My Secret Sex Toys's blog: "Free Republic"

Summary: I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture. by Ron Paul, Dr. July 14, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 14, 2005 Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing. It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation. I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture. Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions. Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland." The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs. Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change. It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

Summary: The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy's ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government's business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse! by Ron Paul, Dr. July 12, 2004 You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits. The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it. Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse! I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens. One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie. The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research. At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.

Summary: For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. by Ron Paul, Dr. October 28, 2002 October 28, 2002 The recent sniper killings around the Washington DC area thankfully appear to have ended with the arrest of two individuals believed responsible. The sense of fear in the nation’s capital was palpable throughout October, bringing back memories of the uneasy days following the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City. The wanton and unpredictable nature of the sniper shootings has reinforced an uncomfortable feeling that many Americans first experienced the morning of September 11th: namely, that the government cannot protect you. No matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. For many this is a sobering thought, because we have come to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. We should remember, however, that we hardly would want to live in a rigid totalitarian society completely free of danger. This nation was founded on principles of self-reliance, but we’ve allowed ourselves to become far too dependent on government. Perhaps the only good that can come out of these senseless and tragic killings is an emerging understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. As for the alleged sniper himself, we can expect two things from the media. First, we’ll hear a lot of details and nonsense about his rifle and how he obtained it. This scrutiny serves to instill a misguided sense of fear and awe toward a simple .223 rifle, making it seem like a highly dangerous instrument that should never be in the hands of the general public. Second, we’ll hear his defense attorneys feed the media a thousand excuses for his actions, ranging from his childhood to his failed marriage to his Army training. Most people see through this, however. The killer alone is responsible for his murderous actions. Despite all the talk about rifles, the undeniable truth is that armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens. We can’t know, of course, that armed citizens would have prevented any of the shootings or brought the sniper to justice more quickly. Yet it’s hard to imagine the sniper choosing Texas or another well-armed southern state to commit his crimes. The bottom line is that criminals seek defenseless, unarmed victims. Any criminal operating in the suburbs of Washington DC, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia- all bastions of anti-gun sentiment- can reasonably assume that his victims will not shoot back. For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.

Summary: The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry. by Ron Paul, Dr. October 20, 1997 October 20, 1997 A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry. Even an "FBI" style of federal agency, limited only to being a resource for investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the federal government's misdirected and misapplied war on drugs, the hysteria surrounding radical environmentalism, and the aggressive dictates of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the states. This buildup is the direct result of the sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local control by many Americans. The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse. Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, the surge in the number of armed federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new federal agents were authorized to carry firearms. This brings the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these increases were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department, and the Army Corps of Engineers. According to Farah, even the Bureau of Land Management wants to be armed. Farah logically asks, "When will the (National Endowment for the Arts) have its armed art cops?" This is a dangerous, and ironic, trend. Ironic in that the proliferation of guns for bureaucrats is being so firmly - though admittedly stealthily - pushed by the same antigun politicians who publicly work to disarm every law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety. Which begs the question, "Safety for whom?" On one level I agree whole-heartily with the anti-gun activists. We desperately need gun control: we need to control the bureaucrats, disarm them, and then abolish their agencies. There is no constitutional basis for the EPA, and certainly no constitutional reason for allowing EPA agents to pack pistols as they declare every inch of your property a protected "wetland." Force and intimidation are the preferred tools of tyrants, though not just intimidation with government guns. The threat of imprisonment and fear of harassment by government agents strikes terror into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit against the president, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for their 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current "year" for which the IRS is conducting audits of returns, the government claim that the action is unrelated to the suit is suspect, to say the least. Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the federal government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970's both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment. Though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power, and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty. I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution's Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk. A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it's a shame our generation has ignored it