The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Orlando: The New 9/11?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last week America was rocked by the cold-blooded murder of 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Unlike the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Orlando shooter appears to be a lone gunman who, while claiming allegiance to ISIS, was not actually working with a terrorist group. About the only thing Orlando has in common with 9/11 is the way power-hungry politicians and federal officials wasted no time using it to justify expanding government and restricting liberty.

Immediately following the shooting, we began to hear renewed calls for increased government surveillance of Muslims, including spying on Muslim religious services. Although the Orlando shooter was born in the US, some are using the shooting to renew the debate over Muslim immigration. While the government certainly should prevent terrorists from entering the country, singling out individuals for government surveillance and other violations of their rights because of religious faith violates the First Amendment and establishes a dangerous precedent that will be used against other groups. In addition, scapegoating all Muslims because of the act of one deranged individual strengthens groups like ISIS by making it appear that the US government is at war with Islam.

The Orlando shooting is being used to justify mass surveillance and warrantless wiretapping. For the past three years, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill limiting mass surveillance. But, last week, the same amendment was voted down. The only difference between this year’s debate and previous debates was that this year defenders of the surveillance state were able to claim that the Orlando shooting justifies shredding the Fourth Amendment.

The fact that the Orlando shooter had twice been investigated by the FBI shows that increased surveillance and wiretapping would not have prevented the shooting. Mass surveillance also creates a “needle in a haystack” problem that can make it difficult, or impossible, for law enforcement to identify real threats. Unfortunately, evidence that giving up liberty does not increase security has never deterred those who spread fear to gain support for increased government power.

The Orlando shooter successfully passed several background checks and was a licensed security guard. But, just like those who used Orlando to defend unconstitutional surveillance, authoritarian supporters of gun control are not allowing facts to stand in the way of using the Orlando shooting to advance their agenda. Second Amendment opponents are using Orlando to give the federal government new powers to violate individuals’ rights without due process. One pro-gun control senator actually said that “due process is what’s killing us.”

Ironically, if not surprisingly, one of those calling for new gun control laws is Hillary Clinton. When she was sectary of state, Clinton supported interventions in the Middle East that resulted in ISIS obtaining firearms paid for by US taxpayers!

Mass surveillance, gun control, and other restrictions on our liberty will not prevent future Orlandos. In fact, by preventing law-abiding Americans from defending themselves, gun control laws make us less safe from criminals. Similarly, mass surveillance and warrantless wiretapping erode our rights while making it more difficult for law enforcement to identify real threats.

If Congress really cared about our security and liberty, it would repeal all federal gun laws, end all unconstitutional surveillance, and end the hyper-interventionist foreign policy that causes many around the world to resent the US.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gun Control, Orlando Shooting, Terrorism 
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. You, Mr. Paul are a naive fool.

    Quotes below from a book written 100 years ago.

    “He (the Mohammedan) considers the white world degenerate.”

    “The proselytizing power of Islam is extraordinary and its hold upon its votaries is even more remarkable. Throughout history there has been no single instance where a people, once become Moslem, has ever abandoned the faith.”

    “Such is the vast and growing body of Islam, today seeking to weld its forces into a higher unity for the combined objectives of spiritual revival and political emancipation. This unitary movement is known as ‘Pan-Islamism’.”

    “Pan-Islamism’s real driving power lies…in institutions like the “Hajj” or pilgrimage to Mecca…”

    “The Meccan Hajj…is really an annual Pan-Islamic congress, where all the interests of the faith are discussed at length, and where plans are elaborated for its defense and propagation.”

    “Concerning Islam’s steady progress in black Africa there can be no shadow of a doubt…..Against it the Christian propaganda is a myth….The rapid spread of militant Mohammedanism among the savage tribes to the north of the equator is a serious factor in the fight for racial supremacy in Africa. With very few exceptions, the colored races of Africa are pre-eminently fighters. To them the law of the stronger is supreme; they have been conquered, and in turn they conquered. To them the fierce, warlike spirit inherent in Mohammedanism is infinitely more attractive than is the gentle, peace-loving high moral standard of Crristianity, hence, the rapid headway the former is making in central Africa.”

    The “Orlando shooter” as you call Omar Mateen, had twice gone on Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, there to receive instruction in his role as mass murderer. Islam’s very appeal lies in its militancy versus your soft, limp-wristed Christianity.

    From THE RISING TIDE OF COLOR AGAINST WHITE WORLD SUPREMACY by T. Lothrop Stoddard

    • Replies: @jtgw
  2. jtgw says: • Website
    @Threecranes

    LOL your counter-argument is a hundred-year old book about the threat to white supremacy? Why were there no Islamist attacks on American soil before the 1990s? If Islam was the sole cause, you would need to explain that. But if you understand that it is primarily our foreign policy that provokes these attacks, the pattern makes perfect sense.

  3. @jtgw

    “But if you understand that it is primarily our foreign policy that provokes these attacks, the pattern makes perfect sense.”

    Which is exactly what the book is about. The title is very misleading. Stoddard is a solid source.

  4. If discriminating against immigrants of a particular religion is a violation of the first amendment, no such problem occurs when the discrimination is applied to specific countries of origin, regardless of religion.
    The Broad Middle East springs to mind, whether Jew, Muslim, Christian Scientist or Mormon.

    • Replies: @jtgw
  5. jtgw says: • Website
    @Bill Jones

    I think this discussion focuses on the wrong thing. Even if we don’t want government to discriminate, there is no reason why individuals should be forbidden from discriminating. Why should employers, landlords and businesses be forced to ignore religion when hiring, renting or providing a service? Why did G4S act so reluctant to fire a clearly disturbed and unreliable employee? Anti-discrimination law, that’s why. The real problem is the lack of freedom of association, not the fact that government is forbidden (rightly, I believe) from discriminating on the basis of religion.

  6. Jim says:
    @jtgw

    Back in 1948 Harry Truman should have followed the advice of his Secretary of State, George Marshall, and not have involved the US in the internal conflicts of the Middle East. However the foolishness of our interventions in the Middle East does not mean that allowing Moslem immigration into the US is anything other than totally insane.

  7. jtgw says: • Website

    Does the government have the right to prevent entry to anyone it likes, for any reason or no reason? That’s the core issue here. What if a Muslim were invited here as someone’s guest? What if the government prevented someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali from entering, simply because she comes from a Muslim country and family? These are the kinds of absurdities you can except if you make this the government’s responsibility. The proper solution is to restore freedom of association and allow Americans as individuals decide who they wish to welcome and who they wish to exclude. You may not agree with other people’s decisions on who to invite on their property, but living in a free society means accepting those kinds of differences.

    • Replies: @Discard
    , @Discard
  8. Discard says:
    @jtgw

    The people of any nation have the right to deny entry to anyone at all, for any reason at all. Otherwise, any foreigner has a right to enter any country.

  9. Discard says:
    @jtgw

    Securing borders is not a government responsibility? Any individual ought be allowed to bring in anybody they want to?

    • Replies: @jtgw
  10. jtgw says: • Website
    @Discard

    Securing the borders is most certainly the government’s responsibility, but it should have a good reason to exclude somebody. I don’t think merely being of the “wrong” religion counts, unless you can show that the individual has a definite intention to cause harm. There are a lot of arguments that any Muslim, regardless of what he says he believes, is a threat, but you can surely see how absurd that becomes. If he is someone like Razib Khan who is openly atheist, should he be excluded because he comes from a Muslim country and has a Muslim name? A blanket ban on Muslim immigration might well exclude people like him, for no good reason.

    The government is not the same thing as the people. The truth is that the collective does not exist; only individuals exist. The collective has no real will of its own; only individuals have wills and desires. When the government acts, it doesn’t actually act on behalf of the people, but on behalf of its own members. The people are just the majority of voters they have to fool every two or four years into reelecting them. So no, I don’t believe the government should have a blanket power to refuse entry to someone who does not pose any blatant threat. I don’t believe the government should show him any special favors, either, though; I’m against subsidized immigration, which is what we have now. But the answer is to end the subsidies, not to ban immigration.

