The Palestinian Authority's recent announcement that it would seek UN recognition as an independent state dominated the news and the political debate in the United States last week, though in truth it should mean very little to us. Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away. Remember, the UN initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan.
Unfortunately the debate is dominated by those who either support the Israeli side in the conflict, or those who support the Palestinian desire for statehood. We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the US side and US interests. I am on that side. I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless "peace process" that goes nowhere. It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or the Israelis, or to "export" democracy to the region but reject it when people vote the "wrong" way.
I have reservations about the Palestinian drive for UN recognition. Personally I wish the United States would de-recognize the United Nations. As most readers already know, in every Congress I introduce legislation to end our membership in that organization. The UN is a threat to our sovereignty-- and as we are the main source of its income, it is a threat to our economic well-being. Increasingly over the past several years, we see the United Nations providing political and legal cover for the military aspirations of interventionists rather than serving as an international forum to preserve peace. Neoconservatives in the US have grown to love the United Nations as they co-opt the organization under the guise of endless "reform." Under the sovereignty-destroying doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect," adopted at the 2005 World Summit, the UN takes it upon itself to intervene in internal conflicts of its member states whenever it believes that human rights are being violated. Thus under "Responsibility to Protect," the UN provides the green light for a kind of global no-knock raid on any sovereign country.
If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations. UN membership and participation is no guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. We see what happens to UN members such as Iraq and Libya when those countries' leaders fall out of favor with US administrations: under US and allied pressure a fig leaf resolution is adopted in the UN to facilitate devastating military intervention. When the UN gave NATO the green light to bomb Libya there was no genocide taking place. It was a purely preventative war. The result? Thousands dead, a destroyed country, and extremely dubious new leaders.
While I do not see UN membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the US should use its position in the UN Security Council to block their membership. I believe in self-determination of peoples and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means. As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate.
The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily. In others words, follow Jefferson's admonition: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Tuesday
Saturday
THIS SITE
THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY RUNNING ON SETTINGS FROM 2006. IT HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED. IN THE BUILD UP TO THE 2008 ELECTION THIS SITE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE POWERS THAT BE. I WAS GIVEN 20 DAYS TO APPEAL, WHICH I DID, AND WAS GRANTED THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE. IN THE MEANTIME, THIS SITE HAS HAD A MULTITUED OF PROBLEMS. IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL AS LONG AS I AM LIVING.
WHAT I THINK......JOHN WALSH
On the question of war and empire, the Republican presidential candidates from Romney to Perry to Bachmann are clones of Obama, just as surely as Obama is a clone of Bush.
There is, however, one exception, Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) the only contender who is a consistent, principled anti-interventionist, opposed to overseas Empire, and a staunch defender of our civil liberties so imperiled since 9/11. These are not newfound positions for Paul, come upon along the campaign trail or via a focus group, but long standing convictions, rooted in libertarian principles and verified by countless votes in the House and speeches on the Floor. You can take them to the proverbial bank. Nothing approaching this phenomenon has been seen in a major party since George McGovern. And even McGovern did not identify, let alone oppose, the U.S. as an Empire.
Paul must be taken seriously; he is not a candidate without real prospects. He virtually tied for first place in the Iowa straw poll, and now runs third behind the chamelonic Romney and the thuggish Perry in national polls. Paul has money from his grass roots "money bomb" fundraising and he has an enthusiastic base, especially among the under 30 set.
The question must be asked, what is to be done by the antiwar Left? This question may be put in a variety of ways. The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire. If the Left acknowledges such a primary obligation, does it not need to support an antiwar candidate like Paul when there is no other around? Look at Libya with thousands killed by NATO bombing and the infrastructure of the African country with the highest Human Development Index being systematically destroyed. It is a war that is undeclared by Congress, therefore in violation of the Constitution and thus an impeachable action. Or Iraq where a million have been killed and four million displaced. Paul takes an unequivocal stance to stop this killing. How can the Left justify withholding its support for him?
Is not the very first obligation of the Left above and beyond all else to stop the killing, done in our name and with our tax dollars? Is any other stance moral? And does not the Paul candidacy need to be seen in this light?
The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the "progressive" Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations’ business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an antiwar message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?
But what of other issues – like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which the libertarian Paul wants to phase out, albeit gradually? Paul the country doc, knows full well how people of little means rely on these programs and he proposes no sudden termination of them. But this author and others on the Left want to extend those programs. How do we square that circle? I contend it is no problem, because Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way about their views. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.
On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called "Independent Payment Advisory Board" and the "Super Congress" of twelve people. In this way Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes. And Obama has already signaled that he is willing to cut these fixed benefit (aka "entitlement") programs, incurring the wrath even of the usually placid AARP. As Alexander Cockburn has remarked, the only way to end Medicare is by pretending to save it – that is, by stealth. That is the way of Obama – but not of Paul.
The slogan "No Justice, No Peace," has often been used by the Left; and for the developing world it is quite appropriate. But in the heart of the Empire it is the other way around: "No Peace, No Justice" – in that order. Until we get the monkey of Empire off our back, neither the desire for lower taxes nor the desire for better social benefits are likely to be realized. The Left cannot afford to ignore this fact or the Ron Paul candidacy. At the least it must be discussed. To simply avoid the question and look the other way as the wars and slaughter continue simply does not qualify as a moral stance.
There is, however, one exception, Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) the only contender who is a consistent, principled anti-interventionist, opposed to overseas Empire, and a staunch defender of our civil liberties so imperiled since 9/11. These are not newfound positions for Paul, come upon along the campaign trail or via a focus group, but long standing convictions, rooted in libertarian principles and verified by countless votes in the House and speeches on the Floor. You can take them to the proverbial bank. Nothing approaching this phenomenon has been seen in a major party since George McGovern. And even McGovern did not identify, let alone oppose, the U.S. as an Empire.
Paul must be taken seriously; he is not a candidate without real prospects. He virtually tied for first place in the Iowa straw poll, and now runs third behind the chamelonic Romney and the thuggish Perry in national polls. Paul has money from his grass roots "money bomb" fundraising and he has an enthusiastic base, especially among the under 30 set.
The question must be asked, what is to be done by the antiwar Left? This question may be put in a variety of ways. The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire. If the Left acknowledges such a primary obligation, does it not need to support an antiwar candidate like Paul when there is no other around? Look at Libya with thousands killed by NATO bombing and the infrastructure of the African country with the highest Human Development Index being systematically destroyed. It is a war that is undeclared by Congress, therefore in violation of the Constitution and thus an impeachable action. Or Iraq where a million have been killed and four million displaced. Paul takes an unequivocal stance to stop this killing. How can the Left justify withholding its support for him?
Is not the very first obligation of the Left above and beyond all else to stop the killing, done in our name and with our tax dollars? Is any other stance moral? And does not the Paul candidacy need to be seen in this light?
The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the "progressive" Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations’ business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an antiwar message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?
But what of other issues – like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which the libertarian Paul wants to phase out, albeit gradually? Paul the country doc, knows full well how people of little means rely on these programs and he proposes no sudden termination of them. But this author and others on the Left want to extend those programs. How do we square that circle? I contend it is no problem, because Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way about their views. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.
On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called "Independent Payment Advisory Board" and the "Super Congress" of twelve people. In this way Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes. And Obama has already signaled that he is willing to cut these fixed benefit (aka "entitlement") programs, incurring the wrath even of the usually placid AARP. As Alexander Cockburn has remarked, the only way to end Medicare is by pretending to save it – that is, by stealth. That is the way of Obama – but not of Paul.
The slogan "No Justice, No Peace," has often been used by the Left; and for the developing world it is quite appropriate. But in the heart of the Empire it is the other way around: "No Peace, No Justice" – in that order. Until we get the monkey of Empire off our back, neither the desire for lower taxes nor the desire for better social benefits are likely to be realized. The Left cannot afford to ignore this fact or the Ron Paul candidacy. At the least it must be discussed. To simply avoid the question and look the other way as the wars and slaughter continue simply does not qualify as a moral stance.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK.......BRIAN ANDERSON
What is peace? To me, peace is the set of beliefs held by voluntaryists. Peace is an open society, sharing ideas and living lives of individually-valued prosperity. Peace is a community built upon the principles of self-ownership, respect of property, and adherence to non-aggression. If that is peace, it may well be said that peace no longer exists.
Today peace is often defined with doublespeak language reflecting the dystopic predictions of a mid-aged George Orwell. It is perpetual war with an unknown enemy. It is "fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here". It is the molestation of innocent women and children by a security force sanctioned by the state and forcibly funded by the very people it abuses.
I have seen no politician speak the truth except Ron Paul. He has been extremely consistent in his view of a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy and its benefits to the United States, which continues to elude the other presidential candidates. I’ve seen many fellow political activists who truthfully promote a peaceful foreign policy yet plan on voting for Obama due to ignorance of the man’s own agenda that is eerily similar to George Bush’s. For everyone who truly believes that a world without war is possible, I hope this quick guide to Ron Paul’s beliefs and actions will help you in deciding who you should vote for in the 2012 presidential election.
1997: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Beginning in April of 1992, 4,000 miles away from the United States, a centuries-old ethnic conflict regained momentum. An overwhelming majority of Croats and Bosnians decided to seek independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but many other people had a different intention: maintaining loyalty to the federation and the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA). In the same month, nearly 100,000 people showed up to a peace rally in Bosnia, a symbolic response to the events currently unfolding in the country. Unfortunately Serb snipers sitting in a nearby hotel had orders to obey. They opened fire on the activists rallying for peace, including a 23-year old innocent Bosnian medical student named Suada Dilberović, one of the first casualties of the conflict. For many people, the murder of Dilberović is considered to be the match that sparked the flames of the Bosnian War.
Even though the YPA decided to leave Bosnia in May of that year, Ratko Mladić, once a high-ranking Serb military leader and now accused war criminal, and other allies remained in their place in order to build up armed forces as part of a separatist movement. These actions led the Croats and Bosnians, fearing the portrayal of weakness, to create their own militaries. Everything escalated from there. And, even though tensions were high for participants, please take note: the US government’s hand in the original break-up of Yugoslavia is still debated, but, when it came to the safety of US citizens, we had no reason to be there.
No realistic threat was made to our country. However, to paraphrase a certain White House Chief of Staff, letting a crisis go to waste is a threat to many of the corporatists currently scavenging through the US Treasury like vultures through a carcass. In the case of the Bosnian War, Ron Paul pointed out how many lobbyists were excited about the possibility of the invasion seeing as they were more likely to secure construction funding.
[A more recent example of government-business copulation is seen in the US government’s partnership with Caterpillar, a company known for using its D9 armored bulldozers on behalf of the Israeli Defense Forces’ demolition efforts in Palestine. Coincidentally, Caterpillar’s greatest lobbying efforts within the past decade – nearly $3 million spent in 2007 alone – immediately preceded a notable year-long series of battles between Israelis and Palestinians. These things do happen.]
No matter how often the economically-illiterate New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tries to convince everyone that destruction (or at least fear of destruction) can lead to healthy growth in the economy, it only fills the wallets of the rich at the expense of both (1) taxpayers and (2) victims of the destruction whose houses now need re-building. Most military interventions survive the public conscience under the veil of foreign aid, but they usually have nothing to do with aiding anyone of importance. In Ron Paul’s own words, "Why would an Air Force plane, with a dozen leading industrialists, be flying into a war-torn region like Bosnia, along with the Secretary of Commerce? I doubt they were on a humanitarian mission to feed the poor and house the homeless."
The congressman pointed out in 1997 – a year that marked a special visit to the US by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegović – that the troops, who were supposed to have left Bosnia nine months earlier, were still there, and it didn’t look like they were headed towards their new exit goal of July 1998 either. In fact, two predictable military actions succeeded the US-led lift and strike policy during the 1995 bombing campaign when UN Resolution 836 opening unfounded "safe areas" to be guarded with force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: (1) the Dayton Agreement sent for 16,500 US troops as part of the one-year Implementation Force, (2) and UN Resolution 1088 then sent about 3,900 US troops as part of the two-operation Stabilization Force, keeping US troops in Bosnia until December 2nd, 2004. Suffice it to say the congressman was correct is his predictions.
1998-1999: Iraq, part I
As Clinton rested his heavy finger on the violence button, it became even more apparent that the United States military was destined to bomb Iraq, not to protect the United States but to enforce various unrelated UN resolutions. When it came out that Russia had sold weapon technology to Iraq, Ron Paul stated the obvious, a clear fact already known to Congress: China had been doing the exact same thing for many years. Yet there was no talk about bombing either China or Russia. In fact, the US government had long given foreign aid to these two countries, meaning that Iraq’s weapon technology – yes, the technology Clinton wanted to destroy – was most likely funded by the US government itself. Unfortunately the congressman’s message remained unheard.
Only ten months later the US began its well-known bombing campaign in the Persian Gulf, an action Saddam Hussein knew would stir up anti-American sentiment in his own country, once again shifting the blame from his own dictatorial ways to the chaos enflamed by UN presence. As many prominent people, including Kuwaiti legislator Hassan Jawhar, explained, the US intervening in the domestic affairs of Iraq did nothing but strengthen the current Iraqi regime. Yet Clinton’s administration continued risking even more US soldiers’ lives in order to fund an operation which conclusively tightened Hussein’s grasp on his own presidency.
And there Ron Paul stood the entire time, one of only ten dissenting Republican voices to H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.
The civilian body count stacked up, and Ron Paul made the statement few people realized: "We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer than the occupation of Japan after World War II." Sometimes all it takes is a bit of historical comparison. Here we were occupying a country – that hadn’t aggressed against the US – for a longer time than we occupied one of the Axis powers that (1) militarily struck the US in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and (2) was actually in an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Did Iraq somehow pose more of a threat than an empire on which we felt the need to drop two nuclear bombs and kill upwards of 240,000 people during World War II (our last formal declaration of war), especially given the technological advancements in surveillance that have been created since the 1940s? No, I don’t think so. This military action undertaken by President Clinton is only one more example of the many powers that have been passively given to presidents since the ratification of the US Constitution, an excess that has turned soldiers from heroes to pawns in the imperial game of policing the world.
2000: Colombia
The United States government has been involved in Colombia’s civil war since its culmination in the 1960s, but it wasn’t until the late 1990s and early 2000s with the proposition of Plan Colombia that the extent of US involvement became readily apparent in our own country. The reason for the intervention in the first place consisted of two main goals: (1) to suppress the left-wing insurgents, and (2) to eliminate drug trafficking – a little mixture I deem "Communist Cocaine". As Ron Paul spoke about the dozen South American leaders’ rejections of US-backed military action in the area and the mission’s irrelevance to our own national security, Clinton called for a two-year emergency aid package worth $1.3 billion to be sent to Colombia, turning the country into the world’s third-largest recipient of US foreign aid, right behind Israel and Egypt.
As usual the casus belli changed dramatically from the original statement of Plan Columbia, one calling for assistance in a developmental peacemaking process, to a politically-incited counternarcotics invasion – in 2000, $765 million was sent to Colombia’s military and police force alone, an astounding increase of over $450 million from the previous year. Meanwhile, as billions in taxpayer money were wasted, the guerrilla groups – FARC, ACCU, and the rest – were profiting immensely from selling the exact substances that the US government was trying to keep illegal. As Noam Chomsky noted in Rogue States: "The leader of the paramilitaries [Carlos Castaño] acknowledged last week in a television interview that the drug trade provided 70 percent of the group's funding." Without enforcement of these prohibitions, the insurgents wouldn't even have been able to continue their left-wing rebellions unless somehow funded by their own legal, productive means of work. We’ve seen time and time again that there’s no point in fighting communism in foreign lands; the economic ideology sinks itself into scarcity in its rejection of the price system, and its communities never permanently exist without, in the words of Ludwig von Mises, "this most precious intellectual tool of acting." As the US government fuels its jets and packs its budgets with taxpayer money to be sent to Colombia to combat drugs, the left-wing insurgents it pretends to despise will fill their own wallets with the side-effects of the original intent. Few policymakers pointed out the obvious solution, but Ron Paul did – end the war on drugs, and we’ll end the insurgents.
The congressman believes in peaceful principles for handling drug abuse in the United States, too. When people are participating in consensual, victimless activities, there is no point in using violence to cease the activities. Even ignoring the clearly detrimental effects of substance prohibition on the economy, the civil liberties of innocent people are being stomped on by the steel-toe boot of government. One quick example would be the 20-year old asthma patient who, after being pulled over in Texas with 14 grams of marijuana obtained in California at the recommendation of a physician, faced a life sentence. Other endless examples, in addition to the increasing occurrence of no-knock raids, exemplify a nation no longer governed by reason and ethics but ruled only by an emotion-based stream of rhetoric touted by career politicians for the purpose of gaining votes.
Every government prohibition – whether of drugs or guns or alcohol – rests on the false assumption that the State is effective in pursuing its goal. A vast amount of statistics has shown that there is no practical application of the viewpoint that drug abuse is an inherently aggressive activity. Decriminalization in Portugal led to an extremely low percentage of cannabis and cocaine prevalence in the country’s general population in comparison to other members of the European Union (2001-2005), some of whose rates are double and triple that of Portugal; these facts are supplemented by a decrease in secondary effects of in drug addicts (i.e. HIV/AIDS). As Glenn Greenwald wrote, "By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment." In that way, decriminalization is not a strategy for giving up on drug abuse; it’s a practical approach for encouraging addicts to get treatment for an increasing problem in the community. This is a much different story than the tale of 20th century America. Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel found that the later years of the Prohibition Era were met with 60-70 percent increased alcohol consumption, which, in addition to the rampant violence created by the black market’s control over alcohol purchases, ended in events like the Saint Valentine’s Day massacre. These terrible results explain the theory that most people already realize: there is no reason for the United States to have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.
Once again, Ron Paul calls for an end to the unconstitutional war on drugs – an idea that can be seen in current legislation proposed by Paul and fellow congressman Barney Frank – and a presidential pardoning of nonviolent drug offenders.
2001-continued: The Middle East
Only three days after the tragic attacks on the morning of 9/11, Ron Paul stood tall, flags still at half-mast, to make a speech supporting congressional authorization of the use of force against the enemies who brought our nation to a standstill. A recollection of the week following the events brings to memory the sound of an outraged public whose only goal seemed to be to bring down the terrorists, no matter the cost. In that tailspin, it was Congressman Paul who made it his duty to place a grain of salt onto our anger-fueled desire for immediate revenge.
He stated, "[F]or us to pursue a war against our enemies, it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight, or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy, there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war, I’m certain, will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible." It’s a chilling prophesy, and a nearly perfect glimpse into what the future held for our country.
The reason "why we were attacked" to which the congressman is referring is the concept of blowback, a term used to describe the unintended consequences of military actions taken – secretly and openly – by the US government in foreign countries. Three examples include the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected Prime Minister, the US government’s covert assistance to the Iraqi Army in the 1980s, and an astounding over-extension of US military presence throughout the world (i.e. over 600,000 buildings owned, personnel in over 150 countries). The notion that the US government causes hatred and backlash through its own "rational" actions is taboo to most people, one that the general population considers to be a radical idea; quite the contrary, though – the idea is a healthy plant sprung up from the seed of common sense. It is an acknowledgement of prominent members from both belligerents in the conflict.
The first is Michael Scheuer, an intelligence officer who worked as Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station. He explained, "This war is dangerous to America because it's based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic world – because ‘we’re over there.’" The statement is much-needed, a nice refreshment from the ramblings of mass media spokespeople; what it isn’t, however, is a statement of opinion – the words were given legitimacy by the enemy himself, Osama bin Laden, who recommended in a 2007 speech that people read Scheuer’s book as a way of understanding the workings of Islamic militants. In fact, it was only three years earlier when bin Laden openly laid out the intentions of al-Qaeda in a speech directed to the American people: "[W]e, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. […] So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." As you can see, aside from these "revenge attacks", al-Qaeda has no intention to actively attack the United States. The organization’s only tactic is to bait our government into fighting endless wars on behalf of an international foreign policy stance set up by the United Nations.
With everything said, it’s important to get two things clear: (1) al-Qaeda, despite the US military’s actions abroad, is not in any way the "good guy", and (2) Ron Paul is neither a pacifist nor an isolationist, two terms frequently misconstrued by his detractors.
Al-Qaeda may believe that its sponsored terrorist attacks are legitimate forms of self-defense to be praised by advocates of justice, but the message is completely erased when its suicide bombers strap explosives to their own bodies and ignite them in the middle of densely-populated cities. Everything is erased when they fly jets into the two tallest buildings in the United States and kill over 2,700 innocent people who had no say in their own government’s actions when it came to war. Nonetheless, US intervention affects innocent bystanders living in the countries we invade. Their lives are filled with bombs being dropped from US military aircrafts and crop fields being set on fire with US-made chemicals. It’s chaotic to them, and the anti-American sentiment grows within their minds little by little until they actually feel empathy with al-Qaeda. The military intervention does nothing but give these terrorists a platform from which to shout their fundamental misinterpretations of a peaceful religion.
As for pacification – pacifists are generally opposed to all kinds of violence, even acts of self-defense but especially initiations of physical force. Congressman Paul is opposed to the initiation of violence, but he realizes that, when an enemy of the US attacks innocent Americans for reasons that the victims are unable to change, it’s important to strike back in retribution. When it comes to Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy, he promotes strong military defense, voting in support of the authorization for use of military force against the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks and then clarifying that "[w]e should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy."
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the current imperialistic military now employed by the US government, and their statements about the side effects of aggressive foreign policies were stated with emphasis in their time.
George Washington, in his farewell address, proclaimed, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson echoed the sentiment a few years later in his first inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." It’s evident that the Founding Fathers, much like Ron Paul, believe in the efficiency of the free market and open commerce with foreign nations; they decry the neoconservatives’ own isolationist wishes – mainly the enactment of strict trading tariffs, the transfer of taxpayer money to US corporations, and the enforcement of legislation banning cultural differences.
Meanwhile the neoconservatives’ foreign policy is the one currently being implemented with brute force, and we can see how that’s turning out. The attacks on September 11th continue to be used as a cover for a war against nobody in general.
First the US government invaded an unrelated Iraq in 2003 to the dismay of Ron Paul, found zero weapons of mass destruction, and still hasn’t left for one reason or another. Not only this, but the invasion created terrorists; as Robert Pape explains in Dying to Win, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled."
Then the US government set up a puppet regime in Afghanistan under the lead of Hamid Karzai, enforced drug prohibition as terrorists freely floated around due to their wallets being filled with money made from selling opium – a result of the substance’s senseless illegality – and now the once-"loyal" puppet is talking about joining the Taliban unless the UN stops barking orders.
And finally, an entire decade after the attacks on September 11th, we manage to find the one person we went after in the first place, Osama bin Laden... in Pakistan. Ron Paul said this in 2003. Let’s take his exact words into account: "You know, there's a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan's on our side, Afghanistan is half and half. But right on that border is Osama bin Laden most likely. And he’s probably in Pakistan."
We didn’t need to lose thousands of American soldiers’ lives. We didn’t need to spend trillions of dollars. All we needed to do was listen to Ron Paul.
2010: WikiLeaks
On February 18, 2010, the world got its first taste of a new power, so to speak, not one based in the physical world but one that transcended theoretical transparence into the grid of the internet: WikiLeaks. The phrase began, "The things you say on the internet will stay there forever." The new phrase is a little different: "The classified diplomatic cables that leak onto the internet will get published in international newspapers through Julian Assange’s whistleblower organization and will remain on mirror websites forever."
When the first cable was released in relation to Iceland’s failing economy, it failed to garner a lot of media attention. However, the July and October releases of the Afghan War documents and the Iraq War documents, respectively, proved otherwise. The former was a grueling portrayal of the "underground aspects" of war, chiefly the employment of child prostitutes by Department of Defense contractors and the untold deaths of innocent civilians due to military mishaps; the latter is the largest intelligence leak in history, providing a further glimpse into the purposeful acts of violence in wartime such as executions by Iraqi soldiers and the murder of two Reuters employees due to an airstrike steered by US Apache helicopters.
The final leak that broke the US government’s back occurred in November 2010 when 220 redacted cables were published by five main newspapers, eventually leading to the September 2011 release of all 251,287 unredacted cables. These cables revealed once-secret information about the international governmental sphere [and its well-connected, legislation-supported corporations]. To list only three of these extremely confusing details: (1) an attempt by Monsanto to retaliate against EU opposition to genetically-modified crops, (2) a strangely-affectionate analysis of the Prime Minister of Albania who seems almost too pleased to kiss the US government’s feet, and (3) a refusal by the Vatican to cooperate in the inquiry into sexual abuse, a nearly perfect reminiscence of a conflict in Sin City.
I compare the last detail to a comic book series for a specific reason. The situations are so unbelievable that they almost seem to be the plots of fictional works by deluded authors. You’d think that in a logical and ethical world we’d see unanimous approval for such truths being brought out into the open for all to see; instead it’s been an uphill battle for supporters of the action that exposed corruption in government. The beginning seemed like the flash of an intellectual revolution off the storyboards of V for Vendetta, only to end in the sad fashion of a mostly-apathetic youth being dragged down by detached patriots who will continue to support the government’s actions under any evident circumstance.
In the words of Julian Assange, "If journalism is good, it is controversial by its nature. It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abuses, and, when powerful abuses are on taken on, there is always a back-reaction. We see that controversy, and we believe that it's a good thing to engage in. In this case, they've all showed the true nature of this war."
When it came to the main subject of WikiLeaks’ releases, the US government, none were too happy about it. Let’s face it – government is never happy when intelligence information is leaked. You can see this predictable phenomenon at countless times in history, one recent example being the March 2010 subpoenaing of a New York Times writer in regards to a source of his book about CIA intelligence efforts to disrupt Iranian research into nuclear weapons.
The legal attempts to cease the existence of WikiLeaks were much more direct and threatening. First Representative Peter King ludicrously asserted that WikiLeaks, along with its founder Julian Assange, should be declared a foreign terrorist organization. Then Senator Joe Lieberman launched a campaign against companies that gave WikiLeaks access to their internet servers. Which purpose did all of these objections serve? Were they simply revenge against the exposition of secret actions the US government shouldn’t have even been taking? It makes you wonder why certain people condemn the exposure of these actions while maintaining indifference towards the actions themselves.
It should come as no surprise by now that Ron Paul stood up proudly for the truth. Perhaps he put it in the most eloquent manner: "In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. [...] The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable."
The ethical stance of the leaks will be disputed for years, if not decades, to come. Yet it still leaves the lurking question – if WikiLeaks can get our intelligence information, who else can get the information, and how easily? It would at least make a little bit of sense if the information were to have been somehow sneaked out of headquarters through one of the estimated 854,000 people who hold top-secret security clearances, but it wasn’t even one of them. The access to the intelligence information was gained by an Army Private, a soldier of the lowest military rank. We’re lucky that no classified "top secret" information was leaked to our enemies, at least that we know of. As Ron Paul asked, "Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?" I certainly feel safe with the realization that we’re capable of gaining this much intelligence in the first place, but it’s extremely worrisome that the information is so mishandled by the bureaucracy involved in our ever-growing empire.
Let us embrace an open and well-educated country. There is no reason for our government to hold these secrets from us when we’re paying for the inception of such inadequacies. To once again refer to a comic book – we now know that with great power comes great responsibility. It’s beginning to become more and more obvious each year that the power held by the US government is turning into an irresponsible and dangerous catastrophe.
2011: Iran
It’s difficult to pick out one single origin of the US government’s conflicts with Iran. Most people point to the 1953 CIA-led coup d'état and subsequent installation of the Shah as the tipping point, but it’s a long series of events leading up to the strained relations we now experience. Nonetheless, this year is the best time to discuss the topic because it will undoubtedly be brought up many times by warmongering politicians as a tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy. Therefore we need to ask two questions: (1) why does Iran feel contempt towards the United States, and (2) is Iran really a threat to our country?
To answer the first question, it’s important to review the previously-mentioned "long series of events" leading to the supposed contempt. Then, once you observe the current location of US military bases surrounding Iran, you begin to notice that the attitude of Iran doesn’t seem so much about contempt as it does about fear. With the strongest military in the entire world encircling their country, the intimidation almost seems to be a move against their sovereignty.
The main political decisions have reflected similar preferences for imposing "indirectly-violent" sanctions in order to counter Iran’s economic growth. Placing sanctions on a country is a government’s interesting way of aggressing against the country without actually bombing it.
The US government set up sanctions against Bank Saderat Iran in 2006 for allegedly transferring money to terrorist organizations. One year later the state of Florida enacted a boycott of all companies investing in Iran or Sudan even if evidence lacked to prove deals with terrorist organizations, and this was followed by an expanded list of Iranian financial institutions that were to be cut off from the US financial system in general. Various other UN sanctions and Treasury orders have occurred throughout the rest of the decade in order to cease Iranian business, including last year’s legislation signed by Obama which bans random Iranian exports to the US like pistachios and carpets. As explained in Obama’s remarks before signing the recent legislation, the purpose of strict sanctions is to get a rise out of the unhappy Iranian citizens when their government fails to meet their needs due to international disobedience. However, this never happens; sanctions, by canceling out every alternative option for supply, create an even stronger dependence on the dictator, leading to starving masses and an uninformed population.
[For ease in discussing the effects of sanctions, we’ll ignore the obvious fraud in the government handing out 10,000 special business licenses to well-connected corporatists who can now make deals in Iran without facing the consequence of competition.]
Take, for instance, the sanctions placed against Iraq in 1990 – they ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And after all these deaths, the US government still felt it necessary to invade Iraq in 2003. It’s not crazy to believe that the government has absolutely no limit in making foreign policy decisions despite the price of human life, especially after Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the UN at the time, stated in a 1996 interview with 60 Minutes that the children’s deaths were worth it.
Let’s pretend for a second that the number of Iranian deaths that would occur due to US-imposed sanctions would be 700,000. Many people will come back with the argument that, if the sanctions weren’t imposed, Iran would collect and detonate a nuclear missile that could end up killing 700,000 Americans. In their case, you are deciding between the same number of deaths in two different countries, and, living in United States, I feel as if I can speak on behalf of most other Americans in saying that I would not like to die. It is a valid point assuming that you can tell the future. Alas, we cannot, but politicians are intent on making the American public feel as if they can.
Ron Paul mentioned this technique in a 2010 speech: "We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These "drones" ended up being pure propaganda – the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. […] We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud."
This is when the second question comes into play: is Iran really a threat to our country? Taking the psychological approach may very well lead us to believe that sanctions on Iran may indeed increase the government’s attachment to nuclear power in defense, a concept expanded upon by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán. It really comes down to two simple facts: (1) the US nuclear force is outstandingly large, and (2) if Iran – or anyone else – were to shoot nuclear missiles at another country, the international community would immediately retaliate and wipe the country off of the entire planet within seconds of identifying the perpetrator for fear of a second attack. No one likes unpredictability and no one likes crazy people. This factor, in addition to its highly-nuclear Russian neighbors owning an even stronger nuclear force than the US, should truthfully be enough to convince most people that Iran is not a threat. We don’t spend our days worrying about the Russians and the Chinese, and I see no reason to worry about the Iranians either. Somewhere around the development of our 1,700th operational strategic nuclear warhead I stopped feeling threatened by Iran.
The next argument made is that – although the Revolutionary Guards have only targeted US military bases in the Middle East and not our actual country itself – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel all of the time, and we need to protect Israel’s interests.
First, we do not live in Israel. This is seemingly unknown to most US politicians who don’t seem to understand the location of the US. It explains why Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid to countries in the Middle East and, you know, everywhere else we don’t live.
Second, Ahmadinejad’s speeches are notorious for being mistranslated and taken out of context in the process. This bandwagon fetish of repeating Ahmadinejad’s "Israel needs to be wiped off the map" statement needs to be seriously reexamined by our leadership and the population in general. If Israel feels so much fear that it will be attacked by Iran, the country can make its own decisions about what to do without interference from the US and its international allies at the UN. After all, Israel is estimated to have around 300 nuclear weapons. I don’t see how the rest of our collection will do their country any good.
We’ll end in the words of Ron Paul: "The Iranians are a third-world nation. They don’t have an army or a navy of any sort. They don’t have inter-continental ballistic missiles. [A] country that has all that oil in their country – and they can’t even produce enough gasoline and they have to depend on importing gasoline – and we’re supposed to build up war fever and go to war over this? I don’t think for a minute that, if they got those weapons, they would dare think about attacking Israel. Israel would take care of them, especially if they had no restraints from us. They would take care of them in minutes. It’s not going to happen. It’s all war propaganda."
2012: The Future of the United States
We can’t allow ourselves to be pulled into perpetual warfare with indefinite enemies. It is a crucial time in our nation’s history, and we can only go one of two ways. We have 10-year olds in the United States who know nothing but wartime. They do not understand peace. It’s difficult to live with that idea in my mind. The idea that we can continue these wars while still being wealthy and free is a hollow utopia.
It’s absolutely madness. And the dissenters are the ones who are deemed anti-patriotic? I love my country. I don’t apologize for not letting it be whipped into submission at the hands of buffoons. They will verbally scold Ron Paul for being pro-peace because rhetoric is the last tool of men with no reason. They aren’t putting on the uniforms, firing the guns, and risking their lives.
Ron Paul supports the troops. He is the only candidate treating the troops as human beings. He is the only candidate treating their lives as sacred. Perhaps that’s why he has received higher military donations than not only the current commander-in-chief but the rest of the other GOP candidates combined – over $36,000 through the end of August of this year. To give you a little comparison in terms of the other candidates, Ron Paul’s closest GOP competitor was Herman Cain, who only received slightly more than $6,000.
