posted by Greg Chamberlain
Ron Paul speaks clearly about what a free society really is as the Congressman recently appeared on CNN's brand new show entitled John King USA to discuss topics including health care, the Tea Parties, and online politics. Ron Paul stresses that a free society protects rights, doesn't take them away. Government should protect rights, not divvy up the loot.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/03/19/jk.ron.paul.healthcare.cnn
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Ron Paul in The Atlantic - "Ron Paul on the Dodd Proposal's Treatment of the Fed"
Dr. Paul discusses Senator Chris Dodd's financial regulatory "reform" proposal in this recent interview:
The Atlantic: Dodd wants financial stability to now be an explicit function of the Fed. What do you think the outcome of that would be?
Ron Paul: Financial stability? Well you need a stable dollar to have that. You can't allow somebody to double the money supply in one year and have the financial community wondering: when is he gonna take that off the balance sheet? You don't get stability that way. It's impossible....
Go to the following link for the whole story: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/ron-paul-on-the-dodd-proposals-treatment-of-the-fed/37589/
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Making the Case for Free Market Economics - Congressman Paul Questions Fed Chairman Bernanke
Congressman Paul questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on interest rates and the boom-bust cycle during Wednesday's House Financial Services Committee Hearing.
Message direct fromRon Paul: URGENT! Help Keep Rand on TV!!
Dear Friend,
My son Rand is running a great campaign in Kentucky. Through hard work and your support, he is winning! We have a real chance to send the most principled, limited government leader to the United States Senate in a generation.
But now, he needs you more than ever.
The big government establishment has turned on their fundraising machine to try and defeat Rand. According to media reports, Rand's challenger has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past several weeks. The sources? Disgusting! PAC's, special interests and the banking industry - all of whom are opening up their wallets for Rand's opponent.
Remember when AIG took billions of taxpayer bailout dollars not once, but twice? Well, I have it on good information that AIG's chief lobbyist just held a high dollar, big money fundraiser for Rand's rival. I am sure you can figure out why.
Rand has shrewdly purchased all the television airtime he needs from mid-April through his May 18th Primary. The commercials are produced, the voter data is being assembled and a tremendous turnout machine is being put in place.
Rand's career politician opponent is lashing out - he has turned on an attack machine of vicious distortions and outright lies. Rand is working hard to knock them back and fight for our principles.
But, Rand does not have enough money to stay on TV and fight off the establishments smear tactics over the next few weeks. Unless he gets a substantial infusion of cash, he will not be able to purchase airtime from March 24 through mid April. And with all of his opponent's lies and fear mongering, he needs your help to stay on Kentucky statewide television during this critical time.
On Tuesday, March 23, the grassroots have organized a Money Bomb for Rand. If we have a successful day, Rand will be able to purchase the airtime he needs for the next few weeks and fund the last several mail pieces he will need down the stretch. You can donate directly at Rand's website, RandPaul2010.com.
We need you more than ever. I dearly hope I can count on your support. We have a tremendous opportunity, and if we come together on March 23, I know we can win.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. Please view this video.(Below) Rand's team out together, and forward it to your friends and family. Every single person's contribution counts, and anything you can do to spread the message is greatly appreciated!
My son Rand is running a great campaign in Kentucky. Through hard work and your support, he is winning! We have a real chance to send the most principled, limited government leader to the United States Senate in a generation.
But now, he needs you more than ever.
The big government establishment has turned on their fundraising machine to try and defeat Rand. According to media reports, Rand's challenger has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past several weeks. The sources? Disgusting! PAC's, special interests and the banking industry - all of whom are opening up their wallets for Rand's opponent.
Remember when AIG took billions of taxpayer bailout dollars not once, but twice? Well, I have it on good information that AIG's chief lobbyist just held a high dollar, big money fundraiser for Rand's rival. I am sure you can figure out why.
Rand has shrewdly purchased all the television airtime he needs from mid-April through his May 18th Primary. The commercials are produced, the voter data is being assembled and a tremendous turnout machine is being put in place.
Rand's career politician opponent is lashing out - he has turned on an attack machine of vicious distortions and outright lies. Rand is working hard to knock them back and fight for our principles.
But, Rand does not have enough money to stay on TV and fight off the establishments smear tactics over the next few weeks. Unless he gets a substantial infusion of cash, he will not be able to purchase airtime from March 24 through mid April. And with all of his opponent's lies and fear mongering, he needs your help to stay on Kentucky statewide television during this critical time.
On Tuesday, March 23, the grassroots have organized a Money Bomb for Rand. If we have a successful day, Rand will be able to purchase the airtime he needs for the next few weeks and fund the last several mail pieces he will need down the stretch. You can donate directly at Rand's website, RandPaul2010.com.
We need you more than ever. I dearly hope I can count on your support. We have a tremendous opportunity, and if we come together on March 23, I know we can win.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. Please view this video.(Below) Rand's team out together, and forward it to your friends and family. Every single person's contribution counts, and anything you can do to spread the message is greatly appreciated!
Ron Paul's Opening Statement in Financial Services Hearing
Congressman Ron Paul Paul of Texas gives an opening statement at a hearing on Fed bank supervision and monetary policy. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paul Volcker are in attendance to testify.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Congressman Paul was interviewed on Fox Business today concerning financial reform
Congressman Paul was interviewed on Fox Business today concerning financial reform where he got into great detail on many issues.
Monday, March 15, 2010
"The Fed is the lender of last resort for politicians" - Ron Paul on The Ed Show
On Monday March 16, 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on MSNBC's The ED Show to discuss Senator Dodd's financial regulatory reform bill and monetary policy.
Supporting the War Instead of the Troops - Essay by Ron Paul
Supporting the War Instead of the Troops
by United States Congressman Ron Paul of Texas' 14th District
Last week, Congress debated a resolution directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will. This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.
First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan. Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict. Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops. But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan. Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.
In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.
Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation. Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force – to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 – is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?
Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home- not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.
by United States Congressman Ron Paul of Texas' 14th District
Last week, Congress debated a resolution directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will. This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.
First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan. Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict. Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops. But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan. Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.
In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.
Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation. Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force – to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 – is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?
Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home- not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ron Paul on Bloomberg - Giving the Fed more power makes "no sense whatsoever."
Congressman Paul appeared on Bloomberg TV to discuss the Federal Reserve, placing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency under the Fed, and the need for government to stop intervening in the economy.
Minimal House support of Kuchinich Afghanistan Resolution - A Courageous Few Speak Out
by Greg Chamberlain
Whether you are on the Right or the Left, if you are amongst the growing number of American's who would like to end the U.S. occupation of the Middle East, you would have liked Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of H Res 248. It was bill that recently did not pass that was titled "Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan". The House vote tally was 65 Yeas to 356 Nays.
This is the video he put out explaining what the bill would be.
The full text of the bill is short and can be read at http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.248:
The 21 cosponsors of the bill were:
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/4/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/10/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/9/2010
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 3/4/2010
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/4/2010
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 3/10/2010
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/4/2010
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/4/2010
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/4/2010
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/4/2010
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/9/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/4/2010
The debate raged at times and lasted for three hours.
Here is a clip of Congressman Kucinich explaining what the intent of the bill is during the debate.
Congressman Paul addressed House of Representatives in support of Dennis Kuchinich's Afghanistan Resolution.
Congressman John Duncan addresses House of Representatives on Dennis Kucinich's Afghanistan Resolution in a speech being called "War vs. Conservatism"
A voice of the majority Nays in support of continuing the war in Afghanistan, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, shares his opinion against Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Barbara Lee speaks in support in Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Perhaps the most memorable speech in support for Congressman Kucinich's bill was by Patrick Kennedy and his boisterous lambasting of the National Press Corps.
Part 22
Congressman Kucinich discusses oil and gas interests related to occupation of Afghanistan. Congressman Phil Roe follows and speaks in strong opposition against supporting Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Whether you are on the Right or the Left, if you are amongst the growing number of American's who would like to end the U.S. occupation of the Middle East, you would have liked Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of H Res 248. It was bill that recently did not pass that was titled "Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan". The House vote tally was 65 Yeas to 356 Nays.
This is the video he put out explaining what the bill would be.
The full text of the bill is short and can be read at http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.248:
The 21 cosponsors of the bill were:
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/4/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/10/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/9/2010
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 3/4/2010
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/4/2010
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 3/10/2010
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/4/2010
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/4/2010
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/4/2010
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/4/2010
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/9/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/4/2010
The debate raged at times and lasted for three hours.
Here is a clip of Congressman Kucinich explaining what the intent of the bill is during the debate.
Congressman Paul addressed House of Representatives in support of Dennis Kuchinich's Afghanistan Resolution.
Congressman John Duncan addresses House of Representatives on Dennis Kucinich's Afghanistan Resolution in a speech being called "War vs. Conservatism"
A voice of the majority Nays in support of continuing the war in Afghanistan, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, shares his opinion against Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Barbara Lee speaks in support in Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Perhaps the most memorable speech in support for Congressman Kucinich's bill was by Patrick Kennedy and his boisterous lambasting of the National Press Corps.
Part 22
Congressman Kucinich discusses oil and gas interests related to occupation of Afghanistan. Congressman Phil Roe follows and speaks in strong opposition against supporting Congressman Kucinich's resolution.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Census: A Little Too Personal - Essay by Ron Paul for week of March 8 2010
Census: A Little Too Personal -
from Ron Paul's TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK
Essay by Ron Paul for week of March 8 2010
Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census- like so many government programs- has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.
But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home - just to name a few examples.
From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is - why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?
The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.
However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.
It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.
Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.
If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?
from Ron Paul's TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK
Essay by Ron Paul for week of March 8 2010
Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census- like so many government programs- has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.
But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home - just to name a few examples.
From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is - why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?
The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.
However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.
It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.
Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.
If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Ron Paul on Non-Interventionism during vote on Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution
News headlines around the world report that Turkey is outraged about the House Resolution H. Res. 252 named the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (see full text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.252: ),
Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement in favor of a Non-Interventionist position for the U.S. and urged his colleagues in Congress against bringing up the resolution and/or voting yes or no on the resolution.
Greg Chamberlain for The President
================
Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement in favor of a Non-Interventionist position for the U.S. and urged his colleagues in Congress against bringing up the resolution and/or voting yes or no on the resolution.
Greg Chamberlain for The President
================
More Terrorist Blowback from U.S. Foreign Policy
by Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation at
http://fff.org
Immediately after 9/11, Bush administration officials declared the motivation of the terrorists: that the terrorists hated America for its "freedom and values."
In other words, the 9/11 attacks, according to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other U.S. officials, had absolutely nothing to do with the boiling rage in the Middle East over U.S. foreign policy.
Sure, the U.S. government had supported Saddam Hussein, even delivering to him those infamous WMDS (see: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp), and had supported other corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Sure, the U.S. government had killed countless Iraqis during the Persian Gulf War and intentionally destroyed Iraq's water-and-sewage treatment plants during the war after a Pentagon study determined that such action would help to spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. (See: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nagy0901.html.)
Sure, the U.S. government enforced one of the most brutal and deadly systems of sanctions in history against Iraq for more than ten years, which succeeded in contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm.)
Sure, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright had declared to the world on "Sixty Minutes" that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been "worth it." (See: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp.)
Sure, the U.S. government had stationed troops near Islamic holy lands knowing that such would antagonize people of Muslim faith in the Middle East.
Sure, the U.S. government continually provided unconditional financial and military aid to the Israeli government.
But no, according to Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts, none of this had anything to do with why people in the Middle East were boiling over with rage prior to 9/11. According to them, people in the Middle East were apparently either indifferent to all this death, destruction, and humiliation at the hands of the U.S. Empire or maybe even favored it.
You see, the mindset among the neocon community has always been: The U.S. Empire is incapable of doing anything morally or legally wrong to foreigners, especially to those living in the Middle East. The Empire is good per se. And anyone who suggests that the Empire's actions motivated the terrorists is crazy, irrational, or just plain unpatriotic. Every normal-thinking American is expected to know that the Empire is all-good, all-caring, all-compassionate, all saintly, and all-godly.
One of the best examples of this mindset in the political arena took place in the first Republican Party debate in the 2008 presidential race -- the debate that launched the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. When Paul declared in the debate that the terrorists are over here because the U.S. government is over there, he was met with absolute shock by his statist opponents. In their minds, suggesting that the U.S. Empire's actions over there had motivated the terrorists was akin to heresy.
Now, let's look at the case of Najubullah Zazi , who pled guilty yesterday to terrorism-related charges in U.S. District Court in New York.
Let's examine what Zazi told the judge as to why he was motivated to commit terrorist acts against the United States: "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the U.S. military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan."
Now, do you see anything about hating America's freedom and values in that statement?
Well, actually a neocon would say "Yes!" because, you see, neocons consider imperialism and interventionism to be an integral part of America's "freedom and values."
But neocons are wrong. America's heritage of freedom and values is based on the concept of individual liberty, free markets, and a constitutional republic, not an interventionist empire that glories in support of brutal regimes, sanctions and embargoes, and invasions, undeclared wars of aggression, and occupations.
Zazi's statement about what motivated him to commit terrorism against America was really no different in principle than what Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist bomber of the World Trade Center in 1993, said at his sentencing hearing two years later in U.S. federal court. He cited U.S. foreign policy, including the deadly sanctions against Iraq, not America's freedom and values, as the motivating factor behind his actions.
When neocons claim that 9/11 changed everything, they are wrong. It didn't change U.S. foreign policy at all. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with all the death and destruction they have wrought, were nothing more than a continuation of an imperialist and interventionist foreign policy, one that continues to motivate people to commit terrorist attacks against our country.
Copyright © 2010
FFF.Org
Article Reprinted by Permission
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
He is a regular writer for The Future of Freedom Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily, and is a co-editor or contributor to the eight books that have been published by the Foundation.
http://fff.org
Immediately after 9/11, Bush administration officials declared the motivation of the terrorists: that the terrorists hated America for its "freedom and values."
In other words, the 9/11 attacks, according to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other U.S. officials, had absolutely nothing to do with the boiling rage in the Middle East over U.S. foreign policy.
Sure, the U.S. government had supported Saddam Hussein, even delivering to him those infamous WMDS (see: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp), and had supported other corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Sure, the U.S. government had killed countless Iraqis during the Persian Gulf War and intentionally destroyed Iraq's water-and-sewage treatment plants during the war after a Pentagon study determined that such action would help to spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. (See: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nagy0901.html.)
Sure, the U.S. government enforced one of the most brutal and deadly systems of sanctions in history against Iraq for more than ten years, which succeeded in contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm.)
Sure, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright had declared to the world on "Sixty Minutes" that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been "worth it." (See: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp.)
Sure, the U.S. government had stationed troops near Islamic holy lands knowing that such would antagonize people of Muslim faith in the Middle East.
Sure, the U.S. government continually provided unconditional financial and military aid to the Israeli government.
But no, according to Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts, none of this had anything to do with why people in the Middle East were boiling over with rage prior to 9/11. According to them, people in the Middle East were apparently either indifferent to all this death, destruction, and humiliation at the hands of the U.S. Empire or maybe even favored it.
You see, the mindset among the neocon community has always been: The U.S. Empire is incapable of doing anything morally or legally wrong to foreigners, especially to those living in the Middle East. The Empire is good per se. And anyone who suggests that the Empire's actions motivated the terrorists is crazy, irrational, or just plain unpatriotic. Every normal-thinking American is expected to know that the Empire is all-good, all-caring, all-compassionate, all saintly, and all-godly.
One of the best examples of this mindset in the political arena took place in the first Republican Party debate in the 2008 presidential race -- the debate that launched the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. When Paul declared in the debate that the terrorists are over here because the U.S. government is over there, he was met with absolute shock by his statist opponents. In their minds, suggesting that the U.S. Empire's actions over there had motivated the terrorists was akin to heresy.
Now, let's look at the case of Najubullah Zazi , who pled guilty yesterday to terrorism-related charges in U.S. District Court in New York.
Let's examine what Zazi told the judge as to why he was motivated to commit terrorist acts against the United States: "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the U.S. military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan."
Now, do you see anything about hating America's freedom and values in that statement?
Well, actually a neocon would say "Yes!" because, you see, neocons consider imperialism and interventionism to be an integral part of America's "freedom and values."
But neocons are wrong. America's heritage of freedom and values is based on the concept of individual liberty, free markets, and a constitutional republic, not an interventionist empire that glories in support of brutal regimes, sanctions and embargoes, and invasions, undeclared wars of aggression, and occupations.
Zazi's statement about what motivated him to commit terrorism against America was really no different in principle than what Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist bomber of the World Trade Center in 1993, said at his sentencing hearing two years later in U.S. federal court. He cited U.S. foreign policy, including the deadly sanctions against Iraq, not America's freedom and values, as the motivating factor behind his actions.
When neocons claim that 9/11 changed everything, they are wrong. It didn't change U.S. foreign policy at all. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with all the death and destruction they have wrought, were nothing more than a continuation of an imperialist and interventionist foreign policy, one that continues to motivate people to commit terrorist attacks against our country.
Copyright © 2010
FFF.Org
Article Reprinted by Permission
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
He is a regular writer for The Future of Freedom Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily, and is a co-editor or contributor to the eight books that have been published by the Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
