Paul's their all

The Boston Globe ^ | September 27, 2007 | By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff

[Petronski]

So worthy a cause deserves best efforts.

[wideawake]

I think we should get rid of NASA because it is not in the Constitution.

Of course it is. One might have been able to argue that between 1958 and 1984 there were constitutional problems with it, but since 1984 certainly not.

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to provide for national defense.

[uxbridge]

and who believes in getting rid of NASA because it’s ‘not in the constitution

So...having a federal agency that was created without any Constitutional authority (and therefore is in violation of the 10th Amendment) is a good idea?

My FRiend...remember, every federal elected official takes an oath, with his hand on the Bible, "to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"...that's it...not defend the American flag...the American people...American territory...just the Constitution. The first question that every federal elected official should ask before voting on anything is...is there any Constitutional authority for what is being proposed here? That's it

If the answer is no...it is both illegal (the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land) and immoral (they took a sacred oath to defend the Constitution) to vote in a way that violates it

Conservatives used to hold in contempt people like FDR and Johnson...and [name your favorite leftist Supreme Court Justice] who always rationalize a way to ignore the Constitution when it interferes with what they believe to be an important federal initiative.

Now, I see a lot of criticism of Ron Paul because "he's always whining about the Constitution"

That's something I would have expected to see on DU had it been around while FDR was working his socialist revolution on America and fighting the conservtive Republicans who tried unsuccessfully to stop him

[Greg F]

Well, I think that Hunter and Thompson are better candidates because the war on terror is the big issue right now, and because they would get as much done (and probably more) to limit the growth in government than would Ron Paul.

[Greg F]

What happened in 1984? Star Wars? Even there a lot of what NASA does isn’t national defense related.

[hschliemann]

I don’t know why people get all in a fluster over Paul.

The Paul detractors are emotional,aren't they.The don't wish to see the vote of the sorry GOP get split.What I find amusing is that they say "He's irrelevant,fringe kook,etc.,and then go out of their way to come to the Paul threads to spew their bile.They do protest too much.

[Abcdefg]

When Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, these jokers will be squeeling like pigs under a gate.

It will be fun to watch.

[hschliemann]

So worthy a cause deserves best efforts.

Best efforts to insult?I'm glad to hear one of you finally admit it.

[Badeye]

Uh huh....(chuckle)

[mnehring]

Don't forget:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts

[drpix]

"Shiites and Sunnis are enemies, Arabs and Persians are enemies - they don't cooperate"

The Leftist in and out of governmant love making this claim as much as they love citing the 911 Commission Report. But that's only because the MSM lets them have it both ways. Here's from the Commission's report section "Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda":

In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers, Wail al Shehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah.124

Later in November, two future muscle hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Majed Moqed, flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border.125

KSM and Binalshibh have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers' travel to Iran. They also deny any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah.126

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence-that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers.

9-11commission.gov

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Actually, I’d say Rogers Park or any number of other neighborhoods are more leftist but Wicker Park tries to be the contrarian/infantile/outre capital of Chicago. It’s denizens strike not so much a leftist ideological as a bizarre-chic “look at how goofy I can be” pose.

Perfect for the Sankt Pauli gals, dontcha think?

[uxbridge]

One might have been able to argue that between 1958 and 1984 there were constitutional problems with it, but since 1984 certainly not.

One might argue that? The National Aeronautics and Space Act not only had "constitutional problems (euphamisms like that make you sound like a lawyer)...it was (and still is) unconstitutional

The Act's Declaration of Policy and Purpose makes clear it has nothing to do with national defense...it carves out defense applications of space research and makes clear that those will remain with the Department of Defense. No...the Act specifically cites the "general welfare" clause as its authority...you remember that clause...the one FDR cited for several of his New Deal intiatives (that Constitution was a real impediment to FDR's socialist policies)...an argument Madison cited as an absurd misconstruction of the Constitution

Ahhh...but, by the time NASA was enacted in 1958, the federal government was long past caring about Constitutional limits on its powers

[John D]

On here, Ron Paul supports get insulted in 2 out of 3 posts. But I still think there is hope for some of you here.

That is a shame for something like that to be happening on FR. I can not figure out why a cut and run white flag waving terrorist appeaser like Paul is not insulted on 3 out of 3 posts.

[Greg F]

This is the world after a Paul victory. I admire your fighting spirit but Paul can't win the primary or the general election. I stick to Hunter because if he can get the name recognition, I think he can win;, he's a perfect fit on the issues, he's a good speaker, he doesn't make mistakes, he looks presidential. I'm very impressed by him. Paul can't do it, and although I like Paul on many issues (other than the war on terror) his look, his style and his organization are not presidential in my opinion.

[Allegra]

The Paul detractors are emotional,aren't they.The don't wish to see the vote of the sorry GOP get split.What I find amusing is that they say "He's irrelevant,fringe kook,etc.,and then go out of their way to come to the Paul threads to spew their bile.They do protest too much.

Actually, we come here to laugh. There's a lot of serious stuff going on in the world today. A good laugh is like an excellent tonic, and you guys are really some of the most entertaining people on the web.

Please don't stop.

[Abcdefg]

Promote, not fund.

[Petronski]

If you believe as L.Ron does that we should abruptly shut down the government, embrace the deflationary and irrational gold standard, blame America for Islamofascist attacks on our soil (and most everything else), wink at support from Sturmfront and other holocaust deniers, abandon Israel and turn blind eye to a madman like Ahmedinejad, well, yes, you deserve to be insulted—thoroughly and often—on this website, until you depart.

This is a Conservative pro-American website. You’re lost.

[wideawake]

What happened in 1984?

Congress revoked the 1958 ban on civilian-funded, civilian-manned space exploration.

Even there a lot of what NASA does isn’t national defense related.

That's a matter of opinion.

[mnehring]

You are absolutely right. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to do anything for the advancement of science.

Except that pesky Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 8 authorizing Congress to promote the advancement of Science and the Useful Arts.