Feb 9, 2008

9/11 Changed Everything?

Mark Silva of the Baltimore Sun apparently didn't get the memo about the media blackout of Dr. Paul. Thank you Mr. Silva for making note of a tremendous and powerful speech. Silva thought that Dr. Paul's claim that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq may have been a bit off-putting to some of the CPAC attendees. I wasn't there but didn't get that impression from the video. However, Iraq, and this is in George Bush's own words, had nothing to do with 9/11.

9/11 is only relevant to Iraq in that it is being used as an excuse to abandon completely the core principles of the Republican party and the constitution itself. Those who want us to remain in Iraq to preserve "honor" use 9/11 as the reason that everything has now "changed". Well nothing has changed. For thousands of years, leaders have used catastrophe to justify tyranny. This 9/11 fear-mongering is unbecoming to men of substance and principle. Unfortunately, there are very few of those sorts of men left. We've become a nation of women and children (my apologies to women and children), hiding behind the skirts of mommy government and for what reason? Threats from nations that would have to mount machine guns on migrating geese to have a formidable air force?

How far we've come when we could once stare down an empire possessing 45,000 nukes that actually existed as opposed to today where our own foreign policy experts expect us to pee ourselves over nations which may, 10 years in the future, possess a crude prototype. Republicans who call Ron Paul "kooky" or "insane" should be ashamed of themselves for acting like school girls and throwing 9/11 around as if it justifies any of the tyranny that they promote. While many use 9/11 as a justification for everything and unfailingly mention those who died as deserving of honor, they will in the next breath completely dishonor those same victims by using them as political bludgeons against anyone who disagrees with their plans to enslave us.

Ponder that a moment. Who is being provided security when we give up our privacy and other freedoms? Certainly not the common citizen. When Benjamin Franklin uttered the oft-repeated words about giving up safety for security, he was making a very belligerent comment. He was illustrating his utter and complete contempt for the dishonesty and cynicism displayed by those who would attempt to scare people into giving up their freedoms.

"He that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little bit of temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
If somebody tells you that they can protect you but only if you will concede a little freedom, they are lying. You should never trust a word that they tell you from that point forward. What they are saying is freedom to act in your own self-interest might impair their ability to protect you. By making such a claim they have conceded that they are not only incapable of protecting you, but also have no intention of doing so.

No comments: