I hadn’t intended to write about this subject, but…it…it just irritated me. If you’ve read any of my postings during the past election, you’ll find I’m no fan of Ron Paul. The labels of being an isolationist was earned. When it comes to national security, the best I can say about Ron Paul is that he’s naive to extremes.
That does not necessarily extend to his son, Rand Paul. I’ve been watching him. While Rand Paul has made his own errors in policy, he’s not gone to the extremes as has his father.
The article posted below, purported about Representative Peter King and a run for President in 2016, paints both Pauls, and Ted Cruz, with the same brush. In essence, it’s the opening shots of the next Presidential election.
By Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times, Friday, July 19, 2013
“It bothers me when the leading Republicans out there — someone like Rand Paul seems more concerned about an American being killed in Starbucks by a CIA drone than he is about Islamic terrorism,” said Mr. King, New York Republican, during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “We are the party of Eisenhower and Reagan, which believes in a strong national defense. I’m willing to be out there and be a spokesman.”
Mr. King said he’s being encouraged to run for the Republican nomination for president because of his strong positions on national security.
While the race is still three years away, it’s widely assumed that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz also will seek the GOP nomination, and Mr. King believes the two freshman senators simply don’t represent true Republican views on national defense and security, Mr. King said.
“A number of people in the last several months, particularly in New York but also from around the country, were concerned about the lack of a real defense policy and a real defense debate among Republican candidates for president, focusing primarily on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz,” Mr. King said. “We have real national security issues. … We can’t have an isolationist trend, which I think is being pursued by Rand Paul.”
Peter King, like all to many members of the ‘Pub establishment, can’t tell the difference between external national security and internal federal tyranny. The more I read about this topic, and other quotes from King, Boehner, and the ‘Pubs in Washington, the more I believe they’re trying to find something to be a campaign issue against conservatives. The fact they’ve accused Ted Cruz with Rand Paul is telling.
To paraphrase Peter King, no one should be concerned about the CIA targeting Americans anywhere in the world—if it is for ‘national security.’ Domestic surveillance is the same as surveillance outside the US. It’s all about subversives and terrorists.
No, Mr. King, it is not. We have a document called the Constitution. It has an amendment, the 4th one, that protects citizens from intrusion by government. We only need to watch the police riot in Boston, turning people out of their homes without warrants, to see what can happen when that Amendment is ignored. The incident just brought to light in Nevada is also pertinent. That last one is a possible violation of the 3rd Amendment. It is certainly a violation of due process.
That does not mean Americans cannot be targeted outside of the US while actively committing treason. There should be, and is, I believe, existing procedures to provide due process in those cases. It does not mean, however, that we should give free rein to any federal agency, inside or outside of the US, to target US citizens for any reason—or, as it is appearing more often, for no reason that can be supported.
I fully support the use of drones to maintain our border security, to interdict illegal drug smuggling on land or at sea. I would even support some domestic use of drones—providing that use follows the issuance of a valid search or other warrant. I approve domestic use of drones as long as the use follows the due process provisions in our Constitution.
The establishment and Peter King seem to think such things as warrants and due process to be ‘flexible’ if circumstances warrant. I do not.
If this is to be a nation of laws, it cannot waive or ignore law at any level. To do so invalidates the primary premise. If warrants are deemed unnecessary, due to circumstances, the country is not, then, a nation of laws. It is whatever the governmental elites want it to be. A lawless tyranny.