I didn't know until now that PureTrust is on welfare. Now I know why he really wanted Ron Paul to be President. Obama or Santorum is a threat to his food stamps once any of them becomes President.

Here is the problem: When food stamps are no longer coming, the angry hungry like PureTrust, are Ron Paul's "sovereign citizens" to watch! Fortunately, I felt secured with the thought that our colleagues in the Military are always ready for any eventuality while the FBI and other security officers from other Government agencies are watching those loonies.

Wake up! Ron Paul is NOT President of the United States -- AND WILL NEVER BE! You are very sick! You kept on saying "President" Ron Paul is going to do this and that ...in your DREAM -- you are dreaming while awake! You are delirious! 

Calm down and wait. Ron Paul is going to drop out. Wait for the announcement! That might help you ... get back to reality!

C'mon, kids. You can relax. There's no need for all this fretting. Your welfare checks aren't going to immediately cut off when Ron Paul becomes President. Here's the kinds of things that will happen.

President Paul, acting Constitutionally, will withdraw the U.S. military from around the world, bringing them home. Many of them will be placed on reserve, getting them back into civilian status. All this will relieve the government of tremendous amounts of expenses. So, there will be lots of funds to go around for your welfare checks.

In addition, RP will put us on the gold and silver standard, eliminating the Federal Reserve Bank. This will cause the unconstitutional income tax to disappear. When that happens, Government will need to get its money from somewhere, so it will increase import/export taxes.

With an increase of i/e taxes, nobody will be able to afford toys from abroad. So, we will have to make them ourselves, bringing a whole bunch of employment back to the States.

Some of these jobs will be filled by the military personnel that have gone back into civilian status. But there will be plenty of jobs around, that will NOT be so mentally challenging that YOU KIDS won't be able to handle them. And if you are physically handicapped, President Paul will see to it that you are taken care of.

But one of the most important things for you kids is, you will be able to start supporting yourselves again. And when you do that, your self-esteem just naturally grows. Think of it, you will be able to start feeling good about yourselves again.

Think of it. Earning your very own money again. And WITHOUT Uncle taking a tax bite out of it!

Hey, thanks, friends. Thanks for agreeing with me. Of course, I knew you would. Why? Because there isn't anything else you could do, logically!

Everyone knows that when you attempt to badmouth someone, it's because you know you can't best him with REAL answers. Or else it is because you have such deeply seated inferiority complexes, that this is the only way that you can fell a little good about yourselves.

So, thanks again.

 Guys … I didn’t realize how really crazy he is. Although I noticed that he does not seem to understand what I and JV were talking about, I thought he was just a case of memory loss or Alzheimer. I couldn’t believe that it is worse than just that!

In this website, as soldiers of the good against the bad, I urge you to keep on going. Bayag. Don't give up ... especially you, JV.

Ha! ha! ha! heh! he! Panot, you are really a great story teller that reduced Literature’s giant Charles Dickens to a size of a Leprechaun from Ireland! I couldn’t stop laughing … the pit of my stomach ached.

Here are some anecdotes showing how crazy a loony like PureTrust PT] really is. I asked PT this question: You have two apples and the Government has two apples, how many apples are there? PT thought for awhile, then eyes wide open with excitement said, there are THREE apples in all!

So I told him he was wrong – there are FOUR apples. Then angered, he blurted out and said, there are only THREE apples because I have two apples but the Government stole it from me and ate it, you jerk! You are wrong, and I am right – there is a total of THREE apples left! Can’t you see? I cringed with total disbelief!

But here is really the one and only story that shows how PT’s mind is pretty much screwed up. PT is a Leprechaun about three feet in height born in Ireland and migrated to Texas. He hates those big 6-7- footer Texans. He said to them, you three-feet tall Texan Leprechauns are smaller than we Leprechauns from Ireland who stand ten feet taller than you are because we eat only gold at the end of the rainbow while you jerks eat goldfish in a fishbowl which is bad luck!

The first was pure LUNACY. The second is IMAGINATION running wild!

The first was described by the New Hampshire newspaper as characteristic of people from the "lunatic fringe". The second was identified by the National Institute of Health as a form of "mental illness" caused by intense hatred of Government!

Hi bayag. This is kinda getting to be fun.

The Constitution says to stay out of foreign entanglements by NOT giving Government permission to get into foreign entanglements. The closest that the United States is allow to come to a foreign entanglement is in war.

If a foreign nation attacks the United States, that is not a foreign entanglement. That is war. The President's authority in an attack is only there in an emergency, until Congress has had the time to convene and assess the situation.

Once Congress has assessed the situation, it is Congress that declares the war, not the President. If Congress DOES NOT declare war, then the President is required to bring the military back into peace-time status. Really, Congress should order the President, by a new, immediate law if necessary, to do just that.

No standing army in times of peace means that Presidential military authority extends over NOTHING... in times of peace. The closest the President might be allowed to come, to authorizing military action in times of peace is, he might be Commander in Chief of PREPAREDNESS for an attack by a foreign country. That's it. Period.

All activity approximating military activity in times of peace, other than an emergency, falls on the shoulders of Congress. Why? Because no standing army - no active military - in times of peace. Nothing for the President to command in times of peace. And the Constitution is very limited in the things that it says that Congress can do militarily.

All no-fly zones over foreign countries initiated by the United States are only Constitutional in times of war or emergency. And in emergency, no-fly zones must only be temporary, if there is an immediate threat to national security. War is only Constitutional when a foreign country has attacked the United States. All else along these lines is against Constitutional law.
 

To PureTrust: You just quoted JV. I don’t think JV will waste his time responding to you after he read my comment that you have a serious loss of memory.

Once against, I’ll give you a therapeutic slap at the back of your head to wake you up … to make you aware of what you are saying. You said in your sleep just hours ago that: "Since the Constitution says to stay out of foreign entanglements …" Show me where in hell does the Constitution say "to stay out of foreign entanglements …" Quote to me the provision. If you can’t – because there is none – take your medicine then when you feel okay, tell me you can not quote anything from the Constitution because there is nothing there that says "stay out of foreign entanglements". What came out from your mouth are just "flashes" in the mind due to loss of memory or most likely, due to Alzheimer.

The power of the Chief Executive [if you don’t understand that means the President of the United States] in the conduct of the nation’s international relations or foreign affairs is CONSTITUTIONAL. You can find that in the Constitution. You can also find in Treatises written by well-known Constitutionalists [and for heavens’ sake [!], NOT Ron Paul who thinks he is a "Constitutionalist" and you believed him [!]], and in the annals of judicial jurisprudence the power of the President to enter into international treaties as part of the law of the land. He does not need to consult Ron Paul first in Congress and ask his permission to agree with other sovereign nations to create a "no-fly"zone in ANY country in the world – not just Syria – if in his judgment as President of the United States it is for the best interest of the United States. To join an "Economic Sanction" or to agree with other countries to create a "no-fly" zone IS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR which Congress has the constitutional authority to so declare.

But PureTrust, do you understand this? Of course not … Not a hint! You are not in our level of knowledge on this matter. You are lucky I still have a very small patience left to keep on knocking at your "cabisa" to make you understand. Go to law school and specialize on International Law, and try to catch up with us.

 VANDERVILLE!  As regarding my "badmouth", I have no "goodmouth" for the ENEMIES of Truth, Justice, Liberty, Peace & Prosperity! Use the choke chains on those junkyard dogs you unleashed on this forum with their illiterate foaming rabid statist mouths. I will never support the empire! I support Christ and the laws of Nature and Nature's God! Fascism is no remedy. Live free or die trying!

This comment is something that people should read slowly and thoroughly. It is NOT something to be skimmed through.

JV said ---------

Panetta said that "international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria," Obviously, the Secretary was referring to a UN consensus as a legal basis for that action.

Besides a UN-based consensus, sovereign nations may also decide and agree to establish a no-fly zone decision based on their mutual or common interest. That is legally supported by international law.

----------

JV is probably right in the general statements that he is making, above. Here's where JV is missing the point, and especially with regard to what Ron Paul is saying.

1. If a UN member nation attempts to get any kind of UN approval, but getting such approval is against its own internal laws, or the thing that it is attempting to get approved is against its own internal laws to do, such UN attempted approval, or the actual UN approval to act, is null and void with regard to that nation. A nation must have internally legal authority to request of the UN, and to act according to UN mandates before it can legally do so.

2. Sovereign nations may ONLY agree to establish no-fly zones against other nations, if each sovereign nation making such agreement, does so legally, according to its own internal laws. If the internal laws of ANY nation forbid it to make no-fly zones against other nations, then it CANNOT LEGALLY do so, until it first changes its own internal laws.

3. If officials of any sovereign nation act to issue or authorize no-fly zones, but if they DO NOT have the authority to do so according to the internal laws of their own nation, then such authorization is null and void. The government officials of that nation are acting personally, and not with the authority of that nation.

4. If there is no legal, internal, national law in United States, that allows U.S. Government officials to request authorization, or to receive authorize, for a no-fly zone against Syria, then every such request is outside of the law. It is null and void.

5. Since the Constitution and its Preamble and Amendments are foundational internal law for the United States, ALL authorizing of a no-fly zone by Government officials, must ALSO be authorized by the Constitution and its Preamble and Amendments.

6. If U.S. Government officials request authorize for a no-fly zone against Syria, and if they do it in the name of the United States of America, by and with the authority they have been accorded in U.S. Government, yet at the same time the Constitution DOES NOT give them the power to request this authorization, then they (the officials) are acting personally and not with Governmental authority. They have perjured themselves by going against their Oath to uphold the Constitution. They have perjured themselves by lying that they have U.S. legal authority when they don't. And their perjury acts as treason because it is in defiance of the United States, to the detriment of the people of America as well as those of many international communities.

7. If U.S. Government officials authorize a no-fly zone against Syria, and if they do it in the name of the United States of America, by and with the authority they have been accorded in U.S. Government, yet at the same time the Constitution DOES NOT give them the power to authorize a no-fly zone, then they (the officials) are acting personally and not with Governmental authority. They have perjured themselves by going against their Oath to uphold the Constitution. They have perjured themselves by lying that they have U.S. legal authority when they don't. And their perjury acts as treason because it is in defiance of the United States to the detriment of the people of America as well as those of many international communities.

The Constitution is FOUNDATIONAL LAW in the United States of America, covering all activity of Government and Government officials.

So, where is Constitutional authorization for a no-fly zone against Syria? After all, Syria hasn't attacked us, have they? Show me the person who knows for a fact that they would if they could... except as retaliation for U.S. aggressive activity against them, of course? There isn't even a threat.

Ron Paul's suggestions about Constitutionality are way more on track than Panetta's statements about seeking international permission. First things first. If the Constitution says, "Go ahead and seek international permission," then we can seek international permission. But if it doesn't, then let's not even attempt to seek such permission.

So, where does the Constitution say "Go ahead...?" Rather, doesn't it firmly suggest that we remain out of foreign entanglements until such a time the a foreign nation starts an aggressive war with us?

Since the Constitution says to stay out of foreign entanglements, why would Panetta want to ask UN permission? Could it be that Panetta is perjuring himself? Might it be that he is attempting treason - like Obama?
   

Now it is you who are way off, bayag. The whole creation of our Government is dictated by the Constitution. Its form is completely prescribed by the Constitution. Everything Government does has been set in place, and is held in place by the Constitution. You can see this by comparing what is written in the Constitution with what exists in Government.

Newly elected Government officials are required, by their Oath of Office, to act according to the dictates of the Constitution. (In fact, if you ever get into the wording, even Government EMPLOYEES are required to take the Oath, though many of them don't.) If anything is done by Government outside of the Constitution, it falls into one of 2 categories:

1. It is done illegally;

2. It has been authorized by the Constitution to do outside of Constitutional authority. In this second instance, outside-of-Constitutional-authority still is under Constitutional authority, because it was the Constitution that authorized it to go outside of direct, Constitutional control. It must, therefore, be done in ways that do not harm the Constitution.

Since you, by your comments, suggest that you don't know any of the above, you fall into one of 3 categories:

1. Ignoramus;

2. Constitution proponent, using a "backdoor" method to help train the people in Constitutionality;

3. Terrorist, against the United States of America.

Why? Because there is NOTHING in Government that can be done without the authorization and prescription of the Constitution.

So, let me ask you again: "WHERE DOES THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT GET ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NO-FLY ZONE OVER AND AROUND SYRIA... or any country that we are not formally at war with?" Show me the exact place.

And JV, I was thinking that you were simply someone who had different views about how things should be Constitutionally done. Now I am beginning to think that you, also, fall into one of the 3 categories that bayag is in.

Important reminder to Bayag: You have to be more patient, Bayag, dear ol’ fellow. Don’t forget that here in Freedom Forum, we are dealing with people who are mentally challenged. Their hatred of Government is insuperable. Remember that the New Hampshire newspaper identified their problem as a form of "mental illness."