Our soldiers are sending a very clear sign to the voters that they want to come home and be led by a man with real military intuition and a sound stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul will promote the same belief every time, just like he answered a veteran of the Iraq War who asked about the congressman’s timetable to bring the troops home: "As soon as the ships can pick you up."
They continue wars without voting. They continue bombing campaigns without authorization. They continue taxation without representation. We have seen these actions in the annals of history, and we know what must be done. We need someone to do it. Ron Paul is that person. Let it not be said that we did nothing.
It does not have to be this way.
Today peace is often defined with doublespeak language reflecting the dystopic predictions of a mid-aged George Orwell. It is perpetual war with an unknown enemy. It is "fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here". It is the molestation of innocent women and children by a security force sanctioned by the state and forcibly funded by the very people it abuses.
I have seen no politician speak the truth except Ron Paul. He has been extremely consistent in his view of a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy and its benefits to the United States, which continues to elude the other presidential candidates. I’ve seen many fellow political activists who truthfully promote a peaceful foreign policy yet plan on voting for Obama due to ignorance of the man’s own agenda that is eerily similar to George Bush’s. For everyone who truly believes that a world without war is possible, I hope this quick guide to Ron Paul’s beliefs and actions will help you in deciding who you should vote for in the 2012 presidential election.
1997: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Beginning in April of 1992, 4,000 miles away from the United States, a centuries-old ethnic conflict regained momentum. An overwhelming majority of Croats and Bosnians decided to seek independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but many other people had a different intention: maintaining loyalty to the federation and the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA). In the same month, nearly 100,000 people showed up to a peace rally in Bosnia, a symbolic response to the events currently unfolding in the country. Unfortunately Serb snipers sitting in a nearby hotel had orders to obey. They opened fire on the activists rallying for peace, including a 23-year old innocent Bosnian medical student named Suada Dilberović, one of the first casualties of the conflict. For many people, the murder of Dilberović is considered to be the match that sparked the flames of the Bosnian War.
Even though the YPA decided to leave Bosnia in May of that year, Ratko Mladić, once a high-ranking Serb military leader and now accused war criminal, and other allies remained in their place in order to build up armed forces as part of a separatist movement. These actions led the Croats and Bosnians, fearing the portrayal of weakness, to create their own militaries. Everything escalated from there. And, even though tensions were high for participants, please take note: the US government’s hand in the original break-up of Yugoslavia is still debated, but, when it came to the safety of US citizens, we had no reason to be there.
No realistic threat was made to our country. However, to paraphrase a certain White House Chief of Staff, letting a crisis go to waste is a threat to many of the corporatists currently scavenging through the US Treasury like vultures through a carcass. In the case of the Bosnian War, Ron Paul pointed out how many lobbyists were excited about the possibility of the invasion seeing as they were more likely to secure construction funding.
[A more recent example of government-business copulation is seen in the US government’s partnership with Caterpillar, a company known for using its D9 armored bulldozers on behalf of the Israeli Defense Forces’ demolition efforts in Palestine. Coincidentally, Caterpillar’s greatest lobbying efforts within the past decade – nearly $3 million spent in 2007 alone – immediately preceded a notable year-long series of battles between Israelis and Palestinians. These things do happen.]
No matter how often the economically-illiterate New York Times columnist Paul Krugman tries to convince everyone that destruction (or at least fear of destruction) can lead to healthy growth in the economy, it only fills the wallets of the rich at the expense of both (1) taxpayers and (2) victims of the destruction whose houses now need re-building. Most military interventions survive the public conscience under the veil of foreign aid, but they usually have nothing to do with aiding anyone of importance. In Ron Paul’s own words, "Why would an Air Force plane, with a dozen leading industrialists, be flying into a war-torn region like Bosnia, along with the Secretary of Commerce? I doubt they were on a humanitarian mission to feed the poor and house the homeless."
The congressman pointed out in 1997 – a year that marked a special visit to the US by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegović – that the troops, who were supposed to have left Bosnia nine months earlier, were still there, and it didn’t look like they were headed towards their new exit goal of July 1998 either. In fact, two predictable military actions succeeded the US-led lift and strike policy during the 1995 bombing campaign when UN Resolution 836 opening unfounded "safe areas" to be guarded with force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: (1) the Dayton Agreement sent for 16,500 US troops as part of the one-year Implementation Force, (2) and UN Resolution 1088 then sent about 3,900 US troops as part of the two-operation Stabilization Force, keeping US troops in Bosnia until December 2nd, 2004. Suffice it to say the congressman was correct is his predictions.
1998-1999: Iraq, part I
As Clinton rested his heavy finger on the violence button, it became even more apparent that the United States military was destined to bomb Iraq, not to protect the United States but to enforce various unrelated UN resolutions. When it came out that Russia had sold weapon technology to Iraq, Ron Paul stated the obvious, a clear fact already known to Congress: China had been doing the exact same thing for many years. Yet there was no talk about bombing either China or Russia. In fact, the US government had long given foreign aid to these two countries, meaning that Iraq’s weapon technology – yes, the technology Clinton wanted to destroy – was most likely funded by the US government itself. Unfortunately the congressman’s message remained unheard.
Only ten months later the US began its well-known bombing campaign in the Persian Gulf, an action Saddam Hussein knew would stir up anti-American sentiment in his own country, once again shifting the blame from his own dictatorial ways to the chaos enflamed by UN presence. As many prominent people, including Kuwaiti legislator Hassan Jawhar, explained, the US intervening in the domestic affairs of Iraq did nothing but strengthen the current Iraqi regime. Yet Clinton’s administration continued risking even more US soldiers’ lives in order to fund an operation which conclusively tightened Hussein’s grasp on his own presidency.
And there Ron Paul stood the entire time, one of only ten dissenting Republican voices to H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.
The civilian body count stacked up, and Ron Paul made the statement few people realized: "We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer than the occupation of Japan after World War II." Sometimes all it takes is a bit of historical comparison. Here we were occupying a country – that hadn’t aggressed against the US – for a longer time than we occupied one of the Axis powers that (1) militarily struck the US in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and (2) was actually in an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Did Iraq somehow pose more of a threat than an empire on which we felt the need to drop two nuclear bombs and kill upwards of 240,000 people during World War II (our last formal declaration of war), especially given the technological advancements in surveillance that have been created since the 1940s? No, I don’t think so. This military action undertaken by President Clinton is only one more example of the many powers that have been passively given to presidents since the ratification of the US Constitution, an excess that has turned soldiers from heroes to pawns in the imperial game of policing the world.
2000: Colombia
The United States government has been involved in Colombia’s civil war since its culmination in the 1960s, but it wasn’t until the late 1990s and early 2000s with the proposition of Plan Colombia that the extent of US involvement became readily apparent in our own country. The reason for the intervention in the first place consisted of two main goals: (1) to suppress the left-wing insurgents, and (2) to eliminate drug trafficking – a little mixture I deem "Communist Cocaine". As Ron Paul spoke about the dozen South American leaders’ rejections of US-backed military action in the area and the mission’s irrelevance to our own national security, Clinton called for a two-year emergency aid package worth $1.3 billion to be sent to Colombia, turning the country into the world’s third-largest recipient of US foreign aid, right behind Israel and Egypt.
As usual the casus belli changed dramatically from the original statement of Plan Columbia, one calling for assistance in a developmental peacemaking process, to a politically-incited counternarcotics invasion – in 2000, $765 million was sent to Colombia’s military and police force alone, an astounding increase of over $450 million from the previous year. Meanwhile, as billions in taxpayer money were wasted, the guerrilla groups – FARC, ACCU, and the rest – were profiting immensely from selling the exact substances that the US government was trying to keep illegal. As Noam Chomsky noted in Rogue States: "The leader of the paramilitaries [Carlos Castaño] acknowledged last week in a television interview that the drug trade provided 70 percent of the group's funding." Without enforcement of these prohibitions, the insurgents wouldn't even have been able to continue their left-wing rebellions unless somehow funded by their own legal, productive means of work. We’ve seen time and time again that there’s no point in fighting communism in foreign lands; the economic ideology sinks itself into scarcity in its rejection of the price system, and its communities never permanently exist without, in the words of Ludwig von Mises, "this most precious intellectual tool of acting." As the US government fuels its jets and packs its budgets with taxpayer money to be sent to Colombia to combat drugs, the left-wing insurgents it pretends to despise will fill their own wallets with the side-effects of the original intent. Few policymakers pointed out the obvious solution, but Ron Paul did – end the war on drugs, and we’ll end the insurgents.
The congressman believes in peaceful principles for handling drug abuse in the United States, too. When people are participating in consensual, victimless activities, there is no point in using violence to cease the activities. Even ignoring the clearly detrimental effects of substance prohibition on the economy, the civil liberties of innocent people are being stomped on by the steel-toe boot of government. One quick example would be the 20-year old asthma patient who, after being pulled over in Texas with 14 grams of marijuana obtained in California at the recommendation of a physician, faced a life sentence. Other endless examples, in addition to the increasing occurrence of no-knock raids, exemplify a nation no longer governed by reason and ethics but ruled only by an emotion-based stream of rhetoric touted by career politicians for the purpose of gaining votes.
Every government prohibition – whether of drugs or guns or alcohol – rests on the false assumption that the State is effective in pursuing its goal. A vast amount of statistics has shown that there is no practical application of the viewpoint that drug abuse is an inherently aggressive activity. Decriminalization in Portugal led to an extremely low percentage of cannabis and cocaine prevalence in the country’s general population in comparison to other members of the European Union (2001-2005), some of whose rates are double and triple that of Portugal; these facts are supplemented by a decrease in secondary effects of in drug addicts (i.e. HIV/AIDS). As Glenn Greenwald wrote, "By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment." In that way, decriminalization is not a strategy for giving up on drug abuse; it’s a practical approach for encouraging addicts to get treatment for an increasing problem in the community. This is a much different story than the tale of 20th century America. Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel found that the later years of the Prohibition Era were met with 60-70 percent increased alcohol consumption, which, in addition to the rampant violence created by the black market’s control over alcohol purchases, ended in events like the Saint Valentine’s Day massacre. These terrible results explain the theory that most people already realize: there is no reason for the United States to have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.
Once again, Ron Paul calls for an end to the unconstitutional war on drugs – an idea that can be seen in current legislation proposed by Paul and fellow congressman Barney Frank – and a presidential pardoning of nonviolent drug offenders.
2001-continued: The Middle East
Only three days after the tragic attacks on the morning of 9/11, Ron Paul stood tall, flags still at half-mast, to make a speech supporting congressional authorization of the use of force against the enemies who brought our nation to a standstill. A recollection of the week following the events brings to memory the sound of an outraged public whose only goal seemed to be to bring down the terrorists, no matter the cost. In that tailspin, it was Congressman Paul who made it his duty to place a grain of salt onto our anger-fueled desire for immediate revenge.
He stated, "[F]or us to pursue a war against our enemies, it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight, or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy, there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war, I’m certain, will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible." It’s a chilling prophesy, and a nearly perfect glimpse into what the future held for our country.
The reason "why we were attacked" to which the congressman is referring is the concept of blowback, a term used to describe the unintended consequences of military actions taken – secretly and openly – by the US government in foreign countries. Three examples include the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected Prime Minister, the US government’s covert assistance to the Iraqi Army in the 1980s, and an astounding over-extension of US military presence throughout the world (i.e. over 600,000 buildings owned, personnel in over 150 countries). The notion that the US government causes hatred and backlash through its own "rational" actions is taboo to most people, one that the general population considers to be a radical idea; quite the contrary, though – the idea is a healthy plant sprung up from the seed of common sense. It is an acknowledgement of prominent members from both belligerents in the conflict.
The first is Michael Scheuer, an intelligence officer who worked as Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station. He explained, "This war is dangerous to America because it's based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic world – because ‘we’re over there.’" The statement is much-needed, a nice refreshment from the ramblings of mass media spokespeople; what it isn’t, however, is a statement of opinion – the words were given legitimacy by the enemy himself, Osama bin Laden, who recommended in a 2007 speech that people read Scheuer’s book as a way of understanding the workings of Islamic militants. In fact, it was only three years earlier when bin Laden openly laid out the intentions of al-Qaeda in a speech directed to the American people: "[W]e, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. […] So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." As you can see, aside from these "revenge attacks", al-Qaeda has no intention to actively attack the United States. The organization’s only tactic is to bait our government into fighting endless wars on behalf of an international foreign policy stance set up by the United Nations.
With everything said, it’s important to get two things clear: (1) al-Qaeda, despite the US military’s actions abroad, is not in any way the "good guy", and (2) Ron Paul is neither a pacifist nor an isolationist, two terms frequently misconstrued by his detractors.
Al-Qaeda may believe that its sponsored terrorist attacks are legitimate forms of self-defense to be praised by advocates of justice, but the message is completely erased when its suicide bombers strap explosives to their own bodies and ignite them in the middle of densely-populated cities. Everything is erased when they fly jets into the two tallest buildings in the United States and kill over 2,700 innocent people who had no say in their own government’s actions when it came to war. Nonetheless, US intervention affects innocent bystanders living in the countries we invade. Their lives are filled with bombs being dropped from US military aircrafts and crop fields being set on fire with US-made chemicals. It’s chaotic to them, and the anti-American sentiment grows within their minds little by little until they actually feel empathy with al-Qaeda. The military intervention does nothing but give these terrorists a platform from which to shout their fundamental misinterpretations of a peaceful religion.
As for pacification – pacifists are generally opposed to all kinds of violence, even acts of self-defense but especially initiations of physical force. Congressman Paul is opposed to the initiation of violence, but he realizes that, when an enemy of the US attacks innocent Americans for reasons that the victims are unable to change, it’s important to strike back in retribution. When it comes to Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy, he promotes strong military defense, voting in support of the authorization for use of military force against the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks and then clarifying that "[w]e should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy."
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the current imperialistic military now employed by the US government, and their statements about the side effects of aggressive foreign policies were stated with emphasis in their time.
George Washington, in his farewell address, proclaimed, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas Jefferson echoed the sentiment a few years later in his first inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." It’s evident that the Founding Fathers, much like Ron Paul, believe in the efficiency of the free market and open commerce with foreign nations; they decry the neoconservatives’ own isolationist wishes – mainly the enactment of strict trading tariffs, the transfer of taxpayer money to US corporations, and the enforcement of legislation banning cultural differences.
Meanwhile the neoconservatives’ foreign policy is the one currently being implemented with brute force, and we can see how that’s turning out. The attacks on September 11th continue to be used as a cover for a war against nobody in general.
First the US government invaded an unrelated Iraq in 2003 to the dismay of Ron Paul, found zero weapons of mass destruction, and still hasn’t left for one reason or another. Not only this, but the invasion created terrorists; as Robert Pape explains in Dying to Win, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled."
Then the US government set up a puppet regime in Afghanistan under the lead of Hamid Karzai, enforced drug prohibition as terrorists freely floated around due to their wallets being filled with money made from selling opium – a result of the substance’s senseless illegality – and now the once-"loyal" puppet is talking about joining the Taliban unless the UN stops barking orders.
And finally, an entire decade after the attacks on September 11th, we manage to find the one person we went after in the first place, Osama bin Laden... in Pakistan. Ron Paul said this in 2003. Let’s take his exact words into account: "You know, there's a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan's on our side, Afghanistan is half and half. But right on that border is Osama bin Laden most likely. And he’s probably in Pakistan."
We didn’t need to lose thousands of American soldiers’ lives. We didn’t need to spend trillions of dollars. All we needed to do was listen to Ron Paul.
2010: WikiLeaks
On February 18, 2010, the world got its first taste of a new power, so to speak, not one based in the physical world but one that transcended theoretical transparence into the grid of the internet: WikiLeaks. The phrase began, "The things you say on the internet will stay there forever." The new phrase is a little different: "The classified diplomatic cables that leak onto the internet will get published in international newspapers through Julian Assange’s whistleblower organization and will remain on mirror websites forever."
When the first cable was released in relation to Iceland’s failing economy, it failed to garner a lot of media attention. However, the July and October releases of the Afghan War documents and the Iraq War documents, respectively, proved otherwise. The former was a grueling portrayal of the "underground aspects" of war, chiefly the employment of child prostitutes by Department of Defense contractors and the untold deaths of innocent civilians due to military mishaps; the latter is the largest intelligence leak in history, providing a further glimpse into the purposeful acts of violence in wartime such as executions by Iraqi soldiers and the murder of two Reuters employees due to an airstrike steered by US Apache helicopters.
The final leak that broke the US government’s back occurred in November 2010 when 220 redacted cables were published by five main newspapers, eventually leading to the September 2011 release of all 251,287 unredacted cables. These cables revealed once-secret information about the international governmental sphere [and its well-connected, legislation-supported corporations]. To list only three of these extremely confusing details: (1) an attempt by Monsanto to retaliate against EU opposition to genetically-modified crops, (2) a strangely-affectionate analysis of the Prime Minister of Albania who seems almost too pleased to kiss the US government’s feet, and (3) a refusal by the Vatican to cooperate in the inquiry into sexual abuse, a nearly perfect reminiscence of a conflict in Sin City.
I compare the last detail to a comic book series for a specific reason. The situations are so unbelievable that they almost seem to be the plots of fictional works by deluded authors. You’d think that in a logical and ethical world we’d see unanimous approval for such truths being brought out into the open for all to see; instead it’s been an uphill battle for supporters of the action that exposed corruption in government. The beginning seemed like the flash of an intellectual revolution off the storyboards of V for Vendetta, only to end in the sad fashion of a mostly-apathetic youth being dragged down by detached patriots who will continue to support the government’s actions under any evident circumstance.
In the words of Julian Assange, "If journalism is good, it is controversial by its nature. It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abuses, and, when powerful abuses are on taken on, there is always a back-reaction. We see that controversy, and we believe that it's a good thing to engage in. In this case, they've all showed the true nature of this war."
When it came to the main subject of WikiLeaks’ releases, the US government, none were too happy about it. Let’s face it – government is never happy when intelligence information is leaked. You can see this predictable phenomenon at countless times in history, one recent example being the March 2010 subpoenaing of a New York Times writer in regards to a source of his book about CIA intelligence efforts to disrupt Iranian research into nuclear weapons.
The legal attempts to cease the existence of WikiLeaks were much more direct and threatening. First Representative Peter King ludicrously asserted that WikiLeaks, along with its founder Julian Assange, should be declared a foreign terrorist organization. Then Senator Joe Lieberman launched a campaign against companies that gave WikiLeaks access to their internet servers. Which purpose did all of these objections serve? Were they simply revenge against the exposition of secret actions the US government shouldn’t have even been taking? It makes you wonder why certain people condemn the exposure of these actions while maintaining indifference towards the actions themselves.
It should come as no surprise by now that Ron Paul stood up proudly for the truth. Perhaps he put it in the most eloquent manner: "In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. [...] The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable."
The ethical stance of the leaks will be disputed for years, if not decades, to come. Yet it still leaves the lurking question – if WikiLeaks can get our intelligence information, who else can get the information, and how easily? It would at least make a little bit of sense if the information were to have been somehow sneaked out of headquarters through one of the estimated 854,000 people who hold top-secret security clearances, but it wasn’t even one of them. The access to the intelligence information was gained by an Army Private, a soldier of the lowest military rank. We’re lucky that no classified "top secret" information was leaked to our enemies, at least that we know of. As Ron Paul asked, "Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?" I certainly feel safe with the realization that we’re capable of gaining this much intelligence in the first place, but it’s extremely worrisome that the information is so mishandled by the bureaucracy involved in our ever-growing empire.
Let us embrace an open and well-educated country. There is no reason for our government to hold these secrets from us when we’re paying for the inception of such inadequacies. To once again refer to a comic book – we now know that with great power comes great responsibility. It’s beginning to become more and more obvious each year that the power held by the US government is turning into an irresponsible and dangerous catastrophe.
2011: Iran
It’s difficult to pick out one single origin of the US government’s conflicts with Iran. Most people point to the 1953 CIA-led coup d'état and subsequent installation of the Shah as the tipping point, but it’s a long series of events leading up to the strained relations we now experience. Nonetheless, this year is the best time to discuss the topic because it will undoubtedly be brought up many times by warmongering politicians as a tactic to disenfranchise Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy. Therefore we need to ask two questions: (1) why does Iran feel contempt towards the United States, and (2) is Iran really a threat to our country?
To answer the first question, it’s important to review the previously-mentioned "long series of events" leading to the supposed contempt. Then, once you observe the current location of US military bases surrounding Iran, you begin to notice that the attitude of Iran doesn’t seem so much about contempt as it does about fear. With the strongest military in the entire world encircling their country, the intimidation almost seems to be a move against their sovereignty.
The main political decisions have reflected similar preferences for imposing "indirectly-violent" sanctions in order to counter Iran’s economic growth. Placing sanctions on a country is a government’s interesting way of aggressing against the country without actually bombing it.
The US government set up sanctions against Bank Saderat Iran in 2006 for allegedly transferring money to terrorist organizations. One year later the state of Florida enacted a boycott of all companies investing in Iran or Sudan even if evidence lacked to prove deals with terrorist organizations, and this was followed by an expanded list of Iranian financial institutions that were to be cut off from the US financial system in general. Various other UN sanctions and Treasury orders have occurred throughout the rest of the decade in order to cease Iranian business, including last year’s legislation signed by Obama which bans random Iranian exports to the US like pistachios and carpets. As explained in Obama’s remarks before signing the recent legislation, the purpose of strict sanctions is to get a rise out of the unhappy Iranian citizens when their government fails to meet their needs due to international disobedience. However, this never happens; sanctions, by canceling out every alternative option for supply, create an even stronger dependence on the dictator, leading to starving masses and an uninformed population.
[For ease in discussing the effects of sanctions, we’ll ignore the obvious fraud in the government handing out 10,000 special business licenses to well-connected corporatists who can now make deals in Iran without facing the consequence of competition.]
Take, for instance, the sanctions placed against Iraq in 1990 – they ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And after all these deaths, the US government still felt it necessary to invade Iraq in 2003. It’s not crazy to believe that the government has absolutely no limit in making foreign policy decisions despite the price of human life, especially after Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the UN at the time, stated in a 1996 interview with 60 Minutes that the children’s deaths were worth it.
Let’s pretend for a second that the number of Iranian deaths that would occur due to US-imposed sanctions would be 700,000. Many people will come back with the argument that, if the sanctions weren’t imposed, Iran would collect and detonate a nuclear missile that could end up killing 700,000 Americans. In their case, you are deciding between the same number of deaths in two different countries, and, living in United States, I feel as if I can speak on behalf of most other Americans in saying that I would not like to die. It is a valid point assuming that you can tell the future. Alas, we cannot, but politicians are intent on making the American public feel as if they can.
Ron Paul mentioned this technique in a 2010 speech: "We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These "drones" ended up being pure propaganda – the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. […] We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud."
This is when the second question comes into play: is Iran really a threat to our country? Taking the psychological approach may very well lead us to believe that sanctions on Iran may indeed increase the government’s attachment to nuclear power in defense, a concept expanded upon by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán. It really comes down to two simple facts: (1) the US nuclear force is outstandingly large, and (2) if Iran – or anyone else – were to shoot nuclear missiles at another country, the international community would immediately retaliate and wipe the country off of the entire planet within seconds of identifying the perpetrator for fear of a second attack. No one likes unpredictability and no one likes crazy people. This factor, in addition to its highly-nuclear Russian neighbors owning an even stronger nuclear force than the US, should truthfully be enough to convince most people that Iran is not a threat. We don’t spend our days worrying about the Russians and the Chinese, and I see no reason to worry about the Iranians either. Somewhere around the development of our 1,700th operational strategic nuclear warhead I stopped feeling threatened by Iran.
The next argument made is that – although the Revolutionary Guards have only targeted US military bases in the Middle East and not our actual country itself – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel all of the time, and we need to protect Israel’s interests.
First, we do not live in Israel. This is seemingly unknown to most US politicians who don’t seem to understand the location of the US. It explains why Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid to countries in the Middle East and, you know, everywhere else we don’t live.
Second, Ahmadinejad’s speeches are notorious for being mistranslated and taken out of context in the process. This bandwagon fetish of repeating Ahmadinejad’s "Israel needs to be wiped off the map" statement needs to be seriously reexamined by our leadership and the population in general. If Israel feels so much fear that it will be attacked by Iran, the country can make its own decisions about what to do without interference from the US and its international allies at the UN. After all, Israel is estimated to have around 300 nuclear weapons. I don’t see how the rest of our collection will do their country any good.
We’ll end in the words of Ron Paul: "The Iranians are a third-world nation. They don’t have an army or a navy of any sort. They don’t have inter-continental ballistic missiles. [A] country that has all that oil in their country – and they can’t even produce enough gasoline and they have to depend on importing gasoline – and we’re supposed to build up war fever and go to war over this? I don’t think for a minute that, if they got those weapons, they would dare think about attacking Israel. Israel would take care of them, especially if they had no restraints from us. They would take care of them in minutes. It’s not going to happen. It’s all war propaganda."
2012: The Future of the United States
We can’t allow ourselves to be pulled into perpetual warfare with indefinite enemies. It is a crucial time in our nation’s history, and we can only go one of two ways. We have 10-year olds in the United States who know nothing but wartime. They do not understand peace. It’s difficult to live with that idea in my mind. The idea that we can continue these wars while still being wealthy and free is a hollow utopia.
It’s absolutely madness. And the dissenters are the ones who are deemed anti-patriotic? I love my country. I don’t apologize for not letting it be whipped into submission at the hands of buffoons. They will verbally scold Ron Paul for being pro-peace because rhetoric is the last tool of men with no reason. They aren’t putting on the uniforms, firing the guns, and risking their lives.
Ron Paul supports the troops. He is the only candidate treating the troops as human beings. He is the only candidate treating their lives as sacred. Perhaps that’s why he has received higher military donations than not only the current commander-in-chief but the rest of the other GOP candidates combined – over $36,000 through the end of August of this year. To give you a little comparison in terms of the other candidates, Ron Paul’s closest GOP competitor was Herman Cain, who only received slightly more than $6,000.
Our soldiers are sending a very clear sign to the voters that they want to come home and be led by a man with real military intuition and a sound stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul will promote the same belief every time, just like he answered a veteran of the Iraq War who asked about the congressman’s timetable to bring the troops home: "As soon as the ships can pick you up."
They continue wars without voting. They continue bombing campaigns without authorization. They continue taxation without representation. We have seen these actions in the annals of history, and we know what must be done. We need someone to do it. Ron Paul is that person. Let it not be said that we did nothing.
It does not have to be this way.
Tuesday
Monday
GOVERNMENT AS A VENTURE CAPITALIST
In January 2009, the administration claimed that if Congress passed a rush stimulus bill, the United States would be saved from economic catastrophe that was threatening to send unemployment figures above 8 percent. Government stimulus was the answer and if we cared about our country, we would set aside our reservations and do what needed to be done to pass the bill. Congress passed the bill. Unemployment continued to go up and has been well over 8 percent ever since. (In fact, economist John Williams of ShadowStats finds unemployment to be closer to 23 percent using traditional methodology.) Yet some are claiming the first stimulus worked and all we need to bring back prosperity is more government stimulus.
Stimulus might appear to work for some people for a short time. It worked for a short time for Solyndra. For a time, they could pretend to be engaging in productive activities that would help the economy. For a time, unemployment was 1,100 people less. But the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra shows that the government is a terrible venture capitalist. This charade cost the American people over half a billion dollars they could not afford, yet there is no mea culpa. The administration is not questioning its calculations, or how they could have been so wrong on their unemployment predictions in the wake of the last stimulus.
Instead, they want more money. Once again we are hearing the cry that if we care about our country, we will approve more spending and more taxes and that will create more jobs. They promise.
Yes, you could have gone to the Solyndra factory and you would have seen jobs. What you could not have seen were the productive jobs that were never created. Real venture capitalists make decisions based not on politics and photo opportunities, but on complex economic estimations of risk and reward. They don't simply throw piles of other people's money at a factory and expect magic to happen. The uncreated jobs you can't see might still be around. Instead, we have more government debt which will lead to more inflation and more taxes. These, in addition to an already hostile regulatory environment, only add to the burden and risk of job creation in the private economy.
It has been said that when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Our government is full of people who sincerely believe big government and more spending is the answer to every problem. They automatically look to government for every solution. Government is their hammer, and all they know to do is to keep hammering. When government "solutions" still don't solve the problems, they are unfazed. They keep calling for more government, more laws, and more programs. Americans are tired of being treated like nails.
This government-centric mindset is the root of the problem. People who think this way are naturally drawn to politics and government. To them, the Constitution is an annoying road block, something to get around, or ignore.
We must become interested in real, lasting, productive jobs - careers that allow families to build up a solid foundation of prosperity and economic security - not pretend make-work government jobs that waste resources and vanish overnight. We have to choose one or the other.
Stimulus might appear to work for some people for a short time. It worked for a short time for Solyndra. For a time, they could pretend to be engaging in productive activities that would help the economy. For a time, unemployment was 1,100 people less. But the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra shows that the government is a terrible venture capitalist. This charade cost the American people over half a billion dollars they could not afford, yet there is no mea culpa. The administration is not questioning its calculations, or how they could have been so wrong on their unemployment predictions in the wake of the last stimulus.
Instead, they want more money. Once again we are hearing the cry that if we care about our country, we will approve more spending and more taxes and that will create more jobs. They promise.
Yes, you could have gone to the Solyndra factory and you would have seen jobs. What you could not have seen were the productive jobs that were never created. Real venture capitalists make decisions based not on politics and photo opportunities, but on complex economic estimations of risk and reward. They don't simply throw piles of other people's money at a factory and expect magic to happen. The uncreated jobs you can't see might still be around. Instead, we have more government debt which will lead to more inflation and more taxes. These, in addition to an already hostile regulatory environment, only add to the burden and risk of job creation in the private economy.
It has been said that when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Our government is full of people who sincerely believe big government and more spending is the answer to every problem. They automatically look to government for every solution. Government is their hammer, and all they know to do is to keep hammering. When government "solutions" still don't solve the problems, they are unfazed. They keep calling for more government, more laws, and more programs. Americans are tired of being treated like nails.
This government-centric mindset is the root of the problem. People who think this way are naturally drawn to politics and government. To them, the Constitution is an annoying road block, something to get around, or ignore.
We must become interested in real, lasting, productive jobs - careers that allow families to build up a solid foundation of prosperity and economic security - not pretend make-work government jobs that waste resources and vanish overnight. We have to choose one or the other.
WHAT I THINK.....MICHAEL SCHEUER
The past ten days have seen a spate of pieces on Google News damning Congressman Ron Paul for “blaming” America for the 9/11 attacks. This is just the start of what will become a wave of ever-more shrill and lie-filled attacks on Mr. Paul as long as he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and continues to find growing public support. The attacks on Mr. Paul are and will be the work of the Neoconservatives, the Israel-First fifth column of U.S. citizens, and AIPAC and those it controls in the Congress, media, and academy.
Mr. Paul, of course, never blamed the United States for the war the Islamists started and are now waging on the United States. What he did say is merely what is true beyond any credible challenge: Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home. Mr. Paul bravely and clearly delivers this essential message to U.S. voters, and as long as he tells this truth he will receive the venom and slander of the above mentioned people and organizations.
And worse is yet to come. On 1 and 2 September 2011, Commentary Magazine – long Israel-First’s flagship publication – identified Mr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Islamic world as a “bizarre and twisted interpretation of events” and described him and his supporters as taking Osama bin Laden’s statements as their bible. Commentary went on to damn Mr. Paul and his supporters as follows:
“[Congressman] Paul seems intent on blaming America for the burning [Islamist] hatred directed against us, to the point that he has to disfigure history to justify it. It’s a peculiar citizen who would do such a thing. I suppose I understand why most Republicans (with the fine exception of Rick Santorum) have not taken on the noxious ideology of Representative Paul. But the dirty little secret is Ron Paul holds views that are disgraceful. It seems to me that conservatives, in the name of reaching out to those who inhabit the loony fringes of the libertarian movement, shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”
If this sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the kind of attack that was used against the America First organization when it sought to prevent America from entering the European War that began in September, 1939. Interventionists in both parties; much of the media; senior members of the Roosevelt Administration; leaders of Britain’s pro-intervention covert action program in the United States; and spokesmen for Jewish-American organizations all slandered America First members as disloyal citizens who were ignorant of the world. Together these entities misidentified distinguished Americans who were using 1st Amendment rights to defend what they saw as U.S. interests as traitors, madmen, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-Semites. In their words this week, the articles in Commentary and elsewhere have identified Dr. Paul and the millions who agree with him as “peculiar” citizens (traitors?); madmen (“loony fringes”); and bin Laden sympathizers.
If Mr. Paul continues telling the truth and his support keeps growing, Israel-First’s next step will be to begin smearing him as an anti-Semite, just as Charles Lindbergh and other America First leaders were falsely identified in the late 1930s by the sorts of people noted above. And such attacks on Mr. Paul probably will be more vicious than those on Lindbergh, et al. Some of those who opposed America First, for example, conducted a sharp but fair-minded debate over a clearly substantive and legitimate question: “Does Nazi Germany pose a threat to genuine U.S. national interests?”
Today, however, Mr. Paul’s attackers know they have no legitimate, defensible issue on their side of the debate, only their malevolent desire to see America fight all of Islam on Israel‘s behalf. Indeed, they know the United States and its interests are in large measure threatened and attacked by Islamists because of the U.S. government’s relentless and unquestioning intervention on Israel’s behalf. Thus, the combination of the fact that Mr. Paul’s words are gaining traction with some Americans, and that the Israel-First position is built on sand – that is, it is clear no U.S. interest is served by the current U.S.-Israel relationship – means that Mr. Paul’s attackers use any and every kind of slander to defame him and to ensure the United States will fight to protect Israel against the rising and uncontrollable tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is being produced by the so-called Arab Spring.
In this vein, Commentary’s description of Mr. Paul’s “noxious ideology” is a first step that probably will lead to a systematic Israel-First effort to identify Mr. Paul and those who support him as anti-Semites simply because they do not want to see America’s soldier-children die fighting in an irrelevant Israel-Muslim religious war in which no genuine U.S. interests are at risk.
Mr. Paul, of course, never blamed the United States for the war the Islamists started and are now waging on the United States. What he did say is merely what is true beyond any credible challenge: Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home. Mr. Paul bravely and clearly delivers this essential message to U.S. voters, and as long as he tells this truth he will receive the venom and slander of the above mentioned people and organizations.
And worse is yet to come. On 1 and 2 September 2011, Commentary Magazine – long Israel-First’s flagship publication – identified Mr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Islamic world as a “bizarre and twisted interpretation of events” and described him and his supporters as taking Osama bin Laden’s statements as their bible. Commentary went on to damn Mr. Paul and his supporters as follows:
“[Congressman] Paul seems intent on blaming America for the burning [Islamist] hatred directed against us, to the point that he has to disfigure history to justify it. It’s a peculiar citizen who would do such a thing. I suppose I understand why most Republicans (with the fine exception of Rick Santorum) have not taken on the noxious ideology of Representative Paul. But the dirty little secret is Ron Paul holds views that are disgraceful. It seems to me that conservatives, in the name of reaching out to those who inhabit the loony fringes of the libertarian movement, shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”
If this sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the kind of attack that was used against the America First organization when it sought to prevent America from entering the European War that began in September, 1939. Interventionists in both parties; much of the media; senior members of the Roosevelt Administration; leaders of Britain’s pro-intervention covert action program in the United States; and spokesmen for Jewish-American organizations all slandered America First members as disloyal citizens who were ignorant of the world. Together these entities misidentified distinguished Americans who were using 1st Amendment rights to defend what they saw as U.S. interests as traitors, madmen, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-Semites. In their words this week, the articles in Commentary and elsewhere have identified Dr. Paul and the millions who agree with him as “peculiar” citizens (traitors?); madmen (“loony fringes”); and bin Laden sympathizers.
If Mr. Paul continues telling the truth and his support keeps growing, Israel-First’s next step will be to begin smearing him as an anti-Semite, just as Charles Lindbergh and other America First leaders were falsely identified in the late 1930s by the sorts of people noted above. And such attacks on Mr. Paul probably will be more vicious than those on Lindbergh, et al. Some of those who opposed America First, for example, conducted a sharp but fair-minded debate over a clearly substantive and legitimate question: “Does Nazi Germany pose a threat to genuine U.S. national interests?”
Today, however, Mr. Paul’s attackers know they have no legitimate, defensible issue on their side of the debate, only their malevolent desire to see America fight all of Islam on Israel‘s behalf. Indeed, they know the United States and its interests are in large measure threatened and attacked by Islamists because of the U.S. government’s relentless and unquestioning intervention on Israel’s behalf. Thus, the combination of the fact that Mr. Paul’s words are gaining traction with some Americans, and that the Israel-First position is built on sand – that is, it is clear no U.S. interest is served by the current U.S.-Israel relationship – means that Mr. Paul’s attackers use any and every kind of slander to defame him and to ensure the United States will fight to protect Israel against the rising and uncontrollable tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is being produced by the so-called Arab Spring.
In this vein, Commentary’s description of Mr. Paul’s “noxious ideology” is a first step that probably will lead to a systematic Israel-First effort to identify Mr. Paul and those who support him as anti-Semites simply because they do not want to see America’s soldier-children die fighting in an irrelevant Israel-Muslim religious war in which no genuine U.S. interests are at risk.
Sunday
WHAT I THINK.....THADDEUS KACZOR
So, the only Candidate that makes sense, both on foreign and domestic policy is called 'crazy' by the media. The only candidate that can draw support from young, old, rich, poor, rural, urban, Democrats, Republicans and Independents is said to have support 'a mile wide and an inch deep' by the media 'experts' and party establishment. The party that says it want's a 'Big Tent' shuns the ONLY candidate that promises to bring in massive amounts of new voters into the party. The candidate that draws more support from Active-Duty military than ALL the others COMBINED is called 'Anti-American'. The candidate that draws the most individual contributions, and consistently is at or near the top in fund raising- despite refusing corporate PAC money- is dismissed as 'fringe'. The only candidate that consistently draws the biggest crowds, wins most polls (that aren't rigged or don't mention him), and has the best grass-roots organization is called 'un-electable'.
What is wrong with this picture? If ANY other candidate than Ron Paul showed even HALF of the breadth, depth and fervor of support that Ron Paul has, the self-appointed experts in the Media and the Party would soil themselves and declare the election 'over'. But Ron Paul is not held to the same standards as other 'Establishment' candidates. His successes are minimized and ignored, and any perceived or fabricated negativity is played up beyond belief. Americans may be ignorant because the media refuses to report the real facts, but Americans are far from stupid. They know when they are being played, and recognize a con job when it is being played on them. The media emperor has no clothes, but they still want to sell us all the pretty candidates in empty suits.
Fortunately, the more the media ignores or unfairly attacks Ron Paul, the less stature and believability they have in Americans' minds. Ron Paul is consistent in his beliefs, statements, rhetoric and record- something the media apparently doesn't know how to deal with! American voters know, however- they come out to support, cheer on and VOTE for him!
What is wrong with this picture? If ANY other candidate than Ron Paul showed even HALF of the breadth, depth and fervor of support that Ron Paul has, the self-appointed experts in the Media and the Party would soil themselves and declare the election 'over'. But Ron Paul is not held to the same standards as other 'Establishment' candidates. His successes are minimized and ignored, and any perceived or fabricated negativity is played up beyond belief. Americans may be ignorant because the media refuses to report the real facts, but Americans are far from stupid. They know when they are being played, and recognize a con job when it is being played on them. The media emperor has no clothes, but they still want to sell us all the pretty candidates in empty suits.
Fortunately, the more the media ignores or unfairly attacks Ron Paul, the less stature and believability they have in Americans' minds. Ron Paul is consistent in his beliefs, statements, rhetoric and record- something the media apparently doesn't know how to deal with! American voters know, however- they come out to support, cheer on and VOTE for him!
Monday
FOREIGN OCCUPATION LEADS TO MORE TERROR
Ten years ago shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on US soil, taking over 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt, this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorism that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe. This is ironic and sad, considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are - a free, prosperous people - and that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win.
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much. Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book "Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It". In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.
Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as "crusaders" with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced. Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.
Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration. We are three to four trillion dollars poorer. Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home. Not only that, but we have allowed our freedoms to be greatly threatened and undermined from within. The Patriot Act, warrantless searches and wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpus, useless and humiliating searches at airports are just a few examples of how we've allowed the terrorists to "win" by making our country less free.
Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there. Now it does. There are no known instances of Iranians committing suicide terrorism. If we invade and occupy Iran, expect that to change, too.
Sometimes it can be very uncomfortable to ask the right questions and face the truth. When a slick politician comes along and gives a much more soothing, self-congratulating version of events, it is very tempting to simply believe what we would like to hear. But listening to lies does not make us safer, even though it might make us feel better about ourselves.
The truth is that ending these misguided wars and occupations will make us safer, more prosperous and more free.
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much. Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book "Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It". In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.
Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as "crusaders" with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced. Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.
Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration. We are three to four trillion dollars poorer. Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home. Not only that, but we have allowed our freedoms to be greatly threatened and undermined from within. The Patriot Act, warrantless searches and wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpus, useless and humiliating searches at airports are just a few examples of how we've allowed the terrorists to "win" by making our country less free.
Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there. Now it does. There are no known instances of Iranians committing suicide terrorism. If we invade and occupy Iran, expect that to change, too.
Sometimes it can be very uncomfortable to ask the right questions and face the truth. When a slick politician comes along and gives a much more soothing, self-congratulating version of events, it is very tempting to simply believe what we would like to hear. But listening to lies does not make us safer, even though it might make us feel better about ourselves.
The truth is that ending these misguided wars and occupations will make us safer, more prosperous and more free.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK.......SUSAN WESTFALL
“A watched kettle never boils.” A sage piece of advice for cooks or anyone waiting for something to come to fruition. Unfortunately for us, we seem to have applied that advice to ourselves and ceased watching the governmental cauldron that is Washington, D.C. Bad move – a very bad move. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Wendell Phillips have all reminded us, at one time or another, that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Would that we had listened better. Perhaps we would not presently be hurtling into the Keynesian abyss on a FED powered train from hell. This of course after having been groped (for our own safety) prior to forced boarding.
However, we are. So, it’s time to stop lying to ourselves and each other. We, the people, have been complacent and apathetic too long. Blind far, far too long. The crisis we find ourselves in today is our own fault. The peoples’ fault. We forgot to be vigilant. We prospered, we got comfortable, and we decided to leave governing to the well-intentioned politicians and ‘experts’ who knew best how to run the country and maintain our prosperity. At least – that’s what they told us and apparently what they thought. Look around…how well has that worked out for us? Daniel Webster warned long ago, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” And master they did, but they were not “masters” of anything except a slow, insidious destruction. Time to admit and correct the mistakes.
America was founded on a vision of liberty and protection for all individuals. Each and everyone of us is an individual. Sovereign to none but God. Equal one to another in liberty and sovereignty – if we but believe it. Government does not give us liberty, nor can government raise or lower us in any truly meaningful way. Under the Constitution, the sole purpose of government is to protect the liberty of each and every one of us regardless of race, gender, or party. So throw off the yoke of assigned groupings used to perpetuate strife and divisions. Have confidence in your worth. You, me, WE are the REAL power. Stand up, stand together and let your voices be heard. Our country is too big, our population too diverse for us all to agree on everything. However, we can agree on a few big issues which we all hold dear. What could be dearer than the ideals of liberty? It’s time to remember that America is a Republic, not a democracy. Time to remember that the government our ancestors created – as sovereign peoples of their respectively sovereign state(s) compacting together – was formed to restrain the government and never the people.
Our ancestors did not fight and die for the debauched city, drunk on the blood of illusionary slain dragons, that now masquerades behind its tattered carnival mask as our seat of government. Nor did they give their precious lives and blood to ensure that the wealth of one half of their “posterity” would be stolen by government agents and redistributed, through charity programs deemed “necessary and proper”, to provide for the “general welfare” of the other half. They would sob with misery at what we have allowed to occur. “A democracy,” was not the answer provided by Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government had been given to the people. Instead he admonished, “A Republic, madam, if you [the whole of the people] can keep it.” We have not kept it. We allowed, and even encouraged, it to become the ravenous leviathan of democracy that seems intent on swallowing us whole to increase its own power and size. But proper defense requires knowledge and vigilance. If you don’t have a copy of the Constitution in your house…buy one, read it online, or download it from the Internet for free. But read it – once, twice, many fold – till you are at least passingly familiar with it. Then educate others and rally together to defend your liberty and your Republic.
Do NOT rally together to fight for the sake of party. Political parties will not save us as claimed, nor have they ever. Parties divide and weaken the power of WE the People to restrain our government as is our duty. Through party, control is wrested from all of the people of the Republic and given over to either the “blue team” or the “red team”. I mention here only two controlling forces, since the other parties (libertarian, green, independent, etc.) are barely given the most grudging of places on voting ballots, at a prohibitively high cost I might mention, and almost never a place at the debate table. To pretend otherwise would be not only hypocritical, but ridiculous. George Washington had this (among other things) to say about parties, “They serve to organize faction, to give it [one party or another] an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party.” Political parties keep us focussed on controversial issues that will NEVER be agreed upon by all. Tune into any talk radio show, already conveniently divided into left and right, (two more team terms) and listen to the hosts rant and rave at and about the “other side”. Finger pointing, blame assignments, and name calling are main staples of these shows. The format is mirrored in television and print media as well. In this way the opposing “teams” are kept stirred up, angry, and arguing about various emotionally charged positions. Thus ensuring that both teams don’t come together in a coalition strong enough to not only restrain, but reform and reduce government back to its Constitutional size and role. Perhaps the most offensive thing about party politics is that after successfully dividing the people and achieving victory for one team or the other, BOTH teams then work together (while appearing not to through more media finger-pointing and name-calling) to “reach compromises” that not only increase the scope and size of governmental over-reach, but decrease the freedoms of the very people who employ them to do otherwise. It’s time we stopped pretending the defense of liberty and protection of our Republic is a team sport of some kind. If we want to wave a pennant, place a bet, or cheer on a team we should attend a real sporting event. When it comes to politics we better damn well forget the idea of team and start backing individual candidates who will uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Letters are for high school sports apparel, not for determining the best political candidate.
With the Internet easily accessible to all, there is absolutely no excuse not to research each candidate to whom we consider giving our vote. If time is a factor, and it will be for many, then form study groups and lessen the time burden. Voting is not something you should do based on how a candidate looks and sounds, or what the media says you should know about them. Research their past records, listen to old speeches, and find out what they have done in their daily lives. You can Google anything today and get answers. It’s not enough that candidates say they follow the Constitution. It doesn’t matter how patriotic or religious they sound when telling you they love the Constitution – have they upheld it through actions or not? Have they kept their promises? These people will represent our interests and if we choose poorly we will end up with more of the same. More spending, more borrowing, more inflationary printing, more cronyism, and more unaffordable wars. We will extend our time in the abyss substantially. We’ll not only disembark and set up camp, but wave good-bye as the status-quo cronies use what’s left of our wealth to power themselves and their train along a little longer. We, however, will be left to stumble about in poverty and tyranny for years to come.
I have never voted in any election, but I have been watching them for years. Since 2007, I have been listening and researching. In all that time I have found but one presidential candidate (in both this and the last election) for whom I would and will give my vote, my money and my time. That candidate is Ron Paul. Decades of upholding his oath of office, voting only for Constitutional legislation, and standing on his principles – often completely alone – proves to me that he will do his best to achieve his stated goals for our country. An astoundingly long record of consistently saying the truth – again, often completely alone, as well as in the face of extensive ridicule – convinces me that he is deserving of my trust, my time and efforts, and my hard-earned money. I give all of them freely to a candidate who would be president in order to restore my liberties, not usurp more of them to enhance the powers stubbornly perpetuating “business as usual” and driving our country to ruin.
Ron Paul will restore America. Rally with him. Rally for your Republic. Rally for love of this amazingly beautiful and bountiful land, that has for so long been a shining beacon to so many in the world. Rally for the precious freedom that has sustained this country since it’s inception, but so many around the world still struggle to attain. Rally for the glorious gift of liberty that burns in the hearts of men and women everywhere, but has had the best chance of survival in America since the day our founders declared their independence and pledged their lives, wealth, and sacred honor to establish it. Rally for the love of everyone, past and present, whose lives and actions have all played a part in the building of America.
For the love of God – unite. Come together.
Rally and fight for your Republic before it’s too late. Rally with us to defend liberty. Rally with the Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul. Rally and defend liberty, for liberty’s sake – for all our sakes.
However, we are. So, it’s time to stop lying to ourselves and each other. We, the people, have been complacent and apathetic too long. Blind far, far too long. The crisis we find ourselves in today is our own fault. The peoples’ fault. We forgot to be vigilant. We prospered, we got comfortable, and we decided to leave governing to the well-intentioned politicians and ‘experts’ who knew best how to run the country and maintain our prosperity. At least – that’s what they told us and apparently what they thought. Look around…how well has that worked out for us? Daniel Webster warned long ago, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” And master they did, but they were not “masters” of anything except a slow, insidious destruction. Time to admit and correct the mistakes.
America was founded on a vision of liberty and protection for all individuals. Each and everyone of us is an individual. Sovereign to none but God. Equal one to another in liberty and sovereignty – if we but believe it. Government does not give us liberty, nor can government raise or lower us in any truly meaningful way. Under the Constitution, the sole purpose of government is to protect the liberty of each and every one of us regardless of race, gender, or party. So throw off the yoke of assigned groupings used to perpetuate strife and divisions. Have confidence in your worth. You, me, WE are the REAL power. Stand up, stand together and let your voices be heard. Our country is too big, our population too diverse for us all to agree on everything. However, we can agree on a few big issues which we all hold dear. What could be dearer than the ideals of liberty? It’s time to remember that America is a Republic, not a democracy. Time to remember that the government our ancestors created – as sovereign peoples of their respectively sovereign state(s) compacting together – was formed to restrain the government and never the people.
Our ancestors did not fight and die for the debauched city, drunk on the blood of illusionary slain dragons, that now masquerades behind its tattered carnival mask as our seat of government. Nor did they give their precious lives and blood to ensure that the wealth of one half of their “posterity” would be stolen by government agents and redistributed, through charity programs deemed “necessary and proper”, to provide for the “general welfare” of the other half. They would sob with misery at what we have allowed to occur. “A democracy,” was not the answer provided by Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government had been given to the people. Instead he admonished, “A Republic, madam, if you [the whole of the people] can keep it.” We have not kept it. We allowed, and even encouraged, it to become the ravenous leviathan of democracy that seems intent on swallowing us whole to increase its own power and size. But proper defense requires knowledge and vigilance. If you don’t have a copy of the Constitution in your house…buy one, read it online, or download it from the Internet for free. But read it – once, twice, many fold – till you are at least passingly familiar with it. Then educate others and rally together to defend your liberty and your Republic.
Do NOT rally together to fight for the sake of party. Political parties will not save us as claimed, nor have they ever. Parties divide and weaken the power of WE the People to restrain our government as is our duty. Through party, control is wrested from all of the people of the Republic and given over to either the “blue team” or the “red team”. I mention here only two controlling forces, since the other parties (libertarian, green, independent, etc.) are barely given the most grudging of places on voting ballots, at a prohibitively high cost I might mention, and almost never a place at the debate table. To pretend otherwise would be not only hypocritical, but ridiculous. George Washington had this (among other things) to say about parties, “They serve to organize faction, to give it [one party or another] an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party.” Political parties keep us focussed on controversial issues that will NEVER be agreed upon by all. Tune into any talk radio show, already conveniently divided into left and right, (two more team terms) and listen to the hosts rant and rave at and about the “other side”. Finger pointing, blame assignments, and name calling are main staples of these shows. The format is mirrored in television and print media as well. In this way the opposing “teams” are kept stirred up, angry, and arguing about various emotionally charged positions. Thus ensuring that both teams don’t come together in a coalition strong enough to not only restrain, but reform and reduce government back to its Constitutional size and role. Perhaps the most offensive thing about party politics is that after successfully dividing the people and achieving victory for one team or the other, BOTH teams then work together (while appearing not to through more media finger-pointing and name-calling) to “reach compromises” that not only increase the scope and size of governmental over-reach, but decrease the freedoms of the very people who employ them to do otherwise. It’s time we stopped pretending the defense of liberty and protection of our Republic is a team sport of some kind. If we want to wave a pennant, place a bet, or cheer on a team we should attend a real sporting event. When it comes to politics we better damn well forget the idea of team and start backing individual candidates who will uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Letters are for high school sports apparel, not for determining the best political candidate.
With the Internet easily accessible to all, there is absolutely no excuse not to research each candidate to whom we consider giving our vote. If time is a factor, and it will be for many, then form study groups and lessen the time burden. Voting is not something you should do based on how a candidate looks and sounds, or what the media says you should know about them. Research their past records, listen to old speeches, and find out what they have done in their daily lives. You can Google anything today and get answers. It’s not enough that candidates say they follow the Constitution. It doesn’t matter how patriotic or religious they sound when telling you they love the Constitution – have they upheld it through actions or not? Have they kept their promises? These people will represent our interests and if we choose poorly we will end up with more of the same. More spending, more borrowing, more inflationary printing, more cronyism, and more unaffordable wars. We will extend our time in the abyss substantially. We’ll not only disembark and set up camp, but wave good-bye as the status-quo cronies use what’s left of our wealth to power themselves and their train along a little longer. We, however, will be left to stumble about in poverty and tyranny for years to come.
I have never voted in any election, but I have been watching them for years. Since 2007, I have been listening and researching. In all that time I have found but one presidential candidate (in both this and the last election) for whom I would and will give my vote, my money and my time. That candidate is Ron Paul. Decades of upholding his oath of office, voting only for Constitutional legislation, and standing on his principles – often completely alone – proves to me that he will do his best to achieve his stated goals for our country. An astoundingly long record of consistently saying the truth – again, often completely alone, as well as in the face of extensive ridicule – convinces me that he is deserving of my trust, my time and efforts, and my hard-earned money. I give all of them freely to a candidate who would be president in order to restore my liberties, not usurp more of them to enhance the powers stubbornly perpetuating “business as usual” and driving our country to ruin.
Ron Paul will restore America. Rally with him. Rally for your Republic. Rally for love of this amazingly beautiful and bountiful land, that has for so long been a shining beacon to so many in the world. Rally for the precious freedom that has sustained this country since it’s inception, but so many around the world still struggle to attain. Rally for the glorious gift of liberty that burns in the hearts of men and women everywhere, but has had the best chance of survival in America since the day our founders declared their independence and pledged their lives, wealth, and sacred honor to establish it. Rally for the love of everyone, past and present, whose lives and actions have all played a part in the building of America.
For the love of God – unite. Come together.
Rally and fight for your Republic before it’s too late. Rally with us to defend liberty. Rally with the Champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul. Rally and defend liberty, for liberty’s sake – for all our sakes.
Tuesday
"WE'RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, WE'RE HERE TO HELP"
In the wake of hurricane Irene, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is expected to come hat in hands asking for more money from Congress. Like the rest of the government, it is broke. It has been suggested that any additional funds allocated to FEMA should come from cuts elsewhere. This seems harsh and lacking in compassion to big government advocates who do not understand economics, but I would go a step further. FEMA should never have been established. It is based on misguided ideas of disaster relief.
This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event. But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters. Quite the opposite.
Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.
It has only gotten worse since 9/11. Compare the stories of two flotillas - one after 9/11 and one after Katrina. Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down. A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded. Tragically, the Vermont Air National Guard helicopters were in Iraq when Irene hit, and they were desperately needed here.
The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone. FEMA is a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature. When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps. This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.
True compassion would be to get FEMA out of the way.
This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event. But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters. Quite the opposite.
Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.
It has only gotten worse since 9/11. Compare the stories of two flotillas - one after 9/11 and one after Katrina. Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down. A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded. Tragically, the Vermont Air National Guard helicopters were in Iraq when Irene hit, and they were desperately needed here.
The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone. FEMA is a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature. When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps. This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.
True compassion would be to get FEMA out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
