Posted on 03/15/2008 9:13:01 AM PDT by pissant
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), he of the quixotic GOP presidential campaign and unique policy positions, is never one to be shy about his opinions. Take the case of fallen New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D), whose political career fell apart this week after his liaisons with high-priced call girls became public. Spitzer resigned his office effective Monday.
Most politicians from both sides of the aisle publicly (at least) offered condolences for Spitzer and his poor family, including his three daughters, but didn't — of course — defend Spitzer's atrocious behavior.
But for Paul, Spitzer's downfall at the hands of a Justice Dept. investigation shows government at its worst. Yes, Spitzer climbed to power on the backs of political enemies he destroyed, making him not a swell guy, but he didn't deserve what happened to him. The FBI should have never been allowed to listen in to his phone call in the first place, according to the Texas Republican.
Here's the statement Paul made on the House floor last night. It's worth reading, at least for the enlightenment it gives into Paul's view of the world, which basically comes down to who controls the money:
"Madam Speaker, it has been said that 'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.' And in the case of Eliot Spitzer, this couldn't be more true. In his case it's the political sword, as his enemies rejoice in his downfall. Most people, it seems, believe he got exactly what he deserved.
"The illegal tools of the state brought Spitzer down, but think of all the harm done by Spitzer in using the same tools against so many other innocent people. He practiced what could be termed 'economic McCarthyism,' using illegitimate government power to build his political career on the ruined lives of others.
"No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations.
"For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation — that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing — is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal.
"Though Spitzer used the same tools to destroy individuals charged with economic crimes that ended up being used against him, gloating over his downfall should not divert our attention from the fact that the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the Fourth Amendment.
"Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong.
"Sacrifice of our personal privacy has been ongoing for decades but has rapidly accelerated since 9/11. Before 9/11, the unstated goal of collecting revenue was the real reason for the erosion of our financial privacy. When 19 suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11, our country became convinced that further sacrifice of personal and financial privacy was required for our security.
"The driving force behind this ongoing sacrifice of our privacy has been fear and the emotional effect of war rhetoric — war on drugs, war against terrorism and the war against Third World nations in the Middle East who are claimed to be the equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany.
"But the real reason for all this surveillance is to build the power of the state. It arises from a virulent dislike of free people running their own lives and spending their own money. Statists always demand control of the people and their money.
"Recently we've been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens.
"Spitzer was brought down because he legally withdrew cash from a bank — not because he committed a crime. This should prompt us to reassess and hopefully reverse this trend of pervasive government intrusion in our private lives.
"We need no more Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act! No more Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Acts! No more torture! No more Military Commissions Act! No more secret prisons and extraordinary rendition! No more abuse of habeas corpus! No more Patriot Acts!
"What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!"
” I question your intelligence defending Paul defending Spitzer. Fool you are.”
Ron Paul is defending YOUR freedom. Like I said READ for a change. I’m not a fool, I was taught to READ when I went to school.
Thanks! Things sure have changed in the past 10 years. They will all take a chip, for freedom of course.
Does tearing down one candidate make Pat Paulson look any better?? And where is that 20% you guys said he was going to get?? Hope he runs Turd Party to hurt Black Oblack.
Pray for W and Our Troops
ALL libertarians have a problem with that. Although libertarians are also for legalizing prostitution, we're expressing "Spitzerfreude', because Spitzer himself is now aware what pure evil the money laundering and cash seizure laws can do in the hands of the vengeful.
When these laws were passed, the federosaurus promised to use them only against terrorists - no, wait - against child pornographers. No, wait - against tax evaders. No, wait - against some guy stepping out on his wife.
“They will all take a chip, for freedom of course.”
Of course, you would be “nutty” or a “lunatic” not to. /sarc
Abolishing the income tax is so good that I can overlook almost anything else. Returning to gold based money is another great idea, one Reagan believed in but was talked out of pushing by the Baker/Bush wing.
I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Departments of Education and Energy either.
As for Paul's analysis of Spitzer, Paul is wrong about entrapment, but right about these transaction reporting laws.
If I want to take out $10,000 in cash to spend on whatever it's nobody's business but my own. It's my money.
“your blind support of him, makes you foolish.”
YOUR blind hate of him, and everything you post to support that hate, just proves my point that you need to learn how to read.
Do you or anyone else have any non-inflammatory, down-to-earth facts on RP's charges whether they're true or false regarding this specific case?
PR's quoted charges: For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation — that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing — is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal...the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the Fourth Amendment.
Gotta watch out for those people who transfer money without government permission. By your standards, wouldn't society run a lot more efficiently if the government owned all the banks and just rationed money to people who justified the use to which it was being put? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
I take it you defended Ron Paul on his newsletter stance. I look forward to your defense of Barak Hussein Obama on his pastor sermons defense.
Bye.
I suspect the Republican party bigshots are secretly very happy that Paul won his primary, no matter what they might whisper to anti-Paul reporters and columnists. If Paul had lost the primary the odds that he'd run as a third party candidate would be much higher. Ron Paul could easily do to McCain in 2008 what Nader did to Gore in 2000.
Ironically Chris Peden's victory is the absolute worst thing that could have happened if you're a supporter of the war in Iraq.
Not having much luck peddling that crap about believing in the constitutional limits on federal authority means you don't believe in having any laws at all, are you?
“I look forward to your defense of Barak Hussein Obama on his pastor sermons defense.”
Pardon me, but is anyone on this thread, other than you, talking about Obama?
I would suggest you stay with threads that you can read.
Well, sometimes princple requires you to protest government abuses against citizens you and I and many others detest. (I'm referring to American citizens here, not enemy combatants.) That holds even if the targeted individual may be a government scoundrel himself.
I don't have enough details about the wiretapping on Spitzer at the present time to agree or disagree with Paul as to whether Spitzer's rights were violated.
That last thing I follow on FR is the criminal miscalculations of politicians, movie stars or dizzy broads like Anna Nicole Smith. The arrest of Spitzer was IMO a political act, not a law enforcement act.
To date there hasn’t been enough of an accounting about the details of Spitzers crimes in the media to answer your question. I do suspect that Congress may have a more complete view of the situation since some of them might be past clients of the hookers.
The real reason he’s in trouble is not for using a hooker or how he paid for it etc., but because ... he ruined other men for doing the same thing.
He has a lot of enemies and he deserves to have.
Ping to #176
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.