ZGram - 1/29/2002 - "The Paul Revere Series: Ron Paul in 'The Case for Defending America'"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2002 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

January 29, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Another voice in our Paul Revere Series is Congressman Ron Paul"

[START]

 January 24, 2002, in the House of  Representatives

 The Case for Defending America

  As we begin  this new legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on
this past year.  All Americans will remember the moment and place when
tragedy hit us on  September 11th. We also all know that a good philosophy
to follow is to turn  adversity into something positive, if at all
possible.  Although we have  suffered for years from a flawed foreign
policy and were  already in a  recession before the attacks, the severity
of these events has  forced many of  us to reassess our foreign and
domestic policies. Hopefully,  positive changes  will come of this.

  It is just as well that the economy was already in  recession for six
months  prior to the September attacks. Otherwise, the  temptation would
have been  too great to blame the attacks for the weak  economy rather than
look for  the government policies responsible for the  recession. Terrorist
attacks  alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be  the sole source
of a  significant economic downturn.

  A major debate  over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this
crisis.  Dealing with the  shortcomings of our policies of the past is
essential. We  were spending $40  billion a year on intelligence gathering
that, we must  admit, failed. This  tells us a problem exists. There are
shortcomings with  our $320 billion DOD  budget that did not provide the
protection  Americans  expect.

 Obviously, a proper response to the terrorists  requires sound judgment in
order to prevent further suffering of the innocent  or foolishly bring
about  a worldwide conflict.

  One of the key  responsibilities of the federal government in providing
for  national defense  is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely
responding  to the attacks  could undermine our national defense while
threatening our  liberties. What we  have done so far since last September
is not very  reassuring. What we do here  in the Congress in the coming
months may well  determine the survival of our  republic. Fear and
insecurity must not drive  our policies. Sacrificing  personal liberty
should never be an option.

  Involving ourselves in every  complex conflict around the globe hardly
enhances our national security. The  special interests that were already
lined up at the public trough should not  be permitted to use the ongoing
crisis as an opportunity to demand even more  benefits. Let us all remember
why the U.S. Congress was established, what our  responsibilities are and
what our oath of office means.

  It's been  reported that since the 9-11 attacks, big-government answers
have  gained in  popularity, and people, fearful for their security, have
looked  to the  federal government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance
of  government  solutions to our problems is at its highest level in
decades.  That may be  true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the
sentiments of  the moment,  or even the way the questions were asked. Only
time will tell.  Since the  welfare state is no more viable in the long run
than a communist  or fascist  state, most Americans will eventually realize
the fallacy of  depending on the  government for economic security and know
that personal  liberty should not be  sacrificed out of fear.

  Even with this massive rush to embrace all the  bailouts offered up by
Washington, a growing number of Americans are  rightfully offended by the
enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and  wealthy special interests
seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits. In one  area, though, a very
healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all Americans-  especially those
still  flying commercial airlines- now know that they have a  personal
responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers  have
responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens  best
protect our homes, because it is impossible for the police to be
everywhere  and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner's ability to
defend  himself  serves as a strong deterrent.

  Our government's ridiculous  policy regarding airline safety and
prohibiting  guns on airplanes had  indoctrinated us all- pilots,
passengers and airline  owners- to believe we  should never resist
hijackers. This set up the  perfect conditions for  terrorists to take over
domestic flights, just as  they did on September  11th.

  The people of this country now realize, more than ever, their  own
responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary.  The
anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans  are
ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before.  This
is all good.

  But sadly, the Congress went in the opposite  direction in providing
safety  on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying  guns, and security
has been  socialized- in spite of the fact that security  procedures
authorized by the  FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. The  problem did
not come from  failure to follow FAA rules; the problem resulted  from
precisely following  FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans are wisely
assuming they'd better be  ready to protect themselves when  necessary!

 This attitude is healthy, practical and legal under the  Constitution.
Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion  still
cling  to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the
U.S.  government. That's the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and
a  growing $6 trillion national debt.

  Another positive result of last  year's attacks was the uniting of many
Americans in an effort to deal with  the problems the country faced. This
applies more to the people who reflect  true patriotism than it does to
some  of the politicians and special interests  who took advantage of the
situation. If this renewed energy and sense of  unity could be channeled
correctly, much good could come of it. If  misdirected, actual harm will
result.

  I give less credit to the  Washington politicians who sing the songs of
patriotism, but use the crisis  to pursue their endless personal goal to
gain more political power. But the  greatest condemnation should be
directed  toward the special-interest  lobbyists who finance the
politicians in order  to secure their power, while  using patriotism as a
cover and the crisis as  a golden opportunity. Indeed,  those who are using
the crisis to promote  their own agenda are  many.

 There is no doubt, as many have pointed out, our country  changed
dramatically with the horror that hit us on 9-11. The changes  obviously
are  a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900
people. We  kill that many people every month on our government highways.
We  lost  60,000 young people in the Vietnam War, yet the sense of fear in
our  country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is
that  last year's attacks made us feel vulnerable, because it was clear
that  our  federal government had failed in its responsibility to provide
defense  against such an assault. And the anthrax scare certainly didn't
help  to  diminish that fear.

  Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel  even less safe from our
own  government's intrusion in our lives. The two seem  to be in conflict.
How can  we be safer from outside threats while making  ourselves more
exposed to our  own government's threat to our  liberty?

 The most significant and dangerous result of last year's attacks  has been
the bold expansion of the federal police state and our  enhanced
international role as the world's policeman.

 Although most of  the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and
international role for our  government passed by huge majorities, I'm
convinced that the people's support  for much of it is less enthusiastic
than Washington politicians believe. As  time progresses, the full impact
of  Homeland Security, and the unintended  consequences of our growing
overseas  commitments, will become apparent. And a  large majority of
Americans will  appropriately ask, "Why did the Congress do  it?"

  Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a  free
society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty.  The
wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when  protecting
individual liberty becomes our goal, rather than the erroneous  assumption
that solutions must always be in conflict with liberty and that
sacrificing  some liberty is to be expected during trying times. This is
not  necessary.

  Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to  the U.S.
government by claiming that those who talk of "lost liberty" serve  to
"erode our national unity" and "give ammunition to America's enemies"  and
"only aid terrorists."

 The dangerous assumption is that, in the  eyes of our top law-enforcement
official, perceived disloyalty or even  criticism of the government is
approximating an act of terrorism. The grand  irony is that this criticism
is being directed toward those who, heaven  forbid, are expressing concern
for losing our cherished liberties here at  home. This, of course, is what
the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be  about- protecting liberty,
and  that includes the right of free  expression.

 Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by  claiming that
if they "are not with us, they are against us," which leaves no  room for
the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for  centuries. This
position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with  dozens of nations
around the world.

  Could it ever come to a point  where those who dissent at home against
our  military operations overseas will  be considered too sympathetic to
the  enemy? The Attorney General's comments  suggest just that, and it has
happened here in our past. We indeed live in  dangerous times. We are
unable  to guarantee protection from outside threats  and may be
approaching a time  when our own government poses a threat to our
liberties.

 No matter how sincere and well motivated, the effort to fight  terrorism
and  provide for homeland security, if ill advised, will result  neither in
vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am  fearful that,
here in Washington, there's little understanding of the real  cause of the
terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose  of the
American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was  written
to strictly limit government officials in all that they  do.   The military
operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban  has  been removed
from power, and our government, with the help of the UN,  is  well along
the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We  weren't  supposed
to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9-11  changed  all
that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaida  members
captured or killed is uncertain. Also the number of Taliban officials  that
had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is  purely
speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we'll probably  not
know the details of what went on for years to come.

  I wonder how  many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of
Members could care  less, remembering innocent American civilians who were
slaughtered in New  York and Washington. But a policy that shows no concern
for the innocent will  magnify our problems rather than lessen them. The
hard part to understand in  all of this is that Saudi Arabia probably had
more to do with these attacks  than did Afghanistan.

  But then again, who wants to offend our oil  partners?

  Our sterile approach to the bombing, with minimal loss of  American life
is  to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by  this
lopsided  killing of persons totally unaware of the events of September
11th.

  Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers  of
occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among  the
warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government  evolving
out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of  money
to buy support for years to come are great.

  Unfortunately, it  has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and
India to resume their  warring ways, placing us in a dangerous situation.
This could easily get out  of control, since China will not allow a
clear-cut Indian victory over  Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear
confrontation is real. Even the British  have spoken sympathetically about
Pakistan's interests over India. The  tragedy is that we have helped both
India and Pakistan financially, and,  therefore, the American taxpayer has
indirectly contributed funds for the  weapons on both sides. Our troops in
this region are potential targets of  either or both countries.

  Fortunately, due to the many probable  repercussions, a swift attack on
Iraq  now seems less likely. Our surrogate  army, organized by the Iraqi
National  Congress, is now known to be a charade,  prompting our
administration to  stop all funding of this organization.  Relying on the
Kurds to help remove  Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded  Turkish
army continues its war on  the Kurds. There is just no coalition in  the
Persian Gulf to take on Iraq,  and, fortunately, our Secretary of State
knows it.

[END]

Tomorrow:  Conclusion

=====

Thought for the Day:

"Yet still we hug the dear deceit."

(Nathaniel Cotton)