Doesn't Ron Paul want to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court regarding abortion?
Q: Specifically, how would you win the war in Iraq militarily?
A:
1) You would empower General Petraeus. You’d pass the supplemental immediately. You’d give him the money.
2) You would encourage the Iraqis to triple the size of their regular army.
3) You would encourage the development of a military tribunal system to lock people up the way Abraham Lincoln would’ve done it.
4) You would establish a nationwide ID card with biometrics so you can actually track everybody in the country.
5) You would make sure that the State Department actually staffed the embassy with people in favor of winning the war and you actually had your fully equipped intelligence and economic development teams.
6) Bring enormous pressure to bear on Iran to cut off everything [assisting with the Iraqi insurgency]. So, we ought to do what it takes to win, not tolerate legislating defeat.
In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)
Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)
Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6
Why have we not been hit since 9/11, which is a good question. My first answer is that I honestly don't know. I would have expected another attack. And I particularly thought -- I was very, very worried, and talked to the Administration, when we had the sniper attacks. The sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening to the average person, because of their randomness. I was amazed that the bad guys didn't figure out how to send 10 or 12 sniper teams.
This is, by the way, one of the great tragedies of the Bush Administration. The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger. And therefore the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say that there was never going to be an attack anyways.
And its almost like they should, every once in a while, have allowed an attack to get through, just to remind us. Think about the psychology. Why do we wrap up so many people? Well, because we wiretapped.
And again, I'm going to be a little controversial. I would divide the FBI into two agencies. I would have an anti-domestic-crime FBI which was very cautious, very respectful of civil liberties. You are innocent until proven guilty.
And I would have a small but VERY aggressive anti-terrorism agency. And I would frankly give them EXTRAORDINARY ability to eavesdrop.
And my first advice to civil libertarians is simple. Don't plot with terrorists.
09/28/2008 - Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.