Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 3 Comments

My Christmas Eve post made its way to Townhall, thanks to Just Me, who passed it on to Daniel J. Mitchel of the Cato Institute.  A certain Pamela reacted:  “Did okay UNTIL you got to the dump on Newt.”  She was reacting to the words that Newt Gingrich said in the post, explaining why he supported the nabbing of Santa Claus in a foreign country:

Also running for president, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich responded to Paul, “The United States must reserve the right to arrest terrorists and to violate the rule of law in order to provide safety for the People of the United States.”

Ron Paul had objected to the overreach of the Feds.  Well, low and behold, a conversation like this took place between Paul and Gingrich in a recent debate:

So I responded to Pamela:

I didn’t dump on Newt Gingrich, but used a form of argumentation called, “reductio ad absurdum”. I.e., I used Gingrich’s own argument in his debate with Paul–for the sake of national security, it is necessary to suspend the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. He may be right. One nuclear bomb can ruin your day.But the Feds are now so used to suspending rights that they have passed FATCA, which suspends the rights not of terrorists but every single American living overseas, who are now required to inventory their assets for the IRS, in violation of the 4th amendment–among others. Thus, Paul is the only candidate who would strictly follow the constitution, giving us back our lives.
Perhaps you can tell, therefore, that I support the candidacy of Ron Paul.  Well, he is the only one, Republican or Democrat, who will take the necessary steps to get the Federal government off the backs of US persons abroad.  The Feds see us as the solution to a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and 15 trillion dollar national debt.  Why?  Because we left the country so that we didn’t have to pay our fair share.  So naturally, the only way to solve the fiscal deficit is to make us pay what we have refused to pay!  Ron Paul is the only one who cuts through all the nonsense and demagoguery and says that he will cut 1 trillion from the budget in his first year.  I am sick of the status quo.  With all the other candidates, we have the Republican status quo or the Democrat status quo.  Ron Paul is a true alternative.
I won’t be voting though, because I’ve already relinquished, thanks to legislation passed by Clinton (Reed Amendment, 1996), G.W. Bush (Jobs Act, 2004; HEART 2008) and Obama (HIRE Act 2010).

3 thoughts on “Dumping on Newt? Hardly”

  1. What a shame that all of the work that the Founding Fathers went through to construct a constitution that would protect the citizen from the unequal application of power by the federal government is being undone by the members of the very party who swear their uncompromised allegiance to the same constitution.

  3. That article is interesting because their point is that if the executive disagree with the legislative, it should just use its veto power. But by signing and ignoring provisions in the law, particularly spending provisions, Obama is in contempt of the Constitution and its division of powers. That puts him in contempt of the People.

    By suspending habeas corpus of suspected terrorists–and now potentially American citizens–then the president has the ability to detain anyone he wants. So I don’t think I want to travel to the United States if I could be put in prison without trial because I’ve said I am at war with the IRS. Any US government types out there reading this, I want to make it clear: I am a loyal Canadian and I am obedient to my government’s position vis-a-vis the United States, ok? So you have no cause to detain me without habeas corpus, unless my country goes literally to war against you. My use of the word “war” is metaphorical of an information campaign. OK, pumpkin?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: