Michael Savage: Ron Paul is 100% Right On Al-Awlaki Assassination and The President’s Hit List

2 thoughts on “Michael Savage: Ron Paul is 100% Right On Al-Awlaki Assassination and The President’s Hit List”

1. This is one more reason we do not violate the constitution no matter how expedient we may think it is.

   In the fifth amendment it clearly states, there is zero ambiguity, there is no need for attorney’s to debate this clear language regardless of how bad a person may be, or how much we may not like them, or how much the POTUS may not like them.

   It reads:

   , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

   It gives no qualifications, no exemptions, no if-ands or buts. It is simple, clear, concise.

   And yet, it has been allowed. The assassination of a US citizen by the POTUS. Who is next? The president of green peace? The head of a white supremast group? The head of a union? Those may not be as disturbing to us so……..how about the leader of a state sovereignty movement, or an outspoken libertarian like Stossel? How about a stay at home Tea Party mom who has been very expressive and effective within the movement.

   It is never Ok, not for anyone. Due process, equal justice, being secure in your person were principles at the forefront of what our founders fought for.

   And now we find out there is a secret death panel.

   1. The underwear bomber and Nidal Hassan are simply more examples of the failure of big government. The underwear bomber’s family called law enforcement telling them about what was going on well in advance. Nidal Hassan was not dealt with because of political correctness, but all the red flags were there.

      I am not sure what you mean by – “Oh, and don’t forget that you pull the tigger not your pistol with out advice of your lawyer and the constitution.” I will assume you are equating a drone strike on Al-Awlaki in Yemen to the criteria for using deadly force. They are very different. What has Al-Awlaki really done other than talking trash and hanging around with terrorists? The answer is we don’t know. What proof is there? We have an independent judiciary for a reason…to sort out the facts.

      As far as the justification for using deadly force against him, did he pose an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone? Again, we don’t know. These are all questions that haven’t been answered.

Comments are closed.