Dear friends, family, relatives, colleagues, and associates,
I hope everyone is having a great holiday season.
This is the time of the year that many of us write our year-end letters highlighting the past year especially as it relates to our families. Because I believe this is such a pivotal year in the history of the United States, in the history of freedom, I am going to summarize not so much on the “normal“ activities of my life this year, but instead concentrate on those most important happenings concerning public policy.
Those of you who know me well know quite well that during my earlier adult years I became focused (some would say obsessed) on the deterioration of individual freedom in this country. As I grew older, I discovered that to get along with my fellow man, I had to broaden my horizons to lead a more full life, de-emphasize my concerns, and in the process might even convince some people of my warnings by not being so obsessed with them. As civilization didn’t immediately collapse, my focus continued to broaden.
But now I have observed over the past few years an accelerating pace of a devolution of society and a terrifying increase in the presence of a police state in the US. So I am here, now, on record, stating that I am reverting to being a real pain in the ass --to some, those ostriches who would stick their heads in the sand, refusing to see tyranny in front of their very eyes, refusing to hear the plaintive cries of the oppressed, refusing to engage their mind as to what is rationally clear, that once was the promise of America is now gone.
As a young boy growing up in the Fifties, my education was filled with stories about American exceptionalism. Only in the US, could one really reach his full potential because of the opportunity provided by the freedom America provided. The rule of law and the Constitution guaranteed our rights to free speech, religion, of the press and petition for redress of grievance. The right to bear arms protected us against our protectors. We had the right to confront an accuser. The Government couldn’t blast into our homes without a proper search warrant signed by a judge. Our property couldn’t be taken without due process of law. We had the right not to be a witness against oneself. We had a right of trial by jury of our peers.
I believed in all of that. I remember reading about Patrick Henry and Francis Marion, the swamp fox of the American revolution, and reveling in the fantasy of being in their shoes. America was the greatest country on earth. I believed in it. I reveled in it. I ate it up.
Maybe, as I grew older, I realized as a part of growing up that the ideals didn’t always fit the real world. But the older I got, the greater became our national debt, the more our money was worth less. One couldn’t just start a business; one had to get permission from government. And the taxation-–as a child in the Fifties we were taught the serfs had it so horrible in the Middle Ages because they had to give up 20% of their income to their landlords. Yet, the average American was paying close to 50% in taxes. Something was wrong. And then–-all of those lives lost in Viet Nam-–for what? To stamp out Communism? It turns out that the introduction of McDonald’s, rock music, and Levis into the Soviet Union probably had more to do with the demise of Communism than anything else.
I also remember watching all of those old Nazi films in the Fifties, the most memorable line being, “May I see your paperssss pleasssse?” That was the symbol of totalitarianism. That represented the horror in living in a police state. Yet, now Americans take it in stride to subject themselves to the grope and scope of the TSA, routine roadblocks on the highways and the prospect of a national ID card ( to chase down all those nasty illegals) that amounts to an internal passport, the very thing Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union imposed to keep its citizens in line.
All my life our freedoms and our wealth have eroded. The same political establishment keeps on getting elected and things have gotten consistently worse. As someone once said, the Democratic and Republican Parties are two wings on the same bird of prey. And now Congress has just passed legislation that gives power to the executive branch to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens (the National Defense Authorization Act). And President Obama has asserted and carried out the power to murder American citizens, with no due process, no lawyers, no arrest, no jury trial, no right to habeas corpus. Why didn’t the newspaper headlines read, in huge bold letters, “Martial Law Passed by Congress,” or “President Assassinates an American citizen and his son.”
All of those ideals I cherished as a child are now gone in the name of the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the undeclared wars overseas that is bankrupting our country, summing up, the war on freedom. The groundwork has been laid; the last nail in the coffin of liberty has been set. Horror stories of botched swat-team drug raids abound. Swat teams descend on a person who has defaulted on his student loan. Vitamin stores are raided. These incidents are horrible enough. But the groundwork is now set which will bear the fruit of future horror stories commensurate of those involving the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people are not immune from this immutable law.
There is only one man who has been able to penetrate the ruling class barrier, who has challenged the establishment, challenged the status quo, stood up against the destruction of our economy and the confiscation of our liberties. That man is running for president. That man has never voted to raise taxes, won’t take a Congressional pension, always voted against big government, never went on a paid junket, always voted according to the Constitution, and always supported individual freedom and personal responsibility. That man is the only man, the only Republican or Democrat running for president who has the moral integrity, the knowledge and the wisdom to fully restore the greatness of America, that greatness promulgated by freedom and blossomed with a prosperity that no time in history can compare. That man should be the next president of the United States; that man is Dr. Ron Paul.
I urge all of you to recognize the true crisis we are in. Once freedom is taken away, it is almost impossible to win it back. Please educate yourselves to the situation at hand. If you do, I believe most of you would agree that Ron Paul is our last peaceful hope to restore the values of freedom, prosperity and peace.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
In Defense of A Defensible foreign Policy
The following is a letter I sent to a conservative friend of mine who disagrees with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Most people as I do recognize the heroic nature of those in uniform who work for the defense of ones country. The conflict arises from deciphering what is offense and what is defense.
Only defensive war is just. The legacy of just war theory in Western Civilization derives from the writings of Cicero, St Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, Over the ages the writings of those philosophers have been refined into the following principles for the justice of war:
1.having just cause;
2.being a last resort;
3.being declared by a proper authority;
4.possessing right intention;
5.having a reasonable chance of success;
6.the end being proportional to the means used
(http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/).
The Western tradition of the primacy of the individual and certainly the legacy of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, versus those political philosophies of collectivism, such as Communism, Socialism, fascism or nationalism, requires one to look at indiscriminate war as the most vile form of collectivism, a destruction of the rights of an individual. To wage war without the paramount value of refraining from the killing of innocent civilians from an American viewpoint is simply, morally wrong.
Pre-emptive war such as that waged against Iraq can never fit into the category of a just defensive war. First, it wouldn't be by definition a last resort, but instead, a first option. War wouldn't be declared by a proper authority since surprise is a necessary aspect of pre-emptive war. There would be no declaration of war. The ostensible reasons for war will have not been vetted sufficiently, since the requirement of pre-emption naturally hastens the move to war. And, of course we now know that the haste to get into that war without realizing the truth or falsity of those "weapons of mass destruction" resulted in execution of war without justification as all the charges of 'weapons of mass destruction" were false.
If every nation on earth held to the same philosophy of pre-emption during the twentieth century, there would be nothing human left on earth. Surely, both the Soviet Union and the United States of America would rationalize that since missiles are pointed at each other, better take out the one side before the other side attacks. Mutually assured destruction. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed. An aspect of the traditional view of just war set up more limited wars by proxy in the third world. But now that the US believes it enjoys a virtual monopoly of force on the rest of the world, not moral considerations, but the presence of pure naked power, has enabled the US to posit the theory of pre-emptive war. Having the power to wage pre-emptive war certainly doesn't justify that war from any moral aspect that the great philosophers of the ages painstakingly developed through just war theory.
One can understand that if one is waging a truly defensive war and going after true military targets, some "collateral damage" may be unavoidable. But in the perils of a "war on terror," where the enemy is elusive and hard to identify, major collateral damage is unavoidable. Getting beyond the fact of its immorality, the utilitarian aspect of this is bankrupt. Every time innocents are killed, the mythical hydra snake multiplies as once moderate Islamists become instantly radicalized by virtue of the fact that their loved ones have become "collateral damage." If you doubt the occurrence of this, ask yourself this question, If you had a Chinese family living next door to you who were really freedom fighters, subversives plotting to overthrow the tyranny in China, while living in the US, what would your reaction be if the Chinese brought in a drone to wipe out those Chinese terrorists. They succeed, but unfortunately some of your loved ones become collateral damage in the process. How long would it take you to become radicalized against the Chinese?
Even non-violent acts of war such as the Clinton sanctions against Iraq may have killed up to 500,000 innocent children. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when asked about this, said, "We think it is worth it." This fatal conceit and hubris of the elite has blown back at us, to far greater extent than most would want to admit. How many moderate Islamic people were radicalized by that quote which was broadcast all over the Arab world? To answer that question you must ask yourself how many Americans would become radicalized if a foreign country imposed economic sanction on us that resulted in a half million of our children dead. Hell hath no fury, . . . But even if those sanctions didn't result in raising one more radical, the step must certainly be considered morally wrong. Certainly the end is not proportional to the means used.
Limited government conservatives are prone to rely on the founding fathers for advice as to how to approach public policy. The Constitution is often quoted. And conservatives lament when "liberals" read into the Constitution powers that are not there or powers that derive from a "living Constitution." ( A living Constitution is where two people are playing poker, one has two pair, the other, three of a kind. The one with two pair says "The rules have changed in this modern era. Two pair now beats three of a kind.") Why is it then that those who believe in an aggressive foreign policy become cognitively dissonant concerning Constitutional powers in this field? The Constitution is very clear. Article I, section 8: "Congress has the power to declare war." Nowhere does the Constitution allow the Congress to delegate this grave responsibility. To believe so is to walk the path of "liberals" who read so much power into the Constitution that they take the position that Congress through the commerce clause can tell individuals what vegetables can or can not be grown on their own property for their own consumption. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) This is, of course an absurd proposition, but no less absurd than the notion that Congress can delegate their responsibility to declare war onto the Executive branch. On this point alone, foreign intervention since World War II has been and is illegal, unconstitutional and wrong.
Those of us who believe in limited government are fond of quoting the founding fathers on a variety of issues. Why is it that those who believe in an aggressive foreign policy choose to ignore the admonitions of the founders on the points of foreign policy? Thomas Jefferson and George Washington in his farewell address preached of a foreign policy of non-intervention. They called for free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. But times are different, now, you say? Listen to yourself--that is exactly how liberals sound as they run roughshod over the Constitution. Fundamental principles do not change.
And we need not turn to the Eighteenth Century to garner support for non-interventionism. In the Fifties, "Mr. Republican,' Robert Taft, had this to say on war, "War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers." And of course, President Eisenhower, in his farewell address prophetically warned of the power of the (Congressional[He used this word in the first draft; it was eliminated by speech time]) Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower also believed that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was unnecessary. Said Eisenhower, " in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) General Douglas McArthur, Herbert Hoover and Admiral William D. Leahy (among other foreign policy leaders) had similar misgivings.
If an alien from another planet came to earth and studied war history over the past seventy years observing that the US is the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons, would the alien not think it rather hypocritical for the US to deny other nations' right to have these weapons for their security, i.e., Iran?
As one who believes in limited government, I firmly believe that fundamental principles don't change. Those principles include that human beings have the right to life, that in order to promote life, they have the right to produce and to keep those products of their labor and expertise. They have the right to choose, to make decisions in any manner controlling their life as long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. This is the essence of being a free human being. Extrapolating this into foreign policy requires one to realize that for one country to intervene into another country's business is wrong and immoral. Entangling alliances such as NATO or the United Nations violate this principle.
But what about true national defense? If 911 was an invasion, then the perpetrators should be brought to justice. Since the perpetrators of 911 didn't represent a nation state, the response becomes a little more problematic. But the answer is yet in the Constitution. In Article I, section 8, it provides for the use of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." This process commissions a group of people (on the seas historically, they were privateers) to go after specific individuals for crimes committed against the US. After 911, Congressman Ron Paul called for the use of letters of marque and reprisal to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The value of this approach is that the killing of innocent people being killed is minimized, the actual perpetrators are punished instead of innocent civilians being killed because of collective guilt by association.
Instead, to call for a perpetual war against a concept, "terror", is a recipe for a burgeoning police state. I actually predicted this after the first gulf war. (www.freedomrings.net/html/writings/essays/Lessons_of_the_Persian_Gulf_War.htm) Randolph Bourne had it right, "War is the health of the state." From time immemorial, government has used war as an excuse to take away citizens' natural rights. During the War Between the States, (I actually prefer the phrase, "The War of Northern Aggression"), Lincoln did all of the following:
Took away the right to habeas corpus;
Interned thousands of people without charging them of a crime including many journalists;
Deported A Congressman;
Took away the natural right and the unalienable right as professed in the Declaration of Independence, to secede;
Introduced fiat currency backed by nothing of value which is nothing less than theft through inflation;
Introduced the draft to this country--really a form of slavery;
Introduced for the first time in this country, the income tax, another form of theft and/or slavery.
Some of these violations stayed with America, others temporarily went away only to come back to haunt us because of the precedent.
The war on terror has accelerated this process. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act completely violates the principles in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution against the processes that these laws permit. After passing the Stamp Act, King George needed a way to enforce the act so he used writs of assistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance). These writs enabled tax collectors to go into homes without any search warrant signed by a judge. These were general warrants. Officials could violate privacy and property rights for any whim at any time. The ratification of the Fourth Amendment was a direct answer against the use of Writs of Assistance. Our Fourth Amendment gives no exception for times of war. Moreover, no war has been declared. As the Constitution in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment refer to persons or people, not citizens, military tribunals and the holding of persons indefinitely is also un-Constitutional.
These acts, as bad as they are, now pale in comparison to recent events. The President has asserted the power to assassinate American citizens based solely on the claim of the Executive branch, with no transparency. Any fair-minded individual should see the danger in this. This is a recipe for totalitarian rule. To prevent this sort of thing is why the Bill of Rights was enacted. To make matters worse, in the recent case where President Obama carried out this murder of Awlaki, he also murdered his son who hadn't been declared an enemy combatant. Very reminiscent of how the Mafia does business. Better kill the son, too, or he might come back to retaliate. And now, the Congress has just passed a law that completely takes away the Constitutional rights of American citizens claiming that the military can pick up any citizen in the world, including in the US, which has now been declared a battlefield, and hold them indefinitely, and assassinate them. Any future president now has this power. Anyone who doesn't see the danger of this, has his head totally in the sand. One might as well call me an enemy combatant, because I believe any government official who supports this, in essence is guilty of treason. I am an enemy combatant against those who have subverted the Constitution turning my country into a police state. Gitmo, or worse, here I come.
To destroy our freedoms in order to save them is completely Orwellian.
Interventionism becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. the United States' problems with the Middle East hasn't happened in a vacuum. Adapted from Iraq, Iran, and September 11: A Chronology, by Jacob G. Hornberger, December 19, 2002)
1951 -- Iranian people democratically elect Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as Iranian premier.
1953 -- U.S. government, operating through the CIA, ousts Mossadegh in favor of shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a cruel and tyrannical dictator who, with U.S. government support, brutalizes his own people for the next 25 years.
1979 -- Iranian people revolt and oust the shah of Iran from power and take U.S. officials hostage in anger and retaliation against the United States. U.S. government is outraged over the ouster of the shah and the hostage-taking.
1981 -- Iranian people release hostages to the United States.
1980s -- U.S. government enters into partnership with Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, to retaliate against Iran. U.S. government furnishes chemical and biological weapons to Saddam.
Late 1980s-- With U.S. government support and assistance, Saddam uses U.S.-government-supplied chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
1986 -- U.S. government enters into partnership with Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to resist Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. U.S. government furnishes partners with weaponry, including U.S.-made Stinger missiles.
1991-- Soviet Union falls and Cold War ends. NATO faces abolition and U.S. military-industrial complex faces massive reduction in budget and influence.
1991 -- Saddam contends that neighbor Kuwait is stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling and is also violating contractual agreements in OPEC. Saddam signals partner U.S. government of intention to invade Kuwait to resolve dispute. U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, expresses no objections, stating, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.. . . Kuwait is not associated with America.”
1991-- Saddam invades Kuwait to resolve slant-drilling and OPEC dispute. President George H.W. Bush turns on partner Saddam and declares him to be a new “Hitler” effectively dissolving the long partnership between U.S. government and Saddam. Bush declares intention to attack Iraq with UN assistance to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991 -- Persian Gulf War. UN forces, led by U.S. government, defeat Iraq and oust Iraq from Kuwait. UN and President George H.W. Bush leave Saddam in power but require him to dismantle his nuclear facilities and chemical and biological weapons.
1991-- U.S. government attempts to oust Saddam from power through UN-enforced military-economic blockade, also known as “sanctions,” against the Iraqi people, which continues to the present. According to UN officials, sanctions contribute to the deaths of multitudes of Iraqi children, with estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to a million.
Early 1990s -- U.S. government establishes illegal no-fly zones over Iraq, resulting in a continuous U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq. Illegal bombing campaign kills hundreds of Iraqi people.
1993 -- U.S. World Trade Center terrorist bomber cites death of Iraqi children as a motivating factor in bombing attack.
1996 -- Osama bin Laden turns against former partner U.S. government and declares war against United States, stating in part, “More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression imposed on Iraq and its nation.”
1996 -- U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, announces that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children resulting from the military-economic blockade against Iraq have been worth it.
1998-2000 -- High UN officials resign posts in protest against deaths of Iraqi children from sanctions.
2001 -- September 11 terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon. U.S. government declares perpetual “war on terrorism” and begins indefinite campaign to restrict rights and freedoms of the American people. NATO is reinvigorated, military spending soars, and military-industrial complex expands, all for the indefinite future.
2002 -- President George W. Bush repeats President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 declaration that former U.S. government partner Saddam is a “Hitler” and that therefore he must be ousted from power, 12 years after the Persian Gulf War. Bush claims that former partner Saddam hates America for its “freedom and values.” Bush cites former partner Saddam’s acquisition of nuclear components and biological and chemical weapons (including those obtained from the United States) as proof that Saddam presents a dire threat to the United States.
2002 -- UN Security Council, prodded by U.S. government, requires Saddam to file updated weapons report fully accounting for nuclear components and biological and chemical weaponry.
2002 -- Saddam files updated nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons report with the UN Security Council.. U.S. government objects to public release of identities of suppliers of nuclear components to Iraq. UN turns report over to United States, which releases censored summary that deletes identities of nuclear suppliers, but information on suppliers nevertheless leaked to press. United States among suppliers of nuclear components to former partner Saddam.
2002-- Bush administration announces that former partner Saddam is in breach of UN resolutions by providing an incomplete accounting of nuclear components and biological and chemical weaponry, possibly on the basis of a comparison between the nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry that the U.S. government originally furnished Saddam and what he has accounted for.
If radical Islamic fundamentals attack us for our freedoms, why is it that Switzerland and Canada never get attacked? Could it possibly be because those countries take a neutral stance on foreign policy? You say it is because America is the leader of the free world? Leader of what? The world certainly isn't free and if Osama bin Laden's goal was to destroy our freedoms, he has succeeded, because our freedom has been destroyed from within, ostensibly to save it. And, really, the only thing we are a leader in now, is military spending, spending as much as the rest of the world combined, and currency debasement as the dollar is still the world's reserve currency. But even now, that is changing as more countries abandoned the dollar as it becomes worth less and less.
Which brings me to my final reason, we need to abandon our aggressive foreign policy. Our country is bankrupt! Counting unfunded liabilities, it is over 100 trillion dollars in debt. We simply can't afford to have 900 military bases in over 140 countries in the world. We can't afford to be the world's policemen. We can't afford paying for the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea, or any other nation for that matter. The increasing bankrupt nature of our economy is the largest security threat to the US.
In conclusion, the American aggressive foreign policy violates the long-standing Western view of just war theory. It runs contrary to our heritage and the views of the Founding Fathers. It violates the logic of conservative limited government philosophy. It destroys the Bill of Rights, and turns the US into a police state playing right into Islamic fundamentalists' hands. It has created ill will throughout the world that makes interventionist philosophy a self-fulfilling prophesy. It has bankrupted our nation, both economically, and morally. It has turned me, and other freedom fighters who love the foundation of our country more than anything else, into enemy combatants. The last nail in the coffin containing freedom has been set. The rest, I fear, will be history that may rival the atrocities of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union. My only hope is Ron Paul.
Most people as I do recognize the heroic nature of those in uniform who work for the defense of ones country. The conflict arises from deciphering what is offense and what is defense.
Only defensive war is just. The legacy of just war theory in Western Civilization derives from the writings of Cicero, St Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, Over the ages the writings of those philosophers have been refined into the following principles for the justice of war:
1.having just cause;
2.being a last resort;
3.being declared by a proper authority;
4.possessing right intention;
5.having a reasonable chance of success;
6.the end being proportional to the means used
(http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/).
The Western tradition of the primacy of the individual and certainly the legacy of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, versus those political philosophies of collectivism, such as Communism, Socialism, fascism or nationalism, requires one to look at indiscriminate war as the most vile form of collectivism, a destruction of the rights of an individual. To wage war without the paramount value of refraining from the killing of innocent civilians from an American viewpoint is simply, morally wrong.
Pre-emptive war such as that waged against Iraq can never fit into the category of a just defensive war. First, it wouldn't be by definition a last resort, but instead, a first option. War wouldn't be declared by a proper authority since surprise is a necessary aspect of pre-emptive war. There would be no declaration of war. The ostensible reasons for war will have not been vetted sufficiently, since the requirement of pre-emption naturally hastens the move to war. And, of course we now know that the haste to get into that war without realizing the truth or falsity of those "weapons of mass destruction" resulted in execution of war without justification as all the charges of 'weapons of mass destruction" were false.
If every nation on earth held to the same philosophy of pre-emption during the twentieth century, there would be nothing human left on earth. Surely, both the Soviet Union and the United States of America would rationalize that since missiles are pointed at each other, better take out the one side before the other side attacks. Mutually assured destruction. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed. An aspect of the traditional view of just war set up more limited wars by proxy in the third world. But now that the US believes it enjoys a virtual monopoly of force on the rest of the world, not moral considerations, but the presence of pure naked power, has enabled the US to posit the theory of pre-emptive war. Having the power to wage pre-emptive war certainly doesn't justify that war from any moral aspect that the great philosophers of the ages painstakingly developed through just war theory.
One can understand that if one is waging a truly defensive war and going after true military targets, some "collateral damage" may be unavoidable. But in the perils of a "war on terror," where the enemy is elusive and hard to identify, major collateral damage is unavoidable. Getting beyond the fact of its immorality, the utilitarian aspect of this is bankrupt. Every time innocents are killed, the mythical hydra snake multiplies as once moderate Islamists become instantly radicalized by virtue of the fact that their loved ones have become "collateral damage." If you doubt the occurrence of this, ask yourself this question, If you had a Chinese family living next door to you who were really freedom fighters, subversives plotting to overthrow the tyranny in China, while living in the US, what would your reaction be if the Chinese brought in a drone to wipe out those Chinese terrorists. They succeed, but unfortunately some of your loved ones become collateral damage in the process. How long would it take you to become radicalized against the Chinese?
Even non-violent acts of war such as the Clinton sanctions against Iraq may have killed up to 500,000 innocent children. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when asked about this, said, "We think it is worth it." This fatal conceit and hubris of the elite has blown back at us, to far greater extent than most would want to admit. How many moderate Islamic people were radicalized by that quote which was broadcast all over the Arab world? To answer that question you must ask yourself how many Americans would become radicalized if a foreign country imposed economic sanction on us that resulted in a half million of our children dead. Hell hath no fury, . . . But even if those sanctions didn't result in raising one more radical, the step must certainly be considered morally wrong. Certainly the end is not proportional to the means used.
Limited government conservatives are prone to rely on the founding fathers for advice as to how to approach public policy. The Constitution is often quoted. And conservatives lament when "liberals" read into the Constitution powers that are not there or powers that derive from a "living Constitution." ( A living Constitution is where two people are playing poker, one has two pair, the other, three of a kind. The one with two pair says "The rules have changed in this modern era. Two pair now beats three of a kind.") Why is it then that those who believe in an aggressive foreign policy become cognitively dissonant concerning Constitutional powers in this field? The Constitution is very clear. Article I, section 8: "Congress has the power to declare war." Nowhere does the Constitution allow the Congress to delegate this grave responsibility. To believe so is to walk the path of "liberals" who read so much power into the Constitution that they take the position that Congress through the commerce clause can tell individuals what vegetables can or can not be grown on their own property for their own consumption. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) This is, of course an absurd proposition, but no less absurd than the notion that Congress can delegate their responsibility to declare war onto the Executive branch. On this point alone, foreign intervention since World War II has been and is illegal, unconstitutional and wrong.
Those of us who believe in limited government are fond of quoting the founding fathers on a variety of issues. Why is it that those who believe in an aggressive foreign policy choose to ignore the admonitions of the founders on the points of foreign policy? Thomas Jefferson and George Washington in his farewell address preached of a foreign policy of non-intervention. They called for free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. But times are different, now, you say? Listen to yourself--that is exactly how liberals sound as they run roughshod over the Constitution. Fundamental principles do not change.
And we need not turn to the Eighteenth Century to garner support for non-interventionism. In the Fifties, "Mr. Republican,' Robert Taft, had this to say on war, "War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers." And of course, President Eisenhower, in his farewell address prophetically warned of the power of the (Congressional[He used this word in the first draft; it was eliminated by speech time]) Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower also believed that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was unnecessary. Said Eisenhower, " in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) General Douglas McArthur, Herbert Hoover and Admiral William D. Leahy (among other foreign policy leaders) had similar misgivings.
If an alien from another planet came to earth and studied war history over the past seventy years observing that the US is the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons, would the alien not think it rather hypocritical for the US to deny other nations' right to have these weapons for their security, i.e., Iran?
As one who believes in limited government, I firmly believe that fundamental principles don't change. Those principles include that human beings have the right to life, that in order to promote life, they have the right to produce and to keep those products of their labor and expertise. They have the right to choose, to make decisions in any manner controlling their life as long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. This is the essence of being a free human being. Extrapolating this into foreign policy requires one to realize that for one country to intervene into another country's business is wrong and immoral. Entangling alliances such as NATO or the United Nations violate this principle.
But what about true national defense? If 911 was an invasion, then the perpetrators should be brought to justice. Since the perpetrators of 911 didn't represent a nation state, the response becomes a little more problematic. But the answer is yet in the Constitution. In Article I, section 8, it provides for the use of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." This process commissions a group of people (on the seas historically, they were privateers) to go after specific individuals for crimes committed against the US. After 911, Congressman Ron Paul called for the use of letters of marque and reprisal to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The value of this approach is that the killing of innocent people being killed is minimized, the actual perpetrators are punished instead of innocent civilians being killed because of collective guilt by association.
Instead, to call for a perpetual war against a concept, "terror", is a recipe for a burgeoning police state. I actually predicted this after the first gulf war. (www.freedomrings.net/html/writings/essays/Lessons_of_the_Persian_Gulf_War.htm) Randolph Bourne had it right, "War is the health of the state." From time immemorial, government has used war as an excuse to take away citizens' natural rights. During the War Between the States, (I actually prefer the phrase, "The War of Northern Aggression"), Lincoln did all of the following:
Took away the right to habeas corpus;
Interned thousands of people without charging them of a crime including many journalists;
Deported A Congressman;
Took away the natural right and the unalienable right as professed in the Declaration of Independence, to secede;
Introduced fiat currency backed by nothing of value which is nothing less than theft through inflation;
Introduced the draft to this country--really a form of slavery;
Introduced for the first time in this country, the income tax, another form of theft and/or slavery.
Some of these violations stayed with America, others temporarily went away only to come back to haunt us because of the precedent.
The war on terror has accelerated this process. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act completely violates the principles in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution against the processes that these laws permit. After passing the Stamp Act, King George needed a way to enforce the act so he used writs of assistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance). These writs enabled tax collectors to go into homes without any search warrant signed by a judge. These were general warrants. Officials could violate privacy and property rights for any whim at any time. The ratification of the Fourth Amendment was a direct answer against the use of Writs of Assistance. Our Fourth Amendment gives no exception for times of war. Moreover, no war has been declared. As the Constitution in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment refer to persons or people, not citizens, military tribunals and the holding of persons indefinitely is also un-Constitutional.
These acts, as bad as they are, now pale in comparison to recent events. The President has asserted the power to assassinate American citizens based solely on the claim of the Executive branch, with no transparency. Any fair-minded individual should see the danger in this. This is a recipe for totalitarian rule. To prevent this sort of thing is why the Bill of Rights was enacted. To make matters worse, in the recent case where President Obama carried out this murder of Awlaki, he also murdered his son who hadn't been declared an enemy combatant. Very reminiscent of how the Mafia does business. Better kill the son, too, or he might come back to retaliate. And now, the Congress has just passed a law that completely takes away the Constitutional rights of American citizens claiming that the military can pick up any citizen in the world, including in the US, which has now been declared a battlefield, and hold them indefinitely, and assassinate them. Any future president now has this power. Anyone who doesn't see the danger of this, has his head totally in the sand. One might as well call me an enemy combatant, because I believe any government official who supports this, in essence is guilty of treason. I am an enemy combatant against those who have subverted the Constitution turning my country into a police state. Gitmo, or worse, here I come.
To destroy our freedoms in order to save them is completely Orwellian.
Interventionism becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. the United States' problems with the Middle East hasn't happened in a vacuum. Adapted from Iraq, Iran, and September 11: A Chronology, by Jacob G. Hornberger, December 19, 2002)
1951 -- Iranian people democratically elect Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as Iranian premier.
1953 -- U.S. government, operating through the CIA, ousts Mossadegh in favor of shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a cruel and tyrannical dictator who, with U.S. government support, brutalizes his own people for the next 25 years.
1979 -- Iranian people revolt and oust the shah of Iran from power and take U.S. officials hostage in anger and retaliation against the United States. U.S. government is outraged over the ouster of the shah and the hostage-taking.
1981 -- Iranian people release hostages to the United States.
1980s -- U.S. government enters into partnership with Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, to retaliate against Iran. U.S. government furnishes chemical and biological weapons to Saddam.
Late 1980s-- With U.S. government support and assistance, Saddam uses U.S.-government-supplied chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
1986 -- U.S. government enters into partnership with Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to resist Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. U.S. government furnishes partners with weaponry, including U.S.-made Stinger missiles.
1991-- Soviet Union falls and Cold War ends. NATO faces abolition and U.S. military-industrial complex faces massive reduction in budget and influence.
1991 -- Saddam contends that neighbor Kuwait is stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling and is also violating contractual agreements in OPEC. Saddam signals partner U.S. government of intention to invade Kuwait to resolve dispute. U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, expresses no objections, stating, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.. . . Kuwait is not associated with America.”
1991-- Saddam invades Kuwait to resolve slant-drilling and OPEC dispute. President George H.W. Bush turns on partner Saddam and declares him to be a new “Hitler” effectively dissolving the long partnership between U.S. government and Saddam. Bush declares intention to attack Iraq with UN assistance to repel Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991 -- Persian Gulf War. UN forces, led by U.S. government, defeat Iraq and oust Iraq from Kuwait. UN and President George H.W. Bush leave Saddam in power but require him to dismantle his nuclear facilities and chemical and biological weapons.
1991-- U.S. government attempts to oust Saddam from power through UN-enforced military-economic blockade, also known as “sanctions,” against the Iraqi people, which continues to the present. According to UN officials, sanctions contribute to the deaths of multitudes of Iraqi children, with estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to a million.
Early 1990s -- U.S. government establishes illegal no-fly zones over Iraq, resulting in a continuous U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq. Illegal bombing campaign kills hundreds of Iraqi people.
1993 -- U.S. World Trade Center terrorist bomber cites death of Iraqi children as a motivating factor in bombing attack.
1996 -- Osama bin Laden turns against former partner U.S. government and declares war against United States, stating in part, “More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression imposed on Iraq and its nation.”
1996 -- U.S. government, through U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, announces that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children resulting from the military-economic blockade against Iraq have been worth it.
1998-2000 -- High UN officials resign posts in protest against deaths of Iraqi children from sanctions.
2001 -- September 11 terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon. U.S. government declares perpetual “war on terrorism” and begins indefinite campaign to restrict rights and freedoms of the American people. NATO is reinvigorated, military spending soars, and military-industrial complex expands, all for the indefinite future.
2002 -- President George W. Bush repeats President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 declaration that former U.S. government partner Saddam is a “Hitler” and that therefore he must be ousted from power, 12 years after the Persian Gulf War. Bush claims that former partner Saddam hates America for its “freedom and values.” Bush cites former partner Saddam’s acquisition of nuclear components and biological and chemical weapons (including those obtained from the United States) as proof that Saddam presents a dire threat to the United States.
2002 -- UN Security Council, prodded by U.S. government, requires Saddam to file updated weapons report fully accounting for nuclear components and biological and chemical weaponry.
2002 -- Saddam files updated nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons report with the UN Security Council.. U.S. government objects to public release of identities of suppliers of nuclear components to Iraq. UN turns report over to United States, which releases censored summary that deletes identities of nuclear suppliers, but information on suppliers nevertheless leaked to press. United States among suppliers of nuclear components to former partner Saddam.
2002-- Bush administration announces that former partner Saddam is in breach of UN resolutions by providing an incomplete accounting of nuclear components and biological and chemical weaponry, possibly on the basis of a comparison between the nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry that the U.S. government originally furnished Saddam and what he has accounted for.
If radical Islamic fundamentals attack us for our freedoms, why is it that Switzerland and Canada never get attacked? Could it possibly be because those countries take a neutral stance on foreign policy? You say it is because America is the leader of the free world? Leader of what? The world certainly isn't free and if Osama bin Laden's goal was to destroy our freedoms, he has succeeded, because our freedom has been destroyed from within, ostensibly to save it. And, really, the only thing we are a leader in now, is military spending, spending as much as the rest of the world combined, and currency debasement as the dollar is still the world's reserve currency. But even now, that is changing as more countries abandoned the dollar as it becomes worth less and less.
Which brings me to my final reason, we need to abandon our aggressive foreign policy. Our country is bankrupt! Counting unfunded liabilities, it is over 100 trillion dollars in debt. We simply can't afford to have 900 military bases in over 140 countries in the world. We can't afford to be the world's policemen. We can't afford paying for the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea, or any other nation for that matter. The increasing bankrupt nature of our economy is the largest security threat to the US.
In conclusion, the American aggressive foreign policy violates the long-standing Western view of just war theory. It runs contrary to our heritage and the views of the Founding Fathers. It violates the logic of conservative limited government philosophy. It destroys the Bill of Rights, and turns the US into a police state playing right into Islamic fundamentalists' hands. It has created ill will throughout the world that makes interventionist philosophy a self-fulfilling prophesy. It has bankrupted our nation, both economically, and morally. It has turned me, and other freedom fighters who love the foundation of our country more than anything else, into enemy combatants. The last nail in the coffin containing freedom has been set. The rest, I fear, will be history that may rival the atrocities of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union. My only hope is Ron Paul.
Thank you, Mark Levin
Thank you, Mark Levin
Thank you so much, Mr. Levin. I think I’ve got my mind right now. While in the past there seemed to be a failya to communicate, I believe you have finally convince me on how wrong I have been about that nutcase, Ron Paul. Foolishly, I thought he believed in individual freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. I somehow believed that an aggressive foreign policy was incompatible with a free society. I foolishly have been enslaved by the Constitution, believing it meant what it said, and said what it meant. How could have I been so wrong about the founding fathers admonitions against entangling alliances, or Republican Senator Robert Taft’s claim that “War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers."
When did that moment of revelation happen in mind, that you were right?. I am not sure if it was the tenth or fifteenth time you called Ron Paul a nut..Surely the aggregate quantity of times you called him a nut impressed me more and more, that you must surely be right. Saying it five times certainly wasn’t enough, but it certainly made more sense every time it was expressed.
Of course, it helped me a great deal that every time you called Ron Paul a nut, your decibel levels increased dramatically. Nothing is more convincing than that fifteenth time or so, when you called Ron Paul a nut, and the force of your voice pierced right into my brain. Maybe it was at that point that I got it. Verbal projection is a very important quality in life, especially in the arts. May I suggest that as a side job, you get into opera singing. Those sitting in double balcony, double Z seating will surely hear you clearly. Soprano?
And thank you for clarifying that you are not a neocon. You opposed those uprisings in Egypt and Lybia., after all. I am sure that your opposition had nothing to do with Obama’s support in those conflicts. Because your logic is impeccable, especially when it is repeated over and over at a high pitched decibel level that I haven’t experienced since my rock concert college days. Ah, those were the days, . . . Hey Mr. Levin, how about a few bars of “White Rabbit!”
And oh, that logic! You certainly convinced me that America needs to support Israel. Because why? Because “Israel’s our ally, for God’s sake!” Why waste our time thinking about the reasons Israel has such a special place in American hearts. It just is. I get it!
Israel’s our ally, because, because,
Because, because, because, because, because,
Because of the wonderful things she does,
ya ta ta ta ta ta ta,
We’re off to fight for Israel,
She’s right, whatever she does!
Thank you so much, Mr. Levin. I think I’ve got my mind right now. While in the past there seemed to be a failya to communicate, I believe you have finally convince me on how wrong I have been about that nutcase, Ron Paul. Foolishly, I thought he believed in individual freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. I somehow believed that an aggressive foreign policy was incompatible with a free society. I foolishly have been enslaved by the Constitution, believing it meant what it said, and said what it meant. How could have I been so wrong about the founding fathers admonitions against entangling alliances, or Republican Senator Robert Taft’s claim that “War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers."
When did that moment of revelation happen in mind, that you were right?. I am not sure if it was the tenth or fifteenth time you called Ron Paul a nut..Surely the aggregate quantity of times you called him a nut impressed me more and more, that you must surely be right. Saying it five times certainly wasn’t enough, but it certainly made more sense every time it was expressed.
Of course, it helped me a great deal that every time you called Ron Paul a nut, your decibel levels increased dramatically. Nothing is more convincing than that fifteenth time or so, when you called Ron Paul a nut, and the force of your voice pierced right into my brain. Maybe it was at that point that I got it. Verbal projection is a very important quality in life, especially in the arts. May I suggest that as a side job, you get into opera singing. Those sitting in double balcony, double Z seating will surely hear you clearly. Soprano?
And thank you for clarifying that you are not a neocon. You opposed those uprisings in Egypt and Lybia., after all. I am sure that your opposition had nothing to do with Obama’s support in those conflicts. Because your logic is impeccable, especially when it is repeated over and over at a high pitched decibel level that I haven’t experienced since my rock concert college days. Ah, those were the days, . . . Hey Mr. Levin, how about a few bars of “White Rabbit!”
And oh, that logic! You certainly convinced me that America needs to support Israel. Because why? Because “Israel’s our ally, for God’s sake!” Why waste our time thinking about the reasons Israel has such a special place in American hearts. It just is. I get it!
Israel’s our ally, because, because,
Because, because, because, because, because,
Because of the wonderful things she does,
ya ta ta ta ta ta ta,
We’re off to fight for Israel,
She’s right, whatever she does!
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Fed, the Enabler
This speech was given at an “End the Fed” rally in Chicago, August 6, 2011
The most absurd idea to come out of political discourse is not Marxism. One can understand an emotional, albeit irrational tie to that philosophy.
Nor is it collectivism. One can understand the lure of collectivism in general, even though it runs against a logical perview.
Nor is it Keynesianism. One can understand the mistaken notions of Keynesianism during recessions and depressions to “jump start the economy” even though we all know the deleterious effects of such policy.
No, the most absurd idea to come out of political discourse has to come from the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers who extol the virtues of free market capitalism and in the same breath acknowledge—to them-- the necessary existence of the Federal Reserve and the perpetuation of endless war. Now. There is the ultimate chicken and egg question. Which must come first? The desire for war and the necessity to fund such war without directly laying taxes? Or the existence of a national bank such as the Federal Reserve that gives open season to big government—and make no mistake about it—the biggest government enterprise is war. “War is the health of the state” as Randolph Bourne has so aptly put it.
How can one possibly hold to an existence of limited government when having a military budget that is virtually more than all other military budgets combined in the world?
How does one have limited government when fifty to sixty percent of the national debt is militarily related? And don't buy the silly notion that the national debt is fourteen or sixteen trillion. If private business calculated their finances in such a manner, the officers of the business would be thrown in prison. The real debt is over 100 trillion—that is necessarily counting the unfunded liabilities that have accrued over time—Social Security, Medicare and pensions—and a big hunk of which is
military pensions.
How does one become delusional enough to pontificate about limited government when supporting or voting for the likes of the Patriot Act that has totally destroyed what Fourth Amendment guarantees were left after the implementation of other wars such as the war on the mafia and the war on drugs? Nothing can be more unlimiting than allowing big government to invade our homes without a search warrant and even without notice after the fact. Our phone conversations, our internet activities, our email, and even our garbage—are all under surveillance, without proper, Constitutional court order. All in the name of one war or another. But the real war—we all know-- is the war on our freedom. Our founding fathers fought a revolution for such outright, long train of abuses.
Swat teams are descending upon student loan defaulters, raw milk users, and unfortunate individuals caught in case after case of mistaken identities, gunned down by swat teams, --casualties of the war on drugs, casualties of government sponsored terrorism. Make no mistake about it. You are far more likely to become a victim of government terrorism than from some Islamic extremist driven with zeal because some American drone plane killed his children.
All this and more—yes, the strip searching of a 95 year old woman with a diaper comes to mind—and yet the neocon either ignores or fully supports these totalitarian invasions of our freedom and perpetual war around the globe, and in the same breath—talks about limited government. Absolutely the most absurd idea ever to come out of political discourse.
Here in Illinois, three fellow travelers with the neocons—call themselves tea party Congressman. Randy Hultgren, Joe Walsh and Robert Dold, all voted for the Patriot Act. They are all enemies of freedom and should be held to the level of respect they deserve. None of them call for the end of the Federal Reserve. Why? Because the Federal Reserve is the enabler to end all enablers. It is the enabler of big government. It is the enabler of perpetual war.
Do you think for a minute that the American voters would allow the continuation of such wars if they had to pay for the real cost up front with taxes? Heck there might even be a revolution afoot if that happened. That is why a Federal Reserve is necessary. To keep the people from revolting from what is a totally corrupt, totalitarian system of perpetual war and domestic surveillance, high taxes, higher inflation and a total disregard to our natural rights.
So if you want a continuing plunge into abject serfdom, and totalitarian slavery, with death squad swat teams of real terror, support the Fed. Support the politicians who want to perpetuate the Fed.
If you want to be part of the most absurd political movement imaginable, than extol the virtues of free market capitalism, limited government and the Constitution at the same time you call for perpetual war and domestic surveillance and the existence of its enabler, the Federal Reserve.
But if you are a rational human being who believes in individual freedom, then the course is clear. To begin to travel the road to freedom and prosperity, one must first open the gateway to freedom. The key to that gateway is to end the Fed. End the Fed! . . .
The most absurd idea to come out of political discourse is not Marxism. One can understand an emotional, albeit irrational tie to that philosophy.
Nor is it collectivism. One can understand the lure of collectivism in general, even though it runs against a logical perview.
Nor is it Keynesianism. One can understand the mistaken notions of Keynesianism during recessions and depressions to “jump start the economy” even though we all know the deleterious effects of such policy.
No, the most absurd idea to come out of political discourse has to come from the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers who extol the virtues of free market capitalism and in the same breath acknowledge—to them-- the necessary existence of the Federal Reserve and the perpetuation of endless war. Now. There is the ultimate chicken and egg question. Which must come first? The desire for war and the necessity to fund such war without directly laying taxes? Or the existence of a national bank such as the Federal Reserve that gives open season to big government—and make no mistake about it—the biggest government enterprise is war. “War is the health of the state” as Randolph Bourne has so aptly put it.
How can one possibly hold to an existence of limited government when having a military budget that is virtually more than all other military budgets combined in the world?
How does one have limited government when fifty to sixty percent of the national debt is militarily related? And don't buy the silly notion that the national debt is fourteen or sixteen trillion. If private business calculated their finances in such a manner, the officers of the business would be thrown in prison. The real debt is over 100 trillion—that is necessarily counting the unfunded liabilities that have accrued over time—Social Security, Medicare and pensions—and a big hunk of which is
military pensions.
How does one become delusional enough to pontificate about limited government when supporting or voting for the likes of the Patriot Act that has totally destroyed what Fourth Amendment guarantees were left after the implementation of other wars such as the war on the mafia and the war on drugs? Nothing can be more unlimiting than allowing big government to invade our homes without a search warrant and even without notice after the fact. Our phone conversations, our internet activities, our email, and even our garbage—are all under surveillance, without proper, Constitutional court order. All in the name of one war or another. But the real war—we all know-- is the war on our freedom. Our founding fathers fought a revolution for such outright, long train of abuses.
Swat teams are descending upon student loan defaulters, raw milk users, and unfortunate individuals caught in case after case of mistaken identities, gunned down by swat teams, --casualties of the war on drugs, casualties of government sponsored terrorism. Make no mistake about it. You are far more likely to become a victim of government terrorism than from some Islamic extremist driven with zeal because some American drone plane killed his children.
All this and more—yes, the strip searching of a 95 year old woman with a diaper comes to mind—and yet the neocon either ignores or fully supports these totalitarian invasions of our freedom and perpetual war around the globe, and in the same breath—talks about limited government. Absolutely the most absurd idea ever to come out of political discourse.
Here in Illinois, three fellow travelers with the neocons—call themselves tea party Congressman. Randy Hultgren, Joe Walsh and Robert Dold, all voted for the Patriot Act. They are all enemies of freedom and should be held to the level of respect they deserve. None of them call for the end of the Federal Reserve. Why? Because the Federal Reserve is the enabler to end all enablers. It is the enabler of big government. It is the enabler of perpetual war.
Do you think for a minute that the American voters would allow the continuation of such wars if they had to pay for the real cost up front with taxes? Heck there might even be a revolution afoot if that happened. That is why a Federal Reserve is necessary. To keep the people from revolting from what is a totally corrupt, totalitarian system of perpetual war and domestic surveillance, high taxes, higher inflation and a total disregard to our natural rights.
So if you want a continuing plunge into abject serfdom, and totalitarian slavery, with death squad swat teams of real terror, support the Fed. Support the politicians who want to perpetuate the Fed.
If you want to be part of the most absurd political movement imaginable, than extol the virtues of free market capitalism, limited government and the Constitution at the same time you call for perpetual war and domestic surveillance and the existence of its enabler, the Federal Reserve.
But if you are a rational human being who believes in individual freedom, then the course is clear. To begin to travel the road to freedom and prosperity, one must first open the gateway to freedom. The key to that gateway is to end the Fed. End the Fed! . . .
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Establishment Wins; Illinois Loses
by Kenneth Prazak
Two bills in the Illinois legislature that are central to the beginnings of a freedom renaissance in Illinois have just been defeated in the Illinois House, giving rise to the dreadful fact that Illinois is broke, broke in so many ways, not only financial broke, but even more pathetically, broke in the spirit of freedom.
Both sides of the political power parties, the Democrats and Republicans contributed to this dreadful demise of freedom, given rise to the notion that only a third party, specifically the Libertarian Party, can give hope to any Illinois citizen whose value system supports liberty at the apex.
