Thursday, September 8, 2011

Ron Paul - TSA Agents like Sexual Predators


From Eric Dondero:

In Wednesday night's GOP presidential debate held in California, Texas Congressman Ron Paul let it rip on TSA abuses of airline passengers (via TheHill):
"If the perpetrators were a gang of criminals, their headquarters would be raided by SWAT teams and armed federal agents," he continued. "Unfortunately in this case, the perpetrators are armed federal agents."
Fox News Nation gives further context:
After saying airlines should be responsible for the securities of passengers - not government bureaucrats - Paul added: "And look at the monstrosity we have at the airports."

"These TSA agents are abusive," he said. "Sometimes they're accused of all kinds of sexual activities on the way they maul people at the airport."
Editor's comment - This is the Ron Paul we like here at LR. If he could just stick to his domestic policy and stay away from his mostly anti-liberty foreign policy.


jgeleff said...

Anti-liberty foreign policy? How is it anti-liberty to say "let people make their own way"?

Ran said...

...yeh, such as in "making their own way" to WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville PA?

There comes a point where Liberty isn't free; it has to be defended. The point being, unilateral cowering and isolationism is anti-Liberty if it is provocatively weak and unwilling to defend or respond to aggression. That isn't opinion, it's a blunt statement of certain facts of the human condition.

Applied to the individual, it means the Second Amendment. Applied to the Union, it means si vis pacem...

Anonymous said...

He's right but I still won't vote for him.


reverendyo said...

I am not sure how anyone could call Dr. Paul "anti-liberty". While you may disagree with his noninterventionalism, it is from classic libertarians like Jefferson, Adam Smith and many others that has helped Dr. Paul formulate his positions.

An interesting thing is that Dr. Paul is receiving more money from the military than any other candidates of any party now.

Maybe his message is resounding to the front line soliders who do put their lives on the line everyday? Do they see some of these wars as being nonsensical and ineffective?

Why do we protect Germany, Japan, Phillipines and many other countries where we maintain a strong military force when we truly need better defense at home? If we are protecting Germany, who are they protecting? Militant and radical islam?

Ran said...

Rever reprises a question asked by Mark Steyn: Who benefits with US forces in Germany and elsewhere?

On the one hand, it is important to be prepared; on the other, Germany and others have taken gross advantage of our presence and failed to prepare for themselves. Result? Weakened US spread thin and weakened Germany & Co. grown fat and dependent.

Morgan said...

Despite my own disagreements with Congressman Paul on foreign policy, if Sarah Palin doesn't run, he's on the short list of candidates I might support in the primaries.

Also, off topic, I wrote in a previous thread writing a blog post about what I saw at the Restoring America rally in Iowa last week. It's up now:

jgeleff said...

So, Ran, you're proposing that the way to liberty for Americans is to inflict our liberty on them? Part of the problem you may have with RP is that you think that "non intervention" means "don't do anything". RP is clear that when America is attacked, we should defend. However, if we're not attacked, why do we want to attack someone else? Doesn't that make us an aggressor nation?

Ran said...

"So you're proposing that the way to liberty for Americans is to inflict our liberty on [others]?"

I am not proposing that.

On the other hand, my problem with RP is that he projects his own rational decency on those who's intentions are predatory and barbaric in the global context while accurately describing the behaviors of TSA agents here at home.

Teddy Roosevelt got a few things right: One of them was the observation that Nations tend to behave as an aggregate of the characters of it's individuals.

Eric Dondero said...

Non-interventionism not only means don't do anything, it means complete and utter surrender to Islamo-Fascism.

I was Ron Paul's top congressional staffer in 2001 when the planes hit the Twin Towers. He did not want to vote to authorize going into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I had to threaten to resign, as did Jackie Gloor, his District Director, and half his staff, along with his wife Carol who chided him, "Ron you better vote for it..." before he finally relented.

He is a pacifist, against the death penalty, against any war for any reason. He is simply a surrender-tarian on foreign policy.

Again, the man is utterly fantastic on domestic issues. He absolutely sucks completely and frightengly on foreign policy.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul

reverendyo said...

I resigned from The Libertarian Party shortly after 9-11 due to comments from Harry Browne on this subject, I too felt we needed to fight Islamo-Facism at the time.

While I disagreed at the time about what was said, the message that we created this monster internationally is a valid point.

However I was more shocked by how the actions we libertarians agree with soon cost us tremendously on the liberty front at home. Free wiretaps by the feds, loss of travel without papers and more than we even imagined and how quickly this passed by lawmakers with maybe only Dr. Paul dissenting. I soon remembered why Republicans are not worth my effort and recently rejoined the Libertarian Party.

