Constitution Radio John De Herrera Regarding Shakespeare, and Article V. Convention
John De Herrera joined Constitution Speaker radio to discuss the many tools we have available to us for taking back America. . . but the most important constitutional tool, according to John, is the Article V. Convention.
Then, in the 5 Big Stories of the Week:
5 Big Stories of the Week, December 17, 2011
Honorable Mention: GOP Debate of Fox News: They all sounded good, especially Newt. . . Except one of them, who came across a little crazy, a little zany - Ron Paul.
5. American Muslim television show loses advertisers
Lowes Pulls Ads from All American Muslim
California Senator Threatens Boycott of Lowes
Kayak.com Pulls Advertising From TLC All American Muslim television program
4. Hillary Clinton: 'Religious Beliefs' Are Standing in the Way of Protecting LGBT
3. Obama Ends the Iraq War
2. Communist China Under Fire
1. NTSB Recommends Full Ban of Cell Phones While Driving
---------------------------------------
Nuts and Nuggets
Nut: Ron Paul’s crazy opinion regarding Iran reveals itself in GOP Debate on Fox News:
Bret Baier: "Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say that Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama administration?"
PAUL: You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed. We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.
Notice that Ron Paul didn't answer the question. So Bret Baier, after the applause by the Ron Paul crowd died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke."
PAUL: Yes. Eh, eh, all we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. They are surrounded! They have a desire -- and how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them, we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him. So it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan. India. Israel has 300 of 'em! We have our ships there. We gotta get it in a proper context!
BAIER: All right.
PAUL: We don't need another war.
Ron Paul’s "We don't need another war. We have enough!” opinion brings real concern. In principle I agree with him, but at what point do you realize the enemies really exist, and they really want to kill you, and you have to do something to make sure they don’t? Ron Paul is willing to let a nation like Iran, that has repeatedly indicated they wish to annihilate Israel, and a leader determined to bring chaos for the purpose of releasing the 12th Imam, act upon its nuclear ambitions unchecked because he thinks it is America’s fault that they want to bomb us. They hate us because they hate us. They hate us because we are not Muslim. We are the great Satan.
Nugget: Following Ron Paul’s insanity, Michele Bachman was asked if there was any circumstances, as president, where she would send US troops back into Iraq.
BACHMANN: With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon; they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map; and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian Constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
She laid it on the line. Bachmann essentially called Ron Paul a lunatic. Ron Paul’s reply?
Nut: “To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to the Switzerland and Sweden?”
Actually, yes, Sweden is having a real problem with the Islamization of their country.
Ron Paul continued: “I mean that's absurd! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran and we're begging and pleading and how we're gonna start a war to get this drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? You're trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8,000-some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war!”
First of all, in the first Nut, Ron Paul said that Libya had a nuclear program. If that is the case, then why is it so hard for him to believe Iran has one? He also said that when you have a nuclear bomb that is when you're respected. Is he hoping that Iran gets the bomb so that we’ll respect on Ahmadinejad?
Sure. He’s all about talking. Ron’s not willing to take action if it is necessary, so he figures if Iran gets the bomb, we’ll talk to them rather than come in shooting it up like a cowboy. That’s what we did with the Soviets in the Cold War for 30 years, right? Iraq didn’t have nukes, so we went in. The USSR had the bomb, so we talked.
Reality dictates that madmen and dangerous ideologies eventually stop talking, and start shooting. So the question is, can we trust Ron Paul’s National Security positions to stop the enemy? Or is his, and Obama’s, attitude of talking the madmen down simply doing nothing to stop the inevitable?
5 Big Stories of the Week, December 17, 2011
Honorable Mention: GOP Debate of Fox News: They all sounded good, especially Newt. . . Except one of them, who came across a little crazy, a little zany - Ron Paul.
5. American Muslim television show loses advertisers
Lowes Pulls Ads from All American Muslim
California Senator Threatens Boycott of Lowes
Kayak.com Pulls Advertising From TLC All American Muslim television program
4. Hillary Clinton: 'Religious Beliefs' Are Standing in the Way of Protecting LGBT
3. Obama Ends the Iraq War
2. Communist China Under Fire
1. NTSB Recommends Full Ban of Cell Phones While Driving
---------------------------------------
Nuts and Nuggets
Nut: Ron Paul’s crazy opinion regarding Iran reveals itself in GOP Debate on Fox News:
Bret Baier: "Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say that Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama administration?"
PAUL: You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed. We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.
Notice that Ron Paul didn't answer the question. So Bret Baier, after the applause by the Ron Paul crowd died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke."
PAUL: Yes. Eh, eh, all we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. They are surrounded! They have a desire -- and how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them, we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him. So it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan. India. Israel has 300 of 'em! We have our ships there. We gotta get it in a proper context!
BAIER: All right.
PAUL: We don't need another war.
Ron Paul’s "We don't need another war. We have enough!” opinion brings real concern. In principle I agree with him, but at what point do you realize the enemies really exist, and they really want to kill you, and you have to do something to make sure they don’t? Ron Paul is willing to let a nation like Iran, that has repeatedly indicated they wish to annihilate Israel, and a leader determined to bring chaos for the purpose of releasing the 12th Imam, act upon its nuclear ambitions unchecked because he thinks it is America’s fault that they want to bomb us. They hate us because they hate us. They hate us because we are not Muslim. We are the great Satan.
Nugget: Following Ron Paul’s insanity, Michele Bachman was asked if there was any circumstances, as president, where she would send US troops back into Iraq.
BACHMANN: With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon; they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map; and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian Constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
She laid it on the line. Bachmann essentially called Ron Paul a lunatic. Ron Paul’s reply?
Nut: “To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to the Switzerland and Sweden?”
Actually, yes, Sweden is having a real problem with the Islamization of their country.
Ron Paul continued: “I mean that's absurd! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran and we're begging and pleading and how we're gonna start a war to get this drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? You're trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8,000-some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war!”
First of all, in the first Nut, Ron Paul said that Libya had a nuclear program. If that is the case, then why is it so hard for him to believe Iran has one? He also said that when you have a nuclear bomb that is when you're respected. Is he hoping that Iran gets the bomb so that we’ll respect on Ahmadinejad?
Sure. He’s all about talking. Ron’s not willing to take action if it is necessary, so he figures if Iran gets the bomb, we’ll talk to them rather than come in shooting it up like a cowboy. That’s what we did with the Soviets in the Cold War for 30 years, right? Iraq didn’t have nukes, so we went in. The USSR had the bomb, so we talked.
Reality dictates that madmen and dangerous ideologies eventually stop talking, and start shooting. So the question is, can we trust Ron Paul’s National Security positions to stop the enemy? Or is his, and Obama’s, attitude of talking the madmen down simply doing nothing to stop the inevitable?
posted by Douglas V. Gibbs | 3:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home