Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘america’

Freedom Works -> Deny Statism

Posted by Jesse on April 3, 2009

Mises on War

War…is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys. (Socialism, p. 59)

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Lone Statesman in our US Congress say No. (HR 951)

Posted by Jesse on March 7, 2008

Stop Choosing Sides
by Rep. Ron Paul

On Wednesday, March 5, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution (HR 951) condemning Palestinian rocket attacks that include a strident defense of recent Israeli tactics in the Gaza Strip. The resolution also condemned Iran and Syria for “sponsoring terror attacks,” and demanded that Saudi Arabia publicly condemn Palestinian actions.

The resolution was originally introduced in January, but contains new language including a passage saying that that “those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields” and “the inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups.”

Although 23 Congressman abstained or voted “present,” only one bravely voted no: Rep. Ron Paul.

Below is Rep. Paul’s statement he gave to the House before the vote.

Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951, a resolution to condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.

I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, lew rockwell, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology, Video | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Russia’s KGB Putin-Americans Sovietized.

Posted by Jesse on March 5, 2008

MP3 here. (43:13)

Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Eric Margolis

Award winning author, columnist, and broadcaster Eric S. Margolis has covered 14 wars and is a leading authority on military affairs, the Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic movements.

Eric Margolis, foreign correspondent for Sun National Media and the American Conservative magazine, discusses the state of emergency in Pakistan, the history of the Musharraf dictatorship, his relationship with Dick Cheney, the return of Benazir Bhutto, her accusation that Musharraf was behind the recent suicide bomb attacks, the Islamists in Waziristan, the cause of their insurgency, Pakistan’s feudal system and the slim chance that crazies could get their hands on the nukes, the tension between Pakistan and India, the collision course coming this way as the Kurdish PKK attacks Turkey and vice versa, the U.S. and Israel’s policy of splitting off Kurdistan Iraq while simultaneously backing the Turks, U.S. support for Kurdish terrorism against Iran and the plan for long term occupation of Iraq.

RSS feed

Posted in *Take Action, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

June 3, 1997: PNAC, Obama’s Statement of Principles.

Posted by Jesse on March 5, 2008

This is actually from PNAC.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Project for a New American Century
————————
Ok. So it’s not Obama. But come’on. It’s a one party system folks.
banner.gif
————————

Letter to President on Iraq
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

An Open Letter to the AntiWar Left

Posted by Jesse on December 11, 2007

Yes, Antiwar Movement, There Is a Santa ClausYou may not like the gift wrapping but the contents are what you wrote on your wish list: End the War, Bring the Troops Home Now, No War For Oil, or for Israel, Do Not Attack Iran, Restore The Constitution and The Rule of Law, No to The Patriot, Homeland Security, Military Commissions Acts and No to The Homegrown Terrorism Act, No To Torture, Rendition and Illegal Military Prisons and there’s even some extras that most of us wouldn’t mind seeing like putting an end to the Illegal Federal Reserve and doing away with the illegal personal income tax on wages.That all of these goodies happen to be the essence of Congressman Ron Paul’s, Republican Presidential candidate from Texas, campaign platform is surely a shock to any leftist’s/progressive’s system.Ah be careful what you wish for, you just might get it…The only question is will you accept this gift? Perhaps the wrapping paper isn’t right, perhaps there are some extra things in the box that don’t fit your political criteria but hey, it’s the thought that counts, isn’t it?Even Dennis Kucinich seems to think so, there is so much buzz in cyberspace about the possibility of a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket, it is stunning. Dennis has even raised the prospect himself as has his wife Elisabeth. Who ever thought we’d see the day?!There is a larger point to be made here and perhaps the most important one and that is there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the wants, needs and desires of the anti-war traditional conservatives and the anti-war leftists and progressives. We just all need to get over ourselves.If Dennis Kucinich would consider Ron Paul as a running mate isn’t it time for the anti-war movement to dig a little deeper to see what is going on here?… (I have always supported Dennis Kucinich, whenever possible but after the 2004 Convention and his failure to stand up at the Convention against the war and support the peace activists who were hauled off the convention floor, with their anti-war signs, and given his inability to run a strong campaign, I can no longer back him. I do respect his positions on many issues.) A few activists like myself have crossed over to support Ron Paul but far too many others have not. Far too many from the left, far too many progressives and liberals and far too many anti-war activists have not.We have so much in common but many on the left ridicule Ron Paul and his supporters. They are so stuck in their positions, they do not see the monumental things we have in common. For many on the left it is Ron Paul’s stance on abortion, or his stance on health care and the list goes on…But as we face another election year and perhaps the most critical and important election year, I ask what cause can be more important than the cause of PEACE? Without it, we have no chance at all. For years, since the Bush regime stole power, we have all been looking for a Peace Candidate and now we have one.The democrats have been co-opted and fail us at every turn. The third party has been decimated, largely due to the democrats in 2004 and their fear mongering tactic of “vote democrat or else.” And here we are again, facing another Presidential election at the most critical time of our country’s history and indeed the world and what have we to choose from? The same damn pot that calls the kettle black and they all want the same thing, they all have the same agenda and we are left with voting for the lesser of evils or not voting at all. Is anyone really going to fall for this routine again?… But what if all of the disenfranchised people got together, pulled their forces, their energy and supported a true candidate for Peace? Would Peace not then be possible?Are we to forever be held back by issues, such as abortion or even National Health Care, an issue that never gets delivered in the first place (we are no closer now than we were way back when)? These issues are by design. Abortion keeps us divided. National Health care lends us false hope. This is no ordinary election year. This is our last real chance to try and get our country back on track and to prevent a third world war. Will any of us risk losing this chance over our own personal issues versus the common purpose and the Universal good? We need to start somewhere and Ron Paul is a good place to start.For me, supporting and voting for Ron Paul is the most “radical” thing I have ever done in my political life. It is something I do with comfort and good conscience. I support peace and I can only vote for a candidate who wants to stop this war and prevent a larger war from happening. Ron Paul has a tremendous groundswell of grassroots support, people from all walks of life, people from all over our country, giving of their time, their money, their hearts and their energy to support this man. I have never seen nor experienced anything like this in my life!I encourage leftists, progressives and the anti-war movement to check Ron Paul out for yourselves, Google him, watch his YouTube videos, listen to what he has to say and how he says it. Ron Paul is the Peace candidate we’ve all been looking for. He answers to the people, not corporate or political lobbies.Perhaps the Ron Paul Revolution is best defined in his own words: He is honored to be a part of our revolution. I appeal to all of you to consider this. To think about it, process it, digest it, meditate on it, do whatever but above all find the higher meaning. 

December 11, 2007Donna Volatile [send her mail] is a radical, screenwriter, researcher and political writer living in the mountain of northern New Mexico.

Posted in *Take Action, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, healthcare, Libertarian, Politics, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »