Ron Paul Continues His Controversial Comments

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Ron Paul IS NOT ending the student loans. Please view link...
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/24/ron-paul-is-not-ending-student-loans/

Joe of NJ 1:08PM October 24, 2011

Mainstream Media Continues its Bias
The mainstream media shows no sign of backing down on its bias against Ron Paul.
Ken Walsh from US News and World Report is now raising the prospect that uncontroversial views are now controversial.
Although Ken Walsh didn't come out and directly say that that he was trying to do this, he likened the possibility of supporting articles of impeachment for a president, who has for the first time ever assassinated a U.S. citizen, to controversial.
Walsh added that no other Republican presidential candidate has opposed the targeted killing of al-Awlaki even though Gary Johnson has openly criticized the lack of due process and candidate Herman Cain has flip flopped his position on the assassination.
A June 2011 Gallup polls shows that the majority of the American People do not trust the news media. Only 28 percent of Americans said they have either a great deal or quite a lot of trust in Newspapers and 27 percent for television.
You can read about the Gallup Poll here,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148250/Americans-Regain-Confidence-Newspapers-News.aspx

multiple stupidity of CA 8:08PM October 15, 2011

We are now a country that tortures and assassinates. What are we doing in Iraq again? Was it not to defend a people against their ruthless leaders who tortured and killed their own citizens? What have we become??!?!?!! Fortunately there is someone who has the guts to stand up and call this assassination for what it is, unAmerican, unConstitutional and not lawful! That someone is Ron Paul! And his comments are "controversial"?!?!? America has truly lost her way.

Jema of UT 5:03PM October 12, 2011

How did we geto to the point where a secret cabal of US government officials can declare anyone a "terrorist" (a convenient and ill-defined label) and order his extralegal killing? I'm with Ron Paul on this. Our "leaders" are shredding the constitution like it's toilet paper.

Patrick of NY 12:29PM October 08, 2011

Why is Ron Paul's position controversial? Talk about Orwellian! Since when is it controversial to not want to kill people without a trial? What has happened to the world?
To the Ron Paul supporters out there...on one day we all donate to the Ron Paul campaign. We can show them how much support he really has...If we all act together. Donate to Ron Paul's campaign on Oct. 19th...and if you are on facebook click attend for the event here or go to www.blackthisout.com http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=181997088537471 We have done this before and we raised over 6 million in one day. Let's do it again! Please spread the word.

jennifer hyatt of NV 3:30AM October 07, 2011

Why is Ron Paul's position controversial? Talk about Orwellian! Since when is it controversial to not want to kill people without a trial? What has happened to the world?
To the Ron Paul supporters out there...on one day we all donate to the Ron Paul campaign. We can show them how much support he really has...If we all act together. Donate to Ron Paul's campaign on Oct. 19th...and if you are on facebook click attend for the event here or go to www.blackthisout.com http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=181997088537471 We have done this before and we raised over 6 million in one day. Let's do it again! Please spread the word.

jennifer hyatt of NV 3:29AM October 07, 2011

And Whereas: The power to abridge such rights does not rest in any of the offices of any of the States; and it is the sole prerogative of the people to determine when such rights have been abridged or when they, the people, have been robbed of their agency; and it is within the power of the people to remove from office any of the officers of the Federal government or of the State who attempt by executive order or judiciary action or arbitrary interpretation to change the Constitution.
And Whereas: Those who would unrighteously foist their will upon the people of the united States of America must be removed from office by due process of law, whether by impeachment or by initiative of the people.
And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.
And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia," legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, which transferred the United States of America, the Republic, into "a corporate entity" entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having "no" jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia.
And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.
And Whereas: They have, through their influence and under the pretense of emergency, erected a multitude of new offices to harass our People, and eat out their substance, along with expanded search and seizure laws that further erode our constitutional rights.
And Whereas: They have subjected us to a municipal jurisdiction foreign to our constitution ("admiralty law" [which is the law of the sea] rather than "common law" [which is the law of the land]), taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government, forcing our assent to their acts of pretended legislation.

Jim of OR 12:08PM October 06, 2011

Here is a quote that pretty much sums things up.
"To: The President of the United States of America, the Vice President, and the Cabinet, the Speaker of the House, the Senate and House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Legislatures and Executive and Judicial Officers of the Various States;
Whereas: The original form of Government, established and paid for by the blood of Our Founding Fathers, was a Constitutional Republic, which form of government is based on the Common Law, that secures to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. These inherent and unalienable God-given rights are clearly identified in the Original Constitution of the united States of America and outlined in the Declaration of Independence and further explicated in the Bill of Rights;
And Whereas: The Declaration of Independence declares that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends ( Our inherent and unalienable God-given rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness ), that it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and that when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.
And Whereas: Each individual has inherent and unalienable God-given rights and freedoms and no rightful delegation of these rights can ever be made to or be assumed by any governing body. The free agency of man, working within the legitimate bounds of these rights and freedoms, must be held inviolate. The Constitution provides to regulate bodies of men and not individuals.
And Whereas: There are certain unalienable rights guaranteed by God to all men in the exercise of their free agency. These were sustained by the Founding Fathers and written into the Constitution. They need no interpretation, nor can they be abrogated by anyone other than God.
And Whereas: We, the People, assume the responsibility of self-government and we retain and possess the FULNESS OF THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY reserved by us in the original Constitution of the united States of America.
And Whereas: It is not the prerogative of the President of the united States of America or any one of the Executive branch of government, nor is it the prerogative of the Congress of the united States or other legislators, nor any of the Judiciary including the Supreme Court of the united States, to abridge those rights or interpret them in any manner except as stated in the original Constitution.

Jim of OR 12:07PM October 06, 2011

They're really only "controversial comments" if you don't understand our history or are happy with the status quo and the current system.
99% of us are not.

Tyler of CA 11:59AM October 06, 2011

Ron Paul has done nothing but defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It is not a tool of convenience. The 5th Ammendment clearly states.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Anwar al-Awlaki, while being a vile and brainwashed individual, was still a US Citizen executed by the Obama administration.
He was deprived of life without due process of law. That is what Ron Paul is talking about.

Bruce L. of NY 11:58AM October 06, 2011