« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Newt wants to give up our liberties for alleged security?

A friend of mine, and I guess someone who is now leaning towards Ron Paul, told me that Newt wants to give up our liberties for alleged security.

 He sent me this link and warned that Newt supports the patriot act.

http://www.ology.com/politics/ron-paul-newt-gingrich-clash-over-patriot-act-video

 Honestly, the Patriot Act has been on the books, for what 10 years, and I don’t feel any less free. On the other hand, multiple terror plots have been uncovered and stopped, and there hasn’t been a successful terror attack since 911, so I do feel more secure.

The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a suicide pact. Moreover, I find Ron Paul’s hysterical cries that having the Patriot Act puts us at risk of being a police state simply ridiculous and more suspect than those who decry the threat of terrorism in support of the Patriot Act.

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul wants to give up our very real security for alleged persecution. 

Ron Paul has some good points about the Constitution, but our Presidents swear an oath to defend and protect our lives, liberties, property (rights enshrined in the Const.). This oath often forces the President to make hard choices because sometimes protecting the lives, liberty, and property of some means disregarding or infringing upon that of others. Given his oath, the President does not need a declaration of war to protect Americans, their liberty, or their property when they are threatened. The alternative puts these things at greater risk while the President dithers and waits for Congress to debate and pass such a declaration. I would consider such a stance by any President as dereliction of duty (a violation of his oath) and would demand he be impeached. Conversely, I believe the President cannot (constitutionally) order troops into a war that is not (so) provoked.  This is why I agree with Ron Paul that our involvement in Libya is wrong.  However, when we are attacked it is just plain stupid to say the President needs Congress to declare war when the war has already been declared by our attacker. FDR did not need Congress to declare war against Japan or Germany as they already did that by their official words and their attacks upon us. Moreover, a resolution passed by Congress in support of and authorizing the President to take unprovoked military action, but not formally titled a ‘declaration of war,’ is no less legitimate and the military action taken in support of this resolution is no less constitutional than if it had been authorized by a formal declaration of war. Ron Paul disagrees with most of this. He is a Libertarian idiot, and anyone who would vote for him is a fool.

Get Alerts