They come in all kinds – the emotionally immature or retarded, "badmouths" or dirty mouths, and now those with loss of memory or with Alzheimer.

We shouldn’t forget that in the discussions of important issues in this open forum, those people need our help … especially by allowing them to release the baggage they carry on their shoulder.

While passion is encouraged in the expression of our views, compassion is even more important if not extremely necessary! We have to share whatever gifts of wisdom and knowledge we have. To teach and to guide, and to correct a wrong where necessary, for the good of the Commonweal, I consider Freedom Phoenix a great venue of opportunity no one should squander, misuse or waste. Although Ernie and I most often than not do not see eye-to-eye on many important issues of the day, what I am saying to you now is my tribute to him as Publisher of FP.com.

PureTrust, you have a bad case of failing memory! Notice where your memory lapses are in the following exchanges in sequence. Take note of the date and time of those three exchanges:

Comment by: PureTrust (#010621)
Entered on: 2012-03-10 20:32:26 "The United States needs at least 3 basic "permissions" to establish a no-fly zone over any country. Here is what they are:
1. Constitutional permission to allow Congress or the President to be able to set up a no-fly zone …"

Comment by: bayag (#045454)
Entered on: 2012-03-11 00:30:42

PureTrust, what the hell are you talking about -- what "Constitutional permission"　for a　"no-fly" zone over Syria are you talking about? Little knowledge is dangerous!

Comment by: PureTrust (#010621)
Entered on: 2012-03-11 08:54:20

You were the one who made a false declaration with a bogus authority [ignorance] that "Constitutional permission" is needed for a "no-fly" zone [your first comment]. I responded to you "What the hell are you talking about -- what ‘Constitutional permission’　for a　"no-fly" zone over Syria are you talking about?" You didn’t get what I mean??? It means that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires any permission for any "no-fly" zone … That is clearly your ignorance!

And now you asked me: "Spell out for me the wording in the Constitution that allows Congress or the President, or anyone else in the U.S. Government, permission to create a no-fly zone over or around Syria …"

The need of "Constitutional permission …" which you said there is, is just a figment of your imagination! And now you are requiring me to "spell out [for you] … the wording in the Constitution that allows Congress or the President … permission …"

I didn’t know that you have Alzheimer.

 You claim your educated.  If you are, then behave like one.

Anonymous75, BostonRaleigh, & UFactDirt:  Your assaults are lame and your accusations unfounded. You say I lack discipline and education. I have a B.A, in Bible & Journalism from a fine private college. I have served as a newspaper editor and a hospital chaplain. I do not apologize for supporting Ron Paul, nor do I regret criticizing Vanderville. His status, yours, or Barack Obama's, mean nothing to me when it comes to calling things as I see them. I do not use "foul" language in public discourse as you allege, but I do use terms aptly that some may find denigrating, you cretins! Logic is beyond you. Stop behaving like spoiled brats who would not acknowledge the truth if it slapped you upside your heads. You trolls add nothing of value to this forum.  

Hi bayag. So, teach me some knowledge. Spell out for me the wording in the Constitution that allows Congress or the President, or anyone else in the U.S. Government, permission to create a no-fly zone over or around Syria. Because I don't even see the word "Syria" anywhere in the Constitution.

The closest I can find for such authority is, if a country - in this case Syria - were to be attacking the U.S., then the U.S. would have the authority to sanction that country, Constitutionally, by declaring war.

If Government officials swear to uphold the Constitution, and then use their Governmental office to go outside of the authority given them by the constitution, they are at least perjuring themselves... but probably doing it in a treasonous way. Why. Because they said under oath, they promised under oath, and then they broke their promise, and it affects millions upon millions of people.

Back to Syria. If their permission is NOT found in the Constitution, then where are they getting their permission? Are they just giving themselves permission? If that's the case, then they can give themselves PERMISSION TO DO A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, right? Where does it stop? How do you know that they won't give themselves permission to hunt you down.

Furthermore, then all laws don't mean anything - if Congress and other Government officials can do anything that they want.

Why do I even waste my time with you? Show me where and how they get their authority to do things outside of the Constitution besides simply taking it!

The character Ufactdirt is asking about is a blindfolded circus knife thrower. He hits his foot every time he throws a knife … ha! ha! ha! he, he …!

I don’t know about you good people, but I do understand how rabid followers with marginal IQ like McElchap feel when JV exposes politicians from the "lunatic fringe" like Ron Paul [reference: New Hampshire newspaper describing Ron Paul and followers from the "lunatic fringe".] When they do not like what is said about Ron Paul, they usually go berserk to the point of self-destruction. They are no longer thinking… they are just attracted to Ron Paul like moths are to the lamp.

You must know that I too am a dirt sweeper. McEl Matador claimed that JV is in this website only with "Ernie’s blessing to provide target practice …" [dirt or bad mouth follows this line]. Why can’t McElMatador hit this target even with a shotgun? Oh, boy! JV is a big, big target anyone can hit even with eyes close. But why a guy like McElMatador, a name-shooter, could not hit this target even with the use of a smoothbore gun that discharges a load of dirty pellets? Is it because he is a mentally cross-eyed assassin for hire? Just asking.

PureTrust, what the hell are you talking about -- what "Constitutional permission" for a "no-fly" zone over Syria are you talking about? Little knowledge is dangerous!

To McElchap ...the self-control and discipline I learned from the Military, which I am proud of, tells me that you badly need a military discipline from the boot camp [camp for delinquents]. I am not defending anyone you enjoy hurting out of your badmouth. I am sure JV isn’t bothered by your insult, but I am. You are like dirt on this page that people like me want to sweep to the trashcan.

What did your dirty name-calling accomplish – nothing, except a release of hot air! A release of corked hate-overload that you carry is only good for your neurosis, but not good for this website, and worse, trash that our self-respect, dignity and sense of propriety reject. It goes directly to our waste and dirt receptacle.

If I ask you what was the issue a man with such awesome intelligence like Dr.Joseph Vanderville raised regarding Ron Paul’s response to Panetta’s statement, you won’t even remember … there is nothing in your written outburst to show that you like to remember and discuss this issue with people of considerable knowledge. You know why? Because you are not capable of discussing issues that require a background of commonsense, higher education and knowledge, which unfortunately you don’t have. A bankrupt mind like yours cannot rise to our level, much more to that of JV that you blatantly disrespected and savagely abused -- an abiotic mind that could not debate civilly and sensibly important issues of the day.

You must know yourself or know what are you, and what you are capable of doing. You are only good at hurting people. But your problem is, we don’t care how foul-mouthed you are. With our higher level of education, you can’t hurt us, even though how much you try … okay, buddy?

I write this down with the best of intentions. If you are still furious after reading this advice -- which I know you need badly -- go home and kick your dog or beat your wife … I don’t care. That will give you more release of corked up frustration of not being able to debate with us in a collegial level – a dangerously depressed mind that could not argue with us without using the only thing you are good at – badmouthing!

The United States needs at least 3 basic "permissions" to establish a no-fly zone over any country. Here is what they are:

1. Constitutional permission to allow Congress or the President to be able to set up a no-fly zone;

2. Congress or the President actually formulating a law or rule that would set the no-fly zone in place;

3. A LEGAL treaty that the U.S. has with some nation or group of nations - possibly the U.N. - that allows or requires the U.S. to set up a no-fly zone.

So, where is the place in the Constitution that allows the U.S. to set up the no-fly zone over Syria? What is it that they have done to us that makes them to be almost an enemy?

Where is the Constitutional law or ruling that gives Congress or the President the right to set up the no-fly zone?

Which treaty says that we have the right or duty, internationally, to do this? And what is the wording?

So far, that anyone has seen, the constitution does not allow it, any rule or law is unconstitutional, and there is no treaty that can give such permission.

So Ron Paul is totally right in the spirit of what he says. And he is totally right in the legality of what he says.

If we don't follow our laws and our BASIC law, the CONSTITUTION, then there isn't any WE. Then anybody can "legally" do anything to anyone that they choose. And it might be your house or mine that the Government decides to "legally" invade next.
 

McElchap, the self-control and discipline I learned from the Military which I am proud of, tells me that you badly need a military discipline from the boot camp [camp for delinquents]. I am not defending anyone you enjoy to hurt out of your badmouth. I am sure JV isn’t bothered by your insult, but I am. You are like dirt on this page that people like me want to sweep off the floor.

What did your dirty name-calling accomplish – nothing, except a release of hot air! A release of corked hatred like you have is only good for your neurosis, but not good for this website, and worse to our sense of self-respect and propriety.

If I ask you what was the issue Joseph raised regarding Ron Paul’s response to Panetta’s statement, you won’t even remember … there is nothing in your written outburst to show that you like to remember and discuss this issue with people of knoweledge. You know why? Because you are not capable of discussing issues that require a background of commonsense, higher education and knowledge, which unfortunately you don’t have. A bankrupt mind like yours cannot rise to our level and debate civilly and sensibly important issues of the day.

You must know yourself or know what are you, and what you are capable of doing. You are only good at hurting people. But your problem is, we don’t care how foul-mouthed you are. With our level of education, you can’t hurt us, even though how much you try … okay, buddy?

If you are still furious after reading this advice, which I know you need badly, go home and kick your dog or beat your wife … I don’t care. That will give you more release of corked up frustration of not being able to debate with us in a collegial level – cannot argue with us without using the only thing you are good at – badmouthing!

Thank you, Vanderville, for clearly identifying yourself as a NeoCon pushing the fascist empire agenda. I presume you are only revisiting Freedom's Phoenix with Ernie's blessings to provide target practice like the junkyard dog safely behind the fence we can spit through. You have all the stature of a piss ant in attacking Ron Paul.  

Reminds me of Mr. Hancock's radio talk show. Listeners are always excited to listen to Ron Paul's　pros and cons.　 Unless Ernie feels that this　comment is　too strong, Mr. JV's view　will rekindle the fire on Ron Paul's candidacy through the airwave.

My only comment to JV’s very incisive analysis of the Panetta-Paul opposing statements on this issue is that Obama’s diplomacy of accommodation and capitulation with Iran as a terrorist country determined to produce a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the map, contradicts with his recently declared policy to kill terrorists. That makes me wonder if a Chameleon Candidate – not necessarily a Manchurian Candidate – could win this 2012 presidential election.

Ron Paul’s response is so DISCONNECTED from the statement of Defense Secretary Panetta that the Congressman’s disconnect or irrelevance is incredible or not from this planet!

Panetta said that "international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria," Obviously, the Secretary was referring to a UN consensus as a legal basis for that action.

Besides a UN-based consensus, sovereign nations may also decide and agree to establish a no-fly zone decision based on their mutual or common interest. That is legally supported by international law.

Ron Paul was off-line – utterly nonsensical or irrationally disconnected – when he responded that what Panetta said was a "blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution"! Clearly, what was in Ron Paul’s mind was approval of Congress. That was not the issue.

Repeat: Whether or not a "no-fly" zone over Syria needs the approval of the U.S. Congress was NOT the issue in Panetta’s statement. Violation of the Constitution that Ron Paul brought up was even light years removed from what Panetta had said.

Ron Paul’s response that "establishing a ‘no-fly zone’ is in itself an act of war" is self-serving. What is an "act of war" depends on what anyone believes as act of war.

Obviously, to Ron Paul, "no-fly zone" is an act of war. Iran producing a nuclear bomb to back up its determination to wipe Israel off the map is an act of war but to Ron Paul it is not. To the Pentagon, a hacker from any foreign country hacking military computers is an act of war. To that foreign country, it was not an act of war. What was an act of war is the Pentagon’s hostile accusation.

In the dictionary, "war" could be anything confrontational – a conflict, struggle, crusade, hostilities, campaign, rivalry, competition, feud, etc. [the broad meaning of "war" – not just a shooting war, open combat, battle or military warfare [the narrow meaning of "war"].

A "no-fly" zone might or might not be necessarily an act of war. It could be an act of self-defense to protect the mutual interest of the agreeing signatory countries.

Do I expect Ron Paul to know this? No … not even a hint.

And here is the problem: The Congressman has a mental plug on his ears that the only voice he could hear is his own. Thus when he reacts, he always jumps from the frying pan, into the fire and burns himself. Here, responding to Panetta’s statement, he jumped into an empty swimming pool, so to speak.

Again I repeat this for the nth time – I have nothing personal against Ron Paul. If there is anyone sincere and honest in pointing out his shortcoming, that would be me. I truly admire him as a person, but reject as a one-track-minded politician against the Etablishment..

On the other hand, I never approve Panetta’s role as Obama’s back-patter in our international relations with friendly and hostile countries. In this "no-fly" zone issue, I believe that in Obama’s pandering and floundering diplomacy, he is that fly in the ointment.