Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Department of Homeland Security- Who Needs It? (Ron Paul)
Ron Paul's website ^ | July 23, 2002 | Ron Paul

Posted on 07/24/2002 8:50:13 AM PDT by toenail

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 23, 2002

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- WHO NEEDS IT?

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us.

It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had plenty. But they filed to analyze, communicate, and use the information to our advantage.

The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us.

A clear understanding of private property and an owner's responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.

The solution now being proposed is a giant new federal department, and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending.

What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls.

Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do.

Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too important to offend the Saudis.

Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted.

Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the republic will suffer another major setback.

Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world.

A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy.

A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.

If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, and it will cost a lot less.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: ronpaullist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: toenail
We already HAVE a dept of homeland security - in that 5 sided building that the plane hit.
21 posted on 07/24/2002 11:02:49 AM PDT by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I think that "Homeland Security" is worse than the terrorists, and if we cannot be free, why bother to even live? I will wait until the USA Immigration stops
the Islamic terrorists from coming into this country, and then I might see a reason for homeland security, but if we just let the foxes in the hen house continually, it is a waste of time and effort. So save your breath!
22 posted on 07/24/2002 11:10:06 AM PDT by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toenail

All you need to know about the tragedy of September 11th.

And now, since fedgov failed repeatedly the answer is a new department for them to screw up and a government snitch program.

Brilliant.

23 posted on 07/24/2002 2:28:04 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weikel
"My opinion invade Saudi Arabia and treat them like Ghenghis Khan would have."

I guess you didn't get the memo: America has a "hands-off...hear no evil, see no evil" policy regarding Saudi Arabia and their obvious role as stealth partner and financier of the "Axis of Evil".

24 posted on 07/24/2002 2:39:32 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick
I don't think this is an intelligent statement....

You think it is "intelligent" for the United States to interfere in other people's wars?

25 posted on 07/24/2002 3:21:52 PM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: weikel
My opinion invade Saudi Arabia and treat them like Ghenghis Khan would have.

I don't think Ghenghis Khan was the national role model that Washington or Jefferson had in mind.

Then no one will ever commit terrorist attacks against the US ever again.

How about we stay out of other peoples' wars -- then no one would ever want to commit terrorist attacks on the US again.

27 posted on 07/24/2002 9:48:10 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
I don't think pacifism will work I agree with the libertarians on all but immigration and foreign policy but these savages understand only fear, force, and death. They all want to become martyrs for Allah fine. Lets make them all martyrs.
28 posted on 07/24/2002 10:57:34 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Libertarians aren't Ghandi pacifists. They are foreign non-interventionists.

If the U.S. stops protecting/funding our "allies," then their enemies won't become our enemies. We'll have far fewer enemies if we mind our own business.

Long past time for the US to pull out of NATO, the UN, the mideast, and wherever else we have a military presence or send foreign aid.

29 posted on 07/25/2002 3:46:19 AM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Very well said Commie Basher. We need to stop borrowing trouble. Or more accurately, we should stop BUYing trouble.
30 posted on 08/02/2002 6:00:57 AM PDT by notease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: toenail
Ron Paul BUMP!
31 posted on 08/02/2002 6:06:22 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
The idea that Saudi Arabia should be the protected financier of terrorism which gets no trouble from us while we beat the bushes elsewhere looking for whipping boys
is unacceptable. Mr. Bush is beginning to look like something other than a patriot.


32 posted on 08/02/2002 6:08:44 AM PDT by notease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: notease
bttt
33 posted on 08/03/2002 9:13:54 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson