Posted by Echoes of Aberdeen on 06/17/11
Last updated 06/24/11

Of all the political positions that tend to be arbitrarily labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" by the mindless mainstream these days, support for "Club Gitmo" (and the detention and intelligence gathering systems it has come to represent) is surely one of the most inexplicable, not to say inexcusable. While many self described libertarians (including those of us in the GOP) are well aware that there is anything but unanimity in the military and intelligence communities on the Guantanamo issue, most rank and file conservative Republicans view opposition to this government's handling of terror "suspects" as disloyalty bordering on treason.

Even on the issue of torture (now euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques), those relatively few conservatives who do not embrace its alleged usefulness still tend to rely on arguments that skirt the real problem. I recently heard a sermon delivered by a PCA minister for whom I have great respect to a group of military personnel and their families, in which he objected to torture on the grounds that it dehumanizes those who engage in it and lowers "us" to "their" level - they, of course, meaning terrorists. Essentially, he argued that torture is immoral and "isn't us" - therefore we should not rely on it.

This is true, of course: torture, like indefinite detention and war in general, brings out and fosters the worst in human nature. But rejecting torture solely on such grounds fails to address the other fundamental problems with coercive interrogation. One of those problems is that torture and other forms of coercive interrogation have been extremely effective throughout history at producing false confessions, but not accurate intelligence. There is an important difference between inducing a suspect to talk and inducing him to be honest, and the more intense the pressure to talk becomes, the more likely the suspect is to say what he thinks will relieve the pressure.

Significantly, many of the torture methods employed by this and the last administrations in the "war on terror" were borrowed from the military's SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training program. SERE was developed during the Cold War to prepare American aviators to survive and evade capture, and for the treatment they would likely suffer if captured by a Communist military. The interrogation techniques used during SERE training, including waterboarding, smoke inhalation, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, and other cruel and humiliating treatments, were all known methods of interrogation used by the Soviets and their allies. What should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the interrogation of captured Americans during the Korean and Vietnam wars is that these methods were used primarily for the purpose of extorting false confessions. While pilots like Red McDaniel and John McCain were also questioned regarding intelligence and technology, the primary focus of their interrogations was to get them to admit to war crimes. And while little useful intelligence was ever gained by the torture of American pilots in Vietnam, many false confessions were obtained and circulated around the world.

Similarly, during the Iranian hostage crisis, some of the American hostages were subjected to much milder forms of coercive interrogation, and while their treatment was not nearly as harsh as the standards adopted by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, it nevertheless resulted in several false confessions. One hostage famously confessed to being "in charge of wheat mold," leading the gullible students questioning him to announce to the world details of an American plot to starve Iranian families by molding the bread in their cupboards.

The problem of false confessions leads us to what I believe is the central problem with our entire approach to the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. When libertarians argue that terrorists should be tried in the criminal court system like other criminals, the usual objection is that as foreign "enemy combatants," they aren't entitled to the legal protections and due process of the American judicial system. The idea seems to be that, unlike rapists, murderers, mob hit men and other privileged persons, the terrorist doesn't deserve due process. He's evil, so we should just take him out with a drone, but sometimes we capture him so we can talk to him first. In either case, he has no rights, so it doesn't matter what we do with him.

As any thinking person will observe, this line of argument takes for granted that the detainee is a terrorist. There is not the slightest allowance for the possibility that he may be an innocent individual. He was picked up on the battlefield, right? No chance of a mistake there. One is left to wonder why there should be any trial at all?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of most conservatives. The legal protections we call due process are not there because criminals of any sort deserve them; they are there because innocent people deserve them. They are not designed to clog the legal system and to slow the wheels of justice; they are designed to make sure that justice is indeed served. The tragedy of Guantanamo is not that would-be terrorists are locked up there, but that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the majority of our fellow creatures who are locked up there really are would-be terrorists.

Posted by Echoes of Aberdeen on 06/06/11
Last updated 06/06/11

Three years ago I started to delve into the so-called "9-11 truth movement" and the subject of conspiracy theories in general on my other blog. I never followed through, partly due to a lack of time, but also because I decided there was little to gain and much to lose by the attempt. Several recent developments have reopened the topic, however, and a series of discussions over the Memorial Day weekend convinced me, with some trepidation, to run the risk of putting a few more observations in writing. With trepidation, because I will almost certainly offend some who I respect by denying the credibility of claims they find convincing, and others by noticing claims they find utterly ridiculous.

In that earlier post, I noted that it often seems as though there are only two camps when it comes to political conspiracy theories. One chooses to accept the "official" government explanation in every instance; the other sees masterful deception, sinister motives, and almost divine omnipotence behind every news-worthy event. Considered calmly and in the light of history, both these extremes are nonsensical. Governments are made up of men; generally speaking, unscrupulous and dishonest men, but men none the less.

To consider the first: the idea that official pronouncements on any topic should carry much weight is silly on its face. The dishonesty of politicians and the incompetence of career bureaucrats are both matters of common knowledge. Particularly in regard to foreign policy, official statements are usually meaningless and frequently intended to deceive. Diplomacy has been defined, with good reason, as the art of lying for one's government. The entire history of international relations, from ancient Israel to the present, is a history of deception on a grand scale. In my view, far from lending extra weight to any version of events, the fact that a story is the official line goes in the scales against it.

The other extreme, however, is equally silly. It is beyond reason to assume that every major event is part of a vast human plan. Human plans don't generally work out as they are supposed to, and the bigger and more complex they are, the less likely they are to succeed. Moreover, there is a vast difference between recognizing dishonesty in the official story line and uncovering the real truth of the matter. Decades or even centuries later, with the benefit of hindsight, it often remains impossible to know with certainty the truth about many major events. I am continually frustrated when "truthers" present the most mind-boggling explanations for the events of 9-11, and when asked to state the evidence, immediately begin to cite problems or inconsistencies in the 9-11 Commission report, evidence of official cover-ups, or examples of how the powers that be have benefited from those events as "evidence" for their wild hypothesis. Often they seem sincerely unable to comprehend why such "evidence" does nothing to prove their own explanation.

The fact is that while there are many holes in the official account of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, most of the various alternatives floating around under the umbrella of the "truth movement" have no credible evidence at all to support them. They seem generally to be developed without any substantive investigation of the actual facts while suspiciously well adapted to make exciting documentary material. Most treat the airplanes as a distraction and claim that the twin towers were brought down by internally placed explosives. Some claim that no airliners were involved at all. Either way, these "alternatives" assume intricate conspiracies of incredible magnitude, requiring the knowledge and complicity of hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses, emergency responders, construction workers, police and military personnel, airline employees, news media, demolition and recovery workers, stock brokers, high-ranking government officials, petty bureaucrats, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Such conspiracies are the stuff of science fiction, not reality.

I would venture the opinion that the real 9-11 conspiracy is much less exciting. I suspect that it involves an obscenely long wish list of expanded powers sitting in a file cabinet at the Justice Department, under the absurdly patronizing title of The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. I suspect that it stayed in that file cabinet because, while both Republican and Democrat administrations would have dearly loved such an expansion of executive power, both also knew that, in ordinary times, bringing it forward would inspire jealousy in the evil hearts of opposition legislators. So there it languished, waiting for an appropriate time of crisis and the brief moment of bipartisanship that a good crisis always brings. As I noted in the earlier post, such a crisis was bound to occur sooner or later, given the volatile combination of military occupations, tyrannical regimes propped up with American foreign aid, and the constant, petty, manipulative meddling that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer calls "imperial hubris" - again on the part of both Republican and Democrat administrations.

No doubt Sept. 11, 2001 will go down in history as a Reichstag moment, and rightly so. But to conclude from this that it must have been an "inside job" is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Thompson killings in 1846, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were all similarly anticipated, provoked, and used to manipulate the American public into support for otherwise unpopular wars. The official story behind each of these events is full of holes. None of them, however, was an "inside job." In each case, the enemy was baited into an act of war that justified a military response, and the problems with the official account stems from the difficulty of leaving the bait out of the story.

(For those who take issue with the idea that the U.S. provoked the 9-11 attacks, I again quote the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer: "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.")

While the standard template for discussing the 9-11 attacks (a benevolent and peaceful America blindsided by a "sucker punch ... from somewhere in the back") is somewhere between a bad joke and a pack of lies, there is overwhelming evidence available regarding the actual events themselves. Even the collapse of WTC 7 is easily explained without resorting to alternative theories, if one takes the time to examine the structural issues and the eyewitness testimony relating to it.

What bothers me about all of this is not that conspiracy theorists don't trust their government, but that they don't invest the time and effort to scrutinize each others' claims. Most conspiracy theories have a grain of truth somewhere, buried in mountains of conjecture and fiction. Rumors of secret experiments with cloud seeding and weather manipulation magically grow into fantastic stories of "chemtrails" and population reduction efforts. Radio telescopes and ionospheric research become mind-control projects that can also cause massive earthquakes. Secret and exclusive clubs where powerful elites and their mistresses drink, party and discuss how to dig deeper into our pockets morphe into pagan temples where birds, rodents and worse are sacrificed to Satan himself. These claims serve only one purpose: to discredit those who buy into them. Unfortunately, many conspiracy afficionados seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility to disprove their ideas, and are content to dismiss any skeptic with the question, "Have you researched it yourself?"

In the mean time, policies and actions that truly threaten everything we hold dear are pushed forward right under our noses. While President Obama's birthplace was the subject of useless but frantic scrutiny, litigation, and alternative media attention, his political and economic policies have done incalculable damage to our nation and our freedoms. Just as the 9-11 "truth" movement was unfairly but effectively used to discredit Ron Paul in 2008, so the "birther" issue has more recently been used to discredit Tea Party activists, even those who paid no attention to it. The 2012 election will be either a tremendous opportunity or another blow to individual liberty. We would all do well to select carefully the issues to which we will devote our time and efforts.

Posted 06/09/11 huntingtonsteam Huntington Beach, CA

Gulf of Tonkin was a complete fabrication with no immediate hostile response from North Vietnam. It was a unilateral US false flag used to escalate US into war. Unfortunately "truthers" could not speak up to put the brakes on the as yet unescalated war. False flag events get countries into wars just like 9/11 has. No WMDs in Iraq but that didn't stop Bush, Cheney govco assault that has continued to this day.

Posted 06/10/11 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

I regard the 9/11 Commission in the same way I regard the Warren Commission. The final reports were so full of lies and omissions that the full truth will never be known. Michael Scheuer's view is that "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world." This is not the full picture. Bin Laden may have wished us to believe that our Middle East policies were the only reason that we were attacked. The reality is that if all foreign aid were stopped immediately (the position advocated by every true non-interventionist)....the Muslim nations which surround Israel would lose far more than Israel. Aid to Egypt alone is roughly equal to aid to Israel. And all nations who would lose their free lunch would equally whine, moan, and scream when they could no longer live on the largess provided by the American taxpayer. Moreover, there has been continued Muslim instigated violence all over the world in areas entirely unrelated to American foreign policy. These attacks have occurred in Indonesia, Spain, Britain, India, France (to name just a few). Many of these attacks were in countries not noted for their loyal support of Israel. There are essentially two views of historical events, i.e. that events are random or coincidental, or alternatively that events are planned and purposeful. Some combination of these two views is probably nearest the truth....that some events are coincidental while others are either directly planned or allowed to happen through connivance or dereliction of duty. My own view is heavy on the idea of connivance or dereliction of duty.

Posted 06/11/11 Echoes of Aberdeen Glen Mills, PA

@huntingtonsteam: If it was a complete fabrication there would have been no NV torpedo boats sunk. If you mean that the NV acted defensively and that the "attack" was a fabrication you are probably right. Regardless, we agree that it was used to escalate hostilities into an unnecessary and unjust war. @MichaelBarry: Scheuer's comment about "U.S. policies and actions in the Middle East" was not referring primarily to foreign aid or even to U.S. support for Israel. I agree with your position on ending all foreign aid, but I still believe that Bin Laden's antipathy toward the U.S. is rooted in our interventionist policies, not his religious fervor. Muslim terror attacks in other countries have to be viewed in the context of the policies pursued by those nations. They occur for a variety of reasons, but suicide terrorism, in particular, will almost exclusively be found to be a response to military occupation in some form. There may be theoretical support for jihad based on religion, but there just aren't that many people willing to take their own life for the sheer joy of taking infidels with them. Military occupation and brutally oppressive regimes that are seen as puppets of the West have historically served to transform religious theories into personal hatred, and it is such personal hatred that motivates dedicated terrorists. Since 9-11 we have added to that list a reckless disregard for civilian casualties and a twisted, medieval approach to suspect interrogation. "My own view is heavy on the idea of connivance or dereliction of duty." Well said. I agree.

Posted 06/12/11 BillNM , NM

Perhaps, but if there is no religious element I think it would eliminate the suicide component.

Posted by Echoes of Aberdeen on 01/04/11
Last updated 01/04/11

With Republicans taking control of the House for the next two years, a tired old template for debate inside the beltway has been rediscovered: it's now time to put aside the rhetoric and partisanship and focus on getting things done for the American people. New polls assure lawmakers that a majority of Americans want compromise for the sake of "progress" (a helpfully vague ideal that is almost never given a definite meaning). This concept is nothing new: principled legislators like Ron "Dr. No" Paul or Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer are often criticized for their failure to "get things done" - usually defined as authoring legislation which will ultimately become law. As with most political debate, the underlying question (what are legislators for?) is never asked unless in a rhetorical sense; the assumption is nearly always that the legislator's first responsibility is to come up with additional laws.

There's an old proverb that applies here: to a man with nothing but a hammer everything looks like a nail. Lawmakers are always happy to indulge, even when the public really doesn't want them to. As early as 1834, a profligate Congress drew this rebuke from William Leggett in the New York Evening Post:

"One of the great practical evils of our system arises from a superabundance of legislation. ... Putting the acts of Congress and those of the State legislature together, they amount to some thousands annually. Is it possible that the good people of the United States require to be hampered and pestered by such a multiplicity of fetters as this: or that they cannot be kept in order without being manacled every year by new laws and regulations? Every superfluous law is a wanton and unnecessary innovation of the [people's] freedom of action... [yet our] legislative bodies have been regularly and systematically employed in frittering away, under a thousand pretenses, the whole fabric of the reserved rights of the people."

Good thing our great-grandparents put a stop to that. Imagine what our country would look like if Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly still enacted "some thousands of new laws annually."

OK, that's too easy. No imagination required. Instead, let's look at this another way. Imagine what this country would look like if surgeons behaved like legislators.

Remember that thought the next time you hear Obama complaining that some doctors perform unnecessary surgeries.

The most overlooked consequence of nearly all legislation today is, embarrassingly, its primary purpose. Generally speaking, a new law means a new crime. It is precisely for this reason that unnecessary laws are so destructive to freedom and economic growth. Whether a law's purpose is to ban a substance, levy a tax, create a license, or impose a reporting requirement, it has invented a new crime where none existed before. This is not to say that laws are bad, only that unnecessary laws are bad.

I'd like to suggest that legislators aren't elected to make laws. Their responsibility is to see that only good and necessary laws are made. If no new laws are needed, then their responsibility is to prevent bad laws from being made (obstructionism, if you please). If bad laws have already been made, then their responsibility is to undo them.

Is there any doubt that this last is the situation we find ourselves in today? Almost everyone, regardless of their political opinions, thinks that we have bad laws on the books. But when the political class is confronted with the problems caused by their collective OCD, they don't undo anything, they just do more of it. It's time for that to change. The American voters took the legislative hammer away from a significant number of politicians on November 2nd; now we need to keep the pressure on those replacing them to start pulling nails instead of driving more. And instead of cringing in fear when others label us "the party of no," why don't we remind them that a "no" to the Nanny State is a "yes" to freedom, not just for Republicans, but for all Americans?

Posted by Echoes of Aberdeen on 12/20/10

Yes, I'm still alive.

I was asked to speak about Patrick Henry at the 19th annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet last week, in recognition of the 275th anniversary of his birth next year. The following is the last half of my remarks, which address the subject of empire-building. The first half covered the history and context of Henry's public life up to the Revolutionary War. I was rather surprised at the friendly reception these remarks met with, considering the make-up of the audience. There were a lot of tea party types and folks who I've disagreed with over the so-called war on terror and related issues, so I didn't know what to expect. I'm hoping that more of them are now willing to question what a strong national defense really would look like.

___________________________________________


We don't have time to dwell on Henry's time in the Governor's Mansion and the Assembly during and after the war - I want to jump ahead thirteen years to June, 1788. The Constitutional Convention had been held in Philadelphia the year before, for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. They had concluded that the Articles were past amending and instead produced an entirely new constitution, which was sent to the states to be ratified or rejected.

Henry thought it should be rejected.
He had many objections, but they all boiled down to centralization of power. Henry was convinced that America could not remain free with the triple powers of trade regulation, taxation and defense all consolidated under the federal government. He believed that the framers of the constitution had lost sight of essential liberties in their desire to see America become great.

Now, history has proven many of Henry's objections to have been groundless, and, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not agree with him that the Federal Constitution was a dangerous step toward tyranny. But the truth is, if Henry had not objected to the constitution as it stood we would, most likely, have no Bill of Rights today. What is more, while Henry (I believe) underestimated the value of the various checks and balances that were built into the federal Constitution, on this point at least his words seem eerily prophetic when read today. He returned again and again throughout twenty-three days of debate in the Virginia Convention to this question of empire vs. liberty.


"I own, sir," he said, "I am not free from suspicion. I am apt to entertain doubts... You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. ... Sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good. ... Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel!"


"The American spirit," he went on, "has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government-a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government-for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.


"We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. ...


"But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. .... No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege."


Henry's opposition to the constitution barely failed to prevent its ratification; but his influence was enough to ensure that a list of amendments was sent to the first Congress from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He also successfully nominated two opponents of the Constitution to the first United States Senate. Their election convinced James Madison, one of the leading Federalists, that concessions would have to be made if the new government was to succeed, and he agreed to support the proposed amendments in Congress. He did so ably and successfully, thereby earning the popular title "Father of the Bill of Rights," which rightly belongs to Henry, if to anyone.


That brings us around to the reason we are celebrating here tonight. But I can't bring myself to leave it there without asking the million dollar question: have the past two hundred and nineteen years validated Henry's fear that Americans would lose sight of liberty in the pursuit of national greatness?


The value of history is only what we learn from it. Perhaps every one of us here tonight would agree that we have indeed lost much of the freedom our forefathers enjoyed. Probably not so many would agree with Patrick Henry that our liberty has fallen a victim to our pursuit of greatness and empire. But I do. In fact, I believe that, not a belligerent minority, not even fifty percent, but the vast majority of Americans are complicit - unintentionally, perhaps - but complicit none the less, in the loss of that freedom; or perhaps I should say complicit in the growth and centralization of government power, which is the same thing.


It has been common, especially leading up to last month's election, to hear "liberals" blamed for the growth of government; and not without cause. People who describe themselves as "liberals" tend to be open about their view that government is good, and they readily acknowledge that they support more of it. People who describe themselves as "conservative," on the other hand, tend to have at least a vague idea that big government, on the whole, is a bad thing for society. Unfortunately, this idea is usually not clear enough to serve any purpose. While there are probably countless reasons for this lack of clarity, the one that seems most obvious to me is the box in which we are all expected to think. You know, tyranny imposed through a democratic process is often the worst possible kind of tyranny, because it requires control over the mind of the electorate. And I'm not talking about some high-tech, top-secret government mind control program. The most effective way to control the outcome of a debate is to control the framework of the debate, and the great American experiment has shown, among other things, that such control is both achievable and effective. So in the spirit of Patrick Henry, let's think for a minute about the box.


And please understand, if I am particularly hard on conservatives, it's because I am a conservative Republican talking to a room mostly full of conservative Republicans. Fair enough?


What do the words "conservative" and "liberal" mean? Why is conservative politics a good thing and conservative Islam a bad thing? Why is economic liberalism an essential ingredient of a free society while political liberalism is a threat to a free society? Properly defined, political conservatism really just means a philosophical support for tradition or the established order of things - you could almost define it as a strict adherence to what is. Political liberalism is a philosophy of progress or change - not to put too fine a point on it, an affinity for what isn't.


What I'm driving at is that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" only have real meaning when they refer to a standard. When we lose sight of that standard we get confused and end up rooting for Team A or Team B without asking why the goals are on the same side of the field. If the standard is that liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator, I'm conservative. If the standard is the Constitution I'm conservative. If it's anything else I'm not playing. But if we can agree that the Constitution is indeed the standard, then much of the popular conservative agenda today doesn't look conservative anymore.


I can hear somebody say "Enough with the dictionary. When we say liberal or conservative we know what we mean!" Really? Do we really? Ask a certain popular radio host to define conservative and he'll probably say something about lower taxes and not talking to rogue dictators without preconditions. To confuse matters even further, we have come to use "right" and "left" interchangeably with conservative and liberal. You talk about a box! We think in terms of a political spectrum that runs from Mao to Hitler.


As if there is a difference.


That strikes me as being like a medical practice that offers a full range of family health services, from euthanasia to assisted suicide.


Seriously, how did we accept this fraud? Between Mao and Hitler, where do you want to be? You say, "Well, I guess in the middle. Get as far from either end as I can." That's exactly what you're supposed to say, because the center is engineered to be where your elitist leaders want you. And if you dare move away from the center they can call you names. "Socialist," or "Fascist," depending on which way you go.


Our political dialogue is like the emperor's new clothes; we're supposed to be so intimidated by the experts that we never call the game what it is. This kind of thinking is how we end up with ObamaCare being socialized medicine while RomneyCare is innovation and leadership. It is why the same party that brought us the TSA, MediCare Part D, the TARP bailout, the National Animal ID System, No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, the National ID Card, legalized torture, massive increases in the national debt, the greatest consolidation of power in the Executive Branch since FDR, the two longest wars our nation has ever fought, and the only mass confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens in recent American history - it is why this party can still sell itself as the party of small government and effectively convince Americans that they will roll back the size, scope and cost of the federal government if they get the chance.


I don't mean to engage in needless Republican-bashing; it's just that I'm convinced we Republican voters are being used. If the political spectrum made sense, and the far left believed in total government control, one would expect the far right to believe in no government at all; anarchy, in other words. But somehow, the statists have sold us this fraudulent idea where both ends want big government in some area, with the result that no matter who's in and who's out after a given election, there is always a big government agenda to move forward. Think about this: both the "right" and the "left" also claim that they want to rein in government - in certain areas. But what happens when they take control? Did the Republican Party take advantage of their six years of control in Washington to reduce the debt, or to stop abortion, or to cut entitlement programs, or to roll back federal control of anything? No, but they sure managed to consolidate power in the Executive branch, trash our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, dramatically expand law enforcement and the military, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector. When the Democrats took over, did they reduce corporate welfare, or cut pork-barrel spending, or bring our troops home from a single one of our 800 overseas citadels, or end the travesty of justice that we call trial by military commission? No, but they sure managed to take over our health care system. They sure managed to tighten their chokehold on small businesses, further trash our Fourth Amendment rights, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector.


Forget rolling back the size of government - if we don't recognize the game that is being played we will keep demanding bigger government. Because the expansion of government today isn't only an item on the liberal agenda; it seems to me to be divided pretty evenly between both "sides." The feel-good, bleeding heart big government may be for "liberals," but conservatives are all about the empire thing. We blame liberals for promoting dependency on government when it comes to economic security, but "conservatives" just as avidly promote dependency on government for physical security. I know this isn't going to win me any new friends, but this issue has to be addressed; it is a ball and chain on the movement to restore liberty in America.


Our assumed role of superpower and our obsession with security has put us exactly where Henry predicted, and with exactly the consequences that he expected. How can you have a restrained government at home and an adventurous government overseas? How can you spread freedom by force? You cannot empower your leaders to aggressively use force abroad without losing your soul and your liberty to the monster you have created. "Government," said George Washington, "is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And history has shown again and again that the government that acquires a taste for mastery abroad will never be content to serve at home.


The only way I see to break out of the box is to reject the fraudulent "right-left" political spectrum, reject the notion that either party is the answer - and I'm not talking about a third party; I am a Republican - but we need to start judging every single government action by one standard: freedom, based on the fact that all men are created equal. For too long we have been told, "Yes, government is out of control, but terrorists are trying to kill us, so just give up a little more freedom here. Sure, government is out of control, but there are thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every day, so we need a little more power over here. Yes, it's a crime to saddle our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt, but we've got to maintain a strong national defense, so don't ask us to bring troops home from any of the 130 countries we keep them in."


Where does it end? No matter what the problem is, it is time for Americans to demand only solutions that make government smaller, less intrusive, and less costly; or, to put it another way, solutions that result in more freedom for us as individuals. Such solutions do exist, but they will never be willingly implemented by this power-drunk government. The American people will have to reassert their control over their public servants, but we cannot do that until we first control our own thinking; until, like Patrick Henry, we are willing to make liberty the standard, to think outside the box, to ask the uncomfortable question. I believe that the question for us today remains what it was in 1775; it is, as Henry said, "a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate."


Thank you very much.

Posted 12/21/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Patrick thank you very much, well written and well thought out. I fully agree and see politicians as payed to build Empires and I see statesmen who work to build states to stand against empires. Since we highly lack in the statesmen category we all have much work to do to assure we have statesmen in our states and not politicians to play the game of playing with themselves as a show something is taking place. When in fact something is taking place but not what we expect to happen. Politicians are bought and sold willing to take any money they can get to get in office and return their favors to their special interest money supply. Most states are filled with politicians and federal/corporate moneys that then corrupt our states. States are the ones who hold Federal Government accountable, citizens are the ones who hold states accountable. When these actions do not take place there is no accountability, when states become Federal Entities they are no longer union states and give their authority to Federal Government. In the history of Federal Government and many other Governments for that matter, have proven left to their own accord will take advantage every time.. In truth the entire responsibility lies in the citizen liked or dislike will and does not matter. It is where the responsibility takes place but to assure this takes place most need to discover responsibility is not only paying our bills, it is not only showing up for work every day, it is not making sure those who cannot provide for themselves all the sudden provide. It is assuring those we put in office uphold their oath of office to represent as a statesmen to our own state, to uphold our Constitution and to assure our way of life as a republic stay in working order. Working order is the order of a republic and all the parts of a republic, not to exclude parts are alter parts or change the parts that work and make a Republic work. To do this the citizens must know what a Republic is and all the parts of a whole that make up a complete Republic. Because if the ingredients is not known, and all the parts in an organized whole are not known they will not be applied by actions of citizens, of statesmen or as of states and then we shall end up as we have. With history of practices that are well known by so few they cannot possibly hold back the tyranny hitting our streets. It would seem impossible but nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it and if you take 10 million people in each state to put their mind to it you would soon recognize a Republic as defined and understood. We have no more important value and no bigger force of our own than our decision and knowing the parts and pieces to make a good choice brings about good effects in this order.

Posted by Echoes of Aberdeen on 04/28/09

The following is roughly the text of my comments at the Valley Forge Tea Party Saturday morning (Apr. 25). I was asked to speak on the theme: A Constitution In Crisis. I was concerned that the event would be nothing more than a "neo-con love-fest" but was pleasantly surprised. I had around 15 minutes or so, and I avoided foreign policy, the proverbial "elephant in the room." My only regret is that I didn't mention signing statements in the list of abuses - I intended to but forgot.

__________________________________________________

The flyer that was circulated prior to this event makes the observation that the Constitution is being violated by the very public officials who are sworn to uphold it. It goes on to pose three questions: 1st, what are some of these abuses or violations? 2nd, how should we, as citizens, respond if we are "persecuted" for following the Constitution? And 3rd, how can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

I don't believe the answers are hard to come by, but acting on those answers will be difficult. First, though, there is another question to answer; why should we care? The world has changed radically in the two-and-a-quarter centuries since the Constitution was designed. Everything is different now - or so we're told. Why should our public servants in the 21st century be limited by a musty old document written with a quill pen? Why should we expect a two-hundred-and-twenty year old law to have any meaningful application to the political questions of our day?

There's no doubt many, if not most, Americans really do question the importance of the Constitution. The reason, I believe, is that we've become too busy, too complacent - dare I say too apathetic - to be bothered with the abstract concepts of government and economics. We don't want to think about it. We would rather handle our votes and our influence as citizens the same way we handle our tax returns. We want an expert to tell us what to do, or in this case how to think. This laziness is the reason Americans have been so easily sold on the concept of "problem-solving, issues-driven" politics. That wonderful sounding phrase is a euphemism for unlimited, centralized legislative authority - the antithesis of our Constitutional form of government.

But really, what's wrong with that? Why should we care? Isn't solving problems a legitimate purpose of legislation?

The answer, fellow Americans, is no. Under this benign, seemingly reasonable proposition lie assumptions that are deadly to our American values of liberty, justice and equality. If the purpose of the law is simply to solve problems, then who is to decide what problems need to be solved? The foundational assumption at the center of "issues-driven, problem-solving" politics is that you, as an individual, are neither competent to nor capable of solving your own problems or working with those around you to solve problems which affect us all; and that the lawmaker, merely by virtue of his position, is somehow miraculously endowed with all the wisdom, incentive and ability that the rest of you lack. That assumption, my friends, is nonsense; it is also incompatible with freedom.

The only legitimate purpose of the law is to establish justice. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century economist, puts it thus:

"Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place... [Law] is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense... It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all."

But why can't the law establish justice and solve other problems at the same time? Quite simply, because law is not charity or philanthropy, it is brute force; it does not counsel or advise, it coerces. To extend this force beyond the limits of justice is to commit injustice; to destroy the legitimate goal of law in the pursuit of an illegitimate goal. Moreover, contrary to the "problem-solver's" assumptions, the lawmaker (a) is as selfish as the rest of us, (b) has his own problems and (c) doesn't have the foggiest idea about yours or mine. Consequently, when the law is allowed to go beyond the limits of justice, the temptation is generally irresistible to solve problems in a way that will benefit the lawmaker, not society. Every government that has ever existed on the face of the earth has shown this tendency.

OK, enough theory. What does the Constitution have to do with all this? Well, the Constitution is unique in the sense that, unlike statutory law, it doesn't limit the actions of private citizens. It puts you, as an American citizen, under no legal obligation. The legal force of the Constitution is directed toward government, not you. The purpose of the Constitution was to say what your federal government may, and may not, do. It was intended as a limiting framework for the operation of the United States government. It does this in three ways.

First, the Constitution says what the federal government may do. The founders' clearly stated intent was that if the constitution didn't specifically delegate a power to the federal government, then the federal government did not have that power. Secondly, the Constitution prohibits or further restricts the exercise of some powers that might otherwise be implied. And thirdly, it divides these powers in such a way as to minimize the incentive for their abuse by any one branch of government.

The Constitution matters, ladies and gentlemen, because unlimited government always destroys individual freedom, and government is not easily limited. Remember, law is force. It can only be kept within proper limits by an opposing force. The founders understood this. We're gathered at Valley Forge - why is Valley Forge significant? Because our forefathers fought a long, bloody and destructive war to restore the law to its proper functions. They didn't want us to go through that horror again. So they sought to establish a form of government that would pit the force of government against itself through a system of checks and balances; one that would use the tendency of each branch of government to consolidate its own power to prevent the abuse of that power.

And it has worked. There is a reason America has been the most prosperous, and one of the longest lived, popular governments in the history of the world. Its failure to work today is not due to being outdated - human nature hasn't changed - but rather to the fact that Americans don't understand how their government is supposed to work - or how any good government should work, for that matter.

So now, to answer the three questions we started with:

1st - What are some examples of the Constitution being violated today?

Kim asked me last week about the AIG bonus tax bill that passed the house. Was that unconstitutional? I think so. It didn't merely go beyond constitutional limits; it would have violated at least two clear prohibitory clauses of Article 1, sec. 9. As a punitive tax targeting specific individuals, it was the equivalent of a bill of attainder, and as a retroactive tax on compensation already paid and received, it was an ex post facto law. Any lawmaker who cared knew that. Those who would plead ignorance didn't care.

Another example would be the McCain/Feingold so-called "campaign finance reform laws." The only constitutional authority the federal government has over the electoral process applies to the times, places and manner of holding elections. They have no delegated authority to regulate fundraising or political advertising. Moreover, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits such interference where private citizens are concerned.

McCain/Feingold is an interesting example because many legislators who voted for it admitted that they thought it was unconstitutional - and voted for it anyway. President Bush admitted that it was probably unconstitutional - and signed it anyway! Their justification was that constitutionality is a question for the Supreme Court. Actually, it's a question for all of us, particularly those of us who take an oath to uphold and defend it. This is a quote from Justice Kennedy, in an unrelated case: "The usual presumption is that Members of Congress, in accord with their oath of office, considered the constitutional issue and determined the ... statute to be a lawful one; and the Judiciary, in light of that determination, proceeds to its own independent judgment on the constitutional question when required to do so in a proper case." In other words, the Court assumes that if Congress passes a law, they believe it to be constitutional. To legislate with abandon and leave questions of constitutionality to the Court is a violation of the lawmaker's oath of office.

The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, and so is the issuance of legal tender paper money. That may seem like a bold statement, but the intent of the founders on this point is not a subject of doubt.

Other specific examples could include the National Animal Identification System; the myriad of federal laws restricting the free exercise of religion; federal regulations that prevent airlines from arming their pilots; bail-outs of irresponsible firms from hedge funds to auto-makers. To be honest, I'd be hard-pressed to name any bill that has passed Congress in the last several years that hasn't been unconstitutional in some way. We aren't just seeing violations of the Constitution on the level of individual laws; entire aspects of society that are entirely outside of the federal government's jurisdiction are now regulated minutely by federal law. Things like healthcare, job creation, and agriculture - the proper role of government, both morally and constitutionally speaking, is simply to protect the free enterprise system as it applies to those areas of the economy. It has no constitutional authority to regulate the actions of private individuals in those areas unless they are directly engaging in interstate commerce.

2nd - How do we respond when citizens are "persecuted" for following the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution obligates your public servants, not you. Our responsibility as private citizens isn't so much to follow the Constitution ourselves, rather to see to it that they do. This brings us to the last question:

3rd - How can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

First, we need to know the constitution. Start by reading it. The entire document was hand-written on two sheets of parchment - it isn't long. Learning the Constitution is an absolutely essential first step, and it will make you better qualified to run this country than most of your leaders, because they haven't read it.

Secondly, pay attention to what your leaders are doing. Do NOT, do not assume that the leaders of your party care about your values - they do not. Put pressure on them. Let them know that you stand opposed to all expansions of government, regardless of whether they tend toward the "right" or the "left" of our meaningless political spectrum. Remember those checks and balances? They only work if voters are paying attention. They aren't working now because while you're celebrating the Phillies' World Series title all the branches of government are cooperating to steal you blind.

My brother and I met with Delaware County Sheriff Joe McGinn a few weeks ago. We confronted him about an apparently illegal arrest and search his deputies had been involved in. To his credit, he had a reasonable explanation for the incident. But he seemed puzzled by our concern when I told him we didn't know the suspect who had been arrested. He told us that in his entire law enforcement career, it was the first time he had been challenged by a citizen who wasn't personally connected to the case in question.

Shame on us. Joe McGinn is a good guy. I really believe that. But how can we expect him to stand up to the pressure from within government if we as voters don't provide the counter-pressure which is our responsibility? Why should he limit his authority according to the constitution when he doesn't expect it to make the slightest impact on his reelection? We need to pay attention and hold elected officials accountable.

And finally, each one of us needs to exercise self government. Society needs government. Unrestrained human nature isn't pretty. If we as individuals desire to be free, to remain free, we must govern ourselves; because if we don't, the vacuum will be filled by others, and the end result will be a totalitarian government. God knows there are enough of those in this world.

Posted 04/28/09 RobPepe , PA

Very nice....Will you participate in the Independence day Re-Tea party and help us spread the C4L mission statement and the principles of our forefathers? http://philadelphia.reteaparty.com/2009/04/20/local-organizational-headquart ers/