Quantcast
Utah

Middle East Matters: Al-Awlaki's killing: Why Ron Paul isn't ready for prime time

Comments

Return To Article
  • anon oped AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    Dear Sir,

    It saddens me to see you do not understand your own constitutional protections and are freely willing to give them away to another person.

    The right of due process is in place to protect you the innocent civilian from unwanted government intrusion. Not to protect traitors. But the law has to be applied evenly.

    Let's say someone powerful in the government suspects your father of doing some 'things' to children. Using your own logic, the state can declare him a bad man without proof and can now take unilateral action to remove him from society. Without habeas corpus, due process, etc.

    You're actually supporting and backing the positions of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I implore you to educate yourself.

    You also have a responsibility as a 'journalist' to report news in a truthful light.

  • Jaayy ARLINGTON, VA
    Oct. 3, 2011 7:50 a.m.

    More inch-deep analysis for another media advocate for never ending war.

  • AndyK Elgin, IL
    Oct. 3, 2011 8:11 a.m.

    Ron Paul is not wrong about this and is actually just saying that doing things like this are against America's laws of due process because . It's true and it makes sense. Maybe we should stay at war for 10 more years and waste trillions more on an un-winnable mission? Seems to be what you want. Oh and by the way, this is not about religious differences, it's about occupation.

    Please America...THINK!

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    Why would Obama be against pouring a little water on a terrorists face, but OK with actually killing the terrorist and everyone else around him? I guess killing is not as brutal as water on the face?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Oct. 3, 2011 8:26 a.m.

    Apparently if you do not feel the way the writer does, you are not a thinker and are not ready for "prime time." My question: Has Al-Awlaki actually killed anyone, or merely encourged killing? Should Palin have been executed for the possible encouragement of people in America using force against our own administration? Get real, Mr. Opinion!

    With that said, I have no problem with what happened. He may have been American-born, but was not really an American, in my opinion!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    @KM: Because it's defined as torture, and the US is against torture, that's why. And there is absolutely no data - even though Cheney said it worked - to prove that the practice provided any more intelligence than nontorture tactics. In fact, there are high-up interrogators who have publicly declared that their efforts through nontorture means provided much more meaningful intelligence than that obtained through waterboarding. With that said, do you disagree with Obama killing these folks or not?

  • Riles Midway, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    Wow...really juvenile article. It doesn't take any intellectual honesty to support the illegal but popular killing of an American citizen. It takes a statesman to protect our right to due process in the face of popular opposition. Ron Paul should be lauded for this principled stand in the same way that John Adams is remembered favorably for his defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.

    By the way, journalists report facts. You have taken the liberty of attributing to Dr. Paul opinions that he "probably" holds or actions he would "most likely" take. In my opinion, that's the very definition of yellow journalism.

    Thumbs down.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    Torture, don't torture, does it really matter? These terrorists have thrown the rulebooks out the window.

    This is what many people don't understand. It's the way Muslim extremists have been raised and indoctrinated. We are the infidel, the eternal enemy, and the greatest thing a jihadi can do in life is to kill us. They can't be reasoned with, diplomacy doesn't work. They would gladly exterminate every single one of us if they could, it's literally kill or be killed. To stop them you have to play their game, go anywhere and do anything in order to win. That is the measure of depravity we are facing.

    We look in our history books and see that the Japanese held the same attitude in WWII. Every man, woman and child was willing to fight to the death in order to achieve their objective. That's why we firebombed Tokyo, that's why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only way to end this is to make them understand that we will exterminate their entire civilization in order to ensure the survival of our own.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:15 a.m.

    VST - no, they were not denied their constitutional rights because there was a declared state of war: declared by Congress as required by the Constitution, not just started by a President without following the law. That's what Ron Paul is saying - if we're to be a nation of laws, then perhaps we should follow at least the major ones.

  • Gruffi Gummi Logan, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    Story: "For the second time this year, Americans can celebrate..."

