Eyes on New Hampshire: Giuliani On The Patriot Act
It's post-Thanksgiving and six weeks until the New Hampshire primary, so the battle for the hearts and minds of independent-minded New Englanders has moved into high gear. On the stump this weekend, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said that it would be "irresponsible" to "[cut] back on the Patriot Act."
He specifically criticized "talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance, talking about cutting back on aggressive questioning -- not torture, but aggressive questioning -- wanting to remove our soldiers from Iraq in a way that would require them to give the enemy a time table of their retreat."
Welcome to Bush III, just with a different last name.
Has the candidate forgotten the official (since 1945) moto of New Hampshire? Reminder: it's Live Free or Die. [The quote -- "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils" -- is attributed to New Hampshire General John Stark, the state's "most noted hero of the American War of Independence."]
Giuliani trails Mitt Romney in the polls. His position is in stark contrast to that of Libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul, whose political rhetoric more closely matches that New Englander stay-out-of-my-business philosophy.
The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.
Giuliani's position is also in stark contrast to that of founder Thomas Jeferson:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
In playing catch-up, Giuliani is spending $700,000 on ads in NH over the next few weeks, according to campaign manager Mike DuHaime.
Also, see Wall Street bombing provokes fear of foreign born extremists ... in 1920.
Comments
Its an odd strategy but at least he’s consistent I guess.(referring to Giuliani). I wouldn’t be suprised if Paul ends up passing him in the polls for NH, as he declines and Paul increases. As far as Paul, his positions aren’t always the best, and sometimes not particularly good at all, but he’s honest, and will take us away from this “government solves everything” problem. Heres to hoping that he can win the nomination.
It looks like Rudy is getting desperate. So much for the Big State strategy, eh Rudy?
The Real Mayor
Giuliani is right and still much better than Clinton II.
Funny, I wasn’t aware that Jefferson thought that listening in on suspected terrorist phone conversations was a violation of privacy? I guess I lurnt me somethin today.
C
I don’t see how anybody could vote for Rudy after he used the remains of 9/11 victims to fill NYC potholes.
Giuliani is funded by the same people as the Clintons, and every other “major candidate.” Electing any of them will result in similar results. Ron Paul’s record stands in stark contrast to every other candidate. His special interest is restoring our civil liberties by reducing government entanglement in our lives.
Ron Paul is simply unelectable. His stances on almost every issue are too extreme making him an undesirable candidate. You Paul zealots should find another more electable candidate like Romney or Giuliani. Best choices by far.
C
You heard it here first, folks. The Constitution is “too extreme.” “Best choices” for what? Free-spending centralized government? Unauthorized infringements on liberty? Global conquest? The continued march toward collectivism and totalitarianism? Beautiful strategy, Chuck: vote for more of the same, just like you’re told. See what ya get. Or vote for Ron Paul and serve notice you want your country back…
Isn’t it strange how a system can become so corrupted and perverted that when someone comes along and tries to restore it to its intended state they are called ‘extreme’?
Wake up people! There is only one candidate who will bring our troops home as soon as is safely doable, reduce the size and scope of the federal government, restore confidence and stability in the tanking US dollar and earn back the respect and admiration of the world.
His name is Ron Paul.
If you rather just have more of the same from the 6 on the one side or the 1/2 dozen on the other then listen to Cuck Manson above and spit on your and my now and our children and grandchildren’s future with massive runaway debt and deficits, unsound monetary policy and Empire America: World Cop.
I urge everyone to Join the Ron Paul Revolution! Together we CAN make America the country our founders intended – respected and loved the world over and the aspiration of freedom loving people of all nations!
Bill, I don’t personally know of any lost liberties or anyone else who has lost their liberties. Haven’t seen any attempts at global conquests, the democrats and the author of this blog are the ones preaching totalitarism.
You Paulettes seem to think you’re electing a king? Remember, there are about 537 people who have been elected by the people to carry out the people’s wants and wishes. You might find one or two in the bunch who might agree with Mr. Paul. For the rest of them it’s going to be business as usual. Good luck.
And Eric, “intended state” is only your opinion of what you think the state should be.
C
All it takes is a read-through of the founding documents for context and intended government, Chuck, and a (even cursory) review of (particularly) 20th century political hubris in America with additional concentration on the (speaking of) King George administration for induced nightmares. Surprised you haven’t been paying sufficient attention (to notice, say, the ongoing and escalating violations of enumerated powers, separation of powers, the “interstate commerce” clause, the “general welfare” clause, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, for just some of the more egregious examples), but all will be quickly explained. It’s all right there. Highly recommended. No, I’m not going to read to you. It’s left as an exercise for the inquisitive scholar of liberty. You are inquisitive, right…?
Bill, I’ve been paying very close attention and don’t see what you Paulettes are so upset about. We live in a different age than Jefferson and have to make reasonable acccommodations to stay one step ahead of our enemies. I don’t believe you can make your case. In fact, I know you can’t make your case but I also know you’ll keep trying. Good luck with that.
C
Some minds are like cement: all mixed up and firmly set. Well, as long as you can make your “reasonable accommodations” while still following the supreme law of the land — that’s the inviolable contract between servant government and its citizens, the one the GOP /used/ to make at least a passing acknowledgment of, known as the Constitution (you know, the “quaint” document with the “vague” language like “shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed,” “no warrant shall issue,” “powers not delegated…are reserved to the States,” etc.) — then knock yourself out. If you don’t /like/ the supreme law of the land, there’s even a built-in mechanism to change it (because the Founders really /did/ know what they were doing), but you are /required/ to follow it. “Enemies” are foreign /and/ domestic, after all.
Unless… Do you really believe we’re /not/ a nation of laws? Careful with that one, ’cause it’s double-edged…
Parts of my mind are like cement. Like the part that demands that I practice accountability, rationality, logic and understand reality from nonsense.
You seem to use a lot of words but never say anything. If you have something specific to say, say it. Otherwise, you’re wasting servor bytes.
C
*sigh* The deficiency is your own, I’d helpfully offer, as is the lack of any substance in your argument beyond knee-jerk contradiction, dismissiveness, name-calling and self-delusion. That you cannot or will not understand or even investigate the offered reality or black-&-white Constitutional citations (you do accept the existence of the Constitution, yes?), or simply that you don’t like truth and reason is hardly evidence of nonsense. I will only point you in the direction of discovery. The rest is up to you.
On the other hand, that you could actually attempt to maintain in a public forum that Ron Paul does not represent accountability, rationality and logic most certainly is such evidence, and exposes a profound misunderstanding of his message and his scholarship, not to mention the intent of the Founders and the government they left us (which, just fyi, isn’t a democracy, but you knew that, right?).
But indeed, this seems pointless to pursue here. Those with more open, independent minds are encouraged to start with http://ourdocuments.gov/ or http://ronpaul2008.com or http://www.house.gov/paul/ or http://ronpaullibrary.org/ or http://lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html
Well Chuck,
The problem is that you refuse to answer Bill’s question. It is a very simple one though: “are you believing in the Constitution of your own country or not?” And are you also believing that this Constitution is superior to any law or regulation passed by States or any Administration?
Well Alphast,
I do believe in the constitution and your second question isn’t relevent since the constitution supersedes all others. Or was that a rhetorical question from someone who just doesn’t understand our constitution?
You see Alphast, in this country, people are able to interpret the constitution any way they want. I’m just assuming that Bill see things the way he wants them to be. Similar to you. When in fact, reality indicates that all is not what Bill and Alphast want them to be.
Again, I have to ask for specificity or you’re both wasting servor bytes.
C
OK, last time for me. The deficiency is your own, I’d helpfully offer, as is the lack of any substance or “specificity” in your argument beyond knee-jerk contradiction, dismissiveness, name-calling and denial. That you cannot or will not understand or even investigate the offered reality or black-&-white Constitutional citations, or simply that you don’t like truth and reason is hardly evidence of nonsense. In this forum, I can only point you in the direction of discovery. The rest is up to you. Start with warrantless wiretapping, maybe. Or signing statements or security letters. Or war declaration authority. Or sound money. Or habeas corpus. Or unauthorized federal raids on state-legal businesses in direct contravention of the 10th Amendment. Or unprecedented spending levels and growth of federal government under the current administration. Or Supreme Court sanctioned eminent domain takings for increased government revenue, in direct contravention of any semblance of reason or reading comprehension. Or… Or… Or…
On the other hand, that you could actually attempt to maintain in a public forum that Ron Paul does not represent consistent accountability, rationality and logic most certainly is such evidence, and exposes a profound misunderstanding of his message and his scholarship, not to mention the intent of the Founders and the government they left us (which, just fyi, isn’t a democracy — but being such an astute student of political theory, you knew that, right?).
Most recently, I asked you, “Do you really believe we’re not a nation of laws?” (I thought I was being marginally facetious.) You finally answered, “in this country, people are able to interpret the constitution any way they want.” This, um, “liberating” juris prudence applies, logically but disturbingly enough, to your preferred presidential candidates. And you, naturally, approve. (Yet somehow Paul and his supporters are supposed to be unbalanced for promoting a different, although uniquely consistent, interpretation, AKA “original intent.” Look it up.)
You harbor surprisingly transparent contempt for liberty and the rule of fundamental law, despite perfunctory gyroscopic spin, sometimes even within the same sentence. You’ve repeatedly deflected responding to my questions and specific citations. Yet you nevertheless clearly have a different vision for this country than the Founders did. “Any way they want?!?” Words don’t actually mean things? “Shall make no law,” e.g., isn’t clear to you? I won’t explain further here, wasting “servor” (sic) bytes (are you as frugal with tax dollars, I must wonder — this is a reference to a particular speech by Rep. David Crockett, “Not Yours to Give” — again, look it up), but Google will quickly tell you what their vision was and what the Constitution actually says. Then compare that to current events, and then to Ron Paul’s position papers. I’m not going to spoonfeed you: you’re gonna have to expend some good-faith effort.
But indeed, this seems pointless to pursue here with you. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.” Dude, you are on your own, evidently far beyond any reason I can hope to offer. Still too many words? Not “sound-bity” enough for ya? I understand you’re not gonna actually listen, I know you’re not gonna actually think. So… “Good luck with that.”
I haven’t lost any liberties and don’t know anyone else who has. You’re free to believe whatever you want as mindless as it may be. I prefer to believe in reality. I think that’s what separates me from you Paulettes.
C
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
From my speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776
Thanks for the historical reminder, Mr. Adams.
Well Chuck,
I believe that the US Constitution (a text that you are right to say I don know by heart) protects people from being jailed without having been properly charged. Isn’t this something that has been done by the current US administration? And isn’t it true that US Courts of Law have ruled against this practice? This is just an example.
I also believe that the US Constitution and laws prohibit the Executive power (including so the current administration) to act in violation of the privacy rights of persons without a proper court order (i.e. the at least passive control of the Judiciry power). Isn’t it true that, in its so called “War against Terror” (TM), G.W. Bush has authorized just this?
Doesn’t this make two very specific violations? Or should I be more specific and provide you with a complete legal and constitutional analysis.