Liberty MavenRon Paul Agitates James Baker during War Powers Hearing
March 6th, 2009 6:13 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Big Government, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Politics, Ron Paul, rule of law, War | 9 Responses
Yesterday Ron Paul participated in a Committee on the War Powers of the Executive Branch, specifically discussing the War Powers Resolution.
He gives his opening 1 minute statement, then follows up with his inquiry of former White House Chief of Staff James Baker where apparently Baker gets agitated at Ron Paul’s question regarding the competing war powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Of course, Paul’s position is the strict Constitutional position and Baker minces words in an attempt to make Paul out to be incorrect. In doing so Baker’s twisted logic gets the better of him, in my view.
Once again, Ron Paul exposes the fact that the supreme law of the land is no longer binding in America and has been bastardized for many years.
Loading ...
March 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm (#)
Baker…typical neocon.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm (#)
Just wondering, but do you have sources for what you say? Not that I don’t believe you, just like to see some credentials.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:05 pm (#)
That video was taken off quickly wonder why?
March 7th, 2009 at 4:49 am (#)
Baker is as wrong as he can possibly be. If he’s talking about national security why didn’t mention pulling out military presence from the middle east since all that does is help islamic fascists with their recruitment numbers? Ron Paul is dead on.Baker has no idea what he’s talking about.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:03 am (#)
What do you mean, “some credentials” ?
Does he need a special hall-pass to write ??
If, instead, it was actually *YOU* who miswrote, and instead meant to say that you’d like to see a *source* for his statement, then don’t be dense, and write what you mean, ok ?
His (‘fazsha’s) source is very easily discovered:
MANY Reagan presidential historians have cited this fact, among others is the prestigious Mises Institute (U.S. home of the Austrian school of economic theory, and publisher of many books on that topic, as well as host to many economic research fellowships)
In fact, it is they who follow up on Beryl, & Baker – in that Beryl later ‘recanted’ in order to be allowed back in to a senior Whitehouse position & agreed to work w/Baker. (on the “normal” way of doing things: i.e., fraudulent manipulation of the american dollar for narrow global interests)
I remember Baker being a shill back then, and he hasn’t lost his touch.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:18 am (#)
Agreed.
Baker’s final statement is so bizarrely convoluted, only those who are so accustomed to hearing stentorian statesmen deliver their utterances would nod in agreement with him, forcing back their own subconcious cognition that “huh, that just didn’t make any sense”, … their learned Bobble-Head behavior quickly shrugging off such nagging thoughts.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:31 am (#)
Baker’s closing statement is so bizarrely convoluted, only those who are so accustomed to hearing stentorian statesmen deliver their utterances would nod in agreement with him, even while forcing back their own subconcious cognition that “huh, that just didn’t make any sense”, … their learned Bobble-Head behavior quickly shrugs off such annoying doubt.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:24 am (#)
James Baker – “…and you’re not gonna be able to do anything about it”.
I have a great deal of respect for Baker but if something is unconstitutional then not only can congress do something about but they should ! Namely, assert their constitutional authority.
Rather arrogant comment by JB, but given the dislike of Paul that the mainstream Texas GOP has for him it is not surprising.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:08 am (#)
I don't remember Baker being anything…. I just recall hearing his name during the Reagan years (and maybe the daddy Bush years).