Ron Paul on the Beck-Neocon-Tea Party Alliance

A Tea Party Foreign Policy
Why the growing grassroots movement can't fight big government at home while supporting it abroad.
BY RON PAUL AUGUST 27, 2010

As one who is opposed to centralization, I am wary of attempts to turn a grassroots movement against big government like the Tea Party into an adjunct of the Republican Party. I find it even more worrisome when I see those who willingly participated in the most egregious excesses of the most recent Republican Congress push their way into leadership roles of this movement without batting an eye -- or changing their policies!

As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.

Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as their own communities crumble and our economic decline continues.

I see tremendous opportunities for movements like the Tea Party to prosper by capitalizing on the Democrats' broken promises to overturn the George W. Bush administration's civil liberties abuses and end the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health. I am optimistic, and our numbers are increasing!

Who is Glenn Beck's God?

This past weekend, Glenn Beck led a rally at the Lincoln Memorial where he declared before a crowd of nearly a hundred thousand (or as much as 300,000) followers, "America today begins to turn back to God."

This is a significant moment in the history of Christianity. And it's extremely disturbing. Far from merely "restoring honor" this rally marks a key juncture in the movement that is marrying the Tea Party right with apocalyptic neo-conservatism, leading to what I believe is the right wing's contribution to an authoritarian power the likes of which we have never seen.

For several years, Glenn Beck has been using his extraordinary talent and showmanship to gain a following until he is now arguably the single most potent force in politics in America. Whenever a political figure takes the name of God, I cringe. But even more-so when a person as powerful as Beck does so. And Beck's neo-conservative ideology makes this scenario downright chilling.

When Beck says that America is turning back to God, what does he mean, or more importantly, who is God according to Glenn Beck?

Is his God Jesus, who taught non-violence and taught his followers to avoid political power? Is Beck's God the God who is kind to the wicked and who loves his enemies? Or is his God the false God of the founding fathers and the civic God of the American political religion?

It gets worse, actually. Allying with Beck and Palin at this rally was arguably the greatest advocate of militant Christianity in America today, John Hagee, who has called for military strikes on Iran, which would bring about the so-called "rapture" of Christians from the earth.

Furthermore, it's quite telling that Beck and Sarah Palin held this rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Not to critique everything that has happened in front of that memorial, but it is indeed fitting that neo-conservatives who believe more in a god of warfare than in Jesus Christ, the suffering servant, would hold their religio-political service there. After all, the Lincoln Memorial, itself is styled after a Greek temple with Father Abraham as the honored god-saint. The Memorial's inscription above Abraham Lincoln’s statue reads: “In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever.” A temple where a statue of Abraham Lincoln resides? Interesting. A temple. Enshrined on our hearts? Hmm… According to biblical Christianity, the law of God and the glory of God, dwelt in the Tabernacle-Temple. And in the New Testament, that law is now written on the hearts and the Holy Spirit dwells within us. So God and His law are seen dwelling 1) in the Temple, and then 2) in our hearts, and also our deified Leaders are enshrined 1) in a temple, and reside 2) in our hearts.

Beck stated that this was a religious rally, not a political one. I'm afraid to say that he was partially right: it was definitely a religious rally. That's the scariest part of it all. It's a false religion, and Christians should stay as far away from the Glenn Beck movement as possible. I do agree with a lot of what Beck says; I agree that Christians should run from a Christianity that advocates the further empowerment of the government under the guise of "social justice." But I also believe Christians should run from Beck, who is the leader of a new movement of a false civic religion that will deceive Christians into advocating a right-wing version of war and further government power to counter that of the left.

The left and the right are merely two ideologies of the kingdoms of this world, and Christians should avoid both. They both compromise the church because in both cases, Christians join hands with the violent political power of the state. I believe that it will ultimately and perhaps primarily be so-called Christians on the right and the left who empower the most brutal police state in history following a series of crises that are coming in the last days upon the earth. Now is the time for Christians to divorce themselves from the false god of the state and the false religion of temporal political power.

Glenn Beck might be sincere and his conscience might be clear before God. I am not the judge of Glenn Beck. I may enjoy eternity in Heaven with him, and I love him as a child of God. But Christians should have nothing to do with his version of "returning to God," if that phrase means returning to another political god. Unfortunately, the political ideology of Beck, Palin, Hagee and others is associating Christianity with just another violent ideology of the kingdoms of this world. My advice is to stay away, speak lovingly but strongly against it, and live and preach the Kingdom of God.

Obama and family CIA ties

Obama is a product of the intelligence establishment. If you enjoy connecting all of the dots of history, see Wayne Madsen's research revealing the Obama family's network of ties to the intelligence community.

More deaths under Obama than Bush

The death toll of American soldiers under the Peace Prize winner's war of occupation in Afghanistan now exceeds that of Bush. And this in under two years.

I'm still here

As you've noticed, the frequencey with which I have posted here has diminished, and for a number of days, I have posted nothing at all.

The reason for this is because I am working on a different project right now that I am extremely excited to share with you all.

Stay tuned!

For now, enjoy this archive of my absolute favorite category.

Also, if you haven't read it yet, check out these free excerpts of The Way, the Truth and the Sword.

Jesus or Caesar? Christianity in the 1st century Roman Empire

Whose way do you find more compelling? Jesus' or Caesar's?

"Jesus is Lord."

"There is no name under heaven by which people can be saved except Jesus."

The gospel. Evangelism. The church.

What do all these phrases and terms have in common? They were the politically charged language of a movement of Christians on the margins of society who were seeking to show the world that there was a better way to live than the way of the Empire. You might know their leaders as Paul, Peter, James, and John.

[Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything Rob Bell says; I'm not thrilled about his statement "you are the gospel" at the end of clip two, since the gospel is the good news about God, not about me; but, I do agree that our lives should give people hope in Jesus.]

If Christianity were founded today, maybe our churches would have been five-sided buildings called Pentagons from which we renounce violent warfare and practice spiritual warfare.

Maybe our sermons about the love of God and our messages about how we should not put our trust in princes would have been called "State of the Movement Addresses."

Maybe our communion services would be called celebrations of "the ultimate sacrifice for freedom."

Maybe our tithes would be called "taxes" and our deacons who collect truly voluntary contributions would be called IRS agents.

Perhaps, as we served the poor with money we did not steal from taxpayers, we would call our generosity, "public welfare."

Maybe our evangelistic efforts would be called "the war on terror."

But even without being deliberate about it, as Christians in the first century apparently were, by living out the Christian life of love and servitude, by preaching love of enemies, we are engaged in an inherently political act, as the kingdoms of this world stand in such stark contrast to the Kingdom of God lived out in our lives.

"Why should a poison be in drinking water?" Good question.

They're forcibly mass-medicating the population with toxic waste from the production of fertilizer...because they care about our teeth.

Also see, "Sodium Fluoride: Poison In The Tap Water."

No right to buy and sell. No right to contract. Must get permission from rulers.

Once Again*, the State Turns Lemonade Into Lemons
Lew Rockwell.com Blog - David Kramer - August 6, 2010 09:27 AM

Seven-year old Julie Murphy had a run-in with the law in the state of Oregon. It seems this hardened criminal had the unmitigated gall to open a lemonade stand without obtaining a temporary restaurant license from the State. [...]

The face of a hardened criminal:

A few comments on the overturn of Prop 8

A federal judge has overturned California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which was instituted in 2008 through a ballot initiative called Proposition 8.

My first and most important message to my fellow Christians is: please remain calm! This is a great opportunity to show the love of Christ. We are known for being hateful, we are known for our political crusades. Evangelical Christians are known for defining "success" by legislative victories, rather than evangelism. But this is a chance for us to avoid the temptation to get up in arms about the court decision and to avoid acting in an unloving way. This is a chance to show the world that the church exists to spread the gospel, not enforce Christian morality through the laws. My fellow Christians, please realize that this court decision does not change the character of God and it does not change the power of the gospel to transform lives. Proceed with your regularly scheduled program of the Great Commission as if this court decision never occurred, because it doesn't make a difference! By winning the gay marriage debate (as many of you see winning), you are not making our evangelism any more powerful. In fact the opposite is true, as we gain a bad reputation and defame the name of Jesus by waging a culture war against those we should be loving and serving into the Kingdom. Please read the Introduction, Chapter 4, and Chapter 8 of The Way, the Truth and the Sword.

So again, my first plea is for Christians to just keep their eyes on Christ and don't worry about this court decision. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change anything in the Kingdom of God.

