Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Irontank
You labor under a misconception.

Al-Qaeda's goal is the establishment of a pure Muslim caliphate as the world's only superpower.

In order for this dream to be realized, America must be destroyed.

It does not amtter if America bends over backwards to help Muslims or ignores Muslims or enagges in warfare against certain Muslims.

If the US helps Muslims it is: "infidels trying to buy Muslims off."

If America ignores Muslims, it is: "Rich America turns its back on the suffering ummah."

If America makes war on any Muslim state, it is: "America has declared a new crusade."

They will always have an excuse no matter what we do or do not do.

The answer is not modifying our behavior, but in modifying theirs.

That section of the Constitution is tied to the tax and spend power of the federal government. But the PATRIOT Act is essentially a criminal, regulatory statute.

You are creating arbitrary distinctions that do not exist in constitutional law.

So...where's the lie?

Lie: "I believe in term limits." Belied by his actions in standing for reelection again and again.

88 posted on 05/29/2007 10:38:13 AM PDT by wideawake ("Pearl Harbor is America's fault, right, Mommy?" - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: wideawake
Al-Qaeda's goal is the establishment of a pure Muslim caliphate as the world's only superpower

Even OBL is not that delusional...the Muslim world has barely left the 1500's...they have been dominated by the West for the last 100 years...you cannot really be concerned that any Muslim country is going to be a superpower anytime in the next 300 years. Radical Islam won't even make it out of the Middle East (unless Western countries continue to allow it to be imported through immigration)...once the US lowers its presence in the region and stops presenting itself as a common enemy, the Muslims will turn their nihilist destructive tendencies on each other. The Ayatollah spent the 1980's railing against American culture...and no one in the Middle East cared. OBL seems to have taken that lesson so that his public statements always focus on US policies in the Middle East

Saudi Arabia is warning the US not to leave Iraq because a US departure may result in Saudi Arabia sending support...even militias...to protect the Sunnis from the Iranian-backed Shiites in Iraq...in the below article, Obaid suggests that Saudi Arabia may flood the world markets with cheap oil to bankrupt Iran...which all sounds good to me

Stepping Into Iraq

You have Sunni tribal shieks fighting Al Qaeda

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda'

To many of these Sunnis, I would bet they have no use for AQ but they also have no use for the US forces there. I could understand the argument that, before it leaves Iraq, the US needs the Iraqi government to be at a level so that it can take on AQ in Iraq...but are there any signs of progress in that direction? More importantly...the US government is not planning on fully departing Iraq anytime...regardless of the progress of the Iraqi military and government. Permanent military bases? Are we just stupid? I mean, we finally removed the bases from Saudi Arabia not so long ago because they were well recognized as a continuing source of propaganda for AQ...now we will replace those bases with new ones in Iraq...and, again...what is the purpose behind this consistent large US presence in this region other than to protect the supply of oil...that might be worth the costs...but, with the rise of a radical Islamic movement since the late 1970's...and now the growing jihadist movement...maybe its time to reconsider...its not 1970 anymore

91 posted on 05/29/2007 11:24:43 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: wideawake
That section of the Constitution is tied to the tax and spend power of the federal government. But the PATRIOT Act is essentially a criminal, regulatory statute.

You are creating arbitrary distinctions that do not exist in constitutional law

There is no distinction in constitutional law between taxation and regulation? If that is what you're saying, I can cite you a long list of cases that distinguish the two and analyze whether a federal tax under Article I, Section 8, clause 1 is, in reality, an unconstitutional attempt by the feds to regulate something or some activity in contravention of the 10th Amendment's reservation with the states of police powers.

Other than a few enumerated exceptions...there are no federal police powers...now, obviously, the feds have not adhered to the Constitution in at least 70 years so we have thousands of pages of federal criminal code...but violations of the Constitution by the federal government don't change the Constitution...so anyone who voted for the USA PATRIOT Act violated their oath of office...but I don't blame them too much...I would bet that most congressman don't even know that there are Constitutional limitations on federal powers

98 posted on 05/30/2007 9:03:14 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson