant. Sounds like you are an empty person, running from yourself to this site, only to fill your internal emptiness by making ad hominen attacks so you can feel better about yourself and justify your existance. Looking to fill your dark void with laughter via Ron Paul supporters. Then asking me not to worry about you. Masking your pain with LOL

  13. Jason says:

    No one feels sorry for Al Awlaki. But there is legitimate concern over the path our government is taking. They aren’t just going after radical Muslim terrorists, they are keeping a close eye on those who are anti-government, pro-Constitution, pro-gun, and ‘radical’ in any way. How long would it be until other American citizens are shot dead because the government declares they are an ‘imminent threat’.

    • tex2 says:

      Jason,

      Oh, I see. You care only about the Constitution, not about the “We the People” you complained about above the Constitution is designed to protect. Bow to the paper, bow to the paper, all hail the Constitution. LOL You’re a JOKE, Jason. Now try again, a REAL response to my comments to your original post, above. This should be entertaining, I can hardly wait for your answer, Jason….LOL

  14. Finnbar 5000 says:

    Herman caine is a former kansas city central banker — in a world of audit the fed, and occupy wall street how does a banker have a plausiable leg to stand on against the american public?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: