By Chris Rossini
Hillary Clinton, ever the campaign blusterer, is trying to weave the word "love" into her marketing.
Here are a few recent tweets:
“Let America ‘be that great strong land of love.’ That is more than poetry…that’s a prayer.” —Hillary quoting Langston Hughes
"Let’s keep going together.
followed by some visuals:
For those who have no interest in being bamboozled by political propaganda, I'll break the news to you: Government has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Government is violent force.
Those who occupy government (or "gain power") use violent force against real human beings (other than themselves and their friends). Every election is a battle over who will wield the violent force. Naturally, no one wants to be on the receiving end, so money and bribes flow in every conceivable direction. Everyone seeks to control the violence so that it could be unleashed against others, rather than it being unleashed against themselves.
There is no "love" when it comes to government.
Now, does that mean that government is constantly using violence against people? Not necessarily, though there is no shortage of its actual use.
Oftentimes, only the threat of using violence is sufficient enough. For example, we pay taxes because we don't want the government to throw us into a cage. Given a free choice, who knows how many people would actually pay taxes? Probably very few. That's why the threat of violence is always there.
When government institutes a military draft, it literally kidnaps children away from their parents so that they can go across the world to use violence against total strangers.
That's not "love" no matter how neocons try to spin it.
When government fights wars (something the U.S. government is very used to) it commits mass murder on a scale that no other organized group on Earth can ever compare to. No other institution on the planet has piled up more skulls than government.
Hillary has already taken part (not in battle of course) in numerous disgusting wars. There's no "love" to be seen anywhere.
If Hillary is really interested in "love," may she have the courage to resign from all positions of power, and enter voluntary life.
Then Hillary can express true love like a real human being. If she wants to help person (A) she would have to do so without first robbing person (B). Only then would she be making a real and genuine contribution to civilized life.
Robbing (B) in order to help (A) is not "love".....it's a crime!
Of course, were Hillary to choose a genuine path of love, all of the Goldman Sachs money would have to come to an end. No one will lobby Hillary for acts of love. People lobby power, so that they can use government violence to their advantage.
Love has nothing to do with government.
By Ron Paul
Last week the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring women to register with Selective Service. This means that if Congress ever brings back the draft, women will be forcibly sent to war.
The amendment is a response to the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat. Supporters of drafting women point out that the ban on women in combat was the reason the Supreme Court upheld a male-only draft. Therefore, they argue, it is only logical to now force women to register for Selective Service. Besides, supporters of extending the draft point out, not all draftees are sent into combat.
Most of those who opposed drafting women did so because they disagreed with women being eligible for combat positions, not because they opposed the military draft. Few, if any, in Congress are questioning the morality, constitutionality, and necessity of Selective Service registration. Thus, this debate is just another example of how few of our so-called “representatives” actually care about our liberty.
Some proponents of a military draft justify it as “payback” for the freedom the government provides its citizens. Those who make this argument are embracing the collectivist premise that since our rights come from government, the government can take away those rights whether it suits their purposes. Thus supporters of the draft are turning their backs on the Declaration of Independence.
While opposition to the draft is seen as a progressive or libertarian position, many conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Robert Taft, where outspoken opponents of conscription. Unfortunately, the militarism that has led so many conservatives astray in foreign policy has also turned many of them into supporters of mandatory Selective Service registration. Yet many of these same conservatives strongly and correctly oppose mandatory gun registration. In a free society you should never have to register your child or your gun.
Sadly, some opponents of the warfare state, including some libertarians, support the draft on the grounds that a draft would cause a mass uprising against the warfare state. Proponents of this view point to the draft’s role in galvanizing opposition to the Vietnam War. This argument ignores that fact that it took several years and the deaths of thousands of American draftees for the anti-Vietnam War movement to succeed.
A variation on this argument is that drafting women will cause an antiwar backlash as Americans recoil form the idea of forcing mothers into combat. But does anyone think the government would draft mothers with young children?
Reinstating the draft will not diminish the war party’s influence as long as the people continue to believe the war propaganda fed to them by the military-industrial complex’s media echo chamber. Changing the people’s attitude toward the warfare state and its propaganda organs is the only way to return to a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all.
Even if the draft could serve as a check on the warfare state, those who support individual liberty should still oppose it. Libertarians who support violating individual rights to achieve a political goal, even a goal as noble as peace, undermine their arguments against non-aggression and thus discredit both our movement, and, more importantly, our philosophy.
A military draft is one of -- if not the -- worst violations of individual rights committed by modern governments. The draft can also facilitate the growth of the warfare state by lowing the cost of militarism. All those who value peace, prosperity, and liberty must place opposition to the draft at the top of their agenda.
By Daniel McAdams
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that NATO is preparing to deploy four battalions -- approximately 4,000 troops -- to Russia's western border. US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work was in Brussels today to announce the Western military escalation on Russia's border, which he claimed was in response to Russian military exercises near the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Work, two of the battalions would come from the United States, with one each coming from the UK and Germany. This announcement might come as news to German lawmakers, as such a significant German military presence on Russia's borders has not been approved by Berlin. Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel has given Washington reason to believe that Germany would join the escalation, the move is considered highly controversial in a Germany growing weary of following US foreign policy dictates. In fact, according to recent polling, only one in three Germans supports the idea of the German military defending the Baltics even if there were a Russian attack. A clear majority of Germans oppose NATO military bases on Russia's border.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the UK government has not agreed to send the troops either, despite the claims of unnamed "Western officials."
The US deputy secretary of defense explained in Brussels that the US must send these thousands of troops thousands of miles from the US because Russia is conducting military exercises on its own soil and the US finds that intolerable.
Said Deputy Secretary Work:
The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the borders, with a lot of troops. From our perspective, we could argue this is extraordinarily provocative behavior.
What is not made clear in the article but should not be lost on readers is that "right up against the borders" is still Russian territory. But "right up against the borders" on the other side -- where the US military is to be deployed and to conduct exercises -- is most definitely not US territory. In other words, the US is traveling thousands of miles to place its troops on Russia's border in response to Russian troops inside its border.
Here is Washington logic: Russian military exercises inside Russia are "extraordinarily provocative" but somehow stationing thousands of US troops on the border with Russia is not at all provocative. Just like US military exercises in the Baltic sea some 50 miles from Russian soil is not at all provocative, but Russian military plane fly-overs in response to these US military exercises is "reckless and provocative." And just like the US flying a spy plane over highly-secret Russian military facilities on the Kamchatka peninsula is not at all provocative, but when the spy plane is buzzed by another Russian fighter, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warns, "This is unprofessional. This is dangerous. This could lead somewhere."
It's never provocative when Washington's interventionists do it.
This article was originally published at The Ron Paul Institute.