alternative news

THE REPUBLITHUGS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FEAR

November 26, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

Well, it's bad enough that we have the hyper-dimensional failure of Barack Obama in the White House and a bunch of Dummycrook toads non-running the Senate for him, but did you see the Republithugs' debate on National Socialist....er...I meant national security? I have to admit, I only watched a few minutes of it before I was totally sickened and disgusted, and turned it off, then turned it back on again, off and on, off and on, and thus it went for the rest of the evening, but I have been getting emails from various people with links to various people reporting their reactions to the debate, and I am gratified that there are some out there who are so totally disgusted as I at the performance.

Let me review my disgust. Let's go back to the pro-war euphoria of post 9-11, where we were told that fanatical Muslims were out to get us, and bringing down steel cantilevered-constructed quarter-of-a-mile high skyscrapers with jet fuel by smashing airplanes into them and letting the fire burn to melt the steel causing loss of structural load-bearing integrity and voila down they came.... woops, make that controlled demolitions, woops, nope, better make that nanothermite... Well, nevermind all that... we had to go to war against Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan called the Taliban because they were harboring Obama...er... Osama Bin Laden, terrorist mastermind par excellence and holdover from the CIA-backed Muhajedin. Nevermind about those nasty Taliban guys not wanting to go along with Enron Et Al's pipeline (remember Enron?). Then it was off to war against Iraq because they were making weapons of mass destruction that (aw shucks we were mistaken) didn't exist. I don't even grace all this with the name "national security." It's notional security because it is founded on a story, and regardless of which particular revisionist version of 9-11 one subscribes to, most, including myself, find the story has a few problems bearing the weight of assumptions and implications it has been made to bear, not the least of which is demonizing the entire Islamic world so that we, in the name of peace, freedom, and democracy, can invade their countries to protect "our" oil (and, by the way, keep it out of the hands of Russia and/or China).

And now, to a man (and, if current media reports are to believed about Michelle Bachman, a woman - who is singularly proud of the fact she was a tax lawyer for the government) the Republithugs are whipping up more fear-and-terror porn, so they can be elected to "protect" us. All of them, except, of course, Ron Paul, who is the only candidate on either side of that Mobius strip that separates Dummycrooks from Republithugs, that is calling the imperialist spade an imperialist spade.

But surely the most "brilliant" performance was by the Former Speaker of the House, the one whose first name is reminiscent of the name of a lizard: Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Gangrene would be a better surname for him, and here's why:

Showdown at Neocon Central Newt Gingrich vs. Ron Paul

Read that central part again folks:

"BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?

"GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.

"I think it’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it’s a matter of criminal law. But if you’re trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

"The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities."

And I agree, wholeheartedly, with the conclusion of the author of the article, Justin Raimondo, who sees the trap being spun by the Lizard's "logic":

"In less than 200 words, Newt managed the wholesale bifurcation of American law into two parallel tracks, one that acknowledges how "desperately important" it is to "preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty," and the other which recognizes no such necessity – and, in fact, negates it."

That's right, it negates it completely, and we must ask ourselves, do we honestly trust a government that has lied to us, bailed out banksters to the tune of several trillions of dollars, do we trust a government not to turn those provisions against voices of dissent? The end result of the Lizard's dutiful bifurcation of American law into two parallel tracks we have seen time and again in history, and the only losers are the people. And Congressman Paul, to his credit, was the one voice on the stage with the cahonies to point out the "trading liberty for security" fallacy:

"Looking like a Halloween pumpkin left out in the rain, Gingrich went into novelist mode, scaring the children with the specter of 'losing a major American city' and bringing his fist down hard on the podium as he thundered

"'I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you!'

"Paul’s answer was perfect:

"'This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don’t do it so carelessly.'"

That was, and remains, the central issue. Police states do not stop crime, but they are notoriously successful in committing the same kinds of terrorism they are set up to protect against. And they are also notoriously successful in starting wars...large ones.

What disturbs me, as I read this article, is that the Lizard's scenario is, as yet, a hypothetical. We are being asked to fear an event that has not and may not ever happen. Unless, of course, these same insane people have it in their minds to "allow an operation to proceed" so that they can get their police state. After all, the modus operandi since 9-11 has not changed.