Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Tag: wars

Trump in Best Position Since Election to End Wars and NATO, But Sides With Swamp

The Democratic Party remains hopelessly divided in a raging primary after the frustration of impeachment failure. But President Trump failed to plan for the moment and seems destined to drop his foreign policy promises from the 2016 campaign. Despite signing a peace agreement with the Taliban at the end of February, U.S. forces carried out airstrikes against the Taliban just days later. Leaving Afghanistan is not only an easy political decision, it’s imminently practical and economical as the Federal Reserve stokes fears of economic downturn with its largest rate cut since the 2008 recession last Tuesday. Trump can’t seem to help himself though and will stick with the military-industrial complex and general direction of the swamp establishment he promised to take head-on. “NATO is obsolete,” Trump said in March 2016 before adding that he wanted to “readjust” the collective security treaty. Unfortunately, the status quo that President Obama expanded is being managed quite similarly by the alleged billionaire of TV and tabloid fame. As Trump hasn’t started any new wars, there often is a glimmer of hope, but it always diminishes. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and yes, Russia, are all places the U.S. empire remains stubbornly hostile, whether it’s a hot or cold war. Remember that Trump trounced Jeb Bush and more than a dozen other Republican rivals before dismantling the presumed unstoppable Clinton political machine. He blew it shortly afterward. There may never be a better chance than what he had in 2017 to implement real reforms or rollback the establishment’s direction of U.S. foreign policy, if not domestic policy. But where he stands right now is about the best position he’s had since inauguration day 2017. Yet, Trump seems poised to blow it again. His 2021 budget proposal boosts military spending, calling for a $740.5 billion defense budget, which could only be defended on “America First” grounds if he were at least slashing globalist commitments. Instead, Trump continues the European Deterrence Initiative, an Obama-era response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, according to U.S. News. This anti-Russian program initially ran on a budget short of $1 billion. Seven years later, Trump favors $4.5 billion for whatever it’s supposed to accomplish now. In fairness, Trump signed off on a $6.5 billion budget for the program two years ago, so this represents a “cut” in swamp talk. That program also includes the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine that notoriously was at the center of the impeachment political theater of the last half of 2019. The president’s defense argued that there was no quid pro quo, that American taxpayers sent their money to Ukraine for nothing in return! That’s “America First” for ya. Trump also is overseeing unprecedented spending on Eastern European defense in other ways, reports the Wall Street Journal. That’s why there’s little to believe in what Trump’s ex-national security advisor John Bolton told NATO supporters shortly after he was fired. Trump could “go full isolationist” if he wins a second term, he warned. Don’t hold your breath. Trump prides himself on going over the heads of the mainstream press, with his Twitter account usually, speaking directly to the American people. When it comes to NATO, however, he acquiesces to the mainstream narrative. His way of covering up for this is performing for the media, especially when hosting foreign leaders or attending summits overseas. Trump is good at creating moments that do genuinely and rightly embarrass the heads of state in Canada, Germany, and other perceived allies. One reason Trump may not feel compelled to follow through on his campaign promises is simply because most Americans don’t know the difference anyway. Americans largely consume what the military-industrial complex propaganda feeds them, especially when it comes to NATO and Russia. Take a look at a recent Pew Research Center poll, which shows 60 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military should use force against Russia if it gets into “a serious military conflict” with a fellow NATO member country. Set aside that most Americans probably don’t know more than a couple NATO member states. The Pew poll shows that a plurality or majority of citizens in 11 of 16 NATO countries wouldn’t reciprocate if America was attacked by Russia. We can pray something comes of a Politico report, citing anonymous U.S. officials and various unnamed sources, which says that the Trump administration is seeking a high-level negotiator to hold denuclearization talks with Russia and perhaps even China as well. But then again, all one needs to do is read the daily news out of northeastern Syria at Antiwar.com to realize that Trump continues to play with matches. American troops, estimates say 500 of them, are patrolling the region to “take the oil” as Trump would put it. They are running up against Russian forces who are actually welcomed by the Syrian government to secure the country. Nonetheless, as the U.S. empire persists, Trump is looking like a sure bet in the 2020 election.

9/11 is Old Enough to Fight in the Resulting Wars

9/11 is a day that changed the course of history. As a result of US foreign intervention, groups radicalized. These groups attacked the US on our soil 18 years ago today. Now, the event that the power elites used as an excuse to strengthen their empire is old enough to fight in the wars of the US regime. If this doesn’t show you that 9/11 has become a political tool for warmongers, I don’t know what will. 9/11 is not an excuse to continue these wars To start, none of the wars in which the US is engaged is against countries that helped commit the September 11th attacks. The US killed most perpetrators of these attacks within months after the attacks. Now, everyone who was directly involved with the attacks is either dead or in prison. Any war that is justified by 9/11 ended years ago. When someone invokes 9/11 as an excuse for continuing the wars, they are lying to you. So-called “foreign policy experts” beg the public to support the Military-Industrial Complex on the corporate press. It is a pathetic display. These individuals are dedicated to indoctrinating you, and they are using an attack that would be able to fight in the US military were it a person. Any time someone criticizes a foreign policy of peace by invoking September 11th, know that they are not being honest. End the Wars to Stop the Next Attack Pearl Harbor and September 11th were both the result of blowback. US involvement has made us less safe and less free. Due to US engagement in the Middle East, the public has lost friends and family to the terror that inevitably results. As a result of 9/11, the Patriot Act annihilated the Bill of Rights. While the military “fights for our freedom” abroad, we are losing our rights by the day. We suffer from crippling debt. Ultimately, there is no fight for freedom in America that must be taken abroad. The true fight for freedom, however, is to end the wars. As the US continues to fight these wars, the risk of another blowback attack increases. If the US truly cared about safety and freedom, they would end the wars and bring the soldiers home. 9/11 was a great tragedy. It ended thousands of lives. This did not have to happen. We can and we must stop it from happening again.

Warfare State Strikes Again: Another Life Lost to Endless War

The Warfare State claimed another needless victim on Saturday, April 20th, 2019, but the media’s silence is the only sign. Spc. Ryan Dennis Orin Riley died in Ninevah, Iraq in a non-combat related incident. This is just another person who will never see their family again thanks to the endless wars in “defense” of an American Empire. Spc. Riley’s death hits close to home to me, for he grew up less than two hours from my home. I know some of his friends. While I never new Riley, I know how painful a loss like this can be. We must consider, however, whether or not this was necessary to protecting freedom. We have been in Iraq in some capacity since before I was born. That country isn’t any freer as a result. If we actually valued the lives of soldiers like Riley’s, we would bring them all home. The Warfare State: America’s Deadliest Parasite The military makes up around $989 billion of the US’s current spending. This number alone should raise eyebrows, but the human cost is simply inhumane. At least 8,000 US soldiers have been killed since September 11th, and thousands more have been wounded. None of these deaths happened in defense of liberty. Rather, every single casualty that has occurred is a result of the power-mongers in Washington DC. 9/11, after all, is a result of blowback. While the American Warfare State has cost Americans trillions in tax dollars, it has cost thousands of lives and millions of people will suffer from PTSD as a result. War is far from humanitarian. It has made us less safe and less free. Spc. Riley is just one of the millions of examples of the cost of war. The unfortunate truth is that the government has exploited incidents like 9/11 to indoctrinate the public into supporting the US’s illegal and immoral wars. If we wish to be free, we must bring the troops home and refuse to fall for the siren song of the Military Industrial Complex. Those charlatans are an enemy of liberty, and they do not care for the trail of blood and corpses that they leave behind. Spc. Ryan Dennis Orin Riley: A Forgotten Casualty of War So why has no mainstream outlet reported on Spc. Riley’s death? To put it bluntly, because they can’t use this death to start another war. When 4 soldiers were killed in Niger, the corporate press served as the war trumpets for the neocons in power. Each outlet added their own spin for why we need to stay in Niger or why we need even more troops in that nation. None of these “journalists” managed to ask: why are we in Niger in the first place? If we weren’t there, those four soldiers would be alive and with their families right now. Instead, the media used them as propaganda pieces to continue the endless wars. Because Spc. Riley didn’t die in combat, there is only one group to blame: the United States Military. The US Military convinced Riley that he would fight for freedom by enlisting. They offered him a sense of belonging. They offered him a rite of passage into manhood. The military, had they not lied to him, would not have Riley’s blood on their hands. To do Spc. Riley justice, bring the soldiers home. It’s the only way to honor the troops of the past and the present.

Pay No Attention to the US Wars in ‘Noncombat’ Zones

Americans shouldn’t concern themselves with facts deemed “superfluous” by their government, even if that means secret CIA wars in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen go unchecked. That’s the takeaway from President Trump’s latest executive order. They’re actually open secrets. The CIA drone airstrikes raining down in “noncombat” areas of the world are nothing new, but now it’s likely even fewer Americans will ever know about them. The Founding Fathers have finally reached the core of the Earth, from all the spinning in their graves. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order removing a requirement that the director of national intelligence annually reports the deaths caused by US military or CIA operations overseas. This only makes official what the Trump administration has already practiced, as it declined to release any such report last year. President Barack Obama instituted the policy in an executive order at the end of his second term in July 2016. Obama, who oversaw rampant acceleration in US drone warfare from the start of his presidency, was under pressure from human rights groups criticizing US airstrikes in Pakistan primarily. Before getting into the numbers of civilians killed or the global reach of these attacks, the point can’t be driven home enough that the subject here is not just war, but wars. At least 8 of them, all unconstitutional and agonizingly too long. But they’re not called wars by the US Department of Defense. They’re kinetic actions. Or conflicts maybe, in need of some resolution by an adult. The Founding Fathers were clear, and the US Constitution is explicit when it comes to war. It’s the prerogative of Congress to decide when the US goes to war. There are no “police action” exceptions for the president, as Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin explains. The Constitution was meant to be interpreted by the plain meanings of the words used. Both legal and common dictionaries defined war not unlike how the Rev. Frederick Barlow’s 1772 dictionary did. War was “the exercise of violence under sovereign command against such as oppose.” Maybe you can find an average person who could name Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria as places where the US is at war. But Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Somalia, or Yemen? The not-so-secret US bombings there are often times handled by the CIA, but Congress is only requesting estimates of civilians killed by the US military. The National Security Council, headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton, cited Congress’ policy then derided the Obama rule as “superfluous reporting requirements, requirements that do not improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission,” according to the New York Times. It’s estimated that Obama killed between 200 to 800 civilians if you ask nonprofits like New America or the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who runs the Long War Journal, also estimates higher than the previous administrations reported a civilian death toll of 64 to 116. “The United States government is fully committed to complying with its obligations under the law of armed conflict, minimizing, to the greatest extent possible, civilian casualties, and acknowledging responsibility when they, unfortunately, occur during military operations,” the National Security Council statement continued. Obama had said similar things throughout his two terms. What’s Congress going to do about it? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, sounded rather defeatist when he told the BBC that there was “no justification” for Trump’s move to eliminate “an important measure of transparency.” Perhaps it’s for the best if Congress does nothing since they screwed up so badly last time they tried to attach strings to an undeclared war. Imagine if they just impeached Trump for war crimes, then resigned and repented for their own hypocrisy. It’d be morning in America. Unfortunately, however, we may not get a good night.

The “Most Important Election of Our Lifetime” Fallacy

The “Most Important Election of Our Lifetime” Fallacy

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. As libertarians, we’ve no doubt heard with every election that THIS one is the “most important election of our lifetime.” Even those who’ve decided to no longer participate in voting and elections are not immune. Typically, it’s a hyper-partisan individual who is heavily invested in one side of the “horse race” for President, Governor, or Congress making the statement, and they have a litany of reasons why their candidate is “The One.” To many of us, it’s a broken record. Whether it’s the appointment of Supreme Court justices, ending pointless wars, staving off economic collapse, or fighting back socialism, the refrain from both sides is essentially the same each time it’s shared. It’s been the same since I started paying attention to elections in 1992 and neither George H.W. Bush nor Bill Clinton really spoke to me as they campaigned for President. The idea that THIS YEAR will be what changes everything is an extension of a societal desire for immediate gratification…like the J. G. Wentworth commercials: “I WANT IT NOW!” While a sense of urgency is necessary, things do not change overnight, nor will they even over a politician’s term. Patience and hard work bring the change we seek. The slogan and rhetoric from the 2008 Obama campaign, “Change We Can Believe In,” tapped into the desire for immediate overhaul. What we saw over the last eight years wasn’t much change. It was a continuation of the same. The wars didn’t end. The cronies still got their goodies. Even Guantanamo Bay remains open and operational today. Actual, sustainable change takes time. It is the result of many in their efforts to win over hearts and minds. It is not achieved in a single election, a new law, or a Supreme Court decision. slow and steadyAs in the story I recounted in the Tell More Stories article a couple of weeks ago, slow and steady wins the race. That goes for growth as well, whether for an entire philosophy or certain aspects. I’ve been on the inside as an elected official, and bureaucracy does move with the speed of molasses. In the winter. Uphill. Unless there is a manufactured urgency to DO SOMETHING, when a the square peg will be shoved into a round hole. We haven’t won over the hearts and minds yet though. We have a long way to go in that regard. When large numbers of people begin to value freedom the same way that you and I do, we can focus our conversations there and on our path to electoral successes, if they are even necessary. There is no silver bullet. We are building a movement for Liberty, and that growth doesn’t happen overnight, but it’s happening faster with each passing day. Remember, politicians and laws don’t change hearts and minds, and we don’t win anything without those.

Libertarian Party Mocks Tepid GOP Tax Plan, Calls Instead for Ending the Hated Income Tax

(From the Activist Ammunition section in Volume 20, No. 10 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!) The Libertarian Party has denounced the latest income tax reform proposal by “fiscal conservative” Libertarian PartySenators Marco Rubio (R- FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) as far too timid with little or no benefit to most taxpayers. Further, charges the Libertarian Party, the plan “leaves the federal tax burden dangerously high.” “This is what leaders within the GOP — which now holds majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate — have to offer?” asked Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “The Republican plan would do nothing to reduce federal deficits or federal spending. It keeps the federal tax burden at over $3 trillion and climbing, up from the dangerously high level of $2.1 trillion when Obama took office.” The irony of “fiscal conservatives” in control of both branches of Congress calling for taxes higher than when Obama came in, and adding trillions of dollars to the national debt, was not lost on the Libertarians. There’s a far better way, the Libertarian Party said. “How about doing what many Libertarian candidates propose instead: ending the federal income tax altogether, balancing the budget, and cutting trillions of dollars in wasteful federal spending,” suggested Sarwark. The Libertarian Party noted the surprising fact that ending the federal income tax entirely — and replacing it with nothing — while also balancing the budget — only requires rolling back federal spending to the level of… 1998. 1998, of course, was near the end of the Clinton administration, routinely denounced by conservatives as epitomizing “Big Government.” Certainly no conservative leaders in 1998 worried that the federal government was too small or lacked funds to perform its constitutional duties. Even President Clinton himself acknowledged that government had become far too big, famously declaring that “the era of Big Government is over” (perhaps unaware that we would soon be in the era of Bigger and Even Bigger Government). Yet simply returning to funding at the 1998 level, says the Libertarian Party, would not only allow the abolition of the hated income tax. It would allow “more than enough to provide a strong national defense — and dramatically more than enough to fulfill all constitutional functions of the federal government.” “Ending the income tax, balancing the budget — eliminating wasteful, unneeded and destructive government programs, wars, and bureaucracies — and cutting total federal spending accordingly will put an average of $11,525 back into the budget of every American household,” said Sarwark. “It pours $1.4 trillion into the productive, private sector economy. “That’s stimulus!” Sarwark said. “Vote Libertarian, end the income tax, and put money back into your budget.”

Report: U.S. Losing Freedom of the Press

(From the Activist Ammunition section in Volume 20, No. 7 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!) Each year the respected international organization Reporters Without Borders issues a World Press Freedom of the PressFreedom Index that explores and ranks freedom of the press in the countries of the world. According to the organization, the Index reflects “the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.” In this year’s report the United States is ranked a sad 49th out of 180 countries. This is the second-lowest ranking for the U.S. since the rankings began in 2002. (The lowest was in 2006, when the U.S. was ranked 53rd). Ranking immediately ahead of the U.S. are Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso, El Salvador, Tonga, Chile and Botswana. Americans accustomed to the U.S.’s reputation as the bastion of a constitutionally protected free press may be surprised by the rankings. Reporters Without Borders cites incidents it considered in its rankings, including:
  • The U.S. government’s years-long effort to force two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal sources for his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.
  • The U.S. continued war against WikiLeaks and similar whistleblower organizations and individuals like Edward Snowden. 
  • The arrests of at least 15 journalists covering the police protests in Ferguson, Missouri. 
Journalists definitely feel a chill in post-9/11 America. As the Liberator Online reported last year, the PEN American Center, an organization of professional writers whose membership includes some of America’s most distinguished writers, surveyed its members and found: “73% of writers have never been as worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today. Writers are self-censoring their work and their online activity due to their fears that commenting on, researching, or writing about certain issues will cause them harm. The fear of surveillance — and doubt over the way in which the government intends to use the data it gathers — has prompted PEN writers to change their behavior in numerous ways that curtail their freedom of expression and restrict the free flow of information.” It’s not just the U.S. facing such problems. Press freedom is in decline around the world, says Reporters Without Borders. They say it is “incontestable” that “there was a drastic decline in [worldwide] freedom of information in 2014. Two-thirds of the 180 countries surveyed for the 2015 World Press Freedom Index performed less well than in the previous year. … “Beset by wars, the growing threat from non-state operatives, violence during demonstrations and the economic crisis, media freedom is in retreat on all five continents. … All warring parties without exception waged a fearsome information war. The media, used for propaganda purposes or starved of information, became strategic targets and were attacked, or even silenced.”