    That's the problem. Killing terrorists or enemy combatants is necessary. But there is nothing to "celebrate". One of the foundation of our European civilization is some elementary respect for death, even the death of a sworn enemy. Who thinks otherwise, belongs to the realm of savagery, dancing on graves. Shame on you, Mr. Paredes!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    *'U.S. Military deaths in Iraq war at 4,473 - AP - Published by the DSNews - 08/02/2011

    Bottom line, I agree that we should leave Iraq and Afgahnistan.

    *'Last U.S. combat brigade leaves Iraq' - By Rebecca Santana - AP - Published by DSNews - 08/19/10

    'Seven years and five months after the U.S.-led invasion, the last American combat brigade was leaving Iraq, well ahead of President Barack Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending U.S. combat operations there.'

    *'Obama likely to cut 10K troops from Afghanistan' - By Robert Burns - AP - 6/21/11

    *'Obama address: Withdrawing surge troops by 2012' - By Julie Pace - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/22/11

    And Obama has done that...

    AND given the order to kill Osama Bin Laden and now, Al-Awlaki.

    Strange that the same supporters of George W. Bush to INVADE Iraq and Afghanistan...

    now criticize Obama for doing what George W. Bush, failed to accomplish in 8 years.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    I have noticed something about Ron Paul. He doesn't like Israel as much as most other politicians. Whenever he says something that is a little out of mainstream, big Israel supporters, like Michael Medeved, and Mark Paredes, will criticize him as being out of the mainstream, not ready for prime time, etc.

    It leaves me wondering, are these political hits that are being made against him because he doesn't support Israel. Basically, the price a politician pays if he stands up for US interests over those of Israel?

    In terms of the issue at hand, my view is that this guy was at war with the US so I think that it is justified, but I respect Ron Paul for making the stand that he did. It shows integrity and that he is a free thinker.

  • Liz1313 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    Where is the objective point of view in this story? The whole story is completely one-sided! Nowhere in this article does he mention the reasons Dr. Paul gave for his stand on what happened to Al-Awlaki. Not to mention the ridiculous inefficient background he gave on Dr. Paul. I am assuming you did this to try and discredit Dr. Paul. You lack absolute logic in your article!
    Question: Since you provide a lack of evidence to support your claims about his inability to handle prime time What then makes you so special or credible that the readers should just take your word for it?? What makes you qualified to deem Dr. Paul, who has fought relentlessly to protect the constitution and stood firmly without budging on his values (that also represent the values this country were founded on) for over THREE DECADES as unprepared or unelectable? There IS NO candidate out there that could even come close to Ron Pauls experience, knowledge, and squeaky clean voting record. I know this because of something called RESEARCHsomething every American SHOULD DO before they vote instead of swallowing this vomit they call news.

  • Riles Midway, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    @ Delta.

    Yeah! Let's just send over a few hundred ICBMs to root out the terrorists hiding amongst the millions. Those that die innocently are just collateral damage anyway.

    I'm assuming you are in favor of pulling all or our troops out of the Arab world. Since the extremists over there can't be reasoned with and don't care about diplomacy there's no point to us training their security forces, building their hospitals, schools, bridges...spilling our blood. We should also stop funding the Arab world with aid too, right? Which candidate proposes these measures anyway? Just askin'.

  • Richard Saunders Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    Mr. Paredes,
    You are wrong on several accounts. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. He did not say the fact that this man is gone was sad, but the fact that we casually are accepting the idea that the President can target American citizens for assassination without due process is sad. If you look deeper than your visceral reaction, Ron Paul is always talking about the principle, not so much the specifics of a given event. No politician in America is ready for prime time, for clear headed thinking about what is best for America than Ron Paul.

  • J93 ROY, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    I agree 100% with author. If you'd defected during the revolutionary war you'd have been treated as an enemy combatant. The same holds true of every war since, up to and including this one. The world isn't a perfect place and rounding up international terrorists isn't as easy as it sounds. There's no going in and arresting international terror suspects. It puts lives at risk, but not yours, so what does it matter - right?

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Oct. 3, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    Ron Paul comes the closest to be a constitutionalist of any of the highly visible candidates. Of course he will step on some toes of those who have some particular political ax to grind. I am not at all sad that this guy was executed, but celebrating isn't appropriate because of respect for life, and the fact that it is just an isolated instance, not a real victory in the war against terrorism. And of course there is the due process issue, not be be taken lightly. I also suspect that the article does not explain Ron Paul's full explanation of his position. I'm not impressed with the article.

  • Jon12 LOS ANGELES, CA
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    I think the thing that bugs me more about this is that Brother Parades is a member of my High Council here in LA. I know he means well and does a lot of work in bridging the Jewish and LDS communities together but this does not mean he is correct on this issue either from an LDS perspective or a constitutional perspective.

    Our prophets have warned us over and over again (especially Ezra Taft Benson), to adhere to the Constitution and learn it and understand it and defend it. Its an inspired document that we are to fight for. What happened is not constitutional in the slightest bit and we should be worried about that. As an LDS member it saddens me when our own leaders do not listen to our Prophets and stand up for our Constitution. Justifying the killing of a US citizen, without due process is throwing out our rule of law and placing the Constitution on the back burner while our government makes the decision of who should be assassinated or not. This is not what are country is about. We need to defend the Constitution!

  • Riles Midway, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    The Whiskey Rebellion took place in the infancy of the nation when the ideals of redressing the government were not enshrined yet. To use that as a comparison case similar to one in which laws have been in place for 225 years is a little bit of a stretch, no?

    The differences don't end there of course. The rebellion had actually become physically and verbally violent before the militia was called up to put it down. Washington had also sent a peace delegation, before engaging the militia, which was rebuffed. There is a place for homeland security, I don't think anyone would dispute that keeping the peace is an important value to hold. I think the response to the Whiskey Rebellion was disproportionate and excessive. Summary executions or premeditated assassinations of individuals (particularly American citizens) without any redress or due process is flat out illegal. If you don't like it, change the law, but be prepared for the Orwellian fallout.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:51 a.m.

    While I agree with the author in principal I do find it disappointing that they spent so much time attacking Paul and less time explaining why they think the killing was in keeping with the law and ethics of our country. Again while I agree with the author in principal I think this is an important discussion to have about if and/or when it is appropriate to kill American citizens that have engaged in terrorist and war time acts. who gets to make those determinations and what level of transparency is needed to avoid abuses are two questions that come to mind. During anytime of war (declared or not) we have had these types of issues, maybe we can learn from them what worked and what did not.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:54 a.m.

    Ron Paul don't know the truth's, he's stupid to.

    Radical U.S.-born imam Anwar Al-Awlaki and other terrorists were blown up in Yemen and that's a good thing. It should be done more ofter to rid our planet of these terrorists. No matter how loud "CAIR" whines about it. In case ya'll don't remember much about "CAIR", Il'' refresh your minds. Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America. Omar Ahmad was captured on FBI surveillance tapes at Hamas meetings in the U.S.A. during 1993 explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas, and then discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced. Omar Ahmad's airfare and hotel bills for this meeting were paid for by the Holy Land Foundation. Holy Land Foundation Defendants Guilty On All Counts. "By funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, this organization and its leaders believed that it could help those who resort to violence to support their cause."

  • John Giles ATLANTIC, IA
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    Shoddy journalism. Congressman Paul did not say that Al-Awlaki's death was sad, but that lack of rule of law in killing him was sad. The difference is huge. Paredes missed the McVeigh comment too. Paul stated that McVeigh was charged, tried and executed without skirting the Constitution. What Paul has criticized is the precedent that a President has claimed the power to kill American citizens without charging them with a crime which was the case with Al-Awlaki. The President need only order their death on the basis of government allegation. Nice. Goodbye Constitution. It has nothing to do with whether or not Al-Awlaki was a bad guy. Anyone who doesn't get it hates us for our freedom. Read the freaking document.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:03 p.m.

    I wonder if future administrations will ask their attorney general to prosecute those who ok'd and carried out this killing. This administration should reexamine their political persecution of those who approved water boarding.

  • Riles Midway, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    To Brother Chuck:

    CAIR didn't whine about it. They applauded it. So you're on the same side as those you're criticizing. How does it feel? LOL.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    Dr. Paul, a noted isolationist in his own tiny bubble, would never have supported the deployment of American special forces in the Middle East to track down terrorists and kill them, he would rather bring them to trial in America?. And what has Dr. Paul done to stop this, in his free time from counting all his gold?. There are many Mohammedans (Muslims) in America today who are actively working to see that our Constitution is "replaced or amended so as to comply in all particulars with Islamic shariah law." Islamists who are pursuing such goals are now using non-violent or, more accurately, pre-violent techniques. Boston University history professor Richard Landes calls this cognitive warfare and it's at the heart of what's already happening in many public schools. According to the American Textbook Councils 2008 report, Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us, the 7th grade world history textbooks they reviewed routinely sanitize the history of Islamic conquest. They avoid all conflict and bloodshed in describing Islam's push out of Arabia and rapid conquest of most of the Mediterranean world. Islam appears out of nowhere, spreads smoothly and by implication without conflict.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    Re: Riles - 12:08 p.m. Midway, UT
    To Brother Chuck:

    CAIR didn't whine about it. They applauded it.

    Reply: With half of my brain tied behind my back, I have more knowledge then you'll ever have from the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics as well as any dialogue with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch you may of had. Dr. Paul, a noted isolationist in his own tiny bubble, would never have supported the deployment of American special forces in the Middle East to track down terrorists and kill them, he would rather bring them to trial in America?. LOL has no true symbolism and you to are not ready for prime time either.

    Keep smiling, I know I will.

    I told you I would tell you the truth, I didn't say you would like it.

  • jsgrahamus SARATOGA SPRINGS, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 12:30 p.m.

    I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is in large part because of that membership that I defended my country against Socialist professors in high school and entered the service after my mission. I taught the Constitution to basic trainees using book(s) which contained quotations from both our country's founders and the Church's general authorities. I learned my love of the Constitution because of our scriptures and leaders' testimonies.

    So it is with a sad heart that I read words such as these in a publication which is owned by the same Church. How can we countenance the murder of American citizens without due process of law? Surely if the government can do it to "them", they can do the same to "us". Is this not the reason for such safeguards as found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: To protect the least deserving of us so as to protect the innocent majority?

    I can only hope that the management and owners of Deseret News will reconsider their policies.

    Steve Graham

  • chuckypita Midvale, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    This article is ridiculous and pathetic for the following 3 reasons:

    #1 - "Dr. Paul, a noted isolationist" - Are you serious? That proves how ignorant the author is.

    #2 - "A presidents first obligation to this country is to protect it, and there is every reason to expect that a President Paul would be unwilling to do so." - C'mon man. This is an extremely asinine and utterly absurd comment.

    #3 - "His reaction to the Al-Awlaki killing clearly shows that Ron Paul is not ready for prime time." - Really? Again..... completely ignorant.

    This article is absurd, foolish and insane. Just like the current foreign policy of our war hungry country.

  • tj14 POUGHQUAG, NY
    Oct. 3, 2011 1:27 p.m.

    As an informed journalist, it is a sad fact that you are not only advocating state sponsored murder but you are also condemning a genuine politician who speaks out against these atrocities.

    So does the government have right to kill any person that it sees as a threat? Also, if the said acquisitions had any merit, why wasn't Alwaki tried in the court of law first? Do you not see the failed logic here. In order to combat terrorism, it looks like the US is itself invoking terror. The constitution is being thrown out of the window, and governments are only infringing upon more and more public space day by day. Preemptive violence by the state has become normative in America, and this has to be stopped.

