|
Text of Patriotism speech:
Madam Speaker, for
some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means
dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.
I have never met a
politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be
called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he
wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all
too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because
their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign
military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers
deserving contempt.
The original American
patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the
oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as
that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is
motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself,
his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of
power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be
required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible
imprisonment.
Peaceful, nonviolent
revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those
involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet
they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the
resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent,
the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today
has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who
now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us,
or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the
expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are
sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of
liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
Liberals, who
withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well,
especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially
demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be
unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once
it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field.
This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet,
it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and
champion of liberty.
It is conveniently
ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep
them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired.
Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national
security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way
to patriotically support the troops.
Who are the true
patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without
purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how
misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?
Randolph Bourne said
that, "War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state
thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity.
Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no
trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the
state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as
well as in our economic transactions.
Certainly, the
neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American
values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to
rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this
policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The
economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes
prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens
become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is
required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
This is a bad
trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism.
Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true
patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the
country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the
stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
Because the crisis
atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an
answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits
patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the
power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding
of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and
big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand
political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign
affairs.
The long-term cost in
dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are
emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going
on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership,
the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against
terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
All this effort
promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government
designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of
statism and preserve liberty.
Once a war of any
sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be
declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the
one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or
even imprisonment may result.
Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are
frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's
unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters
to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are
threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
Statism depends on
the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating
the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of
the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service,
emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.
A free society
rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the
confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A
more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is
the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system
operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
Protesters against
this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic
criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that,
according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and
paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned
on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at
home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for
a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders
of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those
who support these programs are seen as the patriots.
If there is a war
going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all
costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too
often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are
quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to
solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to
bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties,
which they are told is necessary.
The last 6 years have
been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense
of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can
only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every
war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have
been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted
in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government
was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead,
become the usurper of those liberties.
We currently live in
the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central
government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being
reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
Unfortunately, the
policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign
interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer
that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's
policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.
We now live in a
post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter
what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss
of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
Though the majority
of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we
are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now
becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously
sacrificed.
The problem is that
the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists.
There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war
on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is
incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it
will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we
are now engaged will last a long, long time.
The war mentality and
the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of
our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence
is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through
at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no
scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an
airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away
toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.
Our enemies say boo,
and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a
child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable
terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a
desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is
certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
We fail to realize
that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their
enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and
perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and
their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military
means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own
government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of
suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they
believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or
greater than that directed toward us.
These errors in
judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that
is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and
privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national
security.
We may be the
economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this
war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.
The erosion of our
personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the
process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course,
both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people
remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were
unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty,
even if it is just now and then.
The true patriot
challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the
expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater
determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted
from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the
Constitution will disappear.
The record since
September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many
of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before
that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more
possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an
opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state
domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion
of Iraq.
The war mentality was
generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear
at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in
Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in
Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While
our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the
erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own
borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a
good plan for America.
The accelerated
attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act
was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was
unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time
to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful,
drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted
for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was
considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
The PATRIOT Act,
though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the
government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial
supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all
Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague
definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and
bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI
initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier
access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier
access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
The attack on privacy
has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a
particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will
change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the
executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to
use secretive military commissions outside of places where active
hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture,
arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the
full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and
warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to
imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
Since 9/11,
Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the
President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the
Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders
are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
Extraordinary
rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in,
though obviously extralegal.
A growing concern in
the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential
terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is
virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is
totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
A national ID card is
now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and
it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If
REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for
all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.
Some of the
least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made
to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense
Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of
our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as
little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted
the President in his use of the military within the United States borders,
and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with
strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent
the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the
"Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a
title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of
a constitutional Republic.
Now, martial law can
be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters,
public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague
reason called "other conditions.'' The President can call up the National
Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even
send these State Guard troops into other States.
The American Republic
is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving
into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting
changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American
jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt
against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of
Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by
our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this
self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas
are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
Though welfare and
socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion.
Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral
position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war
are not supporting the troops. The cliché "Support the Troops'' is
incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting
the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.
Unsound policy can
never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars
unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the
troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot''?
Before the war in the
Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held
responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can
no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of
action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional
usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of
action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even
peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
But let it not be
said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the
welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as
unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than
it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security.
Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful
in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the
greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual
liberty. |
