-Caveat Lector-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/03-24-2003/vo19no06_patriotism.htm
True Patriotism
by William F. Jasper
Constitutionalists are challenging UN entanglements and the call to
war. Some false conservatives are denouncing this principled stand
as unpatriotic, even treasonous.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to
stand by the President or any other public official save exactly
to the degree in which he himself stands by the country."
-Theodore Roosevelt
''TRAITORS!" That was the headline screaming in huge yellow letters
from the cover of a supermarket tabloid. Below the headline was a
short list of familiar names of Hollywood stars opposing President
Bush's rush to war in Iraq.
Now, there are indeed many specimens of the Hollywood Left with long
records of despicable, even treasonous, behavior. But does opposing
war - whether verbally, in writing, or by marching or demonstrating
- in itself constitute treason? That is the frightening implication
from the escalating incendiary rhetoric of those most ardently
arguing for war and for blind, mute submission to any and all of
President Bush's demands concerning Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
The words "treason" and "sedition" are being applied promiscuously
to any and all who dissent from the president's position. Nationally
syndicated shock radio host Michael Savage apparently leads the
charge on this note, seconded by a host of lesser lights who have
turned their radio microphones into non-stop war tocsins. Mr.
Savage's website features a section titled: "The Sedition Act - Time
to Act. Time to Arrest the Leaders of the Anti-War Movement, Once we
Go to War." A February 6th New York Sun editorial took up this
treason theme relative to the planned anti-war march in front of the
UN.
The Sun editors first quoted the U.S. Constitution concerning
treason: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless
on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on
confession in open court."
The Sun averred that "there is no reason to doubt that the
'anti-war' protesters . are giving, at the very least, comfort to
Saddam Hussein." Thus, the Sun opined, the New York City police
should "send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye
toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason
prosecution." Can goose-stepping, heel-clicking, and "Sieg heil"
salutes be far behind?
Many of those beating the war drums have not yet gone so far as to
equate all dissent with treason, but they appear to be only a
millimeter or two from that position. For the moment, at least, they
are content merely to question the patriotism or rationality of
those refusing to march in lock-step behind the Bush banner. And
they conveniently dispose of principled opponents by disingenuously
lumping them together with the motley menagerie of misfits and
malcontents who have flocked to the phony "peace" standard held
aloft by the Hollywood Left.
Who Is the Real Patriot?
It does seem extremely ironic that this country's staunchest
patriots, warning for decades about the very dangers that now beset
us, are being accused - by those who earlier disregarded their
warnings - of being unpatriotic, or even of siding with the enemy.
For those unfamiliar with our record and willing to examine it,
allow us to make perfectly clear several important points:
1) THE NEW AMERICAN (like its predecessors, American Opinion and The
Review of the News) takes second place to none in patriotic zeal,
and in exposing and opposing America's enemies - foreign and
domestic.
2) From the Vietnam War to the present, we have been on the
frontlines credibly documenting and exposing the Communist and
subversive influences behind the so-called "peace" movement and
other Red fronts. We did the heavy lifting on these issues during
less patriotic times, and for these efforts we frequently were
derided as "super-patriots" and "extremists."
3) We led the fight against the long-running subversive campaigns to
cripple our nation's intelligence and internal security defenses
against terrorism and espionage.
4) Far from siding with Saddam Hussein, we have for more than two
decades exposed his tyrannical, pro-Communist regime, and we
vigorously opposed the folly (or worse) of previous Republican
administrations in the 1980s that showered him with financial,
technological, and military aid.
5) In a non-partisan manner, we have consistently stood by the
country and upheld constitutional principles against assaults by all
sides.
History has vindicated our warnings. Our record on these issues has
earned us the right to a hearing on the current crisis of the
looming war. But now many Johnny-come-latelies to the freedom fight
wrap themselves in the flag and screech that patriotism consists in
mindlessly following the president - no matter what. They point to
the radical-led anti-war demonstrations and say: "You're either with
us or with them." Unfortunately, many Americans are falling for
these false alternatives. After taking a look at the anti-American
leftists speaking for the anti-Bush, anti-war demonstrators, they
decide to run to the opposite side, the side of President Bush and
the "patriots."
In our present hour of crisis, it behooves us to re-examine what
patriotism really means. Theodore Roosevelt offered us an important
reminder on this subject, in 1918, when he said:
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand
by the President or any other public official save exactly to the
degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to
support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is
unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by
inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the
country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth -
whether about the President or about any one else - save in the rare
cases where this would make known to the enemy information of
military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.
Whatever faults critics may find with Teddy Roosevelt, he was
certainly a patriot. And who would question the patriotic
credentials of George Washington, the patriot nonpareil? Yet, in his
wise and eloquent Farewell Address, President Washington warned his
countrymen against "the mischiefs of foreign intrigue" and "the
impostures of pretended patriotism." Those cautions are especially
apropos to this moment, when pretended patriotism is being called
into service of the most mischievous foreign intrigues.
Standing by the Constitution
But how is one to judge who is "standing by the country" when those
on opposing sides both claim to be doing so? President Washington
provided the answer, in the same address, in his exhortation "that
the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be
sacredly maintained."
In proposing that these United States go to war and send our troops
into battle on the other side of the world, President Bush must
satisfy two important requirements: demonstrate that this is being
done to defend the United States of America; and obtain a
congressional declaration of war. He has done neither.
All reasonable people will concede President Bush's repeated charge
that Saddam Hussein is a horrible tyrant. If the president were to
produce evidence showing that his regime was responsible for the
September 11th attacks - which obviously qualify as an act of war -
there would be ample cause for retaliation, and virtually zero
opposition. But he has not done that. Instead, as another article in
this issue demonstrates (page 15), Mr. Bush has repeatedly invoked
United Nations resolutions and United Nations objectives - not the
U.S. Constitution, not American security and American national
interests - to justify this war.
"It is our true policy," President Washington wisely counseled, "to
steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
world." What is the UN but a permanent alliance with the entire
foreign world? The UN is a veritable nest of vipers filled with the
"foreign intrigue" Washington warned about.
"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" he asked. "Why, by
interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle
our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,
rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" If that concern were
justified in Washington's day (as it certainly was!), how much more
so does it apply now, concerning not only Europe but the rest of the
world, and, most especially, the very hostile and anti-American UN.
In making this wise counsel, Washington was not advocating
isolationism. Quite the opposite. In the same address, he noted:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by
policy, humanity, and interest." And he advised that "amicable
feelings towards all [nations] should be cultivated." It was
political entanglements of the kind advocated by the current
administration (as well as by the Clinton and Bush administrations
before it) that he was cautioning against.
In his State of the Union speech on January 28, 2003, President Bush
said: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a
President can make." But the president neglected to point out that
neither he nor any other man occupying the White House can claim the
constitutional authority to "send" any Americans into battle. Our
Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants only to Congress the
power "To declare war." Bush has not obtained a declaration of war
from Congress. It is completely illegal and completely
unconstitutional to evade this requirement. He cannot legitimize
this illegal course by citing similarly unconstitutional precedents.
It is, of course, true that President Truman sent troops to war in
Korea, that Presidents Eisenhower through Nixon carried out war in
Southeast Asia, and that Presidents Bush and Clinton also launched
wars - all without the congressional authorization mandated by the
Constitution. But past usurpations of congressional power do not
justify still another gross violation of the "law of the land."
The first commander-in-chief too dearly revered law and too
profoundly appreciated the dangers of laxity in this regard to allow
for such conduct. He warned:
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free
country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its
administration, to confine themselves within their respective
constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of
one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment
tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and
thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real
despotism....
He reminded his fellow Americans of the "necessity of reciprocal
checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and
distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each
the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others." To
preserve these checks, he said, "must be as necessary as to
institute them."
When the legislative branch is unwilling to defend its
constitutional check on unlimited executive authority, it becomes
the American citizenry's obligation to compel Congress to preserve
this "necessary" (Washington's word) protection.
Public outrage over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
presented President George W. Bush with extraordinarily high levels
of support for a war on terrorism. Opinion polls published over the
past year, however, have repeatedly shown that the American public -
across the political spectrum - is less than enthusiastic about
going to war with Iraq. The administration has not convincingly made
the case that the hidden hand behind the 9-11 assaults belonged to
Saddam Hussein. Nor has it shown that Iraq is a greater menace than
North Korea, which threatens our 40,000 troops in the area with
weapons of mass destruction every bit as deadly as Saddam's. Or a
greater threat than Fidel Castro's Cuba (which is closely allied
with Iraq) only 90 miles from our shores. Or a greater threat than
our new "allies" Russia and China. Nor has it shown the resolve to
secure our borders against the tide of illegal aliens (including
terrorists) swamping our shores, an absolutely essential requirement
before we launch into any war.
However, principled resistance by mainstream, patriotic Americans to
the president's war plans is visibly melting, as moderates and
conservatives run to the bugle call to avoid being labeled
"traitors." That is not the way for wise and courageous patriots -
principled constitutionalists - to behave. Now, especially, is the
time to heed Washington's admonition that our "free Constitution" be
"sacredly maintained."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations for Patriots
a.. Regularly express your views to your representative and
senators. The addresses are:
House members: Senators:
The Honorable _______________
House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable _______________
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
To telephone any congressional office, use the Capitol switchboard
number: 202-224-3121. To send email, click here.
When contacting your representative and senators:
1.. Remind them that the power to declare war belongs to Congress
alone - not to the president, and not to the United Nations.
2.. Point out that they must not tolerate usurpation of their
assigned powers and that past usurpations do not justify future
ones.
3.. Urge them to oppose going to war against Iraq - unless the
case is made, and is made to their satisfaction, that war is the
only recourse for defending America and her citizens. See "True
Patriotism." a.. Inform fellow citizens by forwarding a link to
articles from this magazine, by writing a letter to the editor,
and through all other honorable means. But don't stop there. Point
out to anyone willing to listen that freedom is everyone's
responsibility and that they need to become involved.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
