Arguing on HotAir.com

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/12/18/the-company-that-ron-paul-keeps/comment-page-3/#comment-1700427

What I find interesting is that Obama is planning to sign a bill that strips Americans of the protections afforded to them by the 4th amendment. The government is granting to itself the authority to charge American citizens with terrorism, and to subsequently imprison them indefinitely without ever having to actually prove the charges.
The law is supposed to help the government fight the war on terrorism, which is now claimed to have moved to the home front, apparently (and we were told that it was necessary to fight the terrorists “over there” so that we wouldn’t have to fight them “over here”, but I digress).
So there is real and solid evidence that the FedGov is using the War on Terrorism to break down the supposed Constitutional limits on its power, yet the natural suspicion of government activity that S. 1867 SHOULD be arousing is subsumed in the effort to show one’s self “patriotic” by never questioning government actions or motives, and by going further to diminish people who do, or who one thinks do.
I don’t think that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Gov’t. I don’t credit the FedGov with the competence to pull off such an event, then keep it quiet for more than a decade. However, I place some blame on the FedGov for the attacks’ success. Not because of a failure of intelligence or lack of security measures, but because the FedGov had conditioned Americans to the attitude of passivity in the face of evil. People had been conditioned to “not fight back”, but rather to wait on the government to extricate them. When the passengers on United Flight 93 learned that the rules had changed, this attitude of passivity was abandoned, and the passengers decided to fight back. Unfortunately, they were not entirely successful, but there is no telling how many lives their heroic sacrifice saved. HAD THE PASSENGERS ON THE OTHER FLIGHTS GONE INTO THE DAY WITH THE ATTITUDE OF SELF-RELIANCE THAT THE UNITED FLIGHT 93 PASSENGERS SHOWED, WE MIGHT STILL HAVE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The four planes might have gone down–but then again, perhaps not, if they had managed to stop the terrorists before the cockpit was compromised.

And now, we have a candidate in Ron Paul who would without a doubt veto legislation such as S.1867. The other candidates might veto it, but one can never tell, especially with the rhetoric which supposedly earns one the title “conservative”. One might take the view that destroying liberty to achieve security is a conservative policy position, but I think such an assertion would be an attack on the definition of the word “conservative”–which I always took to mean a philosophy of expanded individual liberty and severely limited government.

Where does the Federal power grab end? Suppose that the FedGov passed a law that granted to itself the right to confiscate privately owned firearms, and that such action was needed to fight the War on Terrorism? Should one who opposes such a measure be considered a looney conspiracy theorist? And yet, the government has now passed such a law, in S.1867. If one can be charged with terrorist ties or activity, and imprisoned by the government without having the charge proved, then all other Bill of Right protections are now null and void. Unless one thinks that the FedGov would allow a charged terrorist to keep his firearms, or practice his “terrorist” religion (which would include certain forms of Christianity, Judaism, Pastafarianism, etc.), or plead the fifth.

So, I support Ron Paul; he’s the only one that I can be sure to do everything in his power to stop the FedGov’s assumption of unConstitutional authorities. I will support him even though others charge him with questionable associations, or naive foreign policy, or the beginning stages of senility, or with conducting a subterfuge in which he is using the Presidential campaign to fund his own retirement.

Really, it is not I that wears a tinfoil hat in this matter.

Advertisements

One Response to “Arguing on HotAir.com”

  1. There’s a lively back and forth following my statements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: