Get notified with the latest news & podcasts, plus receive a free bonus e-book
29th November 2011 Tom Woods 50
Here is his floor speech. Pretty much the same thing but a few minutes longer.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjVgWNzQnk&feature=youtu.be
Better than nothing but his oratory is not great. The problem is that Rand accepts certain premises of his opponents, and thus ends up arguing on their terms — from a position of weakness. This is a losing proposition. Somebody needs to come out swinging. This bill is an outrage, even by modern American standards. It will be the final nail in the coffin of freedom in this country.
Indefinite detainment is a pathway to tyranny, for sure. But rather than just railing against it, what are the proven alternatives? Is it possible to try terrorism suspects who happen to be citizens? The Mob for a long time did pretty well with their own form of terrorism and intimidation of witnesses. And were an attack to be proven to have occured due to not detaining someone, what would be the real life ramifications for libertarianism? Real world, not theoretical. People don’t burn to death in theories.
And is citing Lincoln, who tosses his enemies in jail w/o due process or deported them, really someone you want to cite when objecting to a plan to do pretty much exactly what he did during the civil war?? Is Rand Paul that historically out of it?
Rand paul needs to retire. hes against the United States protecting himself from terrorism, hes putting everyone in harms way. The constitution isnt going to protect us from terrorism, it wouldnt stop a bullet if i held it infront of my face. We need real military action to win this war on terror. If we need a few detention prisons on american soil to garuntee our safety or few recon drones flying over american cities, or more tsa and military checkpoints then thats what we need to do. How many more american lives are you willing to lose before you give up on a constitution that was written hundreds of years before suicide bombers and ak47’s. You have no arguement to support you anti-american dialogue. Get out of the way and let us win this war or terror.
how many more underwear bombers do we need before you wake up.
This is sarcastic, right?
They hate america just as much as the terrorists, they just dont have the balls themselves to strap a bomb to their chest or pick up an ak47, thats why they fight to protect them.
you can always move to the libertarian paradise of somalia… Look at all the terrorism that a libertarian/no government country breeds. Here in america we’ll protect ourselves and fight against it.
Thank God for Rand. Hopefully he’s not the only one willing to stand up to McInSane.
Hard to tell, isn’t it?
Why don’t you, John McCain, Carl Levin and everyone else who supports this bill move to a country without a constitution that limits the power of the government? Here in America we have a Bill of Rights which outlaws the kinds of state crimes you want to commit.
Limiting the power of government is expanding the power of terrorists. But thats exactly what you want, isnt it? Youre a part of the hate america.first crowd…
Hopefully hes the only one willing to stand up for the terrorists…
Why not stop bombing, bribing, arming and otherwise meddling in other nations? That will go a long way towards ending terrorism in this country.
Even the domestic terrorism of McVeigh was government-bred, in that the government trained McVeigh in its Gulf War and then committed the outrage at Waco which convinced him the government was at war with its own people. Injustice begets injustice.
The law was already too robust prior to the “Patriot” Act. The idea that we have to give up our liberties and dignity so the government can maintain a vicious foreign policy for the benefit of the arms industry, banksters, foreign governments and power-hungry bureaucrats is one I reject without hesitation!
Thats all in the past. Its old news. Whats going on now is one heck of a lot of arabs trying to kill us. We need to kill them first, not protect them.
You hate America, in that you hate its founding principles. If the “terrorists hate us for our freedoms,” as per neocon talking points, then the neocons must be appeasers of terrorists because they are in favor of eliminating our freedoms.
I suspect Dan is a troll. Another possibility is that his childish sentiments are genuine, and reflect the mindset of the average voter. In which case, it is easy to see why the USA is on the fast track to third-world status.
Did i ever say the terrorists hate us for our freedoms? Dont put words in my mouth.
And if you arnt breaking the law than you dont have anything to worry about and youre losing any freedoms, youre still free to everything you were free to do yesterday…
My guess is dither either IS a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. I dont see any other reason for your arguement.
It sure can be sometimes given the number of warmongering idiots that still believe that kind of junk.
I didn’t ascribe those words to you, but to the neocons, whose arguments (or attempts thereat) are very similar to yours.
Let me ask you, Dan: Who gets to determine whether or not a particular individual is a terrorist? The President? A CIA agent? Or should the government have to present evidence in court before an impartial jury? Due process is to protect the innocent from being falsely accused and punished under the color of law for their political, social or religious views. It is to help weed out errors and prevent the wrongly accused from going to prison or worse.
What you are saying is that you trust the government with absolute power over the life and death of every person. You trust the head of state and his agents not to abuse this power. History does not warrant this trust.
People like you cheered when Hitler was made a dictator by the Enabling Acts after the German parliament building was burned down by an alleged terrorist.
A police state is more dangerous than any terrorist.
“And if you arnt breaking the law than you dont have anything to worry about”
Sounds like something out of 1984… (except Orwell’s grammar and spelling was quite superior)
Define “terrorism”? If it means the intentional killing of innocent people and destruction of property to affect political change, then I am against all terrorism, including that perpetrated by the US government overseas. Because when a US bomb blows up a child and his mother in Pakistan or Yemen, someone over there who thinks much like you — who wants to fight terrorism by “killing them all” — finds his justification for trying to blow you up.
Nope, the only individual to determine who’s a terrorist and who isnt is the terrorist himself when he decides to wage war against america, your arguement fails in every way. Obama isnt going to claim im a terrorist for going to work every day, coming home, walking my dog, eating dinner, watching tv and going to bed… However if i start building a nuclear bomb in my basement thats a different story. Your arguement just fails every time.
In other words, you trust the government. You trust Obama and every future president who will wield these powers. At least you’ve finally come out and admitted it.
You failed to refute anything he said other than “its in the past” (which is actually an endorsement of his argument). But its clear you adhere to the government propoganda thats been fed to you. When was the last time an arab tried to attack you personally?
And it misses the point that being free doesn’t only mean you aren’t in jail. It means that you enjoy privacy and dignity. Some government snoop isn’t reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, looking at your bank accounts and feeling you up at the airport.
And that’s not even touching upon the abuse that is possible when all of that stuff happens. Dan thinks government is run by angels who will never abuse their power over their fellow man. Where did he get this idea?
The government is the terrorist silly. The sooner you realize that the better.
It wasnt an arguement, it was just a statement of the history. Doesnt change the present.
What powers? Im not a terrorist so i need not worry.
If you believe that we should have a government that is unrestrained then it would imply that you must hate America. This country was founded on the belief in a small central government with most powers reserved to the individual states and a constitution to restrain the federal government from expanding its power without a constitutional amendment. If you propose to love America who do you crap on the system of government our founders gave us to favor a policy typically reserved for the most tyrannical governments the world has seen? According to your logic the founders must have hated America because they fought a revolution over less than this.
Underwear bombers? You mean the idiot who set his leg on fire and was subdued by private individuals on the plane without the need of a larger, more powerful central government, right? Did you really just point to an example where private individuals were able to stop a terrorist attack from happening without the help of the government as a case for more government? In fact, you pointed to an example where the government bumbled all over themselves and completely failed in every way imaginable. Come on, you have to see how funny that is.
As a fellow Dan, please tell me you are being sarcastic and just messing with us on this.
He used history to show that his argument was correct. If you don’t think history is relevant to our discussion, then do us all a favor and quit commenting.
Were Jewish people terrorists that died in concentration camps during WWII? Were the Japanese-Americans terrorists when they were thrown in concentration, I mean internment camps by the American government? Were the 100+ million people who died by the hand of their own government under Mao and Stalin terrorists? How about the American Indians? The African American slaves?
Not being a terrorist doesn’t keep you safe from government tyranny. Never has, never will. Tyranny is only prevented when you have people who understand the threat their own government really is and actively resists their power grabs. Tyranny is always delivered under the pretense of keeping people safe. Life isn’t about being perfectly safe. It’s about being perfectly free.
“What powers? I’m not Jewish, so I need not worry.” (the Germans said during the 1930s)
Please enlighten us on how libertarian equals no government. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I would rather be killed by one of these terrorists that, according to our federal government, are hiding under everyone’s beds than to continue watching this country continue to get forcefully shoved into a police state. I am so sick and tired of the war on terror being evoked every time they want an excuse to obliterate our Bill of Rights. You go ahead and bend over for the government, I’d rather die on my feet than lives on my knees.
So now your comparing this bill in congress of equal to nazi germany and the concentration camps and the attempted extermination of an entire race?
Following the Oklahoma City bombing, a man named Kenneth Trentadue was taken into federal custody and died shortly thereafter. The federal authorities tried to present his death as a suicide but the evidence that he had been tortured to death, and that a coverup had ensued, was so overwhelming that even the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner said as much.
Kenneth Trentadue’s brother, Jesse, later discovered that his brother had likely been mistaken for a man named Richard Lee Guthrie, who was the suspected “John Doe 2” who had allegedly helped McVeigh carry out the bombing. The real Guthrie also ended up dying in prison in another “suicide.” So did another prisoner at the facility housing Kenneth Trentadue, who had overheard the scuffle in Trentadue’s cell and was going to testify.
So, Dan, if you are mistaken for a terrorist, might you not, in fact, have reason to worry?
You conveniently ignored his example of Japanese Americans who, having not committed any crime, were forced out of their homes and into government camps, many of them losing their possessions and livelihoods in the process. This is what happens when people let the government run roughshod over the Constitution (thus breaking the law) because they are scared of a bogeyman.
@Dan, we managed to stand up to the major European powers Britian and France shortly after the Constitution was ratified. It is because the Constitution is not followed that we are in danger.
Now come on Dan, you’re better than that, right? Who decides who is a threat to national security? The select few in the government. Who reviews this decision? The same people who declare the person a threat. If you are wrongly declared a threat to the government do you get a chance to prove it in court? No. What is to stop the government from abusing this power? Nothing.
We have this blind faith that our government is filled with angels who could no wrong. It doesn’t matter that our government has supported slavery, massacred the Indians, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, etc. You blindly believe that as long as you keep your head down and don’t rock the boat that you will be safe from your government even though the same government locked away American citizens who did nothing wrong but happened to have ancestors from Japan. The government has abused the very power you would entrust them today in about the worst possible way in the past. Don’t let fear scare you into giving up on freedom. It is cowardly and destructive.
You can’t be a real person.
“Limiting the power of government is expanding the power of
But isn’t the goal of the terrorists to strip us of our
liberties? If so, how is the government stripping of our liberties the answer?
No terrorist has done this; instead, it is our own government acting in their
stead, apparently, doing it. But more to the fundamental point: if liberty is
to be diminished in the name of safety, security, etc., why not establish a
dictatorship already, if there isn’t one already? Why not GPS every citizen,
put cameras in all homes, microchip all babies in their nurseries? Surely this
undertaking will stop, or slow, the would-be terrorists? Why wait? Those who
clamor can be reassured that only a criminal would object to such a thing, and that
the government is just looking out for the common good, and that only angels
and saints will oversee the operation. Slavery, then, will replace liberty;
command and control will replace free will; and the days of crime and terrorism
will disappear from the pages of history, replaced with benevolent tyrants whose
sole goal in life is the safety and security of their subjects. Of course this
will be a limited government, where checks and balances, the division of power,
and voting all will circumscribe the power of government. I see no end to this
insidious atmosphere where people, like you, clamor for the extension—extension—of
power in the hands of venal creatures, whose touch is seemingly invisible,
whose power can never corrupt, and whose arrogance can never approach people
like you, because, in America, power never corrupts, it’s only those strange brutes
in faraway lands; somehow human nature transforms across the oceans.
“Youre a part of the hate america.first crowd…”
Hate America crowd? I wonder, is one part of
that crowd when government interferes in domestic affairs and someone raises
his opposition? Are those consumers who uproar at the repeal of the tariff on
sugar, due to interference of government, part of that crowd? Were those tea
partiers part of that crowd when the government bailed out the swindlers in the
banks? To oppose minimum wage laws, licensing, money privileges, and the like,
put one in that crowd? If not, why the difference? Why is it one may disagree
with the government domestically, and not be labeled “hate America first,” but
when one does it with regards to foreign affairs he is? I wonder if you would
call the White Rose during Nazi-Germany, the “hate Germany first crowd?” Pray
Starting to like Rand more after I hear speeches like this. Watch the floor speech that CSA1681 gave a link for, he’s more passionate in that. Anyway, I haven’t liked Rand very much because I was disappointed he wasn’t as much of a principled libertarian as his father is. Rand is more toward the center on economic issues (he’s willing to compromise somewhat), but the fact that he is still so dedicated to his antiwar principles gives me hope.
Oh dear god … Rand actually tries to accomplish things when he speaks instead of rambling on about anarco-capitalist pet-peeves like the legacy of Lincoln. Come on.
The truth is, if Ron had half his son’s political guile, he would already be president and we wouldn’t have to suffer the insufferable Obama/Romney match-up …
Rand Paul is part of the solution. Thank you for this.
Tom Woods is the smartest guy in the room.
Senior Judicial Analyst, FOX News Channel
Tom Woods is one of the libertarian movement’s brightest and most prolific scholars. I strongly recommend his work.
12-term U.S. congressman
Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy.
New York Times bestselling author of Crash Proof CEO, Euro Pacific Capital
During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods.
former Member of Congress
TomWoods.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.