Reason One for putting Ron Paul in the White House

[L6FT]

The constitution is not a holy document. Yet we should be very wary and mindful what rights we waiver.

And by the way.. Buck Fush

[thomasmoonman]

what defines holy document? lol. both bible and consitiution were written by hand of man....

[enomarekim]

the rich homeowners were trying to protect their homes from ransack in the aftermath of the hurricane, yet they had their guns taken away? This is the point of the 2nd amendment, so they can protect themselves without the government doing it for them. totally illegal action

[Goobyusa]

So then...if these 'soldiers' were given orders to shoot the President, would they do it? When in the hell do they stand up for the Constitution that they took an oath to defend? When do they do what George Washington intended them to do? Protect and defend the American people? The soldier interviewed clearly knew that what they were doing was wrong. Still, he took part. This makes him as guilty as the NAZI stormtroopers who rounded up Germans for the gas ovens. Each was following orders.

[smujismuj]

With the exception of the religious b.s., I agree.

[zrili]

You people listen! Its bigger that Ron Paul, And it will not stop!

[shooter348]

That soldier was afraid he might have to shoot a fellow American but he seemed perfectly willing to do so. All civil severants (cops, sheriffs, mayors ect.) and military have to take an oath to defend the constitution, how many of these people have read the constitution? It's no longer studied in schools. My guess their real allegiance is to follow the orders given to them no matter the legality or morality involved. The acts displayed in this video are unconstitutional, unamerican, and scarry.

[Goobyusa]

It SHOULD be uncomfortable for the troops - they are dissing the US Constitution - they very Constitution they gave an oath to uphold! Guess you take your orders, even if it is against the law of the land??? Scary and very telling. If the powers that be can use our military in this way, how will our military protect us? This is sick.

[4951WEDDEL]

They are NOT "dissing" the Constitution. The Supreme Court has rule the Iraq war is legal and does not violate any constitutional precepts. Ron Paul is not the only person entitled to any opinion on the Constitution.

[Goobyusa]

Is this the same Supreme Court that ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power?

[nekopheliac]

WOW,

Great video.

Keep the message clear!

peace,

we are winning, believe it!

[clarisd]

What ever he is, R.Paul all I here is him stating the facts about the Constitution and the FED and our Economy and if anything, I would say he is a Constitutionalist. And so am I.

[4951WEDDEL]

His OPINIONS on the Constitution are not FACTS.

[Goobyusa]

So, back up your statement that Ron Paul misinterprets the Constitution. You suggest he is wrong in his interpretation. Can you show us with an example? If you can't back up your comments with the proof, they're meaningless.

[RonPaulClips]

Great Video! 5 Stars!

[puresrtrash]

Even Kucinich and Gravel are gun grabbers, and are willing to bend the meaning of the 2nd amendment to suit their agenda. So yeah, Ron is pretty much the only guy left who has the balls to stick up for what's right.

[freekrolik]

Ron Paul campaign is worth every penny!

[4951WEDDEL]

You need to accept the fact that Ron Paul was never a viable candidate. He was never going to receive support from mainstream Republicans. It was a waste of money and time to support him. As for the money, your guess is as good as mine.

[4951WEDDEL]

Ron Paul is done. He was actually done before he started.

[Goobyusa]

So who do you support then?

[4951WEDDEL]

I have no choice but to support John "insane" McCain. I have always operated under the assumption that any Republican on his or her worst day is still preferable to a Democrat on his or her very best day.

[dlondon1144]

You would do well to wait until the convention. All McCain has won so far are beauty contests. It will be the delegates that determine the nominee - not the voters in the primary. Don't be too hasty and if you supported Ron Paul in the past, keep it up. If not, I recommend you check out his platform. He is defnitely more sane than McCain.

[4951WEDDEL]

With all due respect, Ron Paul could not take the convention at gunpoint. I never supported him the past, and no true Republican would.

[dlondon1144]

I respect your right to support whom you wish but I do not respect the imposition of your opinion over mine, nor the imputation that I am not a true Republican because I support the ONLY candidate who is true to his oath.

I am a respector of liberty; yours and mine both. If you do not, we will never agree and this conversation is pointless.

[4951WEDDEL]

Ron Paul is only true to HIS interpretation of the Constitution. Ron Paul is not a real Republican. He is a Libertarian. His attempt to co-op the Republican nomination was doomed from the beginning. He has not demonstrated the least bit of ability to forge alliances or get anything done in Congress.

