It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RON PAUL Introduced Bill ..House Passes Authority for Worldwide War

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
The ultimate treason of our "elected" officials. They give this president and future the power to make war without congressional approval. Balance of power no longer exists. Even in pretense!

article
May 26th, 2011

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time,


They are good at keeping this quiet.
The president in times of national emergency can suspend the bill of rights and even the constitution and take control of the nation without individual state's approval. Combine that with being able to assassinate American citizens without judicial action and you have an Emperor!

If the Senate also passes this then no longer refer to the President of the United States as Mr President .. He is an Emperor of the American Empire!

I need to take a dump. My family wasted over 40 years of military service to protect this country.




edit on 6/13/2011 by awakentired because: highlight Ron Paul ethics




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I have been fooled by Ron Paul. I thought he was a constitution defender. Here he shows his true colors. He is a corporate clone designed to bring those that stray from conditioned beliefs. He wants to be the 2nd Emperor.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


Ron Paul didn't introduce the bill, he was part of a group that was trying to amend it before it was passed...

please read your own sources before you make accusations


Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.



www.aclu.org...
edit on 13-6-2011 by kalisdad because: spelling



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


Unless the messed up the name of the bill, this article is incorrect.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 was sponsored by Howard McKeon [R-CA25] and co-sponsored by Adam Smith [D-WA9]. Ron Paul voted against it.

Edit: Article's fine, you just misread it. Sorry, article.
edit on 13/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


He just didn't pay attention to the details of the article...

Ron Paul was part of a group that was trying to amend the bill to cut out the war stuff...



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
"This the way the republic (world) ends, not with a bang but with a whimper". - Adaptation from T.S. Eliot's, "The Hollow Men", Seems quite fitting though. S&F.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Redwookieaz because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2011 by Redwookieaz because: misquoted T.S. Eliot lol..



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I believe you have this wrong. Ron Paul, among others, attempted to amend the bill to strike the language authorizing worldwide war. I haven't read the bill or the proposed amendment, I got that from a cursory reading of the linked article. Here:



Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).


Hopefully this is an honest (though careless and easily avoidable) mistake. We've had quite enough willful misrepresentation of Dr. Paul's positions lately.



I was pretty slow posting...I love ats...everyone beat me to it!
edit on 13-6-2011 by joechip because: edit to add.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
"Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.

The vote on the amendment took place earlier this afternoon, and it failed on the House floor by a vote of 187-in favor to 234-opposed. Check the vote here."

I'm confused about the earlier comment regarding Ron Paul ... Doesn't this article state that he and a few others offered an amendment that would have REMOVED the power from the President??? And that all the other House Traiters struck it down ? V Am I reading it correctly



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


As has been pointed out multiple times Congressmen Paul was not the one to introduce it and was in fact trying to amend it. By no means is Paul a perfect politician but he does tend to be honest about his beliefs, they may not match my own political stances but at least he's generally honest about who he is and what he stands for (whatever that's worth).

As for the Act itself, it doesn't surprise me, yes its a crazy thing but do any of us think for a second that they needed this Act to go to war? They would have gone to war anywhere at anytime if they wanted to with or without the Act, now they just have the tragic justification for whatever needless bloodshed they want to unleash next.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


you are correct...

they tried to remove the war part from the bill, but were only given 20 minutes to debate before the vote was cast... sad really considering the magnitude of what it allows.

and please STOP starring the OP, he's completely innacurate in his thread title and OP in regards to Ron Paul's part in this bill being introduced/passed!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Can EVERYONE who reads this ask EVERYONE to phone as many Senators as possible? Facebook the plea, blog it whatever. Organise now a descent on Washington ! Millions need to be made aware because WW3 is a step away folks, and martial law, the end of our country if ANY President is given this power. WTF, so much for throwing out the entire foundation of our Constitution!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Well, considering that this bill has been passed for every one of the last 48 fiscal years, and I don't think the language that Paul and the others were trying to strip is new to the bill (I could be wrong, of course) I'm not sure there's any real hope in shooting it down in the senate.

Now if the language IS new, maybe then, but... I have no idea.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 

I have to say that I misread it to the extent that Ron Paul was an author.. However, checking the votes I cannot find his name among the voting ??!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Show me don't tell me!
like I said i can't find his dismissal of this bill



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


Here
Scroll down to texas.
The title should be ammended to "Ron Paul votes against bill, House passes authority for worldwide war"
Or moved to hoax.

We gotta be vigilant this time around and smack down all the lies before they take off. Too many lies were allowed to be repeated on the internet last time, it hurt the campaign.
edit on Mon, 13 Jun 2011 04:14:56 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 
too true Titen. There is always a way around it. Yet the passing of this bill would throw it in your face that one man is going to decide the future of nation states. Sadly that will put the onus on each American for his/her decisions.
Regardless of war being declared lawfully by the congress or illegally by the President. The onus is on each and every American Citizen for that representatives decision. The American citizen is going to be judged by the world for allowing their government to create this failed empire. The land of the free and home of the brave cowering in their hovels watching America's greatest , idol, singer , dancer .....whatever. while our government is killing innocent people around the world in our names!

RANT off!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by awakentired
reply to post by kalisdad
 

I have to say that I misread it to the extent that Ron Paul was an author.. However, checking the votes I cannot find his name among the voting ??!



Nice try but an abysmal fail mate...

Take your propaganda somewhere else.

Liars are unwelcome on ATS..



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


This is how MSM works, start with large headlines to discredit someone. 90% of the people read the headlines, and think it is true.
After a while the article is rectified one page 4 in small print. Wich only 5% reads.

Result : Damage done.

One word: Grrrrr !



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
wow, there goes st. paul!


who would have thought!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I would highly suggest this thread be re titled or moved to the hoax forum.

The article quotes clearly contradicts the thread and the op.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join