Allison Bricker

THE REGION, INDIANA – The term neoconservative may have come into more common use during the eight nightmarish years of the Bush Administration, but let us be candid, its core ideology has existed since the founding of the Republic. For there have always been those amongst us who felt that security and obedience is achieved only by pummeling into submission any slight towards the state’s fragile ego executed by the hands of its unsophisticated warmongering political administrators. Whilst Alexander Hamilton might be the pious genesis of the American embodiment towards this philosophy, whereby he was sent to meet his Creator unto the hyper-masculine ritual of pistol dueling, its renaissance began in earnest with the Wilson Administration.

President Woodrow Wilson enabled by the creation of the limitless purse provided by the then newly formed Federal Reserve, collateralized by the confiscation of current and future wages decreed under the 16th Amendment, and unchecked federal authority promulgated by tying Senators to popular knee-jerk sentiment all achieved in 1913, now began a course of “Making the World Safe for Democracy”¹. So fell the first domino in a sustained effort to forever alter American foreign policy into that of a new tradition, one of a perpetual war-footing and imperial expansion.

At the dawn of the Twentieth Century, the American people were very much opposed to intervening in the growing conflict in Europe. However, Woodrow Wilson’s personal ambition wholly contrary to his public rhetoric, was to see American entry into World War I. He saw this as an opportunity to propose his machination for global governance, i.e. The League of Nations. So much was Wilson’s desire towards achieving that end, his Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan resigned in protest², citing Wilson’s Warmongering Diplomacy.

Further, President Wilson so decidedly intolerable of any form of dissent pushed for and achieved a legislative muzzle to stifle Anti-War sentiment in the form of the “Sedition³ and Espionage Acts”. Now with statutory authority, Wilson could jail and silence outspoken opponents of the war, claiming the now tired phraseology of “National Security”. The most famous of theses un-American incarcerations was Eugene Debs, the Cindy Sheehan of his day.

By the middle of the century, the American consciousness was becoming successfully manipulated into lockstep with an interventionist foreign policy. With the Central Authority spewing endless propaganda capitalizing upon the rapid growth of technology, i.e. nuclear annihilation and philosophical boogie-men, ergo “The Communist Red Scare” the state seized upon the manufactured fear to begin its chess game in earnest, funded of course by the private Central Bank. Few things fellow readers make a Central Banker’s eyes gloss over quicker than the thought of mountainous interest payments received on loans required to rebuild a war ravaged nation, continent, et al. As it is said, War is the Health of the State and a secure retirement for the Central Banker.

Fully intoxicated with the rise to superpower status, the Central Authority flexed its muscle under “The Marshall Plan” and thus now began to truly resemble the British tyrants cast off by the Founding Generation not even 200 years earlier.

It remains my conviction that through understanding history in its full prism, We the People can more fully understand the continued saber rattling on Iran and return the neoconservative philosophy to the plane of Hell especially reserved for warmongering tyrants and their Central banker puppet-masters.

While the glorious struggle to reclaim our foreign policy to that of commerce with all, tangling alliances with none will indeed be a difficult task, let us take proper stock of the situation and know that we are making progress. Last week former Vice-President Cheney became so deluged unto his hawkish tendencies that he felt it necessary to reach out to former Democrat and Rand Paul’s Senate primary opponent, Trey Grayson to try and extol the vice that is the Whig neoconservative philosophy.

For while Mr. Cheney is indeed a most tormented soul full of rage, he is no fool; a win for Ron Paul’s son in the Kentucky Senate race will be a referendum on his legacy, the Bush Doctrine. Moreover, it will further solidify that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was not merely dissatisfaction with President Obama, but a wider more raucous, growing dissatisfaction with Statist political philosophy in general. That it will illustrate an awakening and realization that regardless of whether a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ follows a politicians name, government continues to grow exponentially, its vacuous nature devouring our Liberty and the posterity’s financial security.

Further, it is time once and for all to refuse to accept the terms offered by the neoconservatives that those of us who prefer the wisdom of the Founder’s foreign policy, “Blame America”, as it is utter logical fallacy to the first degree.

We do not blame America; we blame the small pricked political looters who seek to enrich themselves whilst standing upon the bloodied corpses of American Soldiers killed in senseless wars upon sovereign nations of which are no threat to us outside of the contrived commotions at the behest of the CIA⁴, i.e. Iran:

Source(s): 1Making the World “Safe for Democracy”: Woodrow Wilson Asks for War – George Mason University, “History Matters” • ²The Resignation of Secretary of State William J. Bryan, 1915 JSTOR • ³Sedition Act of 1918, Brigham Young University Archives • ⁴ “Iranian scientist defects: US covert ops hurt Iran nuclear program” – Christian Science Monitor By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / March 31, 2010

Allison Bricker

The “Change We Can Believe In” sure keeps looking like more of the same.

