Common Sense

Esteemed Senators and Representatives:
 
As featured prominently in a front-page article in USA Today earlier this week, ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-gu
ns-cover_N.htm ) the US Supreme Court is about to take up the Heller case regarding the rights of inhabitants of the District of Columbia to "keep and bear arms".  Many in the media and in politics expect the Supreme Court to rule on whether the Second Amendment to the US Constitution preserves an individual right to arms, or a "collective right".  Any such decision will have far-reaching effects on all Americans, including Georgians.
 
The Consitution of the State of Georgia references the right to bear arms in Article 1, Section 1, entitled "Rights of Persons".  It is plain from the inclusion of the right to bear arms in this particular section of the Georgia Constitution that the State of Georgia clearly understands the right to bear arms as a personal, individual right.  Further, the Georgia Constitution replicates the wording used in the US Constitution, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
 
In the interests of defending the unalienable, God-given right of Americans -- including Georgians -- to exercise their personal, individual liberty with respect to the ownership and carriage of arms, I hereby call upon you as the elected representatives of the State of Georgia to communicate by resolution or letter to the US Supreme Court the offical stance of the Georgia Legislature -- which is plainly that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly intends to preserve an individual right. 
 
The very notion that our unalienable rights are granted to us by our Creator defies any interpretation of "collective" rights.  God creates us as individuals, not as a collective - for our rights to be granted by our Creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, they must be granted to us as individuals.  The notion of a "collective" right denies the right of the individual, and if no individual is entitled to a given right or privilege, then the simple rules of logic tell us that no collection, or collective, of individuals can properly claim a right that does not belong to every individual.
 
I remind elected officials everywhere that all power emanates from the People.  The Constitutions of our State and Federal governments are the contracts by which the people agree to delegate powers to such governments; no government can have a legitimate claim to any power unless explicitly granted by the people.  For the courts to deny what are plainly individual, God-given rights to the people under the false rubric of a doctrine of "collective rights" constitutes unilateral breach of contract on the part of whatever government is represented by such a court.  The people will not long tolerate such breach of contract, and may be moved to secure their rights again, using the traditional remedies defined by the Declaration of Independence with regard to usurpations of tyrants.  The Supreme Court must be warned that any finding inconsistent with the Declaration's doctrine of unalienable, God-given individual rights will render the authority of the Court null and void and lead to untold hardship, suffering, and potentially violence, as the people move to once again secure their rights against tyranny.
 
The Founders were clear: the Second Amendment is intended to stand as the last bulwark against tyrannical government, to preserve the option of the People to appeal to force, if necessary, to secure their rights against usurpers.
 
Members of the Montana legislature have seen fit to file an Amicus brief with the Court in regard to the Heller case, to remind the court that the State of Montana obtained a clear understanding in 1889 - when applying for statehood - that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.  As a reflection of this, Montana's Constitution states that the right of "any person" to keep and bear arms "shall not be called into question".  The federal government agreed in 1889 that such wording is consistent with the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment - and neither the wording of Montana's Constitution, nor the US Constitution, has changed in the intervening years.  Those legislators notified the US Supreme Court that any finding to the contrary will consititute a breach of contract on the part of the United States, and that Montana will pursue "all available remedies" to correct the breach.  I trust I need not point out that "all available remedies" includes the right of Secession.
 
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with your colleagues in the Legislature to frame, approve, and transmit a similar, strongly worded admonition to the Court that the State of Georgia will not tolerate any abrogation of it's citizens' rights by the Supreme Court.  I remind you that the duty and purpose of all government in our great land is to secure the unalienable rights of the people, and that all such governments were chartered for that explicit purpose, by the people: a failure to perform that duty entitles the People to revoke the charter of any government that fails them in this regard. 

Alone in a harbor stands a proud Lady, with torch held aloft to light the way for weary travelers from all corners of the earth. Standing firm and tall, the very sight of her is a beacon to peoples everywhere; she calls out to the World with her siren cry:

"Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe Free"

She symbolizes all that is good and true, all the hopes and aspirations of Mankind. She offers hope to the oppressed, the desolate, the unfortunate - indeed all who long for something more. Her name is lost to time long past; we call her Liberty.

Liberty. The very word has a harmonious ring, and those who know it well are filled with a hopeful spirit at the mere sound of it: Liberty. But how well do we know it, and are we truly enjoying the blessings of it's promise?

The two faces of Liberty

The first thing we must remember about the concept of Liberty is that it has a dual nature: freedom of action, and responsibility to respect the rights of others. The two are inseparable, and from this understanding we derive our concepts of Rights and of Duty. In a free society all must respect the dual nature of Liberty and understand how observing our Duty to others is the principle upon which Rights may be guaranteed to all. Individual A cannot be secure in her rights if they are violated by Individual B, and vice-versa. Therefore, any true claim on Liberty is conditional on the Individual's willingness to extend to others the same consideration with regard to respecting their rights. This is made manifest in our system of Justice, wherein by violating the rights of another, the convicted has relinquished just claim to his own Liberty, Life, or Property. We might properly term the concept, as others have, Liberty-Responsibility; but that's a lot to type, and the Author a trifle lazy by nature.

Natural Rights

The Founders defined their understanding of Liberty - the traditional American understanding - through the philosophy of Natural Rights, largely from the analyses and writings of the renowned English philosopher John Locke. Locke's notion of rights being somewhat theoretical and academic, it fell to the Founders to forge a practical philosophy of Liberty, and to devise a form of Government to sustain it. The basic proposition has perhaps never been stated quite so eloquently as by Jefferson in the primary American founding document, the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights: that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

American society at the time of the Revolution was very religious by today's standard, though we still observe the cultural belief in the Divine. It is the Divine nature of the Individual's natural rights that give them precedence over all other considerations; indeed, the Founders made it the very aim of Government to defend the Individual's rights, as is very clear from the following passage:

 ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... (Declaration of Independence)

Components of Liberty

By Liberty, we mean something more than simple freedom of choice; that's certainly a part of it, but it has other essential elements as well. The basic definition is, freedom of the Individual from coercion (by others, or by Government) in the enjoyment of one's unalienable rights and the supporting rights. Again, we remind ourselves that in a free society, Liberty includes the obligation of the Individual to respect the rights of others. Free from coercion, we are able to fully exercise our freedom of choice. If among our unalienable rights is Life, clearly the supporting rights include a right to acquire property - such as food, clothing, and shelter - for our personal use; if we have a right to acquire and keep property, that implies of course that we respect the right of others to their property as well. On this is based the principle of Self-reliance, the guiding economic principle of Liberty: if we have no right to the property of others, then provision for our own sustenance and material needs is our own Individual responsibility. Because of Liberty's dual nature, we understand that there can be no Right without Duty, and no Freedom without Responsibility: the responsibility of the Individual to restrain his behavior to respect the rights of others is the social principle of Liberty, Self-discipline. The final principle of Liberty is Self-respect; respect for one's own intrinsic worth as a creation of the Divine, respect for one's own natural rights; respect for one's ability to be self-reliant, and to practice self-discipline; the Self-respect that comes from these attributes and accomplishments - which incidentally engender the respect of others - is the spiritual principle of Liberty.

We therefore see that Liberty includes one's freedom of choice, whether of conscience or of behavior. We see that Liberty's support lies in our Property rights. And we see that on an individual basis, Liberty is made possible by adherence to three fundamental principles: the spiritual principle of Self-respect; the economic principle of Self-reliance; and the social-political principle of Self-discipline. And we see how proper application of these principles ensures satisfaction of the dual requirements of Liberty-Responsibility.

So the next time you see an image of that Lady in the Harbor, or enjoy your freedom of choice in whatever way best suits you, be thankful for America and our wise Founders who made it their mission to launch Man's grandest experiment. Truly, Individual Liberty is the highest moral good we can achieve as a species in our earthly existence: we should be thankful every day for the measure of it we still enjoy. And let us hold in our hearts the firm conviction in the famous lines of Patrick Henry:

I know not what path other men may choose, but as for me: Give me Liberty, or give me Death!

 

Would you hire a prospective employee who lied on their job application?  Can someone who misrepresents their qualifications when seeking a job be trusted to do the job properly and to be honest about their performance?  What about when the job we're talking about is President of the United States?

Mike Huckabee has emerged in the past couple of weeks as the anointed "Underdog" Republican candidate being promoted by the media, who seem to have realized that their former favorites, Giuliani and McCain, are going nowhere with the American people.  What does this have to do with lying about job qualifications, you ask?

LIE: Mike Huckabee has claimed on at least two occasions to be the "only candidate with a Theology degree" and the "only candidate to have studied at seminary".  One of these is somewhat true, the other is not, but they are used together to reinforce a lie.  FACT: Mike Huckabee does NOT have a Theology degree.  FACT: Mike Huckabee was a seminary dropout.

LIE: Mike Huckabee also claims to have been a tax-cutter in his days as Arkansas Governor.  When pressed, the Huckster dances around the issue, claiming he raised taxes X number of times, but lowered taxes Y number of times, therefore he lowered taxes more than he raised them.  FACT: Overall, taxes went up in Arkansas during Huckabee's tenure.

LIE: Huckabee claims to be tough on illegal immigration.  FACT: Huckabee re-appropriated monies from the Governor's Emergency Fund to help finance a Mexican Consulate in Little Rock.  Some emergency that must have been!

LIE: Huckabee presents himself as an outsider, not a member of the Ruling Elite.  FACT: Huckabee was an honored guest of the elite class from which all the "major" candidates spring at a November meeting of their private club, the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York -- just days before he suddenly became the media's favorite "Underdog" candidate.  Note that almost all other candidates for President - certainly all those "Washington insiders" - are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.  These include, but are not limited to, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and now Huckabee.

Am I picking on Huckabee?  Perhaps.  Few people know very much about Mike Huckabee, which seems to be a good thing for him, while many are familiar with Giuliani's lies and Romney's flip-flops.  But the truth needs to be spread about "come-from-behind" candidate Mike Huckabee, who presents himself as a man of God but who is really just another unprincipled liar who, like most of the others, lusts for the power of the Presidency and is more interested in political gain than in truth and justice.  He is perhaps worse than the others in that he dons a mantle of respectability and appeals to Christian virtues in order to disguise his deceitful nature...apparently the page with that bit about "Thou shalt not bear false witness" has fallen out of the Huckster's Bible.

Where one is a government official, there is a fine line between lies and Treason.  Every person elected to the House or the Senate, every state legislator, every Governor, takes an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.  How many really adhere to this oath?  How many can be trusted to always be honest with their employer, the voters?  Consider this: The Patriot Act is unconstitutional.  The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.  The undeclared war in Iraq is unconstitutional.  Socialized Medicine, whether "Single Payer" or "Universal Health Care", is unconsitutional.  Education being a state function, No Child Left Behind and the entire Department of Education are unconstitutional.  Yet almost every politician in one of the aforementioned offices, and almost every candidate for President has supported one or more of these unconsitutional programs.  If voting to pass unconsitutional legislation is not a violation of that oath of office, what is?  Is taking a sacred oath and then willfully and routinely violating it, thereby undermining the Consitutional system one is sworn to defend, not tantamount to treason?

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor---he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation---he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city---he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." --- Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.

"The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves." -- Plato, Greek Philosopher

Get interested in politics.  Research the candidates, then make your own decision.  I am confident that if you earnestly do so, you will discover, as I have, that there is really only one honest person running for President.  There is only one candidate who is motivated by love of country and steadfast belief in American values of truth, justice, and freedom.  There is only one candidate who has been firm and resolute in his oath to defend the Constitution, with a voting record to prove it.  That candidate is Republican Ron Paul.  Please support Ron Paul in the Republican primary on February 5th. 

We *can* take America back from the corrupt politicians and the special interests.  We *can* restore our freedoms and liberties.  We *can* revive the Rule of Law in this country.  But we can *only* do so by electing honest people who truly believe in American principles.  Vote for America.  Vote for Freedom.  Vote for the Constitution.  Vote for Ron Paul for President.

Some things never change, it seems.  I happened across a stridently critical article on the true workings of the war machine, and was somewhat surprised to find it was written in the 1930s, by a military man and two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Marine Corps Major General Smedley D Butler.  The article is excerpted below to eliminate contemporary references, and reads as if it were written yesterday.

The reader might be mindful of the connections of the current administration's principals to companies that are war profiteers - the Blackwaters, the Halliburtons, the Oil Industry, and other big corporations for whom war is big business.

---

From "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

---

What does it profit us, indeed?  With Osama bin Laden hiding in a cave and our Southern border essentially a revolving door, has the war in Iraq made us any safer from terrorism?  Would a war in Iran?  None of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq or Iran.  Does this fact seem strange? Might one wonder what really is going on here?

In the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was described first as the World's "lone superpower", then a "reluctant sheriff", next the "Indispensible Nation", and, in the wake of 9/11, as the "New Rome".  In many ways the American Empire resembles the old Rome; we would do well to remember the forces that destroyed it, for those same political and economic forces threaten our future today.

In this second installment on the true motives of Islamic terror, we'll look at our recent history with regard to Afghanistan, the country we invaded first after 9/11 and the onetime hideout of our former ally turned foe, Osama bin Laden.

Afghanistan - pawn of western regimes

It is important to understand the context of Afghan political history vis-a-vis the West in general.  Like many of its neighbors it had been conquered by numerous invaders over the centuries, including such notables as Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.  But its history with (relatively) modern western empires began with its use by Britain as a pawn in its contest for dominion with Tsarist Russia in the early 19th century.  From 1839 to 1919 Afghanistan was under British dominion, punctuated by bloody wars in which the hapless local rebels were severely outclassed by the might of Imperial Britain.  In 1919 Afghanistan declared its independence and successfully fought its way to a negotiated settlement with Britain.  The willingness of the English to accede was no doubt influenced by the effective collapse of the Tsarist empire with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Ironically, it was the Russians who next took interest in the area for purposes of empire.  The Cold War proceeded after the model of the British Empire's manouverings against an earlier Russian state, and the superpowers' strategy of acquiring "buffer states" was inherited by the new contestants.  Thus, the Soviets incited and funded a coup by the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978.  In an uncharacteristic display of Cold War gamesmanship, the Carter administration in 1979 began a program to covertly fund, supply, and train a guerilla force to challenge Communist rule in Afghanistan.  In cooperation with the Pakistani ISI, the CIA funded and built bases in Pakistan for training the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" to engage in what we would today call "insurgency" and "terrorism" to "de-stabilize" the Russians' puppet government.

And so it was that the United States first became involved in the internal politics of Afghanistan.  Carter's program had what must be presumed to be the desired effect - the Soviets committed a force of 100,000 men to "stabilize" the situation in Afghanistan, and the secret proxy war was on.  The covert sponsorship of the Mujahideen was continued under the Reagan and Bush administrations until, in 1989, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving an estimated 600,000 to 2 million Afghanis dead and another 5 million expatriated as refugees to Iran, Pakistan, and other neighboring countries.

Victory, Abandonment, and the rise of Al-Qaeda

Flush with what they considered an ideological victory, the Bush administration turned its back on Afghanistan.  There was no Marshall Plan for the war-torn country, not even an acknowledgement publicly by the US of its role and share of responsibility for the chaos and ruin the country was left in.  Deep resentment began to set in with many of the US' former Islamic allies.

The resentment of the militant and radicalized faction of the former Mujahideen only increased with the US' continued support of Israel, and was inflamed by the garrisoning of US troops in Saudi Arabia, considered a holy place by Muslims.  Anti-US rhetoric ran high but was largely ignored back home.  The now vehemently anti-US former "freedom fighters" had no military, no economic or political might, no air force, navy, or nuclear weaponry to force the US to the negotiating table.  Guerilla warfare - terrorism - was seen as their only option.  Osama bin Laden and others revived the politico-religious radicalization and guerilla training program the CIA had so conveniently designed for them, to recruit agents of terror against the United States - and Al Qaeda was born.

And so the terror attacks began.  The World Trade Center was the target of a bomb attack in 1993; US military apartments in Saudi Arabia were attacked in 1996; US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the USS Cole in 2000; culminating in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  It comes as no surprise to students of history that continued US refusal to acknowledge the grievances of our former allies led to this now-apparent pattern of escalation in the severity of these terrorist attacks.

Unocal, Caspian Oil, and the Taliban 

The story now takes us across the Caspian Sea to little-known Turkmenistan.  Turkmenistan is one of several countries defined along traditional ethnic lines in the former Soviet Union, and natural resource exploration has identified large oil and natural gas reserves there, along with lesser reserves in other countries bordering the Caspian Sea.  In 1993 Bridas, an Argentine oil company, negotiated a deal with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to build dual gas and oil pipelines across Afghanistan to Pakistan's port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea - necessary because the Caspian is landlocked.  Bridas lacked the funds to build the pipeline, and approached the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) with a partnership proposition.  Unocal liked the idea so much that they went to Turkmenistan and Pakistan and negotiated a new deal, cutting Bridas out.  The inevitable lawsuit was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction, and Bridas lost the deal.

The problem with this grand scheme was that in the mid-90's Afghanistan was in a constant state of civil war.  Various factions of the victorious Mujahideen had been fighting in an ongoing power struggle.  There had been no victor in the fighting, and Unocal desperately needed a "legitimate" government in Afghanistan from which to secure the transit rights to pump Turkmenistan's oil to port.  Additionally, an internationally recognized Afghanistan would be a prerequisite for raising the international capital needed to fund the pipelines.

To serve these commercial interests and eliminate barriers to the exploitation of Turkmenistan's oil, the US and Pakistan worked out a secret arrangement; they would leverage an offshoot of the Mujahideen to end the civil war in Afghanistan and provide a new government with international legitimacy.  This group called itself the Taliban, or "students of Islam".

The Taliban proceeded to launch a US-backed war against the corrupt Tajik and Uzbek warlords of the "Northern Alliance", and eventually siezed the capital city of Kabul in 1996.  Somewhat independent-minded, the Taliban invited Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan later that year.  The US continued to tolerate and back the Taliban - in spite of its support for Al Qaeda and its sponsorship of terrorism - so long as it cooperated with the Unocal plan to gain access to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia.

In the meantime, Unocal had put together the Central Asia Gas and Pipeline Consortium to help fund the pipeline endeavor and share in the profits.  How big a share?  Unocal held 46.5 percent, the Delta Oil Company of Saudi Arabia - cultivated because Unocal felt that its ties with King Fahd might influence the Taliban - held 15 percent.  As a reminder of the exploitative nature of these imperial endeavors, the government of Turkmenistan's share - in return for allowing Unocal and their partners to plunder the poor nation's resources - was a mere 7 percent.

Taliban falls from favor; war plans precede 9/11 by months

But what Unocal and the US didn't take into account was the ruthlessness and cruelty of their newfound friends, the Taliban.  The group received deservedly bad press for its atrocious record on human rights, and by November 1999 the UN imposed sanctions on Afghanistan.  Unocal was denounced by Mavis Leno, wife of television personality Jay Leno, at its annual stockholders' meeting for its ongoing support of the Taliban.  Unocal decided to cut its losses and withdraw from the deal, but the Administration in Washington wasn't ready to give up on using the Taliban to plunder Turkmenistan's oil.  When the Taliban proceeded to blow up two of Buddhism's most revered ancient relics, the monumental statues at Bamiyan, in March of 2001 - an incident causing international outrage -  Washington lost patience and decided regime change was in order.

The Administration went to work right away, conferring with allies in Geneva regarding a plan to overthrow the Taliban in May of 2001.  By the time of the G-8 summit in July, a detailed plan was revealed for launching attacks against Afghanistan in October of 2001.  In early August, the US held its last offical meeting with the Taliban in Islamabad.  The die was cast.  The Bush administration was moving toward war in Afghanistan.

Conclusion

Whether the attacks of September 11 were in response to the US plan to overthrow the Taliban, or simply another step in the steady escalation of Al-Qaeda's war on the US, the timing could not have been better for the Administration's plan to attack Afghanistan.  It now had a justification, and a hunger for retribution on the part of the American people, to garner support for its plan.  In fact, it would prove a perfect opportunity for hawks in the Bush administration to push for the long-planned war against Iraq as well.  For advocates of US empire abroad, the 9/11 attack and the subsequent "War on Terror" has been a godsend to their agenda of militarism and economic colonialism.

The initial justification for invading Afghanistan was to bring Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to justice for 9/11.  The Defense Department chose to rely on local warlords - the same Northern Alliance we sponsored the Taliban against - to lead us to bin Laden, and he soon escaped, presumed to be in Pakistan.  One might imagine bin Laden holed up in one of the numerous remote terrorist training camps in the region created courtesy of the CIA. 

We continue to stay in Afghanistan, publicly to maintain "stability". 

Many in the know suspect US motives may have more to do with oil reserves on the Caspian Sea. 

Thus ends our brief history of US-Afghan relations.  It is one marked with covert military support, then betrayal, of the Mujahideen and the Taliban after them, and the death of countless ordinary Afghanis as the US uses their country as a pawn in its modern-day economic and military empire, much as Imperial Britain had done in the centuries before.  We are indeed the new Rome.

Most Americans do not know about the covert programs of the US that led to the rise of first the Mujahideen, then Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  Most Americans don't know that modern Islamic Radicalism did not develop on its own, that it was created by the CIA to challenge the Soviets in Afghanistan. 

Now that you know, what will you do differently?

Only you can decide. 

For my part, I will continue to speak the Truth - and to support the only Presidential candidate that wants to change the way the military and commercial interests run our expensive and dangerous foreign policy. 

That man is Ron Paul - check him out at www.ronpaul2008.com.

It's trivial to state that in order to counteract suicide terrorism, we must understand its motives. 

Tragically, this simple fact is ignored by too many in politics today.  In their omnipresent clamor to "do something" and not to appear "soft on terror" our political leaders fall back on the intellectually lazy assertion that our enemies "hate us" for our freedoms. 

While our 'enemies' may disagree with our modern Western lifestyle, that is hardly reason enough for sane individuals to commit intentional suicide in order to attack us.  That said, there are reasons why rational individuals might consider the desparate act of a suicide attack to be a viable option - especially if it seems to be their only option.

The following speech by Congressman Dr. Ron Paul was delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives in July of 2005.  I present it here as the first installment of a series of articles on the true motives of Islamic Terror.

-------------------------------

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 14, 2005

Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

-------------------------

See original article at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terror
ism/

"Peace through Strength" has long been a catch-phrase for politicians of every stripe when advocating military buildup or a militaristic foreign policy.  It's even a phrase bandied about in the midst of war, in the face of incontrovertible evidence of the failure of militarism to ensure peace.  Today, we have a foreign policy that one could fairly say evinces a belief on the part of our leaders that we can create peace and harmony in the world, if only we can kill all of our enemies.