Our military actions abroad has cost us tremendously in our ability to defend our nation against attacks and in my opinion.

Maybe Dr. Paul is not 100% correct in his foreign policy stance, but he is definitly pro-liberty and not anti-liberty. America needs this diverse opinion on how we act to the world, our interventionalism over the years has sowed the seeds of discontent in the world and Radical Islam is reaping this harvest to their benefit.

The republicans and definitly the libertarians need a voice of opposition and Dr. Paul's pro=liberty stance is unmatched by the others.

Chuck said...

To be a pacifist is to be an ally to evil. Like Sweden in WW2.

jgeleff said...

"Teddy Roosevelt got a few things right: One of them was the observation that Nations tend to behave as an aggregate of the characters of it's individuals." So then we should have nuked the Russians back in the day?

Anonymous said...

What? Either bring something original or intelligent to the table... or screw off. Make up your mind.


Lofo said...

Let's abolish the TSA and stop the government-run sexual assault of the American people.

The Right Guy said...

You are confused about which roosevelt.

Chuck said...

"So then we should have nuked the Russians back in the day?"

Imagine how many lives that would have saved.

jgeleff said...

Chuck, how many lives would it have COST? American. We wouldn't get out of it unscathed.

Chuck said...

We didn't get out of it unscathed, friend. Were they rendered unable to dominate Eastern Europe, many millions would have not died. Cuba wouldn't now be an island dungeon.

My problem with people like you is you care more about your own pride than you do about truth.

You worship your own feelings.

It doesn't matter anyway at this point. It's past.

Thane Eichenauer said...

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Is the author of these words also a pacifist?

Chuck said...

Let us all farm quotes from the 1820's as an excuse for never siding with anyone for the sake of anything.

There is no good worth supporting and there is no evil worth opposing. That is the retarded nonsense people like "thane" preach while making a stupid face.

Frank said...

It's really bizarre how you give a disclaimer about Paul every time you post something positive about him. Why don't you post similar disclaimers about Bachmann or Perry? For example, from now on, when posting about Bachmann, you should post this disclaimer: "This is the Bachmann we like, we just wish she'd stay away from her crazy theocratic approaches to gay rights.". Or on Perry, "This is the Perry we like, not the one who for es 12 year olds to get STD vaccinations."

Frank said...

Actually, had America never intervened in WWI, WW2 would not have happened. Despite his promises on the campaign trail to keep us out, Wilson took us to war shortly after he was elected in order to appease the big banking industry who feared default on loans owed to them by the Europeans. By entering the war, America tipped the balance- which most likely would have ended in a stalemate- in favor of the Anglo-French alliance, which led to punishing provisions on the Weimar republic, which in turn led to their desperate economic policies that caused hyperinflation and then the rise of the Nazi party. Had America just stayed out of the mess in the first place the holocaust, hitler and the second war might never have come to pass. It was, in a sense, an even costlier babk bailout than the o e of the last 3 years.

jgeleff said...

"It doesn't matter anyway at this point. It's past."

Chuck puts this down because he knows he's about to get his tail handed to him. OK, Chuck. You win. I won't mention that we only had two nukes left after Nagasaki, and that there was NO WAY we'd have been able to subdue the Russians by the time they had their own nukes.

The Right Guy said...

Patton wanted to fight them and he thought we could do it and win. Of course we know what happened next.

Anonymous said...

Anyone one that calls Dr. Paul's foreign policy "anti-liberty" should remove the word "libertarian" from anything associated with them.

This "Editor's Note" nearly made me puke.

Chuck said...

"I won't mention that we only had two nukes left after Nagasaki"

I won't mention I used my last can of Starkist to make a sandwich. Plenty more at the store.

Where do you dipshits come from? Do you imagine there was an oracle doling out info?

jgeleff said...

" Do you imagine there was an oracle doling out info?"

No Chuck, but I understand that there were MILITARY people making decisions, who knew the probabilities of success and failure, and when presented with those probabilities, the right decision was made by Truman. You're the one making suppositions that we could have just knocked the Russians out with nukes. I don't remember the exact numbers and don't have time to look them up, but we had material for two nukes left, and it would have been a very long time until more could be assembled. So with that in mind, does it make sense to go after the Russians? If we'd had thirty nukes and could have subdued them immediately, it might have been different. But do you think Stalin didn't know what was in the pipeline? That they were less than two years from having nukes, that we had limited ability in that area? It wasn't a one sided equation. Ugly reality; the good guy doesn't ALWAYS win.