It is a natural reaction in the face of tragedy. We want something done. We want to feel safe. People, in every walk of life and no matter their political persuasion, want someone to ensure their protection.
So, in the wake of the Orlando Massacre, both presidential candidates have come out to speak to the things they think should be done to provide those safe feelings. But is either one of these solutions conducive to personal liberty?
The Washington Times reports:
“The Obama administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law enforcement. They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety and above all else,” Mr. Trump said. “I refuse to be politically correct.”
Now, to clarify, Trump wishes to surveil Mosques. Now, at first flash, this appears to be the right answer. But, the reason this is not unreasonable is that it is not a church or temple where you worship.
What happens if Christians are considered threats to the government? What if the Jew? Is this not the perfect precedent to watch their preaching and fellowships? But, Clinton’s solution is no better.
The Times continues:
Mrs. Clinton also took a more traditional approach during a campaign stop in Ohio by saying “today is not a day for politics” and “Americans woke up to a nightmare that’s become mind-numbingly familiar.”
The former top diplomat expressed optimism in the nation’s ability to come together in the aftermath to deal with threats and voiced her support for stricter gun control laws and beefing up online surveillance.
Again, is this the answer? Let us be frank: less liberty is never the answer. The answer to ending such acts is to make people accountable to govern themselves. Speeches like these cause me to wonder if these are not false flags to rob us of our freedoms.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com