Opinion: Sitting president shouldn't be spied on

The headline for an editorial in my local paper last week read, “If they spied on Trump, they might spy on you.”

If you replace the word “Trump,” with the words, “the president of the United States,” you would have a more accurate picture of where we find ourselves in our country at this time.

Not only did “they” spy on Trump the candidate, “they” spied on Trump the president of the United States. Also, the headline would then read, “If “they” spied on the president of the United States, “they” will absolutely, for sure, spy on you whenever “they” want.”

The same thing can be said for social media platforms. If “they” can ban the president of the United States from social media, what chance does the average citizen have to remain on any platform, once “they” decide you have to go?

All this is happening as we speak. Not only has Donald Trump been banned from social media, content providers on various platforms are regularly being censored for posting such things as published news reports, court transcripts, results of medical experiments and other verbatim articles and stories from major international books, periodicals and newspapers.

I’ve stated many times that one of the hardest things one can do in politics is to remain consistent in your thought process and your arguments. You will notice I did not write that you need to replace “Trump” with another president in that headline, I said replace “Trump” with “the president of the United States.”

“They” should not be able to spy on ANY sitting president of the United States. And if “they” do, justice should be swift, unforgiving and harsh. Whether you like or dislike the current occupant of the White House, should have no bearing on the issue.

If executive orders can be promulgated and rescinded by one sitting president, they should also be able to be promulgated and rescinded by any president.

The bottom line here, according to current reports, is that “they” did spy on a presidential candidate and continued that spying after the candidate was elected.

The “they” in this case was the opposing political party’s governing body and their presidential candidate’s organization in collusion with big tech and big media. What is particularly disheartening is that “they” appear to be getting away with it.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist.

“Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

“Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

— Martin Niemoller, Lutheran pastor

Rube Render is a former Clovis city commissioner and former chair of the Curry County Republican Party. Contact him:

[email protected]