[Goobyusa]

Please explain to us all (by example) how you believe Dr. Paul has failed to interpret the Constitution correctly.

[4951WEDDEL]

You are missing the point. It is not Dr. Paul's job to interpret the Constitution. He is entitled to his opinion, but it does not matter. Now if he were a justice on the Supreme Court it would matter. I believe the Constitution gives everyone the right to life, yet I have to live in country where over 30 millions unborn children have been murdered. Ron Paul calls the war in Iraq "illegal", yet the Supreme Court has not done so. Tell me, who should I listen to a no-name congressman or the Court?

[CommonSenseJoe]

@dlondon1144 According to his interpretation of the Constitution.

[Goobyusa]

You have no choice? I didn't think this had become a police state YET. Tell me how Mr. Savings & Loan is more respectable than Ron Paul? Perhaps this will help you see your candidate as he really stands. /watch?v=LQ65iZFbYwk

All the glossing him up by the big boys and their media will never make him look like someone I would want to represent my country.

All a libertarian is, is someone who loves liberty.

[4951WEDDEL]

No, libertarian is not just someone who loves liberty. Many of Dr. Paul's libertarian ideas are directly opposed to the beliefs of most Republicans. Legalizing drugs, for one example, is not acceptable. Run and hide foreign policy is another example.

[dlondon1144]

This is true ONLY if you are talking solely about Neo-Con republicans. I have been a republican since I voted in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. My belief in liberty and personal responsibility fit exactly with the Republican Party then. They do not fit now, though my attitudes have not changed. So what has?

No, Weddel, I disagree with you entirely. Libertarianism is aphilosphy and, while a party may exist with this name, the philosophy behind it does not conflict with the Republican Platform. (more)

[4951WEDDEL]

You are spinning the facts. Libertarianism is not Conservative Republicanism. Republicans would never support the legalization of drugs. Ron tried running as a libertarian and lost big. He thought that he could appeal to anti-war and conservative Republicans. He was wrong.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@dlondon1144 The Republican party shares some values with Libertarianism. That does not make Ron Paul an acceptable candidate. While I respect him for his sincerely held views, I sincerely believe he is wrong.  It is naive to believe that we can hide behind our borders and ignore terrorism.

[dlondon1144]

Furthermore, you say that a Ron Paul is not a true republican. Yet he has consistently won support from his constituency ELEVEN times on the basis of his republican credentials. Your statement is disingenuous at best but is probably meant as a smear.

I gather you do not like Ron Paul. I doubt he would like you much either. I certainly do not. Your attitudes run contrary to the majority on this thread and you are swaying no one. Perhaps you might profit by moving your attention elsewhere.

[4951WEDDEL]

He has consistently been elected from a small district in Texas. That does not make him a true Republican. Congress is full of people who are communists and socialists but run as Democrats. It is not a question of whether I like or do not like Ron Paul. That is personal. I am stating FACTS. The reality is that Ron Paul NEVER stood a chance of being elected as the nominee.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@dlondon1144 I have no personal dislike for Ron Paul. I disagree with him on a policy level. I am sure he is a man of great character.  Being elected 11 times proves very little. Have you seen what gets elected these days?

[Goobyusa]

Perhaps that's because today's Republicans are screwed up - I mean that respectfully - THEY have gone away from the party principles. Compare Ron Paul's beliefs against that of our forefathers and the Constitution - tell me, is it more Republican to accept the crap we are getting today? John McCain is more of the same corruption - but you go ahead and mess up this country more and vote for him. I'll be voting for Ron Paul.

[4951WEDDEL]

You will be wasting your vote. You might as well for for Hillary!

[Goobyusa]

At least I'll be voting for someone I respect - that is my right. I don't believe I should have to choose from the puppets Corporatism sets in front of me. I'll choose the person that I feel is closest to our forefathers - not some greasy S&L scum or someone incapable of treating his first wife right. Says a lot about his character - and he doesn't know squat about economics. He's another nimwit that can be controlled.

[Goobyusa]

If you put McCain up against Hitlary, she'll win for sure. I hear a lot of conservative Republicans are going to vote for Hitlary because they hate McCain. He's not a good choice for the nomination and he won't be able to do anything except get us deeper in debt when he starts the war with Iran. Oh joy - more of our kids blown to bits so that the fat cats can line their wallets.

