Ron Paul Furious Over Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)

Ron Paul talking about indefinite detention act or NDAA
Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.

“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.

“This is big,” continued Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”

The bill could be on the desk of Barack Obama as early as Wednesday of this week.

Read more:

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

7 Responses to Ron Paul Furious Over Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)

  1. Occupy need to regroup – regroup in support of Ron Paul 2012.

    Occupy can have all the changes it wants and more by sticking with the last true statesman in the US.

    Occupy the Ron Paul campaign!

  2. I agree.

    Occupy Wall Street has stated many times that there is no one candidate that they support.

    But this is my website, and I can post all the Ron Paul stuff I want to.

    And, Occupy is a general consensus of a group. My prediction is that 80%+ support Ron Paul

  3. Ron Paul is almost perfect, but there are a few things which make me unable to endorse him.

    First issue, he has too much faith in free market capitalism; he is against publicly funded anything, including schools, which he wants to privatize. Private universities have been jacking up administrative salaries and bonuses at the expense of teachers and students, and this is the model k-12 schools are supposed to emulate? Why do I get the feeling he would support letting kids drop out of school, as well as child labor? That is what the free market wants, after all.

    Second, he is against birthright citizenship. The United States is a country descended of immigrants. Our ancestors long ago became citizens of this country because they were born into it, and changing that means America would no longer be the land of opportunity for people from all of the world looking for a better life.

    Third, he is against abortion. I believe that while life begins at conception, personhood does not. Extinguishing life is not murder, otherwise we would not eat life (plants included). Personhood is what matters, and considering that animals like dolphins and great apes do not have personhood, despite being more sentient than a fertilized egg (or even a toddler), highlights some deeply flawed logic. This is especially relevant when the mother’s livelihood is at risk, particularly in cases of rape. Yet Ron Paul is vehemently anti-abortion.

    He is also vehemently against medical welfare programs, or rather, all welfare programs. What are rape victims supposed to do? Go bankrupt and live destitute lives taking care children they don’t want? Because foster homes are also social spending. And homeless shelters. And the rape victim wouldn’t have Medicare or Social Security to help. Yet Ron Paul trusts Big Medical and Big Pharma because of “the nature of the free market,” when they have done nothing but raise costs to the point of bankruptcy for patients. The U.S. has the most expensive healthcare, while we rank terribly low in the quality of that healthcare. There needs to be spending into investigating and reforming our medical industry, not giving them more power to do as they wish. A libertarian can argue that it’s not the government’s business to get involved in the market, but I’ll argue that the exception is when it concerns a human need, such as healthcare. Greed is a real thing, in fact it’s what the free market is all about, and the free market will gladly let people die if it means they’ll make more of a profit.

    Finally, he has spoken out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “unconstitutional.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation. Again, we were supposed to wait for the free market to eventually accept minorities, while minorities have the hardest time surviving in the economy.

    Aside from these issues he would be good. I know as a politician he hardly receives any money from corporate interests, but still, him having no reservations–complete faith–concerning the free market is kind of scary.

  4. Ron Paul had some interesting thing recently to say about abortion that is making me think twice about my stance on that position

    He says, the baby has no say in the issue….. but he has every right a “born” person has. If you get in an accident with the mom and the baby dies…. manslaughter. If the doctor messes up the baby before delivery…. big time law suit.

    But then if the mom wants to abort it….. no say, no rights.

    He’s a doctor that’s given birth to THOUSANDS of babies. I respect what he has to say

  5. Martin S. Shepherd

    Regarding the above – Ron Paul wants to do away with the corporations driving up school costs and most of the other high costs associated with many services to society. He mainly is against the various Departments in the government because they have turned into instruments of protection of corporate interests instead of protecting individual citizen interests.

    Regarding abortion: Media constantly focuses on his personal anti-abortion beliefs – but, he has stated over and over that abortion is a social issue and that the Federal government should stay out of the issue and let the states decide. So, I am generally pro-choice – but, I’ll support Paul because the worst he would do is just let us make those decisions at the state level.

    Regarding the Civil Rights Act: He mainly believes that the Act exceeded Federal Authority. He believes that the social progress would have occurred despite the Act. He wasn’t against social progress – he was against the Federal Government exceeding their Authority in dictating private citizen’s lives.

    He is a “Constitutionalist” and doesn’t support anything that exceeds the powers of the Federal Gov’t beyond what the Constitution provides. Some times this can be perceived as “good” and sometimes as “bad.”

  6. Yes, Paul, this is your website and you can say what you please here or anywhere else. Attaching your support for Ron Paul to the 99%, OWS, is turning people away from Occupy. Ron Paul has many of the ideals that we have been fighting against all year since the Tea Party politicians took control. This year has seen a substantial increase in activists and many have sacrificed our personal well being in order to fight for the future of others.
    Ron Paul strongly supports National Right to Work laws. “Right to Work” (for less) takes away the rights as well as abolishes any strengths employees have. It makes no sense to me how the 99% prove the strength in numbers while you promote this person that stands against citizens uniting for these strengths.
    I have committed all of my time since last February to speaking out and uniting people against the attacks on our rights. I had a fighting determination. In July when I received information of the worldwide Occupy plans, I watched closely. I watched the livestream provided by Al-Jazzera when when people gathered in NY on 9/17/2011, the anniversary of the Constitution. Within the first week, I saw enough to be convinced that the people were truly rising up for justice. I began spreading the word. I slowed down on exposing political and governmental lies being spread to spread support for the Occupy Movement. I contacted large organizations of people that stand and fight for justice to provide them links and info about the movement and rallied support.
    Last week when I saw 99%rs praising and supporting Ron Paul, for the first time, I momentarily lost hope. My heart broke. I felt that fighting some of the richest people in the world, the largest corporations in the world, banks, the Tea Party and NOW THE 99% ALSO was just too much. I am taking a break for the first time all year to regroup and getting some personal things back in line. I will come back and it will be with a vengeance. I implore you to do research on Ron Paul and consider not combining your support of him with the Occupy Movement. It is causing division which exactly what the .1% want. I can’t help but wonder when I read posts like yours if they are written by infiltrators. It is either this or big money has disguised itself at encampments in order to spread propaganda. Ron Paul has Libertarian beliefs. The same beliefs that David Koch pledged he would market after he and Ed Clark lost the Presidential election in 1980. Oddly enough, they received 1% of the vote. As the 99% of the time spoke clearly with our votes, Koch poured billions into Think Tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and other organizations to fool the American people. He, with others, have accomplished so much in the last 30 years that we have people in the streets all over the world… and you support his ideals by supporting Ron Paul.

  7. Leann,

    As for candidates to back, there’s nobody that even comes close to what the Occupy movement is about other than Ron Paul. At this point in time you’re not going to find someone that is %100 there, but Ron Paul is pretty close. And since this it’s an election year, it’s important to get his name out there. So what if he’s for right to work. His viewpoint on that makes sense. If I’m a small or big business, I don’t want anyone telling me who I can or can’t hire or fire.

    Pretty much all of the controversial ideas of Ron Paul that you may not agree with don’t even matter because he keeps them all at a state level for that individual state to decide, like abortion and gay marriage…… the way it should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>