HB148, the tepid Conceal Carry Law introduced by downstate Democrat Brandon Phelps, won a majority vote a week ago, but failed to get the super-majority 71 votes needed for passage, which was also needed to override Governor Quinn’s certain veto. Evidently the Chicago Machine is still potent in its ability to twist arms as at least one representative from Chicago changed her support of Conceal Carry and voted, no.
The other nail into the coffin of Illinois liberty came a week ago in the name of the Medical Marijuana Bill, HB 30, this time the House Republicans becoming the main culprits despite the fact that Republican House minority leader, Tom Cross, for the first time came out in support of the bill. Evidently he has little sway with his Republican colleagues. The bill sponsor, Democrat Lou Lang, of Skokie, vows to try again this session, being only two votes short of passage. Hope reigns eternal.
So it is that Illinois politicians collectively care little about life or health of its fellow citizens caring more about the industries that have been built up surrounding gun restriction and drug war machinations.
Countless victims succumb to gun crime on the street. The criminals care less about the laws; law abiding citizens are sittin’ ducks. The ironic tragedy is that those who care most about abiding the law are the most obvious victims.
Others die of lack of nutrition as a result of appetite loss from cancer chemotherapy, or go blind from glaucoma, ailments that, among others, only marijuana can help.
The great experiment that was America, although far from perfect, was an experiment in individual freedom and personal responsibility, the likes of which the world had never seen. With the obvious exceptions of historically discriminated groups, she became the freest and most prosperous nation on earth. Not because of great natural resources, great human stock, but because of a philosophy of freedom that has brought out the best in man.
And now we are reduced to being denied “permission” from power-hungry politicians to protect ourselves, to bear arms as citizens of 48 other states can do; and languish with disease that nature can relieve by ingesting an herb from a plant that has more beneficial uses than any other plant on earth. Or one can take action and violate the unconstitutional laws that take away our rights to defend ourselves or heal ourselves. These restrictive laws are policies of which good-conscience freedom lovers should be ashamed.
The Libertarian Party of Illinois stands firm in its support of these natural rights of man. We will fight to get these mild laws passed and then fight again to fully restore the rights of free Americans. The only hope for restoring (and fully realizing for everyone) true freedom to our land is the libertarian philosophy. And here in Illinois, the only viable political vehicle in which to do so is the Libertarian Party of Illinois.
Both sides of the political power parties, the Democrats and Republicans contributed to this dreadful demise of freedom, given rise to the notion that only a third party, specifically the Libertarian Party, can give hope to any Illinois citizen whose value system supports liberty at the apex.
HB148, the tepid Conceal Carry Law introduced by downstate Democrat Brandon Phelps, won a majority vote a week ago, but failed to get the super-majority 71 votes needed for passage, which was also needed to override Governor Quinn’s certain veto. Evidently the Chicago Machine is still potent in its ability to twist arms as at least one representative from Chicago changed her support of Conceal Carry and voted, no.
The other nail into the coffin of Illinois liberty came a week ago in the name of the Medical Marijuana Bill, HB 30, this time the House Republicans becoming the main culprits despite the fact that Republican House minority leader, Tom Cross, for the first time came out in support of the bill. Evidently he has little sway with his Republican colleagues. The bill sponsor, Democrat Lou Lang, of Skokie, vows to try again this session, being only two votes short of passage. Hope reigns eternal.
So it is that Illinois politicians collectively care little about life or health of its fellow citizens caring more about the industries that have been built up surrounding gun restriction and drug war machinations.
Countless victims succumb to gun crime on the street. The criminals care less about the laws; law abiding citizens are sittin’ ducks. The ironic tragedy is that those who care most about abiding the law are the most obvious victims.
Others die of lack of nutrition as a result of appetite loss from cancer chemotherapy, or go blind from glaucoma, ailments that, among others, only marijuana can help.
The great experiment that was America, although far from perfect, was an experiment in individual freedom and personal responsibility, the likes of which the world had never seen. With the obvious exceptions of historically discriminated groups, she became the freest and most prosperous nation on earth. Not because of great natural resources, great human stock, but because of a philosophy of freedom that has brought out the best in man.
And now we are reduced to being denied “permission” from power-hungry politicians to protect ourselves, to bear arms as citizens of 48 other states can do; and languish with disease that nature can relieve by ingesting an herb from a plant that has more beneficial uses than any other plant on earth. Or one can take action and violate the unconstitutional laws that take away our rights to defend ourselves or heal ourselves. These restrictive laws are policies of which good-conscience freedom lovers should be ashamed.
The Libertarian Party of Illinois stands firm in its support of these natural rights of man. We will fight to get these mild laws passed and then fight again to fully restore the rights of free Americans. The only hope for restoring (and fully realizing for everyone) true freedom to our land is the libertarian philosophy. And here in Illinois, the only viable political vehicle in which to do so is the Libertarian Party of Illinois.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sleep
The silent shrug of myopic minds,
deters the wake of caring sighs.
It steers away from heartfelt ache,
the pain of knowing the real mistake,
of clinging to comfortable diatribes,
from politicians to media lies.
The tunneled vain of vanquished care,
for plights of those we’re not aware,
shall bring a path of forgetful bliss.
The moral dilemma won’t seem amiss,
as drone like brain-waves usurp a hint,
of gross injustice in our midst.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Shell games crossed with Ponzi malice,
invade the state with viral madness.
Revenues stolen to fund the scheme,
from you and me to bring the dream,
of rule by force to the looter class,
and deified power within the grasp.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Jackboot thugs claim innocent lives,
with drug war raids-- no law provides.
Yet swat teams crash and shred the law,
matters not the purported cause.
Alphabet agencies storm with guns,
for views or vitamins-- unsanctioned ones.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Collateral damage rules the day,
as innocent people are bombed away.
The hydra snake in Islamic dress,
multiplies fast, and so, to stress,
the self-fulfilled prophesy now is real.
Let’s go after Goldstein, now, with zeal!
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Though that type of life is shallow,
making your brain a tower of jello.
Uncle Sam does the thinking for you,
just obey the call of the red, white and blue.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Sleep . . . Sleep . . . sleep . . . sleep . . .
deters the wake of caring sighs.
It steers away from heartfelt ache,
the pain of knowing the real mistake,
of clinging to comfortable diatribes,
from politicians to media lies.
The tunneled vain of vanquished care,
for plights of those we’re not aware,
shall bring a path of forgetful bliss.
The moral dilemma won’t seem amiss,
as drone like brain-waves usurp a hint,
of gross injustice in our midst.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Shell games crossed with Ponzi malice,
invade the state with viral madness.
Revenues stolen to fund the scheme,
from you and me to bring the dream,
of rule by force to the looter class,
and deified power within the grasp.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Jackboot thugs claim innocent lives,
with drug war raids-- no law provides.
Yet swat teams crash and shred the law,
matters not the purported cause.
Alphabet agencies storm with guns,
for views or vitamins-- unsanctioned ones.
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Collateral damage rules the day,
as innocent people are bombed away.
The hydra snake in Islamic dress,
multiplies fast, and so, to stress,
the self-fulfilled prophesy now is real.
Let’s go after Goldstein, now, with zeal!
Super bowls and reality shows,
jackpot troves, and numbing loaves,
of bread and circus pablum fare,
it keeps our minds from real despair.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Though that type of life is shallow,
making your brain a tower of jello.
Uncle Sam does the thinking for you,
just obey the call of the red, white and blue.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Hush, little ’mericans, don’t say a word,
Uncle Sam provides a life secured.
Sleep . . . Sleep . . . sleep . . . sleep . . .
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Cult of Force
Well, its been over a week since the heinous, outrageous, horrible, terrifying, sad, heart-wrenching, and tragic crimes took place in . . . Massachusetts, Utah and Pakistan. Gotcha, didn’t I. Thought I’d say Tuscon. And of course, all of those adjectives apply to that crime, too. But there are other crimes that have happened, that objectively, must be viewed as even more tragic and terrifying because it took place by our would-be protectors-- the police in swat teams where innocent people have been killed by trigger happy, fear-filled swat team members operating with the war-on-drugs mentality that has brought so many tragic deaths to our country, and for no good reason. Also, innocent people are being killed in Pakistan killed by US drones in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty with no war declared by the United States. The politicians and talking heads weep not for these tragedies.
Eurie Stamps, 68 year old retired grandfather of 12, was gunned down in a swat team drug raid in Farmingham, MA on January 6 of this year. The police were not looking for him but for the son of his live-in mate. The official story doesn’t mention any resistance but the authorities are keeping the details from the public.
In Ogden, Utah, in late December of last year, a police officer shot 45 year-old Todd Blair in a no-knock drug raid where Blair was holding a golf club in the air at least 8 feet from the officers. Ogden police officer Troy Burnett shot Blair three times killing him stating “I saw something shiny like a sword or something.” Burnett admits that Blair didn’t charge him. The State's Attorney in charge has called the shooting justified. One can view the actual murder at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.htm
And as recent as January 6, US drone planes have fired missiles killing 12 Pakistanis. Over 100 attacks have occurred last year, many of these attacks killing innocent civilians or what our government officials call “collateral damage.” Are these Pakistanis any less human than the victims of the Tuscon shooting?
There is much chatter among politicians and talking heads about setting examples of civility, and toning down the rhetoric in political discourse in response to the Tuscon shooting. First, one thing should remain clear. One man alone is responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon. Politicians aren’t responsible; neither are pundits or talk show hosts or guns.
However, if we really want to take a look at root causes of the violence that permeates American society, we should first look at the top, the entity that sets the standard for violence, the government. With the US government, war, is, too often, the battle cry to address problems. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, in total, the war on freedom permeates the lives of Americans.
With war comes the associated devaluing modus operandi: irrationality, avoidance of logic, emotionally charged actions, and led by despots with titles of “Czar.” Compassion, reason, tolerance, deliberation, empathy, objective weighing of evidence, dissent; these are values voided by the execution of war. Liberty is the ultimate casualty in these never ceasing wars. Yes, war is the health of the state, force its raison d’etre, and “You’re either with us or against us” its battle cry. Freedom, prosperity, limited government, personal rights, dissent, adherence to the Constitution, and the lives of innocent people are all “collateral damage” from the execution of these wars.
Most of the alphabet agencies of the federal government have swat teams and use them, even in raiding health food stores for the horrible crime of selling raw milk.
Is it any wonder why American society is ridden with so much violence?
Don’t pay your taxes? They come with guns.
Self medicate? They come with guns.
Teach your children at home? In some states, they come with guns.
Sell “unapproved” alternative health remedies? They come with guns.
Sell a shotgun with the barrel a quarter inch too short? They come with guns.
Use a gun in self defense? They come with guns.
Form a religious commune? They come with guns.
Fill in lowlands on your property? They come with guns.
Run your own numbers game in competition with the government’s game? They come with guns.
Pick up an eagle feather? They may come with guns.
Build a better automobile? Preston Tucker found out they’ll come with guns. Yes, DeLorean, too.
Organize war protests? They come with guns.
Grow unapproved vegetables or herbs on your own property? They come with guns.
Government is the organized monopoly use of force. Natural law dictates that force should be only used as a defense measure against the initiation of force. Yet virtually every aspect of our lives has been criminalized by government.
Force begets force. And when Americans are treated like children using force to enforce the myriad of regulations that criminalize peaceful non-coercive action that should be legal in any rational, free society, they will do what children do. They’ll tend to mimic their parents actions, the parent in this case being government.
There must be a better way . . . And there is.
Short of the use of defensive force to mitigate and punish murder, rape, and theft, the mind-set of America must turn to peace-nurturing cooperation, toleration, free exchange of ideas, products and services; and an allowance for lifestyles that don’t infringe on the rights of others if the cult of force is to be reversed.
It’s time we enacted some meaningful gun control and its associated uses of force on the government.
Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Swat teams with guns enforcing laws that shouldn’t even exist has made government an intolerable evil with its predictable ramifications in American society. This cult of force must be stopped.
A tolerable evil in the name of truly limited government would be a step in the right direction.
Eurie Stamps, 68 year old retired grandfather of 12, was gunned down in a swat team drug raid in Farmingham, MA on January 6 of this year. The police were not looking for him but for the son of his live-in mate. The official story doesn’t mention any resistance but the authorities are keeping the details from the public.
In Ogden, Utah, in late December of last year, a police officer shot 45 year-old Todd Blair in a no-knock drug raid where Blair was holding a golf club in the air at least 8 feet from the officers. Ogden police officer Troy Burnett shot Blair three times killing him stating “I saw something shiny like a sword or something.” Burnett admits that Blair didn’t charge him. The State's Attorney in charge has called the shooting justified. One can view the actual murder at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.htm
And as recent as January 6, US drone planes have fired missiles killing 12 Pakistanis. Over 100 attacks have occurred last year, many of these attacks killing innocent civilians or what our government officials call “collateral damage.” Are these Pakistanis any less human than the victims of the Tuscon shooting?
There is much chatter among politicians and talking heads about setting examples of civility, and toning down the rhetoric in political discourse in response to the Tuscon shooting. First, one thing should remain clear. One man alone is responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon. Politicians aren’t responsible; neither are pundits or talk show hosts or guns.
However, if we really want to take a look at root causes of the violence that permeates American society, we should first look at the top, the entity that sets the standard for violence, the government. With the US government, war, is, too often, the battle cry to address problems. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, in total, the war on freedom permeates the lives of Americans.
With war comes the associated devaluing modus operandi: irrationality, avoidance of logic, emotionally charged actions, and led by despots with titles of “Czar.” Compassion, reason, tolerance, deliberation, empathy, objective weighing of evidence, dissent; these are values voided by the execution of war. Liberty is the ultimate casualty in these never ceasing wars. Yes, war is the health of the state, force its raison d’etre, and “You’re either with us or against us” its battle cry. Freedom, prosperity, limited government, personal rights, dissent, adherence to the Constitution, and the lives of innocent people are all “collateral damage” from the execution of these wars.
Most of the alphabet agencies of the federal government have swat teams and use them, even in raiding health food stores for the horrible crime of selling raw milk.
Is it any wonder why American society is ridden with so much violence?
Don’t pay your taxes? They come with guns.
Self medicate? They come with guns.
Teach your children at home? In some states, they come with guns.
Sell “unapproved” alternative health remedies? They come with guns.
Sell a shotgun with the barrel a quarter inch too short? They come with guns.
Use a gun in self defense? They come with guns.
Form a religious commune? They come with guns.
Fill in lowlands on your property? They come with guns.
Run your own numbers game in competition with the government’s game? They come with guns.
Pick up an eagle feather? They may come with guns.
Build a better automobile? Preston Tucker found out they’ll come with guns. Yes, DeLorean, too.
Organize war protests? They come with guns.
Grow unapproved vegetables or herbs on your own property? They come with guns.
Government is the organized monopoly use of force. Natural law dictates that force should be only used as a defense measure against the initiation of force. Yet virtually every aspect of our lives has been criminalized by government.
Force begets force. And when Americans are treated like children using force to enforce the myriad of regulations that criminalize peaceful non-coercive action that should be legal in any rational, free society, they will do what children do. They’ll tend to mimic their parents actions, the parent in this case being government.
There must be a better way . . . And there is.
Short of the use of defensive force to mitigate and punish murder, rape, and theft, the mind-set of America must turn to peace-nurturing cooperation, toleration, free exchange of ideas, products and services; and an allowance for lifestyles that don’t infringe on the rights of others if the cult of force is to be reversed.
It’s time we enacted some meaningful gun control and its associated uses of force on the government.
Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Swat teams with guns enforcing laws that shouldn’t even exist has made government an intolerable evil with its predictable ramifications in American society. This cult of force must be stopped.
A tolerable evil in the name of truly limited government would be a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
