9/11

Now for the Nervous News at Nine. A bomb scare in Piddlyboro, Vermont. Police, sheriff's department, state troopers, SWAT teams, bomb squads, FBI, BATFE, Homeland Security, National Guard units and the town dogcatcher converged on a "suspicious brown paper bag" left unattended in front of Mother McRaggedy's Second Hand Store on Main Street. Following a six-hour standoff, a $190,000 remote-controlled ordinance-disposal robot was sent in. The bag contained an empty Mad Dog 20/20 wine bottle, left there the night before by Elmer Swilling, the town wino and dogcatcher. Grumbly Freehold, the county's only self-professed libertarian, later questioned why a Middle Eastern terrorist would want to blow up Mother McRaggedy's Second Hand Store in the first place. Or how they ever would have heard of Piddlyboro. Or Vermont.

It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.

My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Many of the old guard libertarians just don't get it. Ron Paul isn't an “Us vs. Them” internal libertarian / conservative republican fight, it's a:

Holy Crap! We're damn near Toast!

Is there ANY one we can support or even marginally get behind that will at least slow the United States slide into a drooling Hitler dreamscape of Big Brotherism?

Because I don't know about you, but I only see two options on the table. 1) Fight like hell, and 2) Get the fuck out.

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage

If you can, go see it. It'll make you angry, disgusted, sad, and even feeling betrayed. And that's really the point, the 'American Government' is betraying its people. Not just in little, let's build a multi-million dollar bridge to nowhere pork projects, but in the grander scheme. It's betraying us in the “we'll kill or destroy anyone or anything we want, just to achieve whatever convoluted goals we've cooked up.” Honesty? Integrity? Forget that. We'll try to off you just for thinking of exposing us for the scum we are.

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.

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.

Welcome to the Grave, as this place is known to the inmates of a global network of prisons.

The Grave received its name because the cells are little larger than coffins. Pay close attention, because this is a key destination in the war on terror. Admittedly, it is not where President George W. Bush would take visitors on a showpiece tour, and yet here in this dungeon, on this day, December 17, 2002, are at least seven prisoners who claim to have arrived courtesy of the United States.

In charge of the center is a man named George Salloum, an officer of the Syrian military intelligence, dressed in a pair of pressed pants, a golf shirt, and a pair of fine leather shoes. He might seem an unlikely ally for the United States. By profession he is the head of interrogation of suspected terrorists at the Palestine Branch. In short, a torturer. The vice or virtue of his methods, and whether, in the war on terror, such methods may regrettably be necessary, will be examined later. But suffice for now to say Salloum extracts information, or at least confessions, by extreme force, both physical and psychological. The Palestine Branch is a house of confession.

The NeoCons have a problem. No exit strategy either from Iraq or the White House. That is the sort of oversight you expect from people whose greed far outstrips their brains. Their solution: Finding a way to stay. Our Solution. Don't let them get away with it.

Politicians throughout history have tried to solve every problem conceivable to man, always failing to recognize that many of the problems we face result from previous so-called political solutions. Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters worse.

Not too long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is a majority of American citizens expect the federal government to provide for every need, without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem solvers, since nobody asks first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault.

And why no one connected with John Fund can get life insurance

Scooter Libby made a mistake. He thought he was a NeoCon Insider. It was a natural mistake for him to have made, his business cards, the perks, the deference, the salary, and the access to power, all spell out Insider using the usual formula for such. But he was wrong and will now find himself tossed off the back of the Sleigh of State into the gaping maws of righteous indignation, there to serve his ultimate purpose, scapegoat and distraction. The NeoCons waste nothing, not even their hapless tools, that is their environmental policy.

Your standing and importance in the NeoCon world depend not on where you

"But, my fellow Americans, these are dark and drastic times. And drastic times demand drastic measures.

In order to combat this unprecedented threat against our great nation – unprecedented steps must be taken.

And so, effective immediately, I have issued Executive Order 1000 – General Martial Law."

We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S. led regime change-- in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.” This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.

This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.

I think it is time for a new group of lobbyists to be formed and stationed on "K" Street with full access to the House of Representatives and Senators. What is needed is a power group to hold the Legislators' feet to the fire (Constitution) and insist they follow the laws or resign.

Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.

However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?

America’s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic’s goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?