Skip to content

Why Ron Paul Is Wrong About Impeaching President Obama Over The Killing Of Anwar al-Awlaki

October 3, 2011

If offering Dennis Kucinich a seat in the cabinet was not enough to make you think Ron Paul was needing more naps the latest headline grabbing stunt should settle any lingering doubts about the Texan Congressman’s electability.

Not for the first time does this blog challenge Congressman Ron Paul.  However, the latest gimmick from this perennial odd-ball candidate for the GOP presidential nomination is perhaps the most dangerous yet.  The facts will show why Paul is far more ready for a warm glass of milk and a medical orderly to tuck him in than any place in the Oval Office.

In a nutshell, (and I do mean NUTshell) Ron Paul said that President Obama’s targeted killing of American born Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.  He said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”

Well lets settle the matter here for the lover of the gold standard and white people.

Ron Paul will probably argue that the constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which says that no citizen shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” means that the constitution bars killing non-combatants without a trial.

Well, while that sounds grand and one can almost hear the Phillip Sousa march as the words roll around the facts differ with what Paul seems to want to promote.

Federal Courts have allowed for the elimination of those like Anwar al-Awlaki .  Courts have rejected barring the listing of U.S. citizens on the CIA’s terrorist hit list.   It might be noted that to get on the terrorist hit list is not due to burning the crust of a pie entered in the county fair.  There is blood and terror that makes getting listed so noteworthy.  And as such richly deserving of justice by the United States.

It might be noted by Ron Paul that the Fifth Amendment  has never successfully been used in court to limit a president’s war-fighting powers in this regard for which his partisan motives are now being used.  

If al-Awlaki had wanted to turn himself in and allowed the court system of  the United States to deal with him I would have been the first to line-up and argue his case should be heard in our judicial system.  I have no problem with allowing our courts to try those who have been accused of a whole raft of charges, as is the case of those being held at Gitmo.  I think such a display would only deepen the understanding around the world about the foundations of how our country was established.

But al-Awlaki had no intention of turning himself in, but only continuing to burnish his image as one who wanted to use his bastardized version of Islam to destroy as many Americans and create as much horror as possible.  That was unacceptable.

There was only more bloodshed to come if  al-Awlaki was not removed.  Therefore President Obama had only one path to take, and that was to eliminate the danger that al-Awlaki presented.

No one forced al-Awlaki to act in a way that not even a wild animal would.  That was his decision. In this time when our enemies don’t wear uniforms, no border is free of being crossed, and an order from any place abroad can lead to death here at home means that the president must be allowed to act with the information that is available to him and in line with what the constitution deems legal.

First and foremost protect Americans.  That should be the test and standard for any person who wants to take the oath of office.  And yes, it is just fine for liberals to take a tough stand on these matters when the Constitution allows for the action to occur.  That is exactly what happened with this case.

Ron Paul likes to talk in bold ways about the way leadership should be used to shape the nation.  But the fact is that in the Oval Office hard choices must be made.  President Obama made one regarding the matter of al-Awlaki.  Ron Paul should be more American than political at this juncture and support the nation rather than looking for a political point to score.

This is just one more bizarre action from a strange little man.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Greg permalink
    December 16, 2011 10:59 AM

    al-awlaki renounced his US citizenship. This means he is not a US citizen. He had also declared war on the United States, meaning the president can act to remove him and does not need a formal Congressional declaration of war.

    Those who think rupaul represents traditional American foreign policy need to read history. Starting with the Barbary Wars, continuing on thru the war of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, and so on the United States has been a warrior nation. It has ruthlessly and viciously defended its interests because its citizenry believed it had the sovereignty and the duty to do so. Count me in with our beloved forefathers…

  2. Larry Reppert permalink
    November 4, 2011 7:30 PM

    The president has no war power unless congress grants it and since he openly admitted not seeking the approval from congress he did not have the authority under the constitution to kill him,

    Sounds like a witch hunt to me, and it wasn’t until the officials got accused of being witches that any sanity came out salem.

  3. Solly permalink
    October 4, 2011 11:28 PM

    Deke’s Moral Equivalency Ballad

    Isn’t it rich?
    Are we a pair?
    Me here at last on the ground,
    You in mid-air.
    Send in the drones.

    Isn’t it bliss?
    Don’t you approve?
    One who keeps tearing around,
    One who can’t move.
    Where are the drones?
    Send in the drones.

    Just when I’d stopped opening doors,
    Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours,
    Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
    Sure of my lines,
    No one is there.

    Don’t you love farce?
    My fault I fear.
    I thought that you’d want what I want.
    Sorry, my dear.
    But where are the drones?
    Quick, send in the drones.
    Don’t bother, they’re here.

    Isn’t it rich?
    Isn’t it queer,
    Losing my timing this late
    In my career?
    And where are the clowns?
    There ought to be clowns.
    Well, maybe (SURELY) next year.

  4. Solly permalink
    October 4, 2011 11:21 PM

    there are a lot of ageist slams against Ron Paul in this post. I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says, but I admire his determination and consistency, when he stands up at Republican debates and endures the ridicule of his fellow candidates, when he questions an unneccesary war in Iraq, and why we are still in Afghanistan 10 years later. That he now questions a killing of an American citizen without any review from more than one branch of government, what am I saying, we don’t know what review this killing received. From my gut I am am glad the man is dead, and I THINK this will save innocent U.S. lives. BASED ON WHAT MY GOVERNMENT TELLS ME!!! Deke, have you ever accessed Anwar al-Awlaki’s site? Do you subscribe to his internet magazine? How do you know he deserved killing? How do you know he wrote it? Troy Davis had multiple days in court. This guy had news reports against him. And give me Dennis Kucinich as Treasury Secretary against Henry “Lobby for relaxing wall street regulations” Paulson and Timothy “Asleep at the switch at the NY Federal Reserve while the financial house was burning” Geitner who has protected the hedge fund managers and wall street bankers from any responsibility. How many of these people who wrecked the system have done the perp walk under Obama. In this case, I’d support some drone strikes on Wall Street!

  5. October 4, 2011 12:46 PM

    Ron Paul is a nut of the highest order and his Followers are nothing more than a cult.

    It would seem to me that the Obama Administration has at least two things higher up on the “I’m about to Crap in my pants” list.

    Solyandra – which no one except Breitbart and Fox News seems to want to cover.

    Fast and Furious – where they are now calling for an investigation as to whether AG Eric Holder as to when he knew about it.

  6. October 4, 2011 11:46 AM

    I don’t know what it more sad. That the President…with no accountability to any other branch of gov’t….can personally decide to have American citizens assassinated, or that so many people on the left are applauding his choice to do so.

    America is no more – the terrorists have won.

  7. CommonCents permalink
    October 4, 2011 9:08 AM

    When and if a President can order the killing of a U.S. citizen is a serious matter and questioning it does not make one a “nut”. Ron Paul is not the only one questioning the President Obama’s targeted killing of American born Anwar al-Awlaki. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vSgPVSWn10 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONSERI4a554

    As noted on the second link, maybe you’re ok with this President killing U.S. citizens, but what about the next: Perry, Bauchman, or someday Lynn Cheney

    Ron Paul is to be credited for being more consistent than most politicans, just like Dennis Kucinich, who might make a good Secretary of the Treasury. At least he would not be rewarding his old pals on Wall Street for screwing our country.

  8. Skip permalink
    October 4, 2011 8:56 AM

    “There was only more bloodshed to come if al-Awlaki was not removed.” What proof do you have of this? Has the Obama administration detailed his crimes?

    I don’t know that it has. I hear a lot about things he says but no proof of any supposed actions.

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 152 other followers

%d bloggers like this: