January 24, 2012 § Leave a comment
“CRIME IS CONTAGIOUS. If the Government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites
every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the
criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare
that the Government may commit crimes in order to
secure the conviction of a private criminal – would
bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious
doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, in
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 473 (1928)
January 22, 2012 § 1 Comment
PAUL, AND ALL interventionists, can count on having the WWII question thrown at them. “You don’t believe in foreign intervention? You mean you wouldn’t have sent Americans to fight in World War II?”
This question, with its false premises already baked in, is intended as a rhetorical atom bomb. Usually it’s evident the questioner is not talking about the war with Japan — which actually did attack us — but the conflict in Europe. And first and foremost they’re thinking of “the holocaust,” by which they mean a certain series of events involving Jewish people in Germany and German-held Poland. How could we not have intervened?
As a prelude, it’s essential to note that now is a good time for Americans to grow up and accept some bitter truths about history and present reality. It’s time to shake off the myths about “the good guys” fighting “the good war” (saying “good war” is sort of like saying “good cancer”), a war thrust upon an innocent, blameless America. It’s time to look with the cold eye of reality at the evil done in the name of good.
First, noninterventionists can point out what the falsely maligned America First movement had argued. America Firsters wanted to keep American boys out of yet another European meat-grinder of a war, on the likelihood that Stalin and Hitler would have destroyed each other without our intervention. However, Anglophile President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, like Anglophile Woodrow Wilson back in the previous European war, was determined to intervene on behalf of the British crown we had once rebelled against.
The outcome of this “good war” was that we defeated one genocidal regime, yet enlarged the empire of a regime that was in the final analysis
far deadlier — the Soviet Union under the heel of FDR’s buddy “Uncle Joe.” That’s morally superior?
Second, it was the Allies, not the Germans, who initiated the policy of total war, attacking civilian locations.
Under the manic-depressive Winston Churchill– a man who was described as loving the “game” of war — Allied forces committed their own literal holocausts of entire cities in the alleged “good cause” of fighting the Japs and Germans. Even former defense secretary Robert McNamara, who during WWII helped plan the firebombing of Tokyo — murdering 83,000 civilians and maiming 102,000 –admitted, “we were acting like war criminals.”
Do “good war” proponents believe that Anglo-American death camps were good, while German ones were evil? On what grounds, beyond mere nationalist chauvinism and long-ingrained propaganda?
Last, “good war” believers need to be aware of some other, equally sickening and infuriating facts. War was emphatically not thrust upon an innocent nation — at least, “our” government was far from innocent. Americans were led, and lied, into the war very deliberately, says the weight of historical evidence, going far beyond the fact that the great, sainted FDR deliberately ignored warnings about a coming Japanese attack; in fact, FDR may as well have sent the Japanese lovely embossed invitations to attack, before rolling out the red carpet for their navy and warplanes.
It’s national growing-up time for America, a time to shake off the cozy, comforting security blanket of childlike myths. It’s time to put on our big-boy pants and confront the face of evil that is the rulership of this empire we have long miscalled “our country.” It’s time to realize, as Lucy Parsons would have said: “You have no country” — unless and until you rise up and take it back from the cold, slimy grip of the devils who many of you still call “our leaders.”
The truth is harsh, but only to those in an attitude of denial. Ron Paul, and other people of truth involved in this campaign season, and Americans in general, need to pick up the sword of truth and inflict some damage on the kingdom of the lie.
January 10, 2012 § 1 Comment
I LOVE HOW cavalierly the pundits pontificate that candidates should be more two-faced. It’s repeated almost like some sort of moral imperative, that a candidate should “campaign to the left or right in the primaries, but run center in the general election.” Throw out that red meat to the base, then morph into a “sensible” centrist.
Yeah, that’s right. Betray the faith of your supporters. Be fundamentally dishonest, shirking any display of conviction about anything other than getting in office. No principle allowed, beyond that of getting and increasing power. That’s exactly whats wrong with American polytricks, yet it’s upheld as clever, savvy strategy — indeed, two-facedness is praised as a political virtue.
The gatekeepers and guard dogs of discourse assigned to the “left” lecture their charges: “We have to jettison our convictions and rally around Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama even though they’re crony corporatist fakes; or else we’ll be stuck with George HW Bush/Dole/George W. Bush/Romney.”
Republican gatekeepers deliver the same lecture to the sheeple on the “right”: “We must drop all principle and rally behind (HW Bush/Dole/George W. Bush/Romney) even if he’s a big-government phony — otherwise we’re going to end up with Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama.”
Therefore, interchangeable drones change places in office with little substantive change in policy.
Of course, this is all very deliberate. In the words of the late Carroll Quigley — mentor to Bill Clinton and other establishment figures, who boasted of his access to the “private papers” of the “secret network” that runs the Western world :
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
—(Tragedy and Hope)
January 4, 2012 § 1 Comment
ON HIS SYNDICATED radio show last night.
Oh my. That sounds even scarier than the Jews secretly hiding thousands of guillotines to chop off the heads of Gentiles who resist the soon-to-be-enforced Noahide Laws! I can’t decide which kooky world-domination conspiracy theory I like better.
January 2, 2012 § 1 Comment
LET’S IGNORE THE question of whether Paul personally read and signed off on all copy in every monthly issue of each of three ghost-written newsletter titles (and related direct-mail ads) that his company published as long as 26 years ago while he was in private practice as a physician.
Let’s lay aside the fact that Paul long ago said he ceased working with the writer(s) in question and has repeatedly disavowed, and apologized for, the several intemperate remarks that appeared in the newsletter during the ’80s and ’90s.
Let’s also ignore that Paul served many patients for free, including blacks or interracial couples in the early 70s when other physicians would not even see them for money.
Or that he has always opposed the “war on drugs” that disproportionately locks up black and Latino youth, and which has created a maelstrom of violence in Mexico as well as on American inner-city streets.
Or that he opposes the death penalty because the same poor minorities in the inner cities are more likely to be falsely prosecuted and convicted.
Liberals and neocons alike need to consider a few things before leaping on this ancient newsletter story as ominous evidence that Paul is a closet Nazi:
1) Liberals: Is racial insensitivity inherently a worse offense than classism and anti-Christianism as displayed by Barack Obama himself, in his own words?
Remember the 2008 San Francisco fund-raiser where he echoed Karl Marx, disparaging citizens of economically devastated small towns as “bitter” people who “cling to guns and religion” and act out of “antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment …”?
Although he weakly apologized for the wording of his comment, Obama stood fully behind the substance.
This was less than four years ago and it came from his own mouth — not that of a hired editor.
2) Liberals: Assuming the guilt-by-association notion is valid, then does this mean Obama is guilty by association to former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who said just four years ago that the government should have power to unilaterally declare American citizens terrorists and “not part of the American family” — and to strip them of the rights to travel and to own firearms without due process?
3) Both liberals and neocons: If it’s outrageous for Paul — who prominently advocates divesting the federal government of power to do actual harm to law-abiding people and their rights, at home or abroad — to let ghostwritten insensitivities slip through in 20-to-30-year-old newsletters, is it also outrageous for Bush, Obama, and their accessories in Congress to expand the government’s power to indefinitely incarcerate, torture and assassinate American citizens, again without due process?
4) If those ancient, repeatedly disavowed, ghostwritten articles containing a few impolite, impolitic words about black Americans are cause for alarm, what about a white or black presiding over illegal wars involving drone-bombing, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of murder and mayhem against brown and black children, women, and men all over central Asia and Africa?
Should the one be excoriated, while the other goes unpunished, even applauded?
Is symbolism more important than the actual murder of innocents and doing #2 on the Constitution?
Employing the double standard can be a lot of fun — until it backfires on you.
Of course this attack on the most mild-mannered, unreasonably nice person in politics is not personal — it’s all about business as usual. A Paul presidency threatens to destroy the cozy Wallshington Demopublican consensus in which the Big ‘n’ Rich make the decisions for us little people behind closed doors. It threatens an end to the maniacal global empire obsession and lucrative war racket of a few narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths and sycophants in high places.
A Paul presidency would be a victory for principle over power, right over might. Paul’s unswerving insistence on unchanging principle threatens the tyrants and demagogues who rely on slippery relativistic rationales to justify their private lust for power and their delusional belief they are qualified to arrange — or, if it suits them, to casually dispose of — the lives of other people.
Paul represents a resurgence of substance over style — a sign that a heretofore politically infantile America is growing up.
It’s natural that worshipers of power and privilege and moral exceptionalism would hate and fear a real human being who makes mistakes, yet is man enough to admit them and apologize — and then get back to the real subject: securing the blessings of liberty for all, putting an end to the drumbeat of empire, and enforcing the rule of law upon a dangerous and lawless fascist state.
January 1, 2012 § Leave a comment
He’s live on BookTV’s “In Depth.” It will air again, as well as be archived online.
Hedges also criticizes Harvard liberals: “They liked the poor, but they didn’t like the smell of the poor.”
The point of posting this item isn’t that liberals are uniquely bad (we gladly skewer neoconservatives and even neolibertarians here as well). The point is, elitism and ideological con games based on illusion are bad. That’s the value in Hedges’ take-no-prisoners critique.
Of course, it’s not just political personalities that Hedges takes on from the left: in his “the World As It is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, he writes:
“Brace yourself. American empire is over, and the descent is going to be horrifying.”