The Ruthless Truth blog

by Eva Golinger

Global Research, March 12, 2010

Postcards from the Revolution – 2010-03-11

The Empire will stop at nothing to find mechanisms and techniques to achieve its final objective, and we cannot disregard the possibility of a military conflict in the near future. If the US places Venezuela on the “terrorist list” this year, we could be on the verge of a regional war.
Latin America has suffered constant aggressions executed by Washington during the past two hundred years. Strategies and tactics of covert and overt warfare have been applied against different nations in the region, ranging from coup d’etats, assassinations, disappearances, torture, brutal dictatorships, atrocities, political persecution, economic sabotage, psychological operations, media warfare, biological warfare, subversion, counterinsurgency, paramiliary infiltration, diplomatic terrorism, blockades, electoral intervention to military invasions. Regardless of who’s in the White House – democrat or republican – when it comes to Latin America, the Empire’s policies remain the same.
In the twenty-first century, Venezuela has been one of the principle targets of these constant aggressions. Since the April 2002 coup, there has been a dangerous escalation in attacks and destabilization attempts against the Bolivarian Revolution. Although many fell beneath the seductive smile and poetic words of Barack Obama, it’s not necessary to look beyond the past year to see the intensification of Washington’s aggressions against Venezuela. The largest military expansion in history in the region – through the US occupation of Colombia – the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet of the US Navy, as well as an increased US military presence in the Caribbean, Panama and Central America throughout the past year, can be interpreted as preparation for a conflict scenario in the region.
Escalation in Aggressions
The hostile declarations from various Washington representatives during the past few weeks, accusing Venezuela of failure to combat narcotics operations, violating human rights, “not contributing to democracy and regional stability”, and of being the “regional anti-US leader”, form part of a coordinated campaign that seeks to justify a direct aggression against Venezuela. Soon, Washington will publish its annual list of “state sponsors of terrorism”, and if Venezuela is placed on the list this year, the region could be on the brink of an unprecedented military conflict.
Evidence seems to indicate a move in that direction. A US Air Force document justifying the need to increase military presence in Colombia affirmed that Washington is preparing for “expeditionary warfare” in South America.
The 2009 Air Force document, sent to Congress last May (but later modified in November after it was used to demonstrate the true intentions behind the military agreement between the US and Colombia), explained, ““Development of this CSL (Cooperative Security Location) will further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability”.
On the Verge of War
The first official report outlining the defense and intelligence priorities of the Obama administration dedicated substantial attention to Venezuela. The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community – which has mentioned Venezuela in years past, but not nearly with the same emphasis and extension – particularly signaled out President Chavez as a major “threat” to US interests. “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established himself as one of the US’s foremost international detractors, denouncing liberal democracy and market capitalism and opposing US policies and interests in the region”, said the intelligence document, placing Venezuela in the same category as Iran, North Korea and Al Qa’ida.
Days after the report was published, the State Department presented its 2011 budget to Congress. In addition to an increase in financing through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund opposition groups in Venezuela – more than $15 million USD – there was also a $48 million USD request for the Organization of American States (OAS) to “deploy special ‘democracy promoter’ teams to countries where democracy is under threat from the growing presence of alternative concepts such as the ‘participatory democracy’ promoted by Venezuela and Bolivia”.
One week later, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the OAS – funded by Washington – emitted a whopping 322-page report slamming Venezuela for human rights violations, repression of the press and undermining democracy. Despite the fact that it was a report – and a Commission – dedicated to the topic of human rights, the detailed study barely mentioned the immense achievements of the Chavez government in advancing human rights; advances which have been recognized and applauded over the past five years by the Unted Nations. The evidence used by the OAS to elaborate the report came from opposition testimonies and biased media outlets, a clear demonstration of dangerous subjectivity.
Simultaneous to these accusations, a Spanish court accused the Venezuelan government last week of supporting and collaborating with the FARC and ETA – organizations considered terrorist by both the US and Spain – provoking an international scandal. President Chavez reiterated that his government has absolutely no ties with any terrorist group in the world. “This is a government of peace”, declared Chavez, after explaining that the presence of ETA members in Venezuela is due to an agreement made over 20 years ago by the government of Carlos Andres Perez in order to aid Spain in a peace treaty with the Basque separatist group.
The Empire Has No Color

Last week, on tour in Latin America, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t stop attacking Venezuela during her different declarations made before international media. She expressed her “great concern” for democracy and human rights in Venezuela, accusing President Chavez of not “contributing in a constructive manner” to regional progress. In a cynical tone, Clinton advised President Chavez to “look further south” for inspiration, instead of towards Cuba.
Clinton’s regional trip was part of a strategy announced by the Obama administration last year, to create a divide between the so-called “progressive left” and the “radical left” in Latin America. It’s no coincidence that her first tour of the region coincided with the announcement of a new Latin American and Caribbean Community of States, which excludes the presence of the US and Canada.
The Coming Conflict
A military conflict is not initiated from one day to the next. It’s a process that involves first influencing public perception and opinion – demonizing the target leader or government in order to justify aggression. Subsequently, armed forces are strategically deployed in the region in order to guarantee an effective military action. Tactics, such as subversion and counterinsurgency, are utilized in order to debilitate and destabilize the target nation from within, increasing its vulnerability and weakening its defenses.
This plan has been active against Venezuela for several years. The consolidation of regional unity and Latin American integration threatens US possibilities of regaining domination and control in the hemisphere. And the advances of the Bolivarian Revolution have impeded its “self-destruction”, provoked by internal subversion funded and directed by US agencies. However, the Empire will not cease its attempts to achieve its final objective, and a potential military conflict in the region remains on the horizon.

Eva Golinger is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Eva Golinger

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18064

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Donald Macintyre
The Independent
Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:24 EST

© Associated Press
Rachel Corrie, uses a loud speaker as she stand in front of an Israeli buldozer in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah

Briton tells court of the moment he saw American activist fall as she tried to defend Palestinian homes
The final moments of Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist crushed to death beneath a pile of earth and rubble in the path of an advancing Israeli army bulldozer, were described to an Israeli court by an eyewitness yesterday.
The parents of the 23-year-old, who was killed by the bulldozer in March 2003, were present to hear the harrowing account on the first day of hearings in a civil lawsuit they have brought against the state of Israel. The country has never acknowledged culpability over Ms Corrie’s death.
Richard Purssell, a British activist with the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (ISM), said he watched in horror as Ms Corrie was dragged four metres by the bulldozer moving forward at a "fast walking pace".
He told how her fluorescent orange jacket became invisible beneath a pile of earth churned up by the blade of the 56-tonne D9 Caterpillar machine. Mr Purssell explained that he and two other ISM volunteers had been summoned from the Rafah neighbourhood of Tel Sultan earlier in the day to help five activists prevent bulldozers from carrying out what they feared would be the demolition of Palestinian homes. The five, including Ms Corrie, were in the suburb of Hai Salaam, close to the border with Egypt.
Mr Purssell said the incident took place about 20 metres from the house of Dr Samir Nasrallah, a pharmacist well known to ISM activists, who often place themselves between Israeli forces and Palestinians to try to stop the Israeli military from carrying out operations. Ms Corrie climbed on to the earth mound being created in front of the bulldozer, with her feet just below the top of the pile.

© Unknown

"She is looking into the cab of the bulldozer," Mr Purssell recounted. "The bulldozer continues to move forward. Rachel turns to begin coming back down the slope … As she nears the bottom of the pile, something happened to cause her to fall forward. The bull- dozer continues to move forward and Rachel disappeared from view. The bulldozer moves forward approximately another four metres before it stops." Mr Purssell, who works as a landscape gardener in the UK, said that before the bulldozer came to a stop, other activists started running towards her – as he himself did a few seconds later.
"I heard a lot of people shouting and gesturing to the bulldozer to stop," he told the court, adding that the bulldozer then "reversed back in the tracks it had made, in a straight line; Rachel is lying on the earth".
He said three ISM activists – Alice Coy, Greg Shnabel and Will Hewitt – rushed to adminster first aid. "They began to support her neck," he added. "They were holding her. She was still breathing. I did not get involved because I am not first aid trained." He insisted "everything that could be done was done" by the volunteers. Ms Corrie died of her injuries soon afterwards.

© Unknown
Rachel Corrie

Asked in cross-examination by the state’s attorney why Ms Corrie acted as she did by standing in front of the bulldozer, Mr Purssell said he did not know but could only speculate that "she didn’t want the bulldozer to go any nearer Dr Samir’s home".
Ms Corrie’s parents, Craig and Cindy, from Olympia in Washington state, have brought their civil action in part to challenge the military’s account of their daughter’s death. Israel claims its troops were not to blame and the bulldozer driver did not see her or run her over deliberately, even though witnesses insist she was clearly visible.
Within weeks of her death, the Israel Defence Forces accused Ms Corrie and the ISM of behaviour that was "illegal irresponsible and dangerous". In 2004, Lawrence Wilkerson, an aide to the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, wrote to the Corries saying Israel had failed to carry out the "thorough, credible, and transparent" investigation promised at the time by Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.
The Corries’ attorney, Hussein Abu Hussein, claimed before the hearing began that the troops "acted in violation of both Israeli and international law prohibiting the targeting of civilians, and the disproportionate use of force against non-violent protest with blatant disregard to human lives".
Mr Corrie said the family had been seeking justice for seven years. "I think when the truth comes out about Rachel, the truth will not wound Israel, the truth is the start of making us heal."
His wife said they were still waiting for an open investigation. "I just want to say to Rachel that our family is here today trying to just do right by her, and I hope she will be very proud of the effort we are making," she added.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204573-I-saw-Israeli-bulldozer-kill-Rachel-Corrie-

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Barry Grey

Global Research, March 12, 2010

World Socialist Web Site – 2010-03-11

A rash of new layoff announcements and government reports on job losses give the lie to the claims of the Obama administration and the media that the employment situation is “stabilizing.” Last Friday, the administration hailed the Labor Department’s report that US payrolls shrank by “only” 36,000 jobs in February and the official jobless rate remained at 9.7 percent as proof that its policies are working and the economy is recovering.

In fact, the so-called “recovery” is limited to the big banks and major corporations, which are profiting from trillions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, virtually unlimited and cheap credit, and the use of mass unemployment to drive down wages and increase the exploitation of the working class. An unprecedented assault on the living standards of the vast majority of the American people is being carried out under the direction of the Obama administration, creating a social crisis without parallel since the Great Depression.

On Tuesday, the Labor Department reported that the official unemployment rate in January rose in 30 states. Sixteen states had jobless rates higher than the national average of 9.7 percent, including Michigan (14.3 percent), Nevada (13 percent), Rhode Island (12.7 percent), South Carolina (12.6 percent) and California (12.5 percent).

Unemployment in California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington DC rose to the highest levels since records began in 1976.

A separate Labor Department report showed that mass layoffs (50 or more positions) increased nationally in January to 1,761, leading to at least 182,261 workers losing their jobs.

On Tuesday, Chevron, the second largest US oil company, announced it will cut 2,000 jobs, or more than 3 percent of its workforce. This follows a reduction of 2,000 jobs in 2009.

Exelixis, a company in South San Francisco, said it will lay off 270 workers—40 percent of its work force.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services announced a cut of 200 full-time mental health jobs.

These are only the latest in an ongoing wave of layoffs hitting every sector of the economy. Alongside job-cutting by private corporations, hospitals and state and local governments are shedding jobs at an accelerating pace in response to gaping budget deficits.

The American Medical News web site reported 13 mass layoffs at hospitals in January affecting 995 workers. Mass hospital layoffs announced in February included over 300 workers at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan, 268 full-time jobs at Forrest Park Hospital in St. Louis, and some 900 jobs at Jackson Medical System in Miami.

This week, the CEO of the Jackson system in Miami announced plans to close two hospitals and eliminate another 4,500 jobs—37 percent of the system’s workforce.

The overall workforce at US airlines shrank 3.2 percent in January compared to a year earlier, the US Department of Transportation announced Wednesday.

Across the US, in big cities, small towns and rural areas, schools are being closed and teachers laid off, college tuition is being raised and courses cancelled, bus routes—including school buses—are being eliminated, libraries are being closed, parks, swimming pools and other recreational and cultural facilities are being mothballed.

Utility shutoffs, with the inevitable consequence of deadly house fires, home foreclosures, hunger and poverty are rising.

The Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress are doing nothing to provide serious relief for the unemployed or create new jobs to employ the jobless. They refuse to bail out cash-starved states and cities, having bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars, instead demanding that local governments carry out unprecedented attacks on basic social services.

The real attitude of Obama toward the working class was demonstrated in his public support for the mass firing of teachers in Rhode Island, after they resisted demands for longer work hours with no increase in pay. This goes hand in hand with a health care overhaul entirely focused on cutting Medicare and rationing health care for ordinary Americans, and the setting up of a bipartisan commission to prepare major and permanent cuts in entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—on which tens of millions of working people depend.

The administration and both parties reject out of hand any measures opposed by the banks and corporations—such as a public works program—to provide jobs for the unemployed. The so-called “jobs” bills working their way through Congress are nothing more than tax windfalls for business.

The assault on every aspect of life of working people is being carried out in the interests of a bankrupt system—capitalism—a system that subordinates social needs to the personal enrichment of a wealthy elite. In the US and around the world the corporate-financial elite is imposing brutal austerity measures to make the working class pay for the crisis of the profit system.

The trade unions function as adjuncts of the ruling class, devoting all their efforts to the suppression of popular opposition in return for a share in the spoils from the exploitation of the workers.

Anger and resistance are growing, not only in the US, but internationally. Over the past several weeks, strikes and mass protests have broken out across Europe in opposition to government austerity measures, dictated by the banks.

On March 4, tens of thousands of students and workers demonstrated in the US in opposition to education cuts. This was an initial expression of popular opposition that will grow in the coming months. If this opposition is not to be diverted and led into a blind alley, however, it requires a new perspective and program.

The basic needs of working people and youth are incompatible with the policies of the Obama administration and both political parties, and the capitalist system which they defend. The entire working class must be mobilized as an independent political force against Obama and the two-party system to reorganize society in accordance with social needs, not private profit.

On April 17 and 18, the Socialist Equality Party, its youth movement, the International Students for Social Equality, and the World Socialist Web Siteare holding an emergency conference on the social crisis and war. This conference will discuss a new socialist strategy to unify the working class against war and the assault on jobs and social programs.

We urge all workers and young people looking for a way to fight back to attend the conference. For more information and to register, click here.

Barry Grey is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Barry Grey

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18081

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Food & Water Europe
Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:24 EST

Statement of Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter
Brussels – “We welcome the Woodruff County, Arkansas court finding that German corporation Bayer CropScience ‘intentionally’ contaminated US rice supplies. We applaud the decision requiring the company to pay Lennie Joe Kyle, the farmer who suffered losses when his rice was contaminated with Bayer’s genetically modified (GM) product, a total of US$1.3 million. This amount includes the first punitive damages for loss of future earnings ever awarded against Bayer.”
“The case is one of a raft of hundreds of cases stemming from the 2006 contamination of US rice supplies with Bayer’s experimental GM LL601 rice – an incident which continues to undermine US exports years later. The company has already been ordered by federal courts to pay four other farmers a total of US$3.5 million.”
“While we are pleased to see the courts step in to protect farmers and consumers when regulatory bodies fail, it is a pity that farmers have to go to these lengths to get satisfaction for their losses. As Mr. Kyle said, ‘It’s a lot to do with the way the big companies act. They think the farmer is just going to tuck his tail and take it, but we’re not going to anymore.’”
“GM is clearly an unpredictable technology that has proved both difficult to contain and damaging when it escapes. It is simply not necessary to take these chances with the safety of our food supply or the viability of our farms. It is important to see Bayer being held accountable for the damage they have done. Hopefully the court decision will act as a warning to other GM companies.”
Additional Information about Food & Water Europe
Food & Water Europe is a program of Food & Water Watch, Inc., a non-profit consumer NGO based in Washington, DC, working to ensure clean water and safe food in Europe and around the world. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.
Don’t let U.S. food aid force GE crops on developing countries! Sign our petition (here) to ask members of Congress to keep genetic engineering out of any food aid and agricultural research legislation.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204608-Food-Water-Europe-Welcomes-U-S-Court-Ruling-Bayer-Intentionally-Contaminated-U-S-Rice

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Ron Paul

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money – in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.

This essay originally appeared in Young American Revolution, the magazine of Young Americans for Liberty.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

© 2010 Young Americans for Liberty

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/07/putting-the-constitution-back-into-the-oval-office/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites