Wednesday, December 21, 2011
NDAA 2012: Ron Paul Warns Bill Would Legalize Martial Law
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoken out against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill 2012, calling it a dangerous and alarming attempt at establishing martial law in the United States.
“This is a giant step — this should be the biggest news going on right now — literally legalizing martial law,” Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. He added that despite the topic’s importance, the subject has never been discussed at any of the Republican presidential debates.
Paul is refferring to section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which describes the U.S. as a “battlefield” and would give the military a green light to arrest and detain American citizens without any charges or trial. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) sums it up:
“These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Sen. Udall said. “Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”
n other words, the military could arrest any American citizen suspected of being a domestic terrorist and throw them into a military prison indefinitely. Beyond being incredibly inhumane, this section of the bill violates a citizen’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and also ignores the Miranda process that informs criminal suspects of their rights while in police custody.
Several Congressmen and women are speaking out against the wording of section 1031. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed an amendment (No. 1126), which would “limit the authority of Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.” Other senators took the floor at the Senate debate.
Gary Johnson to drop out of GOP primary to run as Libertarian
The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.
The move has been expected for weeks — Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.
Johnson expressed deep disillusionment with the process as his libertarian message failed to catch fire and he received almost no attention for his bid. He soon began flirting with the Libertarians when it became clear that he was gaining no traction in GOP primaries.
“I’m still in the race,” Johnson told POLITICO last month. “I’m registered in New Hampshire and the intention would be, hope against hope that I would be able to be heard. But there is not much hope.”
Johnson didn’t immediately return a phone call Tuesday.
Johnson has announced the Dec. 28 event on his Facebook page. Campaign spokesman Joe Hunter said only that it would be “a significant announcement.”
Calling news of the switch “the worst kept secret,” Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian.
How to guarantee Ron Paul won’t run third party
Whether it’s Sean Hannity, David Gregory, or Jay Leno asking, they all want to know one thing from Ron Paul: “Assuming you don’t win the GOP nomination, will you run third party?”
Paul has become annoyed at times when this subject is raised. No sooner had Paul sat down for his post-debate interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday than Hannity was trying to get Paul to say he would support the GOP nominee and not run third party. Visibly irritated, probably because he assumed he would get questions regarding the debate as Romney and Gingrich had just before him, Paul responded with, “I’ll give the same answer I’ve given, oh, 39 times now. I have no intention of doing that.” When Hannity pressed him to give an absolute statement, Paul replied, “I have absolutely no plans or thoughts of doing it.”
This answer does not satisfy conservatives who are terrified of Obama in office for another four years and who know that Ron Paul did not throw his support behind John McCain in 2008 (he also didn’t run third party).
…
Is it possible, though, that there is a solution out there that the pundits won’t mention? If, as it has been implied, the GOP base will turn out in droves to support anyone other than Obama in the 2012 general election, then wouldn’t that mean that they would even do so for Ron Paul? Despite their strong distaste for his foreign policy, they love his domestic policies far better than Obama’s.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Pentagon says Iran concerned primarily with deterring an attack
The Iran question is often posed, as it was in last week’s debate to Ron Paul, as a hypothetical. If Iran was proven to have a nuclear weapon what steps would be taken by the US to assure they did not attack Israel? The establishment media is skillful in the presentation and structure of the debate. The question assumes it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel from a strike by Iran. But more importantly it assumes that Iran has the ability and strategic desire to attack Israel.
This unclassified assessment of Iran’s military capability by the US Department of Defense clearly states that “To ensure regime survival, Iran’s security strategy is based first on deterring an attack.”
The document goes on to make this key statement, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, “At present Iran’s forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran’s weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran’s boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel.”