Congressman Glenn Thompson (joined by Congressmen Tom Marino & Tom Reed) discussed and read from the Williamsport Tea Party Scroll, which I authored, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 9th:
Click here to view the video on C-SPAN
I was very pleased to have our grievances aired in this manner to the government. And I liked how he prefaced his discussion with talk about unintended consequences. However, I think our message is only being half told in regard to the unintended consequences of government interference. And in some cases, we are probably only half telling it as well, with unfortunate results. Please follow me as I explain.
Most of you know or have a deep suspicion that government interference in the economy is not the solution to our economic problems, but the very cause of them. Every time government interferes, it creates widespread unintended consequences. These consequences are often hard to directly link back to the action which caused them because they may be many levels deep from the initial action rather than the immediate consequence.
For example, let's say that government hypothetically institutes a price cap on corn because consumers find corn-based products getting too expensive. Level 1 reaction is that prices stop increasing (yea for consumers!). Level 2 reaction is that farmers suffer losses on corn crops because costs exceed revenues. Level 3 reaction is that farmers stop planting corn and move on to more profitable crops. Level 4 reaction is that there are shortages of corn relative to demand. Level 5 reaction is that there are shortages of corn-based ethanol (which is required as an octane booster in all gasoline). Level 6 reaction is that ethanol prices increase substantially. Level 7 reaction is that gasoline pump prices increase substantially.
At level 7, only 1 in 100 people realize that higher gas prices are caused by government interference in corn prices. So little is it understood -- so few can follow the chain of events -- that those who don't understand it call those who do "conspiracy theorists". They instead blame "greedy oil companies" for the prices instead of the true culprit -- government. The populist response is then to demand that government "do something" to fix it. This of course compounds the problem. Government institutes price controls on gasoline for instance. And subsidizes corn farmers. These actions likewise cause ripples of unintended consequences, not the least of which is increased taxes on consumers. Moreover, a black market emerges to circumvent these actions. The true solution is for government to repeal their existing interference and stop making things worse. When government interference goes awry, the solution is to stop interfering. That means stopping the "stimulus" and "bailouts" and "subsidies" and "regulations" and letting people keep their own money and make their own financial decisions.
I hope you're in agreement so far. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance or outright denial amongst many conservatives though in understanding that this very same principle applies to foreign relations as well. The world will normally go about its business in a relatively free market fashion such that our trade partners view us positively (because of what free trade with us provides for them) and others are ambivalent or neutral. Nobody else in the world much cares how free/enslaved, rich/poor, moral/amoral, etc., we may be, other than in their decisions to immigrate or not. This is why our founders urged us to remain free of foreign entanglements and to peacefully trade with those who wished to do so. But when our government goes out and interferes in the world, it creates ripples of unintended consequences.
For example, let's say that the government hypothetically sends agents into a country to launch a coup because the democratically-elected government there instituted trade barriers which made their products costly to American consumers. Level 1 reaction is that a military dictatorship is established at the cost of many lives. Level 2 reaction is that trade barriers are repealed making the products cheap again (yea for consumers!). Level 3 reaction is that the dictatorship institutes repressive domestic policies with American-supplied resources, killing many of that country's citizens and provoking anti-American sentiment. Level 4 reaction is that an insurgency forms, plotting to overthrow the dictatorship. Level 5 reaction is that the insurgency realizes that the dictatorship is too strong so long as it has American support. Level 6 reaction is that the insurgency hatches a plan to sever American support through strategic attacks on non-military targets, as attacks on military targets are far too difficult to successfully execute. Level 7 reaction is that a "terrorist attack" kills thousands of innocent Americans.
Once again, at level 7, only 1 in 100 people realize that the terrorist attack was caused by government interference in a foreign country. So little is it understood -- so few can follow the chain of events -- that those who don't understand it call those who do "conspiracy theorists". They instead blame "religious extremists" for the attacks instead of the true culprit -- government. The populist response is then to demand that government "do something" to fix it. This of course compounds the problem. Government institutes unconstitutional search, travel, speech, and other anti-freedom controls on its own citizens. They may even launch a war against the foreign dictatorship which they helped institute and finance in the first place. These actions likewise cause ripples of unintended consequences, not the least of which is more killings and terrorist attacks. Once again, the real solution is for government to repeal their existing interference.
The U.S. has helped overthrow countless governments, many of them democratically elected. Our government has provided aid to countless oppressive regimes in order to support our interests (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, the Khmer Rouge, King Abdullah, Pervez Musharraf, Shah Pahlavi, and many others). Our government has over 600 military bases, with millions of personnel, located in almost 60 separate countries. Our government has our military conducting operations or exercises in some 100 different countries. These actions have caused blowback. The solution is not to impose more government interference -- neither at home nor abroad. When government interference goes awry, the solution is to stop interfering. That means stopping the "police actions" and "humanitarian aid" and "nation building" and bringing our troops back to our own borders.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the House Homeland Security Committee today that the terrorist threat is at its highest level since 9/11. That's interesting timing considering the Patriot Act is up for renewal and the TSA is suffering significant public outrage. The Patriot Act, contrary to its name, is among the most unpatriotic, unconstitutional, anti-freedom laws ever to come out of Congress. And the TSA is no less intrusive than the Gestapo; and also apparently beyond judicial oversight. Is it any wonder that the chief beneficiary of those powers is trying to scare us into acquiescing to their abuses? BTW, President Obama is all in favor of those abuses now that he's in control! He wants the Patriot Act extended through the end of his term in office. But as limited government advocates, why would we persist in allowing this pervasive interference which is contributing to the very problems they claim to address?
Our newly elected Republican majority -- declaring adherence to Tea Party principles, espousing the need to remove government intrusion from our lives -- has nonetheless voted overwhelmingly to extend the Patriot Act provisions otherwise set to expire! Thankfully the measure failed since it was a special expedited procedure, a "suspension of the rules" (meant to prevent any debate of the topic!), which means that it required two-thirds majority. But they failed that by only seven votes. And the method they used to try to pass it is polar opposed to the legislative responsibility we have demanded and to which they have paid lip service.
You cannot fight terrorism by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens any more than you can fight an economic depression by taxing and borrowing. Terrorism is an unintended consequence of government interference overseas. The solution is to end the interference. End the undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Close down the vast majority of our overseas military bases, especially the ones most opposed by the native populations, such as in Saudi Arabia.
The presence of U.S. troops and American support of the ruthless king in Saudi Arabia was the self-declared reason #1 why Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. Our occupation of the Muslim "holy land" is a provocation of the entire Muslim world, particularly those -- Al-Qaeda -- dedicated to overthrowing the dictatorial regime governing it. Bin Laden's fatwa stated this clearly: "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."
Sanctions against Iraq was the self-declared reason #2 why Osama bin Laden attacked us on 9/11. He called it "the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known". Most Americans never even knew the effects our sanctions wrought, but they were devastating -- hyperinflation, poverty, and malnutrition which claimed upwards of a million lives. In all honesty, how can such a thing not provoke consequences?
We must face facts. We are not at risk of terrorist attacks because the FBI doesn't have enough power to search Americans without warrants any more than we're at risk of a double-dip recession because the Federal Reserve needs greater control over our bank accounts. Our problems come from big government over-reaching and failing to consider seven levels of consequences from what they do. Our issue is not too little government, but too much.
The Patriot Act expands the government's ability to search your private property without notice and to look into your records held by third parties, including your internet browsing behavior, financial documents, phone records, medical history, library usage, travel patterns, etc. The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," meaning that all of this expanded authority is not restricted to investigations of foreigners, but to citizens like you. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. Maybe even this email. And BTW, law enforcement has tried to label Tea Party groups as potentially terrorists! Having a copy of the Constitution in your possession or citing the Constitution is considered a suspicious act!
FBI director Robert S. Mueller III conceded in 2007 that the bureau had improperly used the Patriot Act to obtain information about people and businesses. He said that national security letters, which allow the bureau to obtain personal records from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit companies, and other businesses without a judge's approval, were improperly and illegally used, sometimes even against the wrong people by mistake. They used "exigent letters", under the guise of emergencies when no emergency existed, to obtain records. They infiltrated phone companies, permanently stationing employees there. The abuses go on and on, all without any judicial oversight or consequences. And this isn't just a few times either -- the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained records through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed upwards of 40,000 abuses of spying powers! The situation did not improve with Inspector General audits the following few years either, even though the FBI, Congress, and everyone were aware of what was going on. And never mind the confessed abuses -- the "legal" uses of the Patriot Act infringed on Americans' constitutionally-protected privacy hundreds of thousands to millions of times!
There's a reason why we have a Bill of Rights. The founders knew what they were doing. Jefferson said that if we had a government of angels, we would need no Bill of Rights. Clearly our government are no angels!
Even the authors of the Patriot Act had some inkling of how dangerous it was. They specifically intended parts of it to sunset (i.e. expire) after the immediate threat of 9/11 had passed. But of course government never wants to give up any power or get any smaller, so these provisions have been renewed year after year, through both Republican and Democrat majorities. This has gone on far too long. We must demand that Congress respect the sunset provisions and allow them to expire. Moreover, we should insist on a full repeal of the entire can of worms!
The bill to extend the Patriot Act is almost certain to come up again very soon under normal procedures which only requires a simple majority to pass. The three provisions will otherwise sunset on February 28th. Our representatives failed the small government test the first time around. Thompson, Marino, and Barletta all voted in favor of the extension. If we are to defend the Constitution, retain our natural rights, and stop the expansion of government, we must draw a line in the sand here. The Patriot Act shall not be extended.
I know that our Congressmen can be morally courageous and oppose the will of leadership in order to represent their constituents. We just have to make sure we tell them that we will no longer suffer unconstitutional infringements on our natural rights in the name of safety.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
On this we cannot budge. The Patriot Act was passed through fear by a Congress that did not read it. It is contrary to everything we hold dear. I'm not terrified by the exceedingly remote prospect of being injured or killed by a foreign guerilla fighter. I'm terrified by the prospects of government gone wild. And hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches directed at innocent Americans only makes us more at risk of terrorist attacks, not less, as the FBI is consumed with power lust instead of genuine concern for our safety.
Abraham Lincoln said it well: "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
No terrorist bomber can ever take our Constitution away from us. That can only be done by our elected officials. And that is the only way our nation of freemen will perish.
If our Tea Party bills -- Read the Bills Act, Write the Laws Act, One Subject at a Time Act, and Enumerated Powers Act -- were law, the Patriot Act could never have been passed. Nor could this extension attempt have been pushed through while "suspending the rules". This clearly demonstrates why we cannot be content with mere House rules to enforce legislative responsibility. We need laws with actual teeth to make sure that bills are read by everyone who votes on them, that they are posted online a week before any vote is cast, and that they cite their constitutional authority. And until our bills become law, we should expect our Congressmen to cast their votes as if they were law -- i.e. oppose anything brought to vote under a suspension of rules, anything which fails to cite or have any constitutional basis, and anything which has not had plenty of public notice and debate.
I and the Williamsport Tea Party are working with these Representatives to sponsor the above cited legislation which will support the principles discussed in our scroll. We are also reaching out to Congressman Lou Barletta and Senator Pat Toomey, among others, to form a coalition to make real legislative reforms to help shrink government.
Sincerely,
Thomas Anderson
|
|
|
Quote of the Day
Are you libertarian, conservative, liberal, centrist, or statist?
|
