|
|||||||||
Posted July 2, 2002
Exactly Right
Doctor/Representative Ron Paul's article was exactly right. I am a Democrat, but Republican Rep. Paul outshines many of our Democrat Senators and Representatives. I am a 76-year-old former World War II U.S. Marine Corps combat machine gunner, and I think Bush, and the other war hawks are unnecessarily leading us to lose those Constitutional liberties I fought to preserve.
Congressional Record
Is this speech in the "Congressional Record"? Was it actually delivered on the Floor of the House? If it was, I am going to become a contributor to Antiwar.com.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Yes, Ron delivered this on the Floor of the House on Thursday evening.
Power Seduces
I have been reading Justin's comments from "In government we trust?" The longer I live the more true seems my dad's comments when I asked him as a child what the difference between Democrats and Republicans were. He answered, "One is in office and the other wants in office." Or we could say, "the one not in office wants less taxes, less government spending, and to be less involved in foreign wars." While the one in office explains how much better off we will be with more government, more taxes, more spending, and more involvement in foreign wars. There are very few principled persons who really believe that the government that governs least governs best, most only want smaller government until they are in power, then they believe they will know how to apply power so that everything will turn out better. Power first seduces one to believe they have the wisdom to use it without limits, then it corrupts. Your website is one reason for hope that maybe a few principled persons not worshipping power might have an impact on our government. The neo-conservatives began by seeking enough power to defeat Communism's goal of ruling the world, and graduated to adopting Communism's strategy of ruling the world. In the meantime, they forgot what they originally wanted to protect. Now all that matters is that we have global hegemony. We have adopted the Brezhnev doctrine and renamed it freedom.
Main Objective
As I read Raimondo something kept going through my mind. Certainly, I trust our government. I trust them to screw us at every opportunity. I trust them to apply the chains of a police state. I trust them to do everything in their power to return the people back to the days of peonage. It was then that I remembered Patrick Henry's speech to the House of Burgesses prior to the American Revolution. The speech has been erroneously called, "Liberty or Death." In reality it was called, "An Appeal to Arms." Here are the last two lines.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
With many of the actions of the appointed government involving distraction we are losing sight of our main objective as stated in his lines above.
~ Phil Schediwy, Apple Valley, California
Good Idea
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column, "Amen to That":]
Excellent, correct, biting, witty and wicked, as usual....
...I am going now to purchase your book, Reclaiming the American Right. Sounds like a good read and a damn good idea.
By the way, you look much more journalistic in your pic (rough night?) than that poseur Drudge.
Imminent Danger
As a fan of Antiwar.com and avid reader of Justin's articles, I was pleasantly surprised by Justin's proposal in his "Turn toward the Left" (June 7, 2002). Because throughout my readings of Justin's previous articles, there has always been a strong sense of belligerency against the "Left, socialism, liberalism."
I think it's been a minor but somewhat troublesome issue that puts a damper on an otherwise amazing and excellent source of news and commentary. I've recommended this site to many of my friends of the left and socialist persuasion. It's ironic how many of them agree with most of your salient points and have few qualms against libertarians. Common points of interest include imperialistic foreign policy, Vietnam, Palestinian self-determination, and human rights abuses by the US government within the country and abroad. Ideological and personal hostility seems to be more a one-way street.
Perhaps, there are differences of attitude and perspective on affirmative action, labor, immigration, feminism, and the environment. I notice that the "left-wingers" are more passionate about issues of social justice and empowerment of the oppressed, while the libertarians seem more interested in the fair and strict adherence to principles and integrity empowering the citizen. But honest and sincere people on both sides are thoroughly disgusted with the hypocrisy and opportunism of the Clintonites. And both sides are appalled by this government's excesses against civil liberties and its inhumanities around the world.
Whatever the differences may be between "left" and "right," it is time to unite and rein in this government before it destroys anymore lives and plunges us into World War III. We are all against statism. Even if we can not agree on certain domestic issues, this is becoming trivial compared to this war which looms ever more ominously. Let us bicker after resolving this most imminent danger to us all.
Tripartite Dialogue
India and Pakistan will have to come up with substantial Great-Grand Gestures to address the Kashmir people's basic desire to ... choose their future without any fear or favor. Cosmetic approaches will not bear the permanent fruits. India has put forward a nice idea about free and fair elections. It is sad and unfortunate that India is still trying to dupe, seduce, and deceive itself, its people and world with this futile slogan of free and fair election. When any place and its people are alienated, occupied, and oppressed for a long time, the promise and pledge of free and fair elections will considered and written off as farce and fictitious.
I am a naturalized Kashmir born American citizen and have been working hard to address Kashmir people's plight and aspiration.
Again and again India is and has been trying to engage the sympathy of the United States and other countries for its stand on Kashmir by calling the occupation resistance movement in Kashmir a terrorist movement; Kashmir is an integral part of India, it argues; militant people of Kashmir are secessionists launched by so-called fundamentalist groups.
How well grounded these pleas are can be judged from the following facts and considerations: During the latest phase of the freedom struggle, virtually all the citizenry of the vale of Kashmir including the capital city, Srinagar, and other towns – men, women, and children – came out on the streets repeatedly to lodge a nonviolent protest against continued occupation.
The people of divided Kashmir wish to stress that their land is not real estate that should be parceled out between two disputants but the home of a nation with a history for more compact and coherent than India's and far longer than Pakistan's. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict.
Citizens of Kashmir would like the future negations to be tripartite, because the dispute primarily involves three parties – India, Pakistan and the "Tormented People of Kashmir." But the primary and principal party is the people of Kashmir, and it is ultimately their future – the future of 13 million people of Kashmir – that is at stake. The people of Kashmir, and their Kashmiriyat will help the world powers to find the true, lasting, and permanent peace for the people of Indo-Kash-Pak region and rest of the world. The solution is tripartite dialogue with the help of impartial and committed world powers and leaders.
~ Col. Ali M. Khajawall, MD, ABFM, ABDA. First Secretary: Kashmir American Mission [KAM] and Founder: Kashmiri American Council [KAC], California