    And for that to happen, people should protest for it. Big institutions like the government exist not to protect its citizens, but rather to protect their own sustenance.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 1:34 p.m.

    @VST - yes, you are correct - the declaration of war was by the Confederacy against the Union states. However, that act by the Confederacy definitely put those fighting in the rebel army in a "state of rebellion", which placed response to them under the President's command per the Militia Act of 1792. So in that case the law was followed, which is the real issue.

    As to the Whiskey Rebellion - Washington used the Militia Act to justify it, but whether an actual state of rebellion existed is debatable - and that the rebellion if it existed was justified because it was against an act which was not within the Constitutional limitations of the federal government is highly likely. There were and are those who think Washington should have been prosecuted for exceeding his authority; his actions and the response to them certainly contributed to his not seeking a third term, and eventually to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, both of which were accomplished in accordance with constitutional law. And again, that's the main point - we have laws, and we ought to act according to them.

  • gdanger Layton, Utah
    Oct. 3, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    One detail that I have not heard concerning this story is.....How many other people (probably innocent) were killed with this Drone attack??? What was the value of their Lives???. Do We have a careless attitude about them??? "O well, wrong place, wrong time, to bad" Shame on Us! But We're the Christians that love Our Enemies and those that persecute and Hate Us right???

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 2:34 p.m.

    All you Ron Paulophiles are as nuts as he is. He would be a dangerous man to be president. Since Mr. Terrorist chose to live in Yemen thereby essentially renouncing his U.S. Citizenship, should we have gone into Yemen and arrested him, brought in to trial for teason, and executed him? Same result, longer process. My personal opinion is that the Founding Fathers would have no qualms about what was done to Mr. Terrorist. Especially George Washington. He was a man of war and knew what needed to be done. He would understand. As far as I'm concerned, any U.S. citizen that actively fights against the U.S. is fair game. They are not in the U.S. so the Constitutional protections do not apply to them. Kill them there, kill them here, same result.

  • Logan Palmer, AK
    Oct. 3, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    If we kept our noses out of the business of the rest of the world we wouldn't give anyone a reason to want to kill us. Solve the root problems and the symptoms go away...

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 4:04 p.m.

    xscribe

    "because its not torture." Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? torturing a terrorist is worse that murdering a terrorist. Now that defies logic. But you probably are against the death penalty, yet you are for any kind of abortion.

  • Nic108 INDEPENDENCE, MO
    Oct. 3, 2011 5:38 p.m.

    I am seventh generation Missouri Mormon on both sides of my family. Endorsing the extra judicial murder of an American citizen is an astoundingly dimwitted thing for a "Mormon" to do. The early Mormon movement was persecuted relentlessly by corrupt pols and criminal bureaucrats. Applauding the state sanctioned murder of a disfavored citizen is a betrayal of Mormonism and Christianity.

  • dferg Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 6:03 p.m.

    Wow; this article has really riled up the Paulbots. The Paulistas. The "Tinfoil Hat" brigade. Always good for a chuckle......

  • PeaceProsperity LAS VEGAS, NV
    Oct. 3, 2011 6:44 p.m.

    Wow, I am quite sorry this article and the author Paredes is completely wrong, this got past the editor? I can't believe such a thing, "Were at war with religious fanatics who want to kill us..." When did we ever start talking in such a way so hateful towards another religion even though he is completely wrong in referencing a religion. Al-Qaeda is not a religion.

    People trying to bring up the Revolutionary War to justify this assassination are wrong, it was a revolt against the British and their taxes. The Americans believed that they were entitled to the full democratic rights of Englishmen. The British believed that the American colonies were just colonies, to be used and exploited in whatever way best suited Great Britain.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 7:03 p.m.

    I suppose it was to much to ask to move beyond petty comments about each other and have a real conversation about this issue. It is sad how these threads continue to fail to live up to their potential.

  • PeaceProsperity LAS VEGAS, NV
    Oct. 3, 2011 7:04 p.m.

