Freedom Daily

Loving Your Country and Hating Your Government
by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 1995

Several months ago, President Clinton condemned Americans who exposed and
criticized wrongdoing by the U.S. government. The president said: "There's
nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your
government but love your country."

Let us examine the implications of the president's claim.

In the 1930s and throughout World War II, there were a small group of German
citizens who sacrificed their lives resisting the Nazi regime. They believed
that the true patriot was the person who lived his life according to a certain
set of moral principles. When one's own government violated those principles,
it was the duty of the patriot, these Germans believed, to resist.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, on the other hand, believed that the real
patriot is the citizen who supports his government, especially in times of
crisis and war. The traitors, in their eyes, were the Germans who opposed the
Nazi government, especially after the war had begun.

The story of the small number of Germans who resisted the Nazi regime is told
in a recent book-- _An Honourable Defeat_ (1994) by Anton Gill. Gill points out
that by the end of the war, most of the German resisters had been identified by
the Gestapo and murdered. Gill points out:

"That this is the story of a defeat none will doubt. Some will dispute that it
was an honourable one. It is certainly not the story of a failure. Against
terrible odds and in appalling circumstances a small group of people kept the
spirit of German integrity alive, and with it the elusive spirit of humanity.
We should all be grateful to them for that."

What would President Clinton say about these resisters? Undoubtedly, he would
call them troublemaking traitors to the Nazi regime. After all, the president
would ask, how could these people claim to love their country and, at the same
time, claim to hate the Nazi government? The real patriot, the president would
say, was the German citizen who loved his country and, therefore, his
government. As President Clinton would have said to the German resisters,
"There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can
hate your government but love your country."

What about the British colonists living in American in 1776? They certainly had
no love for their government. When we celebrate the Fourth of July, it is easy
to forget the real implications of what happened during the fight for
independence. It is important to remember that George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, John Hancock, and the like were not
American citizens when they signed the Declaration of Independence. They were
as British as you and I are Americans. And they hated the philosophy and
policies of King George--taxation, economic regulation, immigration controls,
trade restrictions, and so forth.

The colonists were violent men. They did everything they could to kill the
soldiers who fought on the side of their own government. On the other hand,
British soldiers did all they could to bring death to their fellow citizens. As
we celebrate the Fourth of July each year with our fireworks and picnics, we
tend to forget that real people with real families were deliberately killed on
both sides of the conflict.

Were the colonists patriots? Certainly the British government did not think so.
Nathan Hale (who regretted that he had but one life to give for _his country_)
was hung because he was a traitor to _his government_. If the rebellion had
failed, there is no doubt that the signers of the Declaration of Independence
would have all been put to death by their own government officials--for
treason.

What would be President Clinton's position with respect to the War for
Independence? On the surface, he would, of course, sing the praises of
America's Founding Fathers and American Independence Day. But this would only
mask a deep-seated resentment against the colonists. What gave them the right
to take up arms against their own government? Clinton would ask. They had no
right to resist tyranny by force. They should have continued to plead and lobby
for political representation in the Parliament. William Jefferson Clinton would
have said to Thomas Jefferson: "There's nothing patriotic about hating your
government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."

A hundred and fifty years ago, a small band of Mexican citizens took up arms
against its own government. Despite popular misconceptions, Sam Houston, Jim
Bowie, David Crockett, William Travis, and the other rebels at the Alamo,
Goliad, and San Jacinto were not Americans. They were not Texans. They were
Mexican citizens. They had pledged allegiance to the flag of the Republic of
Mexico. Why did they engage in violent acts against their own government
officials? Because they hated the regulations and the taxation that the Mexican
president, Santa Ana, was imposing on them.

Were the rebels patriots or traitors? Their position was that patriotism meant
devotion to ideas like liberty and property. They believed that the real
patriot--the person who loves freedom--resists his own government when his
government becomes destructive of fundamental rights. Of course, Santa Ana took
the position that these Mexicans were, instead, traitors to their government
and their country.

Unfortunately, President Clinton would share Santa Ana's perspective. By
becoming Mexican citizens, he would say, the colonists had pledged to support
their government officials, even when the latter were taxing and regulating
them. It was wrong, President Clinton would claim, for the Mexican colonists to
have considered themselves patriots. After all, "There's nothing patriotic
about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but
love your country."

Actually, the president's mind-set is the same as that held by tyrants
throughout history. In the mind of the ruler, the government and the country
are one and the same. The citizen who has the temerity to expose and criticize
wrongdoing by his own government is, ipso facto, a traitor to his country. The
citizen who supports his government's conduct, no matter how evil or
destructive--and who doesn't ask uncomfortable questions--is a real "loyalist."

Consider the deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco. At Ruby Ridge, U.S. government
officials persuaded Randy Weaver to commit a crime--selling them a shotgun that
was one-fourth inch too short. After a U.S. marshal was killed in a subsequent
shoot-out at the Weaver home, the FBI put out the following order: Do not
demand a surrender; do not try to arrest; we do not want a jury trial here;
instead, take them out; kill them all; shoot them until they are dead; teach
them that no one kills a federal official, not even in self-defense; but make
it look good by ensuring that the victims were armed. So, after having shot
Weaver's 14-year-old son in the back, the feds shot Weaver's wife Vicki in the
head. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful in killing Weaver and were humiliated
by the jury at Weaver's trial.

Was that the end of it? Oh, no. The FBI then engaged in a cover-up of this
Latin American-style death squad's conduct. FBI officials falsified and
destroyed documents, perjured themselves, conspired to obstruct justice, and
refused to obey orders from the U.S. Attorney's Office. In their minds, the FBI
is an independent, national, patriotic police force (like the Gestapo and the
KGB) that can punish citizens with impunity, without the time and trouble of a
trial, and without having to answer to anyone.

Has any federal official been brought to trial for murder, perjury, conspiracy,
or obstruction of justice? Of course not. The feds have tried to buy justice by
paying Weaver and his children $3.1 million. The money, of course, came from
American taxpayers, not those who committed the crimes. What happens if a
taxpayer refuses to pay his taxes by claiming that the taxpayer  did not commit
the crimes? They kill him and call it "resisting arrest." All of this is what
Justice Department employees term "justice."

Of course, the federal attitude towards what happened at Waco is exactly the
same. Federal officials secured a search warrant from a federal judge under a
perjured affidavit. They decided against a low-profile search of the premises
and against apprehending the Branch Davidian leader--David Koresh-- outside the
compound. They needed a bigger "splash" for upcoming budget hearings.

So, the feds planned a high-profile raid that they termed "Showtime." But
"Showtime" did not quite work out as planned, for several federal officials
lost their lives in the raid. And the deaths of those officials ultimately
sealed the fate of the Branch Davidians. No one can ever accuse U.S. government
officials of playing "softball"--"kill a federal official, and you won't have
to worry about a trial or anything else."

The recent movie _Braveheart_ shows that political attitudes toward defiant
citizenry have not changed much over the centuries. The attitude of King Edward
and his minions toward the Scottish people many centuries ago was quite similar
to that of President Clinton and his underlings toward American dissidents.
King Edward had Scottish people raped, tortured, and hanged for failing to pay
proper deference to His Royalty; and His Highness never had even one ounce of
remorse.

Is President Clinton's and the Democrats' attitude toward American dissidents
any different? It is true that FBI and BATF officials did not rape Vicki Weaver
before they killed her--and that they did not rape the Branch Davidian women
before they  gassed and burned them. And we should give credit where credit is
due. But is there _any remorse whatsoever_ over the political killings of
innocent people?

In the recent congressional hearings on Waco, the Democrats, led by Congressman
Charles Schumer, made a grand spectacle of being concerned about child abuse in
the Branch Davidian compound. The implication was this: "Our concern for the
Branch Davidian children is evidenced by our concern about possible child abuse
in the compound."

What nonsense. The truth is that the Democrats did not care one bit for the
Branch Davidian children or for any other individual who was gassed and burned
alive in the compound. How do we know this? Because, again, _there is not one
bit of remorse for the loss of life at Waco_. The Democratic attitude is
instead the same as that held by the FBI and the BATF: These were white-trash,
weird people, and so it is no big deal that they--and their children--died.

Moreover, the Democrats feel that since David Koresh might have been engaged in
child abuse, then federal officials had the right to kill him without a trial
(despite the fact that he is innocent until proven guilty)--and, in the
process, to kill the other hundred people who were not even accused of child
abuse (including the dead children).

And the Republicans? They are similar to the nobles in _Braveheart_. The nobles
would pontificate on the virtues of freedom and the importance of principle.
But as soon as the King offered them money and lands, the nobles would betray
all of their ideals. Is this not the case with Republicans? Republicans are
notorious for talking the libertarian talk--even now calling themselves
libertarians--but they are totally unable to walk the libertarian walk. Offer
them votes or campaign contributions or a congressional chairmanship, and they
sell their souls very easily.

Unfortunately, during the recent hearings on Waco, the Republicans were so
concerned with upholding their law-and-order image that they treated the FBI
and BATF with kid gloves. The Republicans think that if they expose police
murders, conspiracies, perjuries, and cover-ups, this might hamper law
enforcement in the future. Thus, Republicans did not even try to secure the
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute the FBI and
BATF death-squad activity. More important, the Republicans failed to gain any
reasonable assurance that the death squads would not be used again under
"appropriate" circumstances.

What was so uplifting about _Braveheart_ was that small band of Scottish men,
led by William Wallace, who loved their country and hated their government.
Like many who had come before them--and who have come after them--they refused
to compromise their principles.

President Clinton was wrong when he said: "There's nothing patriotic about
hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your
country." Throughout history, there have been courageous and honorable
individuals--patriots--who have loved their country and hated their government.
And, unfortunately, throughout history, there have also been weak and cowardly
people-- traitors--who have loved and supported the tyranny of their own
government.

It is to the patriots--not the traitors--that we owe Magna Charta, the Petition
of Right, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, due
process of law, private property, and so many other aspects of human freedom.
It is the patriots--not the traitors--who have remained steadfast for
principles of right, even when it meant incurring the wrath and retribution of
their own government officials. And it will be the patriots--not the
traitors--who ultimately triumph in America and end our government of the
pestilence that pervades it--so that, once again, American patriots will love
their country and not hate their government.

Permission is granted to reprint this article, provided appropriate credit is
given.  Please send two copies of the reprint to The Future of Freedom
Foundation.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation.

