PRISON Analysis
PRISON          Copyright 2002-2003 Alex Jones          All rights reserved.
words and phrases were intentionally lacking in substance, accuracy, and truth. 

The timing of this latest speech was no coincidence, either. Just days before the second anniversary of 9/11, the president's speech was calculated to harness the annual collective emotional breakdown of an entire nation. In case too many Americans have forgotten, it's time to put them on edge once again. In accordance with its creed, his government will continue to promote fear, uncertainty, and anger, while distracting a malleable population from the real threat to its liberty and security - government itself. 

For two years now, much of the American population has performed its role in the president's national scam of perpetual war like a troop of trained seals. So long as he continues to throw them entitlements, promises of security, and images of bad guys being killed or captured half a world away, they will maintain their mindless guttural applause in support of his policies. If this fails to satisfy the contemporary American need to be fed empty assurances, there's always the anniversary of 9/11; it has become the trump card in the government*s war of propaganda against the American people.

September 17 is a day whose importance should supercede that of 9/11. To many Americans it will just be another Wednesday, another September 17. Nothing important, nothing to celebrate. Juxtaposed with September 11, however, September 17 signifies the attainment of a radically different milestone in American and world history. While the former initiated the beginning of the permanent U. S. Police State, the latter marked one of the greatest achievements in the history of Western civilization. 

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia formally adopted the Constitution, committing the United States to a system of limited and decentralized government. Two years later, ratification secured that commitment. In 1791, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, codifying the inalienable rights of the individual and forever standing as a reminder to would-be tyrants in government that the rights of the individual were absolute and not subject to regulations, laws, executive orders, court decisions, or the interests of "national security." 

In this day and age, only libertarians can see the clear and important distinction between these two September days. Since 9/11, Republicans have demonstrated that they were nothing more than a bunch of statists-in-waiting, looking for the opportunity to execute an FDR-like coup over the American political system. "Conservatives" still foolish enough to believe party rhetoric of a commitment to smaller government, low taxes, and individual freedom should refer to a recent editorial which appeared in the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader, a conservative publication.

Following an interview with Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, the Union Leader wrote, "the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day." Principles have become empty rhetoric as the "new" Republican Party "stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want."

Of the importance of the Constitution, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian forced to masquerade as a Republican because of voter ignorance, said, "We owe our Founding Fathers a tremendous debt of gratitude. They created a society based on the radical idea that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual, preexisting rights granted by God rather than the state. For the first time in human history, a government was designed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa." The Founders' achievement was a "triumph of the individual over the claims of the state, the king, the collective, or society," representing nothing less than a "great gift to humanity."

"Radical" individualist Ayn Rand once said, "it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens* protection against the government." 

The age-old convoluted argument of statists, that the Constitution was written in the broadest possible terms to allow for "flexibility" of interpretation, does not hold up against the precise wording of the Constitution. As Edmund A. Opitz has remarked, "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."

Anyone who still hangs on to President Bush's pronouncements with great interest or impassioned admiration must surely be naive, foolish, or just plain psychotic. In his latest speech, President Bush made excessive use of the pronoun "we." At one point he said, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . to promote freedom, and to make our own Nation more secure." 

A linguistically and Constitutionally astute audience would recognize that statement for its literal meaning only - that the President was referring to himself and those in his immediate vicinity, not to the American people as a whole. Nothing in the Constitutions* words or intent gives him the authority, moral or legal, to make such a claim on the life, liberty, and property of the American people.

If more Americans could distinguish a September day worthy of remembrance from one not, "we" individuals would not be part of President Bush*s mess right now.
E Mail This Page

Two Days to Remember

Harry Goslin September 16 2003

A week ago this past Sunday, President Bush found it necessary to take to the airwaves and expel verbal excrement - another speech overloaded with hyperbole and platitudes. Bush was driven by the fear that more Americans will realize what a complete mess he has made in Iraq, so his
Harry Goslin welcomes your comments at
Previously by this author: In Defense of a Harmless Rock
Disclaimer: This column appears as would a syndicated column in a newspaper. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Alex Jones.