May 2, 2011
Last week, a caller to Sean Hannity’s radio show brought up Ron Paul, and Hannity mentioned that he agrees with about 85% of Ron Paul’s views and positions on the issues. However, Hannity’s main disagreement with Dr. Paul is on foreign policy, a disagreement based mostly on ignorance and a compulsion toward believing the government’s emotional propaganda in the name of expanding government’s size and power as much as possible.
Hannity is a socialist and believes that it is the government’s monopolistic duty to engage in central planning, for “national security,” despite the constant ineptitude, failures and counter-productiveness for a century now of socialist, central planning “national security” debacles directed outward from Washington, D.C.
Hannity noted on his show, in response to Charlie from Pacifica, California, that America should maintain a big influence on the rest of the world. Hannity really means he wants the U.S. government to maintain a big influence on the rest of the world (through aggression, force, coercion, violating human rights and trespassing on property rights, etc.). And Hannity once again brought up his misinterpretation of Ron Paul’s criticism of U.S. government foreign policy. Hannity believes that Dr. Paul thinks America “invited” 9/11 or was responsible for it. Unfortunately, like many others, Hannity does not seem able to distinguish between America the country and its “governing agent,” the centralized U.S. government.
One of the matters of confusion has been Dr. Paul’s attempts to explain that the rise in terrorism over the past 20 years has been blowback, a reaction by people to the invasions, aggressions and occupations of their territories by the U.S. government, especially since 1990. Dr. Paul has several times used the collective pronoun “we,” such as in stating that “we” have been occupying other peoples’ lands. I have already stated my problem with that, and that Dr. Paul and others need to be more specific, and say that “the U.S. government” has been occupying and trespassing on foreign lands, murdering innocent civilians and destroying entire countries’ civilian infrastructures. These actions of aggression, initiated by the U.S. government and not by “us,” have been provocations of those inhabitants of foreign lands to act against us.
I’m sure that Hannity would have the same reaction as Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis and Iranians, if a foreign government had begun to set up its military bases and other governmental apparatus on U.S. territories such as in Utah and California, had invaded Texas to take its oil resources, or continuously bombed and destroyed water and electricity facilities in New Jersey or Montana and then imposed blockades and sanctions to prevent folks in those states from rebuilding.
Another aspect to all this is the emotionalism upon which Hannity and others, particularly Sarah Palin, seem to form their views regarding international relations. Hannity and Palin seem to have an authoritarian view of America, which explains their emotion-based obedience to the U.S. government and their apparent enmeshment of self-identity with that regime.They, and many other Americans, unfortunately, did not question any of the federal government’s post-9/11 knee-jerk declarations, policies such as PATRIOT Act, or invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Hannity’s support for U.S. government powers that remove Americans’ right to due process can then be used by the Obama regime against Hannity and his fellow conservatives and Tea Partiers to punish their opposition and dissent of Obama policies.
It has been very distressing, to say the least, over the last almost decade now since 9/11, how some people can be so naively trustful of people in authority and believing of every word they say. While the post-9/11 knee-jerk, non-thinking reaction of the U.S. government that Hannity and Palin supported was to go to war against Afghanistan, the reasonable approach would have been what Ron Paul has been saying for many years: The terrorists who have attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were reacting to the many decades of U.S. government occupations, military bases, military coups and support for brutal dictatorships, especially the U.S. government’s 1990-91 invasion of Iraq and subsequent sanctions throughout the ’90s that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and widespread anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East — and that is why those invasive U.S. government policies need to be ended.
Because socialists and central planners who have government-controlled monopolies react to problems that they created with even further intrusive and counter-productive policies that make things even worse, that is why the U.S. government’s socialist bureaucrats went to war in Afghanistan in 2001, enacted the PATRIOT Act quickly and without any consideration and without even reading the legislation, and all based on the same kind of unthinking emotionalism and mysticism of how good and wonderful our unquestionable authoritarian federal government is. And they then went to Iraq a 2nd time based on lies and propaganda solely because George W. Bush had wanted to go to Iraq all along, at least since 1999, and for the sake of “political capital.”
Now, the typical socialist reaction to the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden (and I still say Osama was already killed in 2001-02, so I don’t believe this newest of U.S. government lies to help Obama’s reelection bid) is one of immediate gratification: Oh boy, bin Laden is dead, we can go out and play, now. But a more rational view might be that even further blowback repercussions might occur, in the U.S. government-created terrorists’ possible instructions to commit revenge attacks based on the news of bin Laden’s death.
Bottom line: We need to reject Hannity and Palin’s socialism in national security, and dismantle the federal monopoly that usurps our right to self-defense, and decentralize America, as well as allow for private protection and defense firms to compete. Getting rid of central planning in national security will make us safer — from terrorists, as well as from the predations of the government — just as getting rid of central planning in medicine will make Americans much better served in their medical needs.