My second comment, which is far less important, has to do with the legal issues present in this case. I think it is appropriate for Christians to be interested in helping to preserve liberty and constitutional government, and to that end, I have to critique this court decision. My criticism of the decision rests on a simple question of jurisdiction. Why does the federal government think that it can change state constitutions by judicial fiat? To me, that's the big story that comes out of this ordeal. I'm not even that interested in the subject of gay marriage. My question is, What happened to federalism? It was bad enough when the federal courts were throwing out state laws they didn't like, as if they have such jurisdiction; but, Prop 8 was part of the California State Constitution. Why is it just assumed that Prop 8 supporters have to win a legal argument in the federal courts to demonstrate a compelling state interest to the federal government? Every time a state amends its constitution, it has to run it by the federal judges? I'm not in favor of simple majority amendments like Prop 8, as I think it represents mob rule, but the federal constitution and its courts don't govern the state constitutions or the state constitutional amendment process. Further empowering the federal government to supposedly defend liberty was a deal with the devil, and is going to come back to bite us. In the long run, the federal government is far more dangerous to liberty than state and local governments.

I've pasted below the Concluding chapter in The Way, the Truth and the Sword, which is a message to Christians to put down the sword of legislative power.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a culture so angrily divided, what if Christians proposed a truce to the legislative power-struggle that we call the “culture war”? What if we invited all human beings to stand together on the moral common ground of natural rights? What if we all put aside our red-state blue-state divisions and, together, restored a consistent Americanism and fidelity to the Constitution.

What if the battle of ideas became merely a peaceful philosophical struggle in the realm of academics and culture, rather than always being a literal battle in the civic realm? After all, a political fight is a fight to gain control of the violent force that is government. The winner of a political fight then gets the power to fine or imprison or otherwise punish the loser for violating the winner’s values.

What if we could make the case for the Christian Way without striking a sword-wielding legislative pose?

In other words, what if we got back to making the case for the Christian Way in a…Christian…way? A Christ-like way.

Can Christians rediscover that love and servitude really do work as the proper and exclusive methods for transforming the world and winning hearts for Christ?

Can Christians realize that using the violence of government to compel our fellow man does not work and is morally wrong and biblically impermissible?

Can we come to realize that the civic realm is not for making disciples or making people act like disciples, but that government exists only to punish aggressors?

If we were to display a new civics to the world, if we were to apologize for our power-grabbing, our war-mongering and our hate, imagine the bridges that could be re-built. Imagine how much more effective our evangelism would be.

And imagine how much more politically free we would all be if all Americans could unite once again around the principles of our country’s founding.

All of this can be achieved by simply rediscovering a better Christian civics, figuring out what a relatively good government ought to look like.

You see, the principles of freedom unite all of humanity. Freedom is something we can all agree upon. We all want the oppressive burden of government off our backs. We all want the freedom to make our own economic and lifestyle choices. Why can’t we all grant that same prerogative to others? Why continue reaching for the sword when we can all be better off by calling a truce?

Because as it stands, authoritarianism marches forward against all of humanity. Countless different philosophic, religious, and cultural viewpoints become political agendas. Different interests look to the state to enforce their viewpoint by force. And thus government becomes a magnet of power to be exercised on behalf of every interest in society.

Everyone loses out when freedom recedes and tyranny gains ground.

In our current context, everybody is sinking in the quick-sand of tyranny, flailing about as we fight each other, which only causes us to sink faster. Everybody wants their own liberties preserved, yet so many fail to grant to others what they so jealously guard for themselves.

As a liberty-minded presidential candidate once said, “freedom unites us.” Indeed it does. Because adherence to the Constitution and its political philosophy rooted in natural rights will permit no agenda, no class, no special interest, no race, no individual to have any privileged power in society. No wealth will be redistributed nor will power be exercised by one group over another. Every individual’s natural rights are preserved and government remains limited. Tyranny does not arise to threaten life and property, but government remains just and lawful.

Everybody can agree with that, can’t they?

But in order to truly agree with that, we all must go through the difficult process of changing our minds about some things. We all have our pet issues where we think we know what is best for somebody else or for “society” or for another country. The social engineer, the imperialist, the great tyrant lives within all of us. We want our government to micromanage some facet of society in some way. We say, “I have better ideas about how to spend your money and live your life than you do.” And indeed, usually such advocacy is well-intentioned. And it is certainly encouraged by the political establishment, which gains power in the process. But such attempts to manage other peoples’ lives or property or even other nations are all extraordinarily misguided attempts at controlling people. They are un-Christian, they are ineffective, and they lead to human misery.

A peace-making approach should not make Christians uncomfortable, as if it means that we are to be permissive or relativistic. The political approach suggested above does not require Christians to budge one inch on our convictions and our adherence to the truth. Rather, we become all the more faithful to biblical teaching by laying down the sword and becoming peacemakers, by becoming more Christ-like.

This approach should not make Christians insecure about the state of society or the continued acceptance of absolute truth in American culture. We know that we carry a Gospel of eternal value and of perfect truth. Do we doubt that the methods that Jesus gave us for bringing salt and light to the world are sufficient? Is our faith in the validity of the Great Commission and the work of the Holy Spirit really so weak that we feel the need to resort to government force in order to advance the way of God in the world?

In reality, any attempt to use power to enforce our Christian worldview betrays an insecurity on our part. An insecurity that our view cannot stand on its own two feet, and that it needs the force of arms to back it up. Or an insecurity that the proper means that we are called to use (love, service, discipleship) are insufficient.

But once we come to fully trust in the veracity of the Gospel truths and really believe in the Kingdom Way through which we are supposed to spread them, we Christians can lead the way in advocating true tolerance (the absence of violent aggression toward others), while at the same time holding firmly to the absolute truths of Scripture, as we aggressively, yet peacefully, spread God’s truth to the whole world.

We need not believe the lie that the mere mention of a truth-claim inevitably carries with it the threat of violence to impose that truth-claim by force. Believing a truth, and insisting on the absoluteness of it, does not imply that you will use the force of law to impose that truth on your detractors. Why have we all (Christians and non-Christians) felt the need to carry the sword into the intellectual-philosophical-cultural discourse? Why does every issue in human society have to become a political issue with legislative spoils going the side that can amass the most votes?

We must continually re-emphasize that a truth claim does not carry a sword. It does not imply the threatened use of force for those who disagree. If Christians fail to consistently lead with that reassurance, then our dialogue with non-Christians will never even get off the ground. It will be a fight, rather than a discussion. But if we do remind those who disagree with us that we mean no harm and that we do not seek to aggress against them, then they will be much more willing to hear what we have to say. If we remind them that our Savior calls us to lay down the sword, and to not “lord it over” our fellow man, but instead to serve our fellow man, then our success in winning people over for Christ will no doubt rise. People don’t want to hear your opinion when you’re threatening them with punishment if they disagree. When you’re serving them…that’s when they’re open to hearing what you have to say.

If we are to be Christ-like, Christians must take the lead in the process of peacemaking. We ought to be known for this sort of thing. At present we are known for the opposite.

I can imagine the protests from some of my fellow Christians right now: “but it’s those secular-humanists and the gay agenda that started this fight; they’re attacking American culture, and so we must fight back! You don’t want to live in a pluralistic society where anything goes do you?”

If indeed they started the war, what is the Christ-like response to the aggression of enemies? Fighting back or loving them, serving them, and turning the other cheek?

I might also ask this: who did Jesus consider to be the greatest threat to the mission of God in the world? It wasn’t the pagan world, segments of which no doubt had a cultural agenda of their own. It was the religious leaders who misrepresented God that Jesus took issue with the most. Those were the people that Jesus waged a “war” against. Jesus was not interested in a culture war against non-believers. He taught that the way to bring truth and light into the world, the way to defeat Satan’s advances in this world is simply by inviting people into relationship with their Creator, by serving and loving those around us, and by teaching the way of Jesus as we are making disciples. Not pointing the finger at the outsider.

Likewise, in our day, the greatest threat to the continued advancement of the Kingdom of God is not secular humanists or pagans. It’s not gays. It’s not Darwinists. It is religious leaders who misrepresent God. And they are doing more damage in the civic realm than any other. It is religious people that we need to confront with courage and strong words, not the irreligious.

If we get our Christianity correct, and if we fight against the spiritual powers of darkness with the Gospel, then the culture will be won over. But more importantly, if our Christianity is biblically supported and if we stop calling the church and its converts into a legislative culture war, then we will once again be faithful to the life that Jesus demands of us.

I want to live in a moral society as much as any Christian. But even more so, I want to remain faithful to the methods that Jesus requires us to use in extending the Christian way. Social engineering through government force is absent from the entirety of the New Testament. It is not permitted. It is un-Christian and un-biblical. Our calling is to keep the Kingdom holy by not prostituting it to the ways of the world.

As it stands, the religious right has engaged in their crusade for the entirety of my life-time. The church-as-voting-block has not made anybody know Christ any better. It has not even made people more moral, since even the possibility of a moral choice is removed when the force of law compels a certain behavior.

Instead, the religious right has only confused people about what Christ is really all about. The religious right will continue to fail until Christians realize that our job is not to be the moral police of the broader society. You cannot legislate righteousness. We never should have started trying.

The good news is that the world will give us the benefit of the doubt if we adopt a humble posture of reconciliation. They will recognize that Jesus is not as he has been represented by Christians in the past. The stature of the Christian community will rise in the eyes of the world, and our influence will grow as a result.

We are hated and despised not because we have been faithful to the Gospel. We haven’t been faithful. We have sought power. And that is precisely why we are hated and despised. We are known for being hateful because we have been hateful. We are known for being un-Christian because we have been un-Christian. It is time to stop making excuses and to put down the sword.

No doubt, a radical Christian lifestyle will bring on its share of persecution and ire, but that will be the kind of persecution that we can be proud of. Insisting on the absolute truth of the Scriptures, speaking truth to power, pointing out lawlessness in government, civil disobedience, and advocating constitutionally limited government will not please everybody. But in pursuing these paths, we will be faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the cause of humanity. And so any persecution that comes our way will place us into the good company of the prophets and apostles who were killed for their dissent.

The majority of Christian young people are embarrassed by the Christian reputation and posture in the civic realm. This is shown in the Barna study referenced in previous chapters, as well as in my own experience as a teacher at a Christian high school.

We recoil at politicians who pander to religious voters with inauthentic religious rhetoric. As followers of the Prince of Peace, we are frankly disgusted by talk of violent aggression and crusades laced with religious appeal, however well-intentioned. We want to reach out to people who disagree with us, but we find obstacles in our way because of the civic sins of our fathers.

Perhaps the suggestions and the political philosophy presented in this book will provide a framework for a new Christian civics…for a new generation.

Our primary job as Christians is to love God and to love our neighbor.

We love God by representing him faithfully in the world; through radical obedience, we can restore the reputation of the name Christian. We repent of our civic sins and our perpetual use of the sword. Perhaps we can once again be known for being peacemakers who simply serve and love.

We love our neighbor by constantly re-affirming the humanity of every person; this is not an inherently political act, but this is a priority that drives what we do in the political realm. It drives our natural rights philosophy and it drives our speaking truth to power when need be.
To the world: the Christian Church wants to make peace with you. We want to co-exist with you and find common ground. We won’t agree on everything, and we Christians will continue to insist on the perfect beauty of Jesus as the only Lord and Savior—the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But, we want to dialogue with you without grasping the sword. Will you do the same? We want to join with you in the defense of human liberty against the oppressive and often evil burden of the state, which only delights in perpetuating our continual discord and power-struggle. We apologize for supporting torture and wars of aggression and empire. We apologize for seeking the dominion of the sword domestically. We apologize for misrepresenting Jesus and disobeying his commands. We ask for a second chance to show you what Christ is like.

We ask Christians and non-Christians alike to join us. Lay down the sword, walk hand in hand in our common humanity, and forge a new path…a new civics of liberty, a new civics of humanity.

Congressman: Virtually no limits on federal government power

The state is god. The Constitution is a dead letter.

Iran has nukes and is about to fire them at us!

Murder him

Regarding the Wikileaks information that was recently released, this Congressman complains of "a culture of disclosure." How dare the people have information!

What is the opposite of a culture of disclosure? A culture of secrecy. It is scary that the state would defend the culture of secrecy that has enshrouded so many of its nefarious acts in darkness (see John 3:19-20).

He argues, "We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed." It is a "fact" that people will "likely" be killed. He doesn't explain how he knows this fact.

In reality, what is causing people to be killed in Afghanistan? What is causing this to be the longest war in American history? What is causing countless innocent civilians to die in that country, as well as Pakistan and Iraq? What is causing American troops to be put in harm's way?

It's definitely not a "culture of disclosure."

It's called the American empire. That's what is causing the killing.

And now the empire wants to execute the man who sought to leak information about the folly of this war.

Listen to them call for a treason conviction, which carries with it the death penalty.

Side note: they say that this is a "time of war." Question: when did the Congress declare war? This is called an occupation and it's called nation-building. It's not war.

Ron Paul comments on unconstitutional, immoral wars

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
Ron Paul - Campaign For Liberty - Aug 3, 2010



Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.

Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people — the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.