Just days after the US Administration changed course on Syrian President Assad, saying he could stay, an alleged chemical weapon attack that killed dozens of civilians has been blamed on the Syrian government. Did Assad sign his own death warrant with such an attack...or does some other entity benefit?
By Liberty Report Staff
Did Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice order the unmasking of the identity of Americans affiliated with the Trump campaign for political reasons? Has the intelligence community been drawn into politics...or were they always there? This should be expected in the surveillance state.
By Liberty Report Staff
1984 ... A dystopian novel that ended up being an instruction guide for government.
Back in 1984, Ron Paul was warning America of the "disgusting" surveillance that was emerging in "a professed free society."
Watch Dr. Paul below:
(h/t - LewRockwell.com)
By Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the most amazing things about US foreign policy is how so many American remain mired in the interventionist paradigm. Case in point: the Middle East. No matter how much a failure US interventionism has been in that part of the world, people simply cannot bring themselves to break out of the interventionist box. They remain convinced that the United States has no choice but to remain mired in the ongoing failure, death, and destruction in that part of the world. And they keep hoping that maybe — just maybe — it will all work out over the long term.
Thus, it is very refreshing to me whenever I find others who recognize that there is really just one right course of action for the United States to take: pull out all troops and bring them home. That’s the message of an excellent op-ed in the Boston Globe today by Jeffrey D. Sachs, who teaches at Columbia University and who will be one of the speakers at FFF’s upcoming June 3 conference “The National Security State and JFK.”
The title of Sachs’s article says it all, clearly, succinctly, and directly: “US Military Should Get Out of the Middle East.” That is the only realistic, practical, and moral course of action, especially after several decades of failure, death, and destruction. I highly recommend that everyone read Sachs’s article and share it with friends.
Why can’t some people see a full pull-out from the Middle East is the only right course of action for the United States to take? Why can’t they finally bring themselves to break out of the interventionist box? Why can’t they see that no matter what the Pentagon and the CIA do in the Middle East, it’s only going to make the situation worse?
Consider the fact that the US military and the CIA, two of the principal components of the national-security establishment, have been intervening directly in the Middle East for more than half-a-century. Everyone knows how those 50 plus years of intervention have turned out — failure, death, destruction, taxes, debt, and loss of liberty and privacy for the American people.
Why would any rational person think another 10-50 years of more intervention are going to produce different results?
In 1953, US officials engineered a coup that ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed, trained, and supported a tyrant successor. How has that worked out?
During the 1980s, US officials partnered with and supported Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran. How has that worked out?
During the 1990s, US officials turned on their partner Saddam and initiated an undeclared war against Iraq, during which they intentionally bombed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, knowing full well that that would help spread infectious illnesses among the populace. How did that work out?
The Persian Gulf War was followed by 11 years of brutal sanctions, which, among other things, prevented Iraq’s water and sewage treatment plants from being repaired. When the official spokesman for the United States, US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, told Sixty Minutes that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it,” she was expressing the sentiment of other US officials. How did that work out?
In 2003, the U.S invaded Iraq in order to achieve the regime change that the sanctions had failed to achieve after 11 years of death and destruction, especially among Iraqi children. The US invasion and occupation threw the entire country into even more chaos and disorder. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis encountered a perpetual hellhole of death, injury, maiming, torture, abuse, incarceration, destruction, or exile. How has that worked out?
Look at Mosul, Iraq, today. Has anyone forgotten the prominent role that city played in the death and destruction resulting from the US invasion and occupation of Iraq? Notwithstanding the glorious appellation “Operation Iraqi Freedom” that characterized the US occupation, today Mosul is nothing more than a hellhole of death and destruction, where multitudes are dying on a daily basis, some at the hands of US officials who continue to drop bombs and fire missiles into the city in the process of destroying ISIS, the entity that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq brought into existence. How is that working out?
After 241 US soldiers were killed in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, President Reagan did not call for negotiations, peace treaties, or international discussions to settle the issue. Recognizing that most people just don’t like a foreign occupier, Reagan ordered a withdrawal of all US troops from Lebanon. He didn’t let concern over that people might call him “soft on terrorism” dissuade him from doing the right thing.
Did that stop the fighting in Lebanon? Of course not! But it did mean that the United States was no longer throwing fuel onto the fire—and that the US government was no longer sacrificing soldiers for nothing, as it did in the Vietnam War.
And that is also what the US government is doing in the Middle East. After itself starting some of the fires, the Pentagon and the CIA are doing pouring fuel on the many ever-expanding fires — from Iraq, to Libya, to Syria, to Yemen, to Somalia.
How is all that working out?
It has all failed. Even worse, with each new intervention the situation has only gotten worse. That’s what happens when one pours fuel on a fire — the fire gets worse.
Not only have they started the fires and poured fuel on the fires in the Middle East, they have then used those fires as the excuse to suspend civil liberties here at home, purportedly to keep us “safe” from the terrorist blowback their fires produce over there. There is also the impending bankruptcy of the US government owing to out of control federal spending and debt to consider.
What will it take for the American people to finally abandon a losing policy? Jeffrey Sachs is right: Bring the troops home now. There is no other practical or moral solution.
Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.
By Chris Rossini
Far too many Americans have an obsession with using government force to get the things that they want. Thankfully, they won't use force on their own. In other words, they won't kick in their neighbor's door while yelling "Pay for my healthcare!" Such behavior is still understood to be wrong and is avoided by the vast majority of people.
However, when a third party like government offers to pillage your neighbor on your behalf, it becomes a very seductive proposal. You don't have to get your nails dirty, and you might end up getting something for "free." Far too many have been swindled into believing that aggressive force by government is legitimate and necessary.
The only result is the one that we see with our very own eyes: division, distrust, anger, resentment, a desire for revenge....
In other words, all of the worst characteristics that people are capable of expressing are indeed expressed when government violence is up for grabs in getting the things you want.
Meanwhile, the solution to this de-civilization stares us right in the face. We participate in it everyday. We have to if we desire to live.
If it weren't for the marketplace, this interaction between writer and reader would not be taking place right now. We'd all be goners.
The market provides us with the sane, moral, and just way to get the things that we desire.
For example, this writer is a fan of Starbucks coffee. Let's use a simple trip to Starbucks as an example of how the market provides us with the historic amounts of wealth that we're surrounded by today.
First of all, I voluntarily choose to go to Starbucks. No one forces me. Starbucks may advertise or scream at the top of their lungs for me to go in, but the decision resides with me.
I can enter their property, or not. I can choose to never go into their place as long as I live, and Starbucks could do nothing about it.
I, as a free individual, am sovereign.
Before going into Starbucks to get a cup of coffee, I have to make sure I have something to exchange for it. I don't have a "right" to the coffee simply because I "want" it. Nor does Starbucks have a right to any of my property.
Since money is the medium of exchange, I bring enough money in with me. I have the money because I've done productive work, and earned it. I didn't steal the money, and no one else stole it on my behalf. I produced.
Meanwhile, Starbucks produced the coffee. So I'm going in to trade my production for theirs. It can't get any more fair than that.
I go up to the counter, and a barista is there to serve me. Since my business is never guaranteed, and I always have a choice on where to get coffee, the barista has every incentive to be nice to me.
Have you ever gone to the DMV or a government office? Did you ever deal with the TSA? Have you ever dealt with a crony corporation that has been granted a monopoly by the government? It's a whole different experience. The incentive to take care of you is completely absent.
The Starbucks barista may be a different race, or practice a different religion, or may be of a different sexuality than myself....But I don't care.
Just give me the coffee. I need to get back to work.
The barista may worship the Kardashians, or believe that the Earth is flat, or might smoke weed on Friday nights. Again, I don't care .... Just give me the coffee.
I also don't care what Starbucks does with the money that they get out of the exchange with me. It's not my business to chase down where dollars go after they leave my hands. They're not my dollars anymore!
I end up with a cup of coffee that I could not, from start to finish, produce on my own. And not one single ounce of force was used in procuring it. Everybody wins in the exchange. People of different backgrounds, educations, beliefs and interests interacting peacefully. It's a miracle!
This can be done with every single interaction between people. There are only a couple of principles involved. Anyone can understand them. They're a complete respect for private property, voluntary exchange, and no make-believe "rights" to anything that we don't happen have.
We don't have to act like barbarians, using government as a mugger on our behalf. Government does not have some special moral authority to do things that we can't do ourselves. If we can't steal, then neither can it.
The market shows us the way to civilization. If only more individuals would pay attention.
President Trump has said that if China does not "solve" North Korea, the US would solve it themselves. It is an unusual preview for Trump's meeting this week with his Chinese counterpart. Where will it go from here?
By Ron Paul
Is common sense beginning to creep into US policy in the Middle East? Last week Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the longer-term status of Syrian President Assad would be “decided by the Syrian people.” The media reported this as a radical shift in US foreign policy, but isn’t this just stating what should be obvious? What gives any country the right to determine who rules someone else? Washington is currently paralyzed by evidence-free rumors that the Russians somehow influenced our elections, but no one blinks an eye when Washington declares that one or another foreign leader “must go.”
It’s only too bad that President Obama hadn’t followed this back in 2011 instead of declaring that Assad had to go and then arming rebel groups who ended up being allies with al-Qaeda. Imagine how many thousands of lives and billions of dollars would have been saved by following this policy in the first place. Imagine the millions of refugees who could still be in their homes, running their businesses, living their lives.
Will the Trump Administration actually follow through on Tillerson’s Syria policy statement? It is too early to tell. The President has illegally sent hundreds of US troops to fight on the ground in Syria. Current US positions in eastern Syria suggest that Washington may be looking to carve out parts of oil-rich areas of the country for some kind of future federation.
The White House followed up on Tillerson’s comments by stating that getting rid of Assad was no longer a top priority for the US. This also sounds good. But does this mean that once the current top priority, destroying ISIS, is completed, Washington may return to its active measures to unseat the Syrian president? Neocons in Washington still insist that the rise of ISIS in Syria was due to President Assad, but in fact ISIS did not appear in Syria until the US began trying to overthrow Assad. They haven’t given up on their desire to overthrow the Syrian government and they do have influence in this Administration.
If the Trump Administration is serious about letting the people of Syria decide their fate he needs to take concrete steps. Rather than sending in more troops to fight an ISIS already on its last legs, he must bring US troops home and prohibit the CIA from further destabilizing the country.
It would also be nice if Congress would wake up from its long slumber and start following the Constitution. The President (and his predecessors) have taken this country to war repeatedly without proper Constitutionally-required authority to do so. The president has reportedly decided not to even bother announcing where next he plans to send the troops. Congress can rein him in with very little effort by saying no money can be spent to deploy US troops to areas where they may encounter hostilities unless a state of war is declared.
By all means, we should let the Syrian people decide who will be their president, even if they choose someone we don’t like. Syria was never a threat to the United States and the 2011 US intervention has destroyed the country. Interventionism has horrible consequences and no victories to show for itself. It is time for all the US troops to just march back home.
By Liberty Report Staff
Back in 2007, while campaigning to become president, Ron Paul sat down with Tim Russert. The topic of U.S. involvement in Korea came up. As President Trump sabre-rattles, it's not a bad idea for America to keep the following logic in mind:
Ron Paul: “Troops in Korea? Since I’ve been in high school? It doesn’t make sense.”
Tim Russert: “Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?”
Ron Paul: “Why should we, unless the Congress declared war? I mean why are we there? South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges, and go back and forth.
In Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here.
In Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. The problems still exist, and it’s drained $1 Trillion over these last 50 years.
We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt and the currency crashes. That’s what’s happening, and we need to come out of this sensibly, rather than waiting for a financial crisis.”