Ron Paul Compares Boston Lock-down To A ‘Military Coup In A Far Off Banana Republic’

Ron Paul - photo by skitzianist

Former congressman, Republican presidential candidate, and steadfast libertarian, Ron Paul wrote today that the Boston “occupation” should “frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.” Obviously as soon as you make such a proclamation you open yourself up to condemnation. People call you out of touch, possibly crazed, or at least a wing-nut. And you can find people on both sides of the political spectrum that will agree. They think Ron Paul is insane, at least on this issue. But is he really?

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” wrote Paul. Is he wrong? Wasn’t the lock-down of Boston and surrounding towns just a tad extreme for what turned out to be an unarmed 19-year-old who decided a boat on land was an excellent location to avoid capture? I know I might sound like a Monday-morning quarterback, but there are people roaming our cities every day with semi-automatic assault rifles and we don’t cower in our homes. We don’t bring our cities to a grinding halt because there is a potential menace to society on the loose.

“Forced lockdown of a city,” he wrote. “Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.” Does this sound like the land of the free, home of the brave? People, wake up! The terrorist attacks on 9/11 didn’t have to “change everything,” if not for our fear. It is our fear that now defines us as a nation. Bombings are not new. America has seen plenty of them in it’s history. But what is new is our collective reaction to these isolated violent acts.

We don’t need to lock-down our cities in response. As it turned out, 19-year old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was only discovered after the “shelter in place” order was lifted. I think that is proof enough of the overreaction. Are we safe because we allow our nation to be turned into militarized zone? We know it’s impossible to stop all violent acts like the Boston Marathon bombing, so what is the price we are willing to pay for the 100% security that we know will never be realized?

photo by skitzianist

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestShare on TumblrDigg thisShare on StumbleUponShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

GovernmentHuman InterestNews

#america#Banana republic#bombing#Boston Marathon#fear#lock-down#militarized#military coup#police state#Ron Paul#shelter in place#terrorism

  • Heh. Lawrence O’Donnell right now is going out of his way to take out Ron Paul’s rhetorical flourish in the piece I referenced. It’s rather amusing that someone known for incredible rhetorical flourish is calling out someone else for doing the same. 🙂 While there are probably a few extreme libertarians that might have taken Ron Paul’s words as fact, I think most of us knew he was exaggerating for effect. You can agree or disagree with the tactic, but I still stand by the message. Sure, residents of Watertown were relieved and overjoyed when the Boston Marathon bomber was finally caught, but I still say the governor and law enforcement overreacted with their shelter in place order for any entire metropolitan area.