  11. Rehmat says:

    Comparing Orlando gay nightclub with 9/11 is like comparing oranges with grapes. The best comparison would have been between Orlando shooting and Sandy Hook School shooting – because in both cases a dead person died twice.

    At Sandy Hook was a 6-year-old Jewish kid Noah Pozner , and at Orlando gay nightclub it was Antonio Devon Brown.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/06/21/orlando-gay-nightclub-shooter-also-killed-a-deadman/

  12. KenH says:

    In addition, scapegoating all Muslims because of the act of one deranged individual strengthens groups like ISIS by making it appear that the US government is at war with Islam.

    Oh Ronnie. You never bemoan the fact that the government and media maliciously scapegoats all right of center, conservative white males and their cultural symbols when a Dylan Roof character goes off the rails. And Muslims certainly never leap to our defense as deracinated white people like you libertarians do for them in these instances.

    I can only imagine how Muslims would be treating a small Christian minority if they were murdering people and blowing things up in majority Muslim nations. Hey, actually, ISIS is killing them with reckless abandon just for being infidels, but otherwise peaceful and harmless and even though Christians communities are older than Muslim communities in Iraq and Syria. But I’m sure ISIS will realize sound money and economic determinism (over religion) are the way to go sooner or later.

    We meted out collective punishment to the Germans, Italians and Japs in WWII in the form of internment camps and there’s no reason we can’t do it again with other groups if the founding stock believes it is in this nation’s best interest. I and most Americans won’t accept having our sacred freedoms infringed because some groups of recent third world immigrants can’t behave themselves.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    , @Rehmat
  13. If Congress really cared about our security and liberty, it would repeal all federal gun laws, end all unconstitutional surveillance, and end the hyper-interventionist foreign policy that causes many around the world to resent the US.

    Yes, and it also would stop letting anybody-and-everybody into our country.

    And it would stop letting anybody-and-everybody take our manufacturing overseas and then sell the products of cheap labor back to us without paying a price.

    But it does none of these things, Senator, because it is not really our Congress.

  14. anon • Disclaimer says:

    To Mr. Paul’s sensible suggestions I would add just one thing – ending ALL Muslim immigration.

  15. @jtgw

    I agree with you, and would add that looking at 100 year old history would tell us more than Stoddard’s fiendish histrionics.

    Here’s an example of US betrayal and duplicity and can anyone wonder why people could be pissed?

    CAIRO, Egypt, May 27,[1922]—The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race without further bloodshed vanished when cables from Washington announced that the United States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain… The Arabs came into the war on the side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the allies’ promise of freedom…The Arab support “was determined and effective.”

    Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain’s mandate in Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27 May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)

    http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/kingcrane/id/1686/rec/18

    Remember also, that a short time before, the US betrayed and brutalized both Muslims and Christians in the Philippines…

  16. Jtgw says: • Website
    @KenH

    We provoked the Axis powers into attacking us, just as we did to the Central powers in WWI. Likewise, we’re provoking the radical jihadis to attack us now by interfering in the Muslim world. Why should Muslim Americans face collective punishment for our own stupid foreign policy?

    • Replies: @KenH
  17. Marcus says:

    In addition, scapegoating all Muslims because of the act of one deranged individual strengthens groups like ISIS by making it appear that the US government is at war with Islam.

    No need to scapegoat them or any other immigrants, just deport and ban further entries.

  18. KenH says:
    @Jtgw

    We provoked the Axis powers into attacking us, just as we did to the Central powers in WWI.

    Germany and Italy never attacked us, only Japan. Further, German and Italian foreign nationals living in the U.S. did not go on mass shooting sprees over our foreign policy which was as wrongheaded, hubristic and imperialistic then as it is now. We had much less of a case for interning them than we do Muslim persons of interest like Omar Mateen before political correctness run amok took him off watch lists.

    Likewise, we’re provoking the radical jihadis to attack us now by interfering in the Muslim world. Why should Muslim Americans face collective punishment for our own stupid foreign policy?

    It’s one thing if radical jihadis slip into this nation undetected or using phony documents and do harm to Americans. It’s quite another when second generation Muslims, who according to libertarians, cuckservatives and liberals are assimilated and as American as apple pie, begin attacking their fellow Americans over our idiotic foreign policy. There are many Muslims in Western nations whose first loyalty is to the worlwide umma instead of to the native citizens of the countries they reside and therefore are willing to commit violent acts to avenge their co-religionists.

    Poster Marcus is correct about deportations and a ban on further immigration so as to stop importing domestic security risks from the third world. It’s time to consider who the immigrants are and what they believe as we used up until 1965.

    The status quo is not acceptable and doing nothing so as not to offend the sensibilities of the Muslim community is no solution and will invite further attacks as Obama’s inaction has proven over and over. For the establishment and left wing fat heads in this country have absolutely no qualms about offending the sensibilities of right of center white people, the NRA and white nationalists.

    • Replies: @jtgw
  19. jtgw says: • Website
    @KenH

    Germany formally declared war on the US because Japan had initiated hostilities and Germany was bound by an alliance; whether or not they initiated violence is moot. But the point I’m trying to make is that it was US foreign policy that provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, which is what caused the formal outbreak of hostilities between the US and the Axis powers. You were trying to use WWII to teach some lesson about how the civil liberties of Americans can and should be suspended willy-nilly during time of war, while I’m trying to teach a lesson about how foolish meddling in the affairs of other nations is what brings about wars and assaults on civil liberties in the first place. The US is not some innocent bystander vis-a-vis the Muslim world.

    Your assumptions that all Muslims pose a threat are the equivalent of assumptions that all German-Americans posed a threat during WWI, or Japanese-Americans during WWII. The assaults on the civil rights of Americans, simply because they belonged to a suspected ethnicity, created a terrible precedent. This is not to excuse the actions of Omar Mateen or other traitors and terrorists, but to illustrate the harmful idea that, absent any actual evidence of intent to cause harm, we should take away rights to due process based merely on having the wrong religion. “No fly” lists fall into this dangerous category.

    It is quite possible that there WAS evidence that Omar Mateen intended to cause harm, and that
    the reason this evidence was ignored was because of political correctness. But that’s a separate issue. The problem is not that he wasn’t placed under observation because he was Muslim, but because he was not placed under observation despite making open threats and pledging allegiance to known terrorist groups.

  20. KenH says:

    Germany formally declared war on the US because Japan had initiated hostilities and Germany was bound by an alliance; whether or not they initiated violence is moot.

    True, as part of the Tripartite pact Germany was bound to support Japan by declaring war on the U.S. Of course, the U.S. had long been sinking German export vessels en route to S. America in an effort to goad Germany into war and Hitler and the NS government showed an iron discipline in not taking the bait. But German-Americans or Italian-Americans living in the U.S. did not retaliate by going on mass shooting sprees or planting bombs.

    You were trying to use WWII to teach some lesson about how the civil liberties of Americans can and should be suspended willy-nilly during time of war

    You’re putting words in my mouth. My point was and is that there is a precedent for such actions in American history and Americans need to decide if they feel it’s in their interests to resort to such measures again in light of what’s happening. As further precedent, Carter barred Iranians from entering America in 1979 and up to 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the country for violations of their visas and other reasons. You seem to be perfectly aligned with the Obama strategy of inaction, deflection and not giving offense to Muslims in the aftermath of terrorist attacks – a now proven losing strategy that hasn’t deterred would be Muslims terrorists.

    …..while I’m trying to teach a lesson about how foolish meddling in the affairs of other nations is what brings about wars and assaults on civil liberties in the first place. The US is not some innocent bystander vis-a-vis the Muslim world.

    Where in my previous posts did I say that we were? But neither should our policy be cause for American Muslims, who theoretically should be assimilated and loyal to this nation and its citizens, to commit acts of murder on American soil against American citizens. Or, for second generation American Muslims to attempt to join ISIS. The fact that some American Muslims are displaying more loyalty to their faith, ISIS, Al Qaeda and the worldwide umma than Americans and American institutions is not a recipe for domestic tranquility. Explain how our foreign policy gives American Muslims the right to commit terrorist acts or join ISIS.

    Your assumptions that all Muslims pose a threat are the equivalent of assumptions that all German-Americans posed a threat during WWI, or Japanese-Americans during WWII.

    For your information, not all German and Italian Americans were interned, only some who were deemed security risks based on the criteria in place at that time. The numbers were much higher for Japanese and as I recall many refused to renounce their Japanese citizenship and/or allegiance to Emperor Hirohito. So it wasn’t done “willy nilly”. And no, not all Muslims pose a threat but most tenets of Islam and sharia law are incompatible and inconsistent with the American Constitution and Western mores which does, in my view, cast aspersions on them.

    You seem to have this romantic notion that Muslims are just libertarians with burqas. For all your chest beating about defending their Constitutional rights I can guarantee that most care about that piece of parchment only insofar as it can help them advance their religious and political agenda. As events in Europe have shown they aren’t very tolerant of speech they disagree with. There will continue to be conflict and misunderstanding as long as they’re here and if we continue admitting large numbers of them owing to the significant religious and cultural differences which libertarians typically ignore and downplay.

    And their presence has unfortunately pitted you against I which is another drawback of multicultural policy and admitting large numbers of third world immigrants who adhere to much different value systems than those of America’s founders.

  21. Rehmat says:
    @KenH

    Why the White Christian world has put duct-tape on its mouth while knowing that Israeli Jews have reduced Palestinian Christian population under their control from 14% to less than 1%?

    “The very name Jesus was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted, let alone taught, even in modern Israeli Jewish schools,” wrote late professor Israel Shahak.

    Bob Simon reports the plight of Christians under Jewish Israeli rule at CBS News 60 MINUTES (watch video below). Israeli ambassador in Washington, Jewish supremacist Michael Oren, tried to bully CBS to kill the 12-minutes segment related to religious bigotry and social discrimination of native Palestinian Christian forcing them to leave Israel.

    On April 1, 1978, former Jewish terrorist Menachem Begin, as prime minister of the Zionist entity, declared preaching Christianity to Jews in Israel a crime punishable with five years’ imprisonment and three years’ imprisonment for any Jew who converted. So much so, even if a Christian give a Gospel leaflet to Israeli Jew, he violate the law.

    The hatred of western Zionist Jews toward Christianity can be judged by Knesset member Binyamin Halevy, who called Christian missionaries “a cancer in the body of the nation“. In 1979, Gen. Yehoshaphat Harkabi admitted that Israel’s Chaief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef had issued a ruling that copies of the New Testament should be burned.

    Dr. Issa Nakhleh, a native Palestinian Christian lawyer and diplomat – in his book ‘Encyclopedia of the Palestinian Problem’ has documented dozens of attacks against Christians, Christian holy places, and Christian rights in Israel.

    After occupying East Jerusalem in June, 1967, Jewish soldiers opened the church of the Holy Sepulchre to Jewish visitors. Indecently dressed Jewish visitors entered the church joking and pouring Talmudic hate and insults against Jesus, his mother Mary and Christians in general next to the tomb of Jesus Christ.

    In 1948, armed Jewish terrorists got vacated Christian villages of Iqrit and Bir’im in the Galilee by killing and expelling the inhabitants.

    Donald Neff, former Time Magazine Bureau Chief in Israel, in his latest article, titled Christian in Israel Suffer Prejudice from Jewish Bigots has detailed the plight of Christian minority in the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’.

    Contrary to that Christian minorities in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt have more rights than Muslim minorities in the western countries cannot even dream.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/05/07/plight-of-christians-in-jewish-occupied-palestine/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS