Madison Ruppert
The foreign policy debate for the GOP candidates hoping for a nomination to run against Barack Obama in 2012 was far from impressive, to say the least.
Indeed some of the comments made by Republican presidential hopefuls were downright disturbing, especially when it comes to the oxymoronic PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act is a disgrace to America, it essentially erodes all of our most important liberties and inalienable rights, giving the federal government disgusting amounts of power.
Despite the fact that there hasn’t been a successful attack on America since September 11th, 2001 and all attempts since have been directly linked to our government, many of the candidates said they were for expanding the power of the PATRIOT Act.
Apparently locking up suspects indefinitely without charge, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and warrantless searches aren’t enough for many of the GOP’s candidates.
Ron Paul was a rare voice of reason in the debate, saying that the PATRIOT Act is “unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. We have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our founders were very clear. They said don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.”
Unfortunately, that is precisely what the government of the United States has done, it has systematically removed our liberties under the guise of increasing our security.
In reality, the supposed terrorist threat is minimal, at best, and thus the justification for the PATRIOT Act is wholly ludicrous.
Yet, the majority of the GOP candidates and others like non-profit group The CELL continuously manufacture paranoid delusions and a version of reality that clearly is not reflected in hard statistics.
Newt Gingrich expressed an extreme distaste for freedom and liberty during the debate, saying that he would “look at strengthening [the PATRIOT Act] because I think the dangers are literally that great.”
He spoke of “the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements,” saying that the government should be allowed to go after terror suspects in a different manner than domestic criminals.
Yet he doesn’t seem to understand the fact that terrorism is itself a crime, and if committed on American soil, is by definition a domestic crime.
He also seems to be in the camp of people who don’t realize that every single terror suspect since 9/11 has dealt directly with the government and was at no time a real threat to the United States.
In fact, in many cases the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) actually act as provocateurs, urging the suspect to become violent when they otherwise were not planning such.
Guy Lawson wrote an incredible article for Rolling Stone on this precise subject; however it now appears that they have removed the article from their website for reasons which are not made clear.
Despite the wealth of evidence linking the government to many false flag terror attacks and plots on America, most of the Republican candidates are perpetuating the false terrorist threat and the climate of fear that is required to support un-American legislation like the PATRIOT Act.
“I want a law that says you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you,” Gingrich said.
Either he is too ignorant to realize that there haven’t been any genuine attempts to take out an American city, or he is complicit in the lie that is sold to the American people.
Michele Bachmann spewed similarly ignorant or downright deceitful statements saying, “This is one thing we know about Barack Obama – he has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists” to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“He’s outsourced it to them,” Bachmann said, despite the fact that it is not the ACLU that is utilizing “enhanced interrogation” also known as torture on suspects in Guantanamo Bay and other countless so-called “black sites” around the world.
I find it highly disturbing that so many candidates running for the Republican nomination are bald-faced liars or wildly ignorant of the reality of government manufactured terror.
Hopefully Ron Paul’s position will rub off on more of them than just Jon Huntsman who said, “I think we have to be very careful in protecting our liberties.”
Indeed the PATRIOT Act destroys our liberties and I would wholeheartedly support repealing the entire act which is nothing short of an affront to the ideals upon which this nation was founded. It turns every single innocent American into a criminal, erasing all of our rights to be secure in our belongings and protected from unreasonable search and seizure while allowing the United States to turn into an outright police state.
Many of the candidates were similarly ignorant, or perhaps deceitful, on the subject of Pakistan, with former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, saying the United States should continue to give aid to Islamabad in order to “bring Pakistan into the 21st century, or the 20th century for that matter.”
This is not only an insult to the entire nation of Pakistan, but also a perfect example of how American politicians routinely denigrate and insult foreign nations, which directly impacts how the United States is viewed abroad.
Even Teresita Schaffer, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution said that the criticism of Pakistan during the debate included “nasty and provocative language.”
Although their absurd statements did not stop there, indeed Gingrich promoted regime change in Iran as a solution to their alleged nuclear weapons program.
“I think replacing the regime before they get a nuclear weapon without a war beats replacing the regime with war, which beats allowing them to have a nuclear weapon,” Gingrich proclaimed.
How exactly does Gingrich suppose we are going to enact regime change without war? It seems that he is alluding to the Western-fomented and backed “revolutions” known as the so-called “Arab Spring,” and the possibility that it could spread to Iran.
Gingrich also supported sanctions, which have historically harmed the people much worse than they have ever hurt the target governments.
Other candidates supported the use of profiling at airports, specifically targeting Muslims because, as former Senator Rick Santorum claimed, they are “the folks who are most likely to commit these crimes.”
What these candidates left out was the fact that they actually mean Arab, not Muslim, since terrorist suspects do not wear traditional Muslim garb or go around announcing their religious affiliation.
Profiling “Muslims” would likely entail enacting an absurdly racist policy of subjecting every single Arab individual to “enhanced” searches which are unimaginable seeing how invasive the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) searches are already.
Herman Cain made himself look even more imbecilic than he did with the Libyan flub by saying that profiling is “oversimplifying” the issue, while calling for “targeted identification” which is nothing more than re-wording the racist policy of profiling.
With every debate the GOP candidates manage to make themselves look even worse, proving that they are mostly comprised of liars or wholly ignorant individuals.
Their support of expanding the PATRIOT Act is outright alarming and I sincerely hope that Republican primary voters don’t take any of these ignorant candidates seriously enough to actually go out and vote for them.
While I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, his grasp of the Constitution is clearly unrivaled in the GOP field; and given that it is the most important American document, it cannot be marginalized and ignored as so many candidates have done.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/gop-foreign-policy-debate-proves-ron.html
No comments:
Post a Comment