By: Alan Stang
The Communists and their "peace movement" feign opposition to George Bush. The people they call "useful idiots" (Lenin's phrase) really do oppose him, but the Communist leaders support him because he is implementing their perennial goal of totalitarian world government. They pretend to oppose him in order to trick Americans into supporting him, because real Americans naturally shrink from echoing the Communists. Students of the Great Conspiracy call this Communist tactic the "principle of reversal." Students of Br'er Rabbit call it the "don't throw me into the briar patch principle."
Why do real Americans oppose President Bush? The Communists pretend to oppose him for temporary, tactical reasons. We oppose him on the basis of enduring, unchangeable principles. The juxtaposition is merely an accident and should embarrass no one who is firmly grounded in the facts. What are those facts?
President Bush has proven himself unable and/or unwilling to fight the present war for the survival of our nation. Today, the nation is fatally divided on the question of whether the United States should invade Iraq. It is divided because the Bush Administration has not presented sufficient proof that Saddam Hussein participated in the act of war against our people on 9-11. Were that proof presented, the nation would be united behind the war.
The President says he wants the proof. Iraq sent 12,000 pages of documents about its Weapons of Mass Destruction to the UN. The Bush Administration seized those documents and released only 3,000 pages to the general public. Why? Because the thousands of pages the President sequestered prove that it was the United States government and American companies encouraged by the government that sold and even gave those Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq in the first place.
Indeed, the reason the President suppressed that information is that it implicates the present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in the accumulation of WMD. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in December, 1983 for the purpose.
In fact, the information the President withheld would also implicate his father, who was Vice President at the time, and actively participated in the policy of arming Iraq. In 1984, Washington allowed Iraq to import supercomputers, machine tools and even the makings of anthrax. The Administration made sure Iraq had the weapons it needed, despite Saddam's use of chemical warfare. The elder Bush personally gave military advice to Saddam and in 1988 called for closer ties to Iraq. After he suppressed all this, the present President Bush blamed Iraq for withholding information.
So, the reason President Bush cannot successfully fight the war is that he is tainted. Were he a judge, or even a juror, he would have to recuse himself. The President won't do that, so we the people must. Notice that we are not necessarily "anti-war." We are in favor of any necessary war to preserve our way of life, but it must be necessary.
The first thing any President should have done after the attack on 9-11 was immediately close our borders, and, if necessary, put troops there for the purpose, while we found out who was whose. President Bush on the contrary has left our borders wide open and the situation is deteriorating. Thousands of young Arab males, from the very countries we suspect in the War on Terror, are being admitted. The Atlanta Journal- Constitution reports that the Bush Administration is importing thousands of Somalis to this country. These are people who not only do not share our culture; they have never seen clocks, telephones or flush toilets. Most important, they come from the country where the bodies of American soldiers were dragged through the streets.
If the rationale of the war is to protect the United States from the danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction, then the war should begin, not in Iraq, halfway around the world, but in Cuba, 90 miles away, where Fidel Castro not only has WMD, but also is one of the world's biggest narcotics dealers, which Saddam Hussein has not even been accused of.
Instead of these elementary policies, what has Bush done? His policies so far prove that, if allowed to serve another term, Bush would complete the destruction of the Bill of Rights and our privacy, producing a totalitarian dictatorship that would make our first King George seem utterly benevolent.
For instance, he has condoned formation of the Total Information Awareness project, via the Pentagon's DARPA agency; TIA, which gives the Pentagon and various intelligence agencies the ability to penetrate the e-mail accounts of every American citizen, via "packet-sniffing" software, clearly violates the 4th Amendment guarantee against "unlawful searches and seizures."
He has failed to rescind the FBI's "Carnivore"project and the National Security Agency's (NSA) "Magic Lantern" project, which come to us from the Clinton Administration. These things also contribute to this electronic "packet-sniffing" effort, and also violate the 4th Amendment.
Along these lines, so bad was the "Patriot" Act that Party leaders never gave Members of Congress the final version before the bill was debated. Because the President's men literally kept the legislation secret, Members didn't know what they were voting on. Likewise, Members didn't know what they were voting on when they passed the "Homeland Security bill." It proposed historic changes in our hallowed system, but debate was severely limited and there was no chance to amend, with the result that people didn't know for instance about exempting corporations from liability for vaccine shots.
Indeed, now comes "Patriot" Act II, which is so secret the Bush Administration is denying its existence. "Patriot" II would make it a crime to reveal where arrestees are held and who they are. It can label Americans "enemy combatants" and strip them of citizenship. It says that collecting information, even legal information, can be construed as spying for a foreign power, thereby making news gathering a crime. It says that government agents can conduct searches without warrants with impunity, thereby repealing the 4th Amendment. Secret judges on a secret court that convenes in a secret location govern all this. "Patriot" II also punishes individuals who refuse to testify against themselves, thereby revoking the 5th Amendment. It allows top federal officials to keep their financial activities secret; if you try to investigate them, you're a terrorist.
All this and much more waits in secret for the next terrorist attack to justify. In short, the "War on Terror" is a fraud, a charade. The war, as presently fought, is a war on the American people, using 9-11 and Iraq as the spurious excuse.
George Bush recently proposed $15 billion in aid to Africa, which is not part of the United States and for which there is no grant of power in the Constitution. He proposed a 50% across-the-board increase in foreign aid. Israel is also not part of the United States, but Bush is getting ready to give that country another $12-$14 billion on top of the usual $3 billion a year it receives. All of these redistributions of our wealth are illegal because the Constitution forbids the President to give your money to other countries.
Indeed, George Bush is working overtime to destroy our national independence. By returning to the UN time after time for approval of his invasion of Iraq, he has restored much of the credibility that sorry outfit has deservedly been losing, with the result that many deluded Americans now believe we can't attack without the UN's imprimatur. The organization before which Bush routinely genuflects was founded by Communists for Communist purposes and never has been run by anyone else. The first Secretary-General of the UN, who ran the founding meeting, was Soviet spy Alger Hiss, who later went to prison for lying about his services to Stalin. The United States should quit and kick the UN out, but Bush is urging the Senate to pay our "past dues."
George Bush has also endorsed a "Commonwealth of the Americas," a super-NAFTA effort, which would link the hemisphere nations via a common currency and further international entanglements from the northernmost regions of Canada to the tip of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and would inevitably complete the total erasure of U.S. borders. Without borders, the United States would cease to exist.
Indeed, because President Bush is in bed with Mexican President Vicente Fox, he now endorses a policy known as "totalization," which would in practical effect merge the American and the Mexican social security systems, and would cost us scores of billions of dollars just to start.
Bush has done nothing to reverse the continuing confiscation of the land area of the United States by the federal government, kowtowing like Clinton to the intimidation of the lunatic "environmental movement."
Bush supports the illegal Federal Reserve and the totalitarian income tax that work in tandem to make enormous federal deficits possible. When this EtherZone announcement went to press, Bush had already supervised a deficit of at least $638.7 billion in the present fiscal year. The deficit is growing so fast that we can't tell you what it is, because, by the time you read what we said, we would be very wrong. In the next budget, Bush wants to remove any ceiling on the national debt, final recognition of the fact that the ceiling is a joke. Spending under Bush has increased enormously, and it is important to note that we are not talking about spending for the war in Iraq.
Indeed, the only thing we need to know in this context is that federal spending and deficits are exploding higher and faster under Bush than they were under Clinton.
These are just a few examples of what has become epidemic in the Bush Administration. Again, it is perfectly realistic to expect the complete subversion of our nation and our liberties if Bush is granted another term.
On the contrary, what do Congressmen Paul and Tancredo propose? Dr. Paul of course has been a Member of Congress many years, so we don't need to guess what we are getting, and his principled stands are consistent. Here is what he is for and against:
Because Ron Paul is a physician and a genuine Christian, he would do everything reasonable and then some to avoid war. Because he is a former Air Force officer, if there were no way to avoid war, if it truly were inevitable, he would fight to win, would not leave any loose strings lying around like Saddam Hussein, but, if necessary, would leave a big hole in the ground where the enemy was.
Ron Paul has introduced a Congressional resolution to the effect that the Panama Canal is still U.S. territory, despite Jimmy Carter's illegal attempt to give it away. In any war, this would be more important than ever. Today, the Chinese Communists control both ends of the Canal.
Ron Paul would restore our privacy. He opposes a national I.D. and all attempts to circumvent or even to cancel the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul would protect our independence. He routinely proposes that we withdraw from the Communist UN. He has proposed that we withdraw from the World Trade Organization.
Ron Paul has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal the income, estate and gift taxes. Nothing would replace them. The money would stay in your pocket where it belongs.
Ron Paul has proposed the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the restoration of honest money.
Ron Paul would completely eliminate the destructive, illegal travesty of "foreign aid," which has made so many enemies for the United States.
Ron Paul opposes the merger of the American and Mexican Social Security systems.
Ron Paul would reverse the continuing confiscation of American territory by the federal government.
Now, what would we get with Congressman Tancredo? Tom Tancredo opposes Vicente Fox's "Matricula consular," a Mexican document illegal aliens are using to get services in the United States. The "Matricula consular" represents an attempt by Fox to take control of U.S. immigration. Tom Tancredo would put the U.S. military on our borders to resurrect them. Tancredo's adamant defense of our borders and his demand that everyone who doesn't legally belong here be thrown out, have made him the nation's foremost champion of a sensible solution to our massive immigration problems.
Indeed, Tom Tancredo reports that the Bush Administration is furious about his defense of our borders, and, believe it or not, could actually recruit a candidate in the next primary to oppose him. In other words, suicidal, open borders are more important to Bush than the re-election of another Republican, a shocking revelation about where George Bush really stands.
In short, what we would get with a President Paul and a Vice President Tancredo would be a traditional, modest, eminently non-controversial, American policy.
A perennial question remains. Wouldn't support for such a ticket run the risk that enough votes could be lost by Bush to tip the election to the Democrats? EtherZone maintains that there is no such risk, that such danger is imaginary, because the Republicans under Bush are worse than the Democrats. This is easy to understand if you ask yourself a few simple questions about the Bush record we have cited here:
What would I say if Clinton did this?
If Clinton did it, would I have let him get away with it?
Could Clinton and the Democrats have gotten away with what Bush has done?
Are the man and the party more important than what the man does?
Many patriots have called what Clinton did treason. If Bush were doing the same thing, if Bush for just one example were continuing, and even amplifying Clinton's treasonous policy toward China, what would you call it?
In fact, notice that Bush has continued and even extended Clinton's main policies. There are some minor, positive differences, but they are cosmetic, like the bouquet of roses the philanderer brings home at 5 A.M. It's a nice gesture all by itself, but it doesn't amount to much in context. For instance, left-wing extremist Hitler, a Socialist, loved boat rides and wanted every German to have access to them. Fellow left-wing extremist Mussolini, also a Socialist, allegedly "made the trains run on time."Would you conclude therefore that they were good men? Bush and Clinton are as different as identical twins.
And finally: If Bush has done more to advance the cause of totalitarian Socialism and world government than Clinton could have done - if Republican Bush has gotten away with more than Democrat Clinton ever could - doesn't this mean we have less to fear from a President Hillary or a President Kerry, etc., than we would from President Bush? Doesn't this make Hillary, etc., the "lesser of two evils?" As we have seen in the case of Congressman Tancredo, Bush himself is perfectly willing to cause the defeat of a Republican who wants to protect the United States.
We support a Paul/Tancredo ticket without reservations.
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul: 203 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone Number: (202) 225-2831 Additional offices and contact information
Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a senior writer for American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than 30 years. He is also the author of ten books, including, most recently, Perestroika Sunset, surrounding our Government's deception in the POW/MIA arena. If you would like him to address your group, please email what you have in mind. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Alan Stang can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org