[Anyone] Patriotism:

[Thos Myers]

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2007



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 clich "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.



Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html