EDITORIAL – In the aftermath of the September 11th Attacks, the United States Congress hurriedly passed, without reading, and the President signed, the three hundred and forty-two page behemoth known as the USA PATRIOT ACT. Thereby legislatively gutting any remnant of our inherent right to privacy as outlined in the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politicians, such as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sought to calm the fears of civil libertarians by attaching a ‘sunset’ clause so as to require the act’s repeal unless extended by the congress.

Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act first came up for review in 2005, a time in which the great color-guide of terror still readily flashed across television screens helping to keep the specter of terrorism at the forefront of the American psyche. Thus with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq entering their fourth and second years respectively, coupled with the security provided by term-limits, the 43rd Executive, George W. Bush, upped the paranoia level with forecasts of bad ‘gut’ feelings and propagandized news headlines in order to further secure the central authority’s new “legalized” tools of tyranny.

At the conclusion of the tireless fear mongering, the USA PATRIOT Act’s sunset portion was extended until December of this year. Thus, with the act set to expire yet again, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who originally sought to counter worries over the act, opted to author S. 1629 the “USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009”, thereby pushing any hope of legitimate legislative relief out past 2013, conveniently also just beyond the 44th Executive, Barrack Obama’s reelection bid.

In addition, it is possible that the Congress may opt to deflect additional criticisms in whole by resorting to one of the most tired political maneuvers on the hill, renaming the PATRIOT Act entirely. One proposed alternative; “The JUSTICE Act”, extending even further a truly demented sense of irony embraced exclusively by the plutocratic oligarchs who delight in seemingly sex-like gratification by exerting control over the lives of others.

S. 1629 seeks to extend some of the most controversial of the act’s powers, among which are domestic warrantless wiretapping in conjunction with ‘National Security Letters’. The latter provides the ability to snoop through an individual’s home, bank, medical, and/or telephone records, ergo LIFE, without probable cause, notice, or permission. Once again, like ‘political manna from heaven’ old-media evening news headlines flash and proclaim the latest terrorist arrests, coincidentally providing a national pedestal for police-state plutocrats of ‘either’ party to claim a necessity in curtailing Constitutional restraints on the federal government in favor of catching vaguely defined ‘evildoers’.

More so, the reality of the matter is that with all the ballyhoo of “needing” these essential “tools” in order to win the ‘War on Terror’, the USA PATRIOT ACT has yielded few legitimate results. To the contrary, the powers granted to the Central Authority’s varied intelligence/police apparatuses have largely resulted in repeated and continued abuses of power.

Of the several hundred “sneak and peak” warrants executed under power decreed from the USA PATRIOT Act, only three were related at all to terrorism. The majority were used in investigations of illegal narcotics, to which, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, flippantly replied during testimony:

“I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

David Kris
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

Fellow readers, it is very alarming indeed that a piece of legislation sold and hence foisted upon us out of necessity in ‘combating terrorism’ elicits no surprise in its misapplication and utter violation of inherent liberties. Are we to now believe that the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terror” are one in the same; liberty be damned across the board?

This is just the latest example of the audacious and contemptuous behavior displayed by the wretches who clutch the reins of power. A power, which as expected and as we were warned, has like a cancer, spread throughout the seats of our government, and the American Republic.

Moreover, for those whom profess to cherish liberty, it must surely incite nausea to realize that many who were apprehended and branded as “persons of interest” or “terrorists” were quietly let go after the Central Authority failed to find any evidence of criminal activity; terrorism, drugs, or otherwise. Nevertheless, lives and reputations ruined wholly by mere suspicion/retribution by the state, i.e. Terrorism Theater.

It should also be noted that some of the innocent and unfortunate souls who fell victim to these wanton abuses of power were released with far less fanfare than the fist pumping “chicken-hawk”, tough on terror machismo displayed upon their capture. The ruined reputations viewed merely as “collateral damage” by a Central Authority who used the fallacious arrests like pawns in a chess match solely as a means to retain their pornographic lust of power over the common person.

It is most aptly apparent, that the representatives who inhabit the halls of our American government have failed to listen to our repeated injuries endured under such a repugnant “Act”. Let fall on deaf ear, our disdain over banker and auto manufacturer bailouts, continued torture through “Executive Order” vis-à-vis Rendition, and health care.

Instead, the banker beholden plutocrats attempt to label ‘We the People’ and our dissent as “un-American”, “Nazi”, “racist”. Let it be known that they shall disregard Liberty’s demands to repeal in its entirety, the USA PATRIOT Act at their own peril.

It may yet take actual Patriots to show these tyrants how to Act appropriately.

#DToM

Related Material(s)
	USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001 H.R. 3162 / P.L. 107-56 (PDF 377Kb) S.1692 – USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (PDF 239Kb)

Allison Bricker

Social news site reddit.com interviews 14th Congressional District representative, Ron Paul. Questions were asked and voted upon by the reddit community, with the top ten questions asked during the course of the interview.

1. Kitanata: Dr. Paul, you have stated that you do not support Net Neutrality. Could you define Net Neutrality as you see it, then elaborate on what aspects of Net Neutrality you do not support and why? Thank you.




2. Fauster: Do you think that scientists are politically motivated with regard to issues of global warming and evolution? As a medical professional, you probably understand the value of deferring to specialists outside areas of your expertise. Nonetheless, you openly disagree with overwhelming scientific consensus in these two areas. While hardly anyone thinks Greenland will melt in twenty years, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe the effects of climate change will be lasting and severe in the next 50-100 years. With regard to evolution, almost all biologists, geologists, and physicists would say it’s better characterized as a law than a theory. Do you think the Bible provides a superior account of the origins of life on Earth, and thus claim a different source of expertise? Or rather, do you believe that scientific claims are grossly wrong, biased, or politically motivated?




3. SquirrelOnFire: Congressman Paul, The current health care legislation seems to be moving closer to the insurance industry’s ideal (minimal change + mandatory insurance) each day. What can be done to tip the balance of power in the congress away from lobbyists and towards the voters? Thank you for agreeing to speak with us.




4. Blackf1sh: Congressman Paul, Government investments in science and technology have historically yielded great returns. For example, it has been estimated[1] that, “technologies derived from quantum mechanics may account for 30% of the gross national product of the United States.” Money from the US government has led to the development of the internet[2] and a long list of NASA spin-off technologies have contributed to our daily lives[3].

   In contrast, the risk-averse private sector has little incentive and a poor track record for funding these types of long-term projects. Although the exploratory research in academic settings is often inefficient at achieving specific goals, it has the unique potential to yield unexpectedly amazing results on decade-long timescales.

   How can one justify reducing the budget for science and technology in spite of the quality of life and national security afforded by the developments from government-funded research?




5. Rightc0ast: Dr. Paul, Regarding the theory of evolution, I realize you have said you don’t feel the issue is important, but it’s been a topic discussed at great length at reddit, and other web sites. We’d really appreciate an answer to this.

   Allow me to clarify. Many people mistakenly confuse actual evolution with abiogenesis, or life coming from inanimate matter. Evolution is not a theory of creation. It is a theory encompassing genetic drift and selection, and describing changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Do you accept evolution in this regard as the foundation upon which nearly all biological knowledge is based, or do you truly believe change within species from generation to generation does not occur?




6. DoesMyKeyboardWork: Dr. Paul, What would a “return to sound currency” look like? Realistically, how would it play out? Would people exchange their dollars for a new gold/silver backed currency?

   As much as I agree with you (donated for the original money bomb, sticker on my car, wrote you in for the election), the defeatist in me thinks this is impossible and the entire system is eternally ruined. Thank you (and sorry for the pessimism)




7. TheHiveQueen: Dr. Paul, How do you reconcile the fact that you believe that the Federal Government has no place in Gay Marriage debate with your support of DOMA?




8. Playeren: Sir, should the government be able to keep secrets from the public at all? And Is ultimate freedom more important than ultimate security?




9. Chungkaishek: Dr. Paul, Given your well-established belief in the merits of the free market system, I’d like to know how you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA establishes restrictions and requirements on businesses, something I imagine goes against free market principles, yet it also ensures, for example, that a blind customer with a service animal such as a seeing eye dog will be treated like any other customer and not turned away for bringing a dog into a store.

   Should a free market decide which customers get service, or is this the responsibility of the federal government?




10. Jboeke: Dr. Paul, I’m trying to be a good libertarian, but I’m conflicted. I live in Phoenix, AZ and we just started up our light rail system earlier this year. I love it! I use it to commute to work and take it to the bar on weekends so I don’t drive drunk.

    But, light rail was a big public works project which took millions in taxpayer money from the three different cities and the Federal government. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine a scenario where something like light rail would have ever been built by the free market. How can I enjoy this project and still be a good libertarian?