[Pastoreba]

@WEDDEL Legalizing drugs is not acceptable? under what pretences? first you say "legalize drugs" when what he really wants, is to legalise marijuana a drug that BY FACT is less harmful than alcohol (and coming from a non smoker) while at the same time reducing crime and benefiting the economy (just less profitable for the minority in power). secondly Run and hide foreign policy? is that what you guys call peace nowadays? as the previous reply states, you are swaying no one...

[CommonSenseJoe]

@Pastoreba Comparing weed to alcohol does not make it any less a gateway drug. If people break the law now, why would changing the law make them any less a law-breaker?

[Pastoreba]

@CommonSenseJoe because the law is not perfect, and indeed is not being implemented for the benefit of the people, more towards the benefit 0.1% of the population that owns 90% of the U.S's wealth and with that wealth, control the state. Laws are not written by god, they are written by humans, who can make mistakes, hence they should be allowed to be reassessed. so Yes, a law breaker right now can be less of a law breaker once a law is corrected (not saying the is ultimately the case)

[CommonSenseJoe]

@Pastoreba My point is still valid. If I choose to break a law, for simply money or convenience, then the problem is not the law but the character of the individual breaking the law. If I think a law is stupid, then I work to change it. Whether it is weed, or crack or anything other drug, the law is the law.

[yeshuahfullofit]

You can not break, or violate, an unconstitutional law. By definition and US Supreme Court decisions, they are null and void. A citizen can not violate an illegal law. You have the right to resist enforcement of an illegal law. The rich and powerful rig the system to thwart your attempts to utilize the system to effect any meaningful change. No 'law of the land' should be the law of the land unless the people of the land vote on it. I never voted to outlaw pot.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@yeshuahfullofit Try that argument with the judge and see how far it gets you. The only time you have the right to violate the law is when the law COMPELS you to do something that you disagree with. Simply because you disagree with a law does not mean you can ignore it. You don't get to decide what is or is not constitutional.

[yeshuahfullofit]

@CommonSenseJoe I said 'illegal' law.  If it is on its face unconstitutional, you are not bound to observe it. Any law enforcement action to enforce the illegal law is likewise illegal. You have a right to stop people from performing illegal acts against you. That's according to the constitution though, and you're absolutely correct in your implication of what would happen to you in court. Just shows how far we have strayed from the constitution, as the supreme law of the nation. Pitiful.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@yeshuahfullofit Who are YOU to determine what is "on it's face" unconstitutional? If each individual was allowed the interpret that for themselves, we would have anarchy!

[yeshuahfullofit]

@CommonSenseJoe You say it like it's a bad thing. The US was founded as a country to uphold the rights of the individual OVER government. My individual rights are more important to me than any government. The government is only created to protect and ensure our individual rights under the constitution. Period. It has NO OTHER FUNCTION.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@yeshuahfullofit It is. That is why the founders created the Supreme Court. The government was created to do more than just "protect and ensure" your individual rights. I like Ron Paul for many of the things he believes. He simply is not a man who understands that libertarianism has it's limits when it comes to international relations. We tried the whole hiding behind our borders strategy and it led to TWO world wars.

[yeshuahfullofit]

@CommonSenseJoe Oue being neutral did not 'lead' to two world wars. The population wanted to stay out of the wars, while the government plotted and schemed to find a way to justify our entering them. At least, that's what it says in the history books I read and the people I speak with of that generation. We would do better to stay out of foreign entanglements, is the advice of our forefathers. Their wisdom is no more plainly seen than today.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@yeshuahfullofit Then you are reading the wrong history books. The fact is that we cannot wait for evil to come to our door step. We need to be involved in the world and stop the threats before they reach our shores. Our forefathers could not have envisioned the world in which we live. They could not have conceived of a suitcase nuke and the damage it could do.

[CommonSenseJoe]

@yeshuahfullofit Try that argument with the judge and see how far it gets you. The only time you have the right to violate the law is when the law COMPELS you to do something that you disagree with. Simply because you disagree with a law does not mean you can ignore it. You don't get to decide what is or is not constitutional. I never voted on a law that made alcohol legal. Do I get to shoot every drunk I see?

[CommonSenseJoe]

@Pastoreba Legalizing drugs, even pot, is unacceptable to most conservatives. I am not sure how one can justify legalizing a drug by saying it is "less harmful" than another drug. What should it be legal if it IS harmful. I have personally seen too many lives wasted because they are wasted all the time. However, I am reasonable about it. Leave the matter up to the states to decide. No, hiding from our enemies behind our borders is NOT peace. It is stupid and cowardly.

[4951WEDDEL]

While I do not agree with all that was done during the aftermath of the hurricane, I do believe that the Constitution allows for Marital law in national emergencies or disasters.

[dlondon1144]

Sorry, no. The constitution makes no allowance for "emergencies" and the bill of rights was written specifically to PROHIBIT what was done in New Orleans. It was illegal, pure and simple. Emergency is no excuse.

Did they do this after 9/11? When JFK was shot? How about WWII or the depression? The San Fransisco earthquake of 1906? The Great Fire of Chicago? Friend, there will always be emergencies, and there will always be scoundrels looking to exploit them. This was a test to see our reaction.

[4951WEDDEL]

Sorry, it actually does. For example, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This opens the door to the possibility of curtailing some civil rights in times of national emergency. However, if what was done in New Orleans was a breach of civil rights, then the people there should sue the government. The only people exploiting the circumstances were the Democrats in blaming the President.

[dlondon1144]

A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text (Dr. D. A. Carson). In other words, if you quote something without taking the whole meaning into account, you can often make it say whatever you want it to say, despite its original intent.

To whit: there was no invasion in New Orleans, nor a rebellion, neither was the subject of this video Habeus Corpus.

The subject was and remains the violation of constitutional rights.

I stand by my previous statement, as is, without amendment.

[4951WEDDEL]

As I said, I have disagreements with what was done. I don't think the issues were constitutional in nature however.

[dlondon1144]

That said. I take your point that the constitution does make allowance in certain circumstances. Just not in this one.

[4951WEDDEL]

You may be quite correct. The problem is that the Constitution is interpreted and enforced by the Supreme Court. Your interpretation, as well as mine, have no more weight than does Ron Paul's.

[iTellYouNoLie]

fuck the CFR!!!!!!!!!!

[dlondon1144]

Get 'em quick, before they get you... and the rest of us!!!

[ByronKelly]

this video is upsetting.

[dlondon1144]

It is meant to be. I want people to realise that the US we thought we lived in no longer exists. I want people to get mad about the fact that our liberty has been stolen. I want them mad enough to do something about it because as long as we go around thinking things are cool, the bastards can keep on taking our freedom and we won't do a goddamned thing.

For God's sake, people! What are we? Americans? Or little drooling boobtube babies! How much longer are we gonna let them do this to us?!?!?!

[chewbaca1989]

shall not be infringed!

[milliradian]

Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854)

[dfthompson]

they beat in people's doors, guns drawn, and handcuff innocent people. But they're not using force!? What a joke.

[Nemeziz33]

Great Video....Thanks.

Ron Paul 2008!!!!

I tell you this...with McCain as the "nominee" the Republican Party is in big trouble just because of his message. Can you believe that we have a person out there that are still thinking of war, to continue war, with an economy that is getting worth and worth everyday, who's thinking really ???

[TheCZMan]

McCain wants to

-end the War against Iraq without sinking into community vs community Iraqi civil war

-cut taxes

-increase job opportunities to compensate for outsourcing

-stop the government from running its big nose into business

[Nemeziz33]

Hahahahahaha...Right!!! You one of the Dumb ones huh?....you know what I'm going to do just to show my disgust with the Republican Party...I'm not going to vote Republican im going to register Democrat and vote for who ever is running on that party. My man im so Disappointed I think im going to stay Democrat Fuck it!!!!

Everything you just wrote is a Lie.

Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran???? You must have forgotten that huh?

100 Years we have to stay in Iraq, Must have forgot that one too huh?

[tormentgb]

u are obviously an american who has been dumbed down by the government and believes what they want u to believe. Did u know mccain left pows in korea, his fellow soldiers. he didnt even tell the us that they were still over there. what a coward. and he is the only one who doesnt want to help save pows. and he is who u want as president... pathetic... i hope ur never a pow

[shooter348]

He also wants to expand the Real ID and micro-chip the citizenery so he can keep track of what they do and where they go. This, combined with his past record of supporting gun bans makes you wonder if he'll be crossing his fingers when he vows to uphold the constitution.

[SaveOurSovereignty]

Thanx

[Goobyusa]

This ticks me off BAD. Why on earth would our military break their oath to uphold the Constitution???????? Don't they take an oath? I thought they did! God help us.