Whenever a perceived enemy (not even a threat, just an enemy) arises - Iran, Syria, North Korea, the list goes on - otherwise reasonable people talk seriously about the eventualities of war, and at what point should we "pre-empt the target", to borrow an odd phrase of double-speak from Duncan Hunter.  We seem predisposed to solving the world's 'problems' through military action, and we as a people have now seemingly accepted this reprehensible notion of pre-emptive war.

"Pre-empt the target" is a way of saying "attack first" - to be the aggressor.  "Pre-emptive war" is code for "aggressive invasion".  Our purported leaders -- and many of their would-be successors -- use these terms seriously, as if they were not talking about slaughtering people who have done no harm to us.  

Sadly, this new doctrine of pre-emptive war is nothing new.  It's actually an ancient doctrine; students of history will recognize its most fervent disciple in the last century as an infamous German Chancellor.

What these self-righteous politicians - moral degenerates, at least on this issue - fail to see is what every first grader knows: it's OK to fight, but it's wrong to throw the first punch.

Thankfully, there is a better way.  We don't have to solve our differences with other countries by military force.  We can adopt a new policy - a policy I like to call Strength through Peace.

Leaving Iraq

There has been so much pro-war propaganda from the Administration and the Media that many of us can't be sure we haven't been presented a somewhat distorted view.  But I hear the concern again and again that a speedy withdrawal of US troops will leave a power vacuum in Iraq, and that bloodshed and war - either civil war or war with Iran - would be the result.

I submit that there are a number of other possibilities, some no less likely.  I hope to  present here some other scenarios that could play out.  But first let's briefly recap our story thus far, politically at least.

How we got here

To tell the truth, I supported going after Saddam initially, because to me the mission made sense given the "facts" presented at the time...but then, I didn't know what Ron Paul apparently knew, based the speech featured in my last blog entry.  Anyway, once the initial mission was achieved and Saddam deposed, the mission became to ensure that Iraq had a democratically elected government - and I supported that mission too.  I think many Americans rightfully felt a sense of pride and kinship with the Iraqi people on their first Election Day after Saddam's reign.

But I'm not sure what the mission is now that we've accomplished all that.  Why are we continuing to occupy a country that now has its own legitimate and sovereign government?  Some say we're staying until the Iraqi Government is 'strong enough to govern', or maybe now it's supposed to be 'strong enough to resist Iran'. 

Where we go now

Regardless, I liken today's government in Iraq to an adolescent - a teenage boy trying to grow into a man, but doing so under the thumb of a domineering mother (the USA).  Until we allow Iraq to at least try to stand on its own, neither the Iraqi people nor Iran will have any respect for the Iraqi government.

But to grow into a man, to take responsibility - or to 'take control' - Iraq, like an adolescent, will have to be weaned gradually with steadily growing levels of responsibility.  If Iraq were really concerned about its security after a US troop draw-down, they could negotiate with us to coordinate schedules, so that they could retain the "Contractors" like Blackwater USA as a security force, to bolster their forces as our troops depart.  By agreeing on a coordinated transition, we could work with Iraq to ensure that they grow comfortable with their ability to stand alone as we withdraw.

The Iranian 'threat'

Some claim it's a foregone conclusion that Iran would act against Iraq.  One could certainly argue that Iraq and Iran are old enemies, but the wars between them - in the last few decades at least - were prompted and supported by the US.  Iran going into Iraq is possible, to be sure, but it's only made more likely by the perception that Iraq is a puppet of the US.  It's also possible that Iran is only in Iraq (if in fact they are) because they feel threatened by the US presence, and that our getting out of there will actually help relieve the tension. 

In any event, if Iran were to attack, Iraq could appeal to the US for help and Congress would have the option of declaring War on Iran - and they'd actually have a reason, instead of the over-hyped Iranian "threat" being bandied about now.  So I don't think pulling out over even a relatively short period of time would necessarily be that disastrous - especially if we still retain a presence nearby in Afghanistan.

Strength through Peace

Politically, a sense of shared vulnerability to its neighbors might actually strengthen the coalition government in Iraq.  Certainly, open dissent in Iran has fallen from vogue since a foreign power invaded its neighbor.  Given the breathing room afforded by a US withdrawal, we might even be optimistic for a resurgence of dissidents in Iran, over time. 

After years of conflict, the good ol' USA could use some strengthening domestically as well.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and our borders are being overrun by thousands each day.  Our hospitals are going broke and our nation is headed toward bankruptcy.  Our manufacturing base has all but disappeared and even our high-tech jobs are being exported in record numbers.  Our dependency on foreign oil is at the heart of all the suffering we've endured and caused in the Middle East over the last 50+ years, but we refuse to drill where we know we have domestic oil.

It's time we end the slide of the dollar into financial irrelevancy.  It's time we physically secure the borders of our country.  It's time we fixed our crumbling infrastructure.  It's time we were as dedicated to our own homeland as we seem to be to Iraq.

We're told the popular consensus on Iraq is now that we should bring our troops home.  The conventional wisdom seems to be that the issue is what led to the Democratic Party achieving a majority in both the House and the Senate.  Apparently, for reasons not yet fully explained, the victorious Democrats have declined to make good on what they initially termed their 'mandate' for change in the Iraq policy.

So now we approach a Presidential election, and ironically none of the media-designated 'front runners' for either of the major parties seems much interested in the supposed 'mandate' for foreign policy change.  Clinton and Obama, the evident leaders on the Democratic side, have both acknowledged that they would have a US military force in Iraq into their prospective second term.  And one would assume - accustomed as we are to devoutly partisan politics - that the Republican candidates would be in uniform support of the current Administration's policy.

Perhaps this has something to do with why so many Americans are dissatisfied with the performance of both the President and the Congress, or their current choices for their Party's candidate.

But one candidate has been consistent in criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the Iraq war since the beginning.  Regardless of our personal feelings toward the war or the 'mandate', as we approach this next election cycle, we might consider the following speech to the Congress, made before we entered the war.  Consider whether these questions are important, and if they have been adequately addressed even now, more than five years later.

-------

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

As a fellow FOX 5 blogger observes ( http://community.myfoxatlanta.com/blogs/russell_brock/
2007/10/01/Corrupt_politiciansHmmmm ), military people somehow seem to be more attuned to what's going on with our government than the average civilian. 

Maybe this is because that government can order them into the line of fire at any time.  Maybe its because when they took the oath - to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic - they took the time to actually read the Constitution.  It's a remarkable document and one of the most copied political documents in history, along with the Declaration of Independence. 

One can hardly read these great founding documents of our country without marveling at how far we are today from those foundations of Liberty.  All the things the Founders warned us against, we have done.  All the good advice we were given on how to maintain a free and prosperous society, we have ignored. 

True self-government means also keeping a close eye on those who would govern you -- and today our government is far more involved in governing us than any of those great statesmen who signed those documents could possibly endure. 

Yes, if Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams were alive today, they would be calling for us to take up arms against a government so oppressive and with such enmity towards freedom.

But there is hope.  If I can paraphrase Judge Andrew Napolitano, if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be Ron Paul. 

Don't take my word for it.  Google or search YouTube/wikipedia/anywhere for 'ron paul'. 

We have a real chance to take our country back from the corrupt elite politicians in 2008.  We will never again hold this opportunity in our hands.  All true American Patriots need to come to the aid of their country NOW. 

Maybe that's why the #1 recipient of Presidential campaign donations from active duty and retired military families is Ron Paul....and he is opposed to the Iraq war.  Think about it....and visit www.ronpaul2008.com