    Everyone should know and take heed that this very case could be used in a court of law as a precedent against any U.S. citizen. They strip our very right of due process by instilling this false fear and by the looks of it a very distorted view as Paredes mentions we're in a war with "religious fanatics". Realize that this assassinated US citizen had no evidence against him, but of what we're told through the press AFTER they have killed him. That completely takes away our Constitutional right of due process, the Obama administration takes an oath to protect this valuable law of the land yet they continue to tear it apart, right in front of our face.

    Ron Paul protects and follows the Constitution, he protects and values our free-agency. He embodies our teachings, and is the only one worthy of my vote. Heavenly Father told me to vote for Ron Paul.

  • Ishmael137 CHULA VISTA, CA
    Oct. 3, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    Anwar al-Awlaki was executed at the end of a very long trial. He would have been better off to return to the United States and be found "not guilty" just like any other criminal in our legal system. Instead of a "court of law," in which truth results from manipulation (lawyers) and whim (judges), he chose a "court of justice."

  • Thunder Down Under Orem, UT
    Oct. 3, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    To the author,

    All I have to say to you is what Ron Paul said to Romney, "Read the constitution."

    If you did you would know that Ron Paul is correct in his assessment.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    Oct. 3, 2011 8:12 p.m.

    The article might actually qualify as news or a service to the readers if the author had taken the time to actually determine just WHY Ron Paul said what he did about this incident.

    Initially, I too felt that he had made a mistake, but after doing some research and hearing his explanations, I must conclude that Ron Paul is indeed correct and has the thinking and actions of a true statesman.

    Can this power that now rests in the hands of the President, be used against other American citizens? Who is to decided if there is sufficient justification for such action? Perhaps our elected senators and representatives? Or do we have no further use of them?

    Beware, this power can be used against YOU! How do you defend yourself if you are falsely accused? Does being a veteran or owning a gun or believing in God qualify you as a "Terrorist"? Just what will it take to label YOU as "an enemy of the state"?

    In order pursue truth, may I suggest that you google Ron Paul for President 2012 and read where he stands on National Defense.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:16 p.m.

    Ron Paul is the only one that understands that we have something in this country called DUE PROCESS. Our government seems to have adopted the philosophy of shoot first and ask questions later.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:23 p.m.

    dferg

    "Wow; this article has really riled up the Paulbots. The Paulistas. The "Tinfoil Hat" brigade. Always good for a chuckle......"

    So anybody who reads and supports the constitution is a conspiracy theorist? I weep for Americas future. The constituion clearly doesn't mean what it should mean to Americans anymore. They draw near it with their voices but their hearts are far from it.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 3, 2011 9:41 p.m.

    Jesus said something that every American should consider before endorsing a candidate.

    "Beware of Wolves is sheeps clothing. By their fruits ye shall know them."

    I have beheld the fruits of Ron Paul and they taste good. Ronmey and Obama on the other hand, have pretty rotten fruit.

    What Jesus is saying is do some reseacrh before endorsing a candidate. Don't endorse somebody because they claim they are of the same religon as you are.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    Oct. 4, 2011 5:40 a.m.

    Rise up, Libertarians. Vote for Ron Paul regardless of the anointed candidate. He is the only hope for this country and our Constitution.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Oct. 5, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    We are at war with terrorism, and when a citizen (albeit former citizen)decides to embark on a mission with the terrorists, I believe he had forfeited his citizenry rights and protections because he is a traitor, a war criminal. Having the man brought to justice and his day in court makes the most sense, but how are we supposed to capture him bring him to justice? The nation where he resides may or may not capture him and turn him over. Our nations' action of assassination on foreign soil - would that action from other nations be welcome here? Usually when there is a foreign criminal on the loose in the United States, our country would try to capture him/her, and send them back.

    The most troubling thing in this is the Executive Branch of the government making ordering the killing more like an executive privilege.

  • robertsgt40 san antonio, texas
    Oct. 6, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    Well said Mark. Spoken like a true collectivist. The next Stalin will have a place for you next to his throne.