22 votes

Lindsey Graham Doesn't Think Donating to Ron Paul Should Disqualify You From a Security Job

The key quote-monger in the story is Sen. Lindsey Graham, who firmly believes that "the world is the battlefield" in the great war on terror, and who is willing to go to some lengths to prosecute Snowden and Snowden-alikes. He wondered whether young "libertarian" types could be trusted to serve in classified positions when they proved that they weren't keen on the strategy. I asked him whether Snowden's donations to Ron Paul were the sort of warning signs vetters should have looked out for.
"No, no," said Graham. "I think people that give donations to Ron Paul are exercising their right to participate in the political process. Ron Paul isn't a threat to America. His policies are."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/12/lindsey_graham_...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul isn't a threat?

Ron Paul isn't a threat, but his policies are??? This proves we think differently since Lindsay Graham is a threat BECAUSE OF HIS POLICIES. maddness.....................I AM PARTAKING IN MADDNESS...
Graham=Opprression
Paul=Liberation

Same side of the isle, but seriously opposite endings to that isle.

from LRC

Lindsey Graham In Essence Calls Ron Paul A Threat to America
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on June 13, 2013 10:36 AM

Graham called Ron Paul's policies a threat, but said Ron Paul was not a threat? What sophistry! Paul is the man expounding the policies. He is therefore, delivering the so-called threats, according to Graham. No, Senator, you cannot wiggle out of it. You essentially said that Ron Paul was a threat to America. You need to apologize. In either event, you were wrong. What is a threat?

1. A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not...: "the family has received death threats"
2. A menace of bodily harm, such as may restrain a person's freedom of action

Ron Paul himself has made no such statements. His policies also are not stated intentions of the type defined as threats.

Senator Graham, your remarks are disgraceful. I think you should apologize to Ron Paul.

thats odd

Ron feels the same way about your policies. hmmmmm

Well wake up...

and p*ss, the world's on fire. Why do you think they are really data-mining EVERYTHING YOU DO. SO YOU CAN BE CATEGORIZED!! Sheesh, why is everyone ignoring the REAL reason for all this NSA spying. Sure they can still claim "keep you safe" & national security", but that rhetoric is greatly expanded to "we can do a better job of keeping you safe if we can easily sort out the domestic trouble makers that oh, by the way would include sorting & predicting who whistle-blowers might be that would therefore embarrass us." Government officials being embarrassed is maybe the number one National Security risk of the day.

"The time for talk and half measures is over." General Maximus

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end." General Maximus

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

Same to be Said for Graham

I feel the same about Lindsey Graham. I don't think any donation to Lindsey Graham would disqualify one for a security job.

But who would want such a job, aside from the salary of $200K per year? Who would want to do the job of snooping into people's phone records and emails? I suppose perverts such as Lindsey Graham value such activity.

Lindsey Graham- Proven destroyer of The Constitution

"Lindsey Graham In Essence Calls Ron Paul A Threat to America"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139522.html

Who is the real threat? Lets glance at part of his voting record...

1.Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

2.Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.

3.Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.

4.Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

5.Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

6.Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

7.Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

8.Federalize aviation security (Created TSA)
Graham co-sponsored the Aviation Security Act.

Oh my... Can you say war/fear monger-er? No wonder he is looking for anyone to blame but himself.

Daniel McAdams responds

Lindsey Graham: Ron Paul's Policies 'A Threat to America'

So said the totalitarian kommissar from South Carolina when asked by Slate whether donating to Ron Paul's campaigns should automatically disqualify someone from getting a security clearance.

Here is the exchange:

"He [Senator Graham] wondered whether young "libertarian" types could be trusted to serve in classified positions when they proved that they weren't keen on the strategy. I asked him whether Snowden's donations to Ron Paul were the sort of warning signs vetters should have looked out for.

"'No, no,' said Graham. 'I think people that give donations to Ron Paul are exercising their right to participate in the political process. Ron Paul isn't a threat to America. His policies are.'"

How far a leap is it from the mentality that the philosophy of liberty is a threat to America to calling for the gulag? Those who do not agree with Graham's attraction to perpetual war overseas and a police state at home are a "threat to America." Not opponents in the debate: a threat. When a Senator labels something a threat to America one should not be so naive to believe that he does not have the power to deal with that threat.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139510.html

Irony

The irony is that all the qualities that make a typical Ron Paul supporter are the same qualities that get them through the "trustworthy" vetting process (e.g., determining that they're too principled to sell out their country), in the first place.

Snowden, of course, isn't selling out his country, he's trying to save it.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

n

n

Ms. Graham just proved the reason why this is unconstition.

You are put on a government list if you donate to a campaign. Ms. Graham just proved the evil that can be done with any political information the government gathers. Ms. Graham's message; the regime will punish you if you disagree with them politically.

Well that's good!

Otherwise I would be out of a job!

tasmlab's picture

Think like an employer

If you were an employer, would you want to hire people that are fundamentally opposed to your business? Never!

In fact, I could hear a perfectly reasonable sounding case from the government why no libertarian should ever be hired by the government.

E.g., "He's says he against what we do. How can he ever be an effective employee for us?"

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

this is why government is hired by the people!

well, ultimately by the people, at least.

Ron Paul isn't a threat to

Ron Paul isn't a threat to The State. His policies are."

Fixed

Southern Agrarian

Thanks

Thanks

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective

www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed

I was wondering the same

I was wondering the same thing. Graham may not think so, but I guarantee the NSA is scrubbing for employees who have:

A) donated to Ron Paul
B) read Glenn Greenwald's articles on a regular basis

If they have done either or especially if they have done both, you can safely assume there will be problems for them.