Read the rest of the story by clicking on the Title link, below...
'That's My Job' - The Murder Of Ashli Babbitt
Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
By the logic used by the US Department of Justice to exonerate Capitol Hill Police officer Michael Byrd in the Jan. 6th shooting of Ashli Babbitt, hundreds of other protesters on that day - and in previous protests across the country last year - could have been shot and killed. Also today, interest in homeschooling is soaring. Is this the end of the state re-education camps for kids? Watch today's Liberty Report: Read the rest of the story by clicking on the Title link, below... 'That's My Job' - The Murder Of Ashli Babbitt Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
0 Comments
Israel has gone further quicker than most governments in pushing people to take experimental coronavirus vaccines and imposing vaccine passports as a requirement for people to go about their daily activities. Last week, Israel Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz announced that holders of these vaccine passports, called green passes by the government, will be required to take yet another shot of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” — termed a booster shot — and, apparently, keep taking more booster shots and being exposed to additional side-effect risks each additional five to six months or their vaccine passports will be revoked. If this new requirement can be imposed on people in order for them to keep their vaccine passports operating, there is no limit to the requirements that can be piled on. Israel is making the first move in transitioning from vaccine passports to everything passports. To supposedly limit the spread of coronavirus, Israel or another government could next decide that a vaccine passport may be revoked if a person is caught not wearing a mask where required, not properly “social distancing,” gathering in a group larger than allowed, or posting on the internet or otherwise communicating ideas related to coronavirus that are deemed “misinformation.” More broadly, to “protect public health,” vaccine passport could start being revoked because a person does not take a flu shot or whatever new shots or pills come out next — say for AIDS or Alzheimer’s prevention, fails to attend a yearly “wellness visit” with his doctor, seeks alternative treatment instead of taking prescribed pharmaceuticals, or does not make sure his children receive every recommended vaccination on time under a government schedule. But, why must government stop at “protecting public health” as a justification for imposing new requirements for keeping vaccine passports operating, or why can’t government just announce that things that it claims protect from danger are deemed as “protecting public health?” Government can start revoking vaccine passports for people who are convicted of — or maybe just charged with — driving while intoxicated, behind on their tax or debt payments, or listed on the no-fly list. This is just some of the low-hanging fruit for expanding requirements people must meet to be able to keep their vaccine passports operating and thus keep themselves in the new preferred caste in the developing caste system. Plenty more requirements can be added. Further, each of a person’s actions or inactions looked at relative to vaccine passports will not need not be considered alone. Many actions and inactions could be weighed to calculate a score for each individual so that vaccine passports will be revoked if the score falls too low. Scores could also be used so a person’s vaccine passport would allow him entry some places but not others depending on score cutoffs. In this age of computer algorithms, each person can have ten distinct scores that adjust to control the scope of his allowed actions in various circumstances. And, looking forward to a fully developed digitally connected vaccine passport having the ability to help surveille people, the scored actions and inactions will be better monitored for providing information to feed the continually adjusting determinations about revoking vaccine passports or determining where a person may legally be or what he may legally do. Vaccine passports are a great threat to freedom in their current early iteration. If they are not eradicated early on, they threaten to become a much worse hazard over time as they transition from being vaccine passports to being everything passports. Transitioning from Vaccine Passports to Everything Passports Click on the headline to read the full story from
After 20 years and countless thousands of deaths on both sides, it is time for the most difficult questions to be asked about the US war on Afghanistan. Did they all die in vain? Also today, with this war over, the Washington war machine is cranking up more enemy narratives. And...Israel mandates new shot, Denmark ends all Covid restrictions, and a new study confirms superiority of natural immunity. Watch today's Liberty Report: Afghanistan War (Almost) Over...Did They Die In Vain? Click on the headline to read the full story from On August 10, former White House coronavirus task force senior advisor Andy Slavitt tweeted something snarky, as is his habit: “If people who go out and buy fake vaccine cards get COVID, do they expect someone to put them on a real ventilator?” One of his Twitter followers replied, “We need a way to track vaccination that isn’t on a little handwritten paper card. Something that’s very hard to falsify. You have ideas, contacts, resources I bet… Make it HAPPEN, Andy.” He responded, “Hold on for 3 ½ weeks and you will see.” That was two and a half weeks ago. Right now, the vaccine passport system is a patchwork, with multiple official and unofficial apps. New York State and New York City each have different apps, Excelsior Pass and NYC Covid Safe. Fraud is easy in some apps; others check your claim to be vaccinated against state health records. Many people avoid apps entirely and just take a photo of their vaccination card with their smartphone or carry around a hard copy. A standardized vaccine passport app would clear up these logistical snags. It would be the green light that prompts cities and private businesses currently considering vaccine mandates to start imposing them. The Biden administration has said repeatedly that there will not be a national vaccine mandate or a national vaccine database. Jen Psaki said in March that “development of a vaccine passport, or whatever you want to call it, will be driven by the private sector.” Even a private sector vaccine passport should be resisted by every possible means. It is the first step on a slippery slope to a social credit system, and the only time it can be stopped is at the very beginning. A vaccine passport system would mean, in practice, scanning a QR code any time you enter a place where proof of vaccination is required—restaurants, coffee shops, universities, concert venues, office buildings. Ideally there would also be some way of verifying that the person listed on the passport is the same person who is presenting the QR code. Right now, for example, New York City’s vaccine mandate for restaurants requires patrons present both a vaccine passport and matching ID. There are very few places where scanning a QR code every time you enter a building is standard protocol. One of them is Xinjiang. Another is Sydney, Australia. The state of New South Wales earlier this year mandated that QR codes be posted at the entrance of every workplace, retail store, restaurant, church, hotel, salon, hospital, pub, and movie theater, plus taxis and Ubers as well as large outdoor gatherings such as weddings and funerals. Everyone coming in must scan the QR code (or sign in manually if they don’t have a smartphone); scanning again to check out is encouraged but not required. Police and private security guards have been posted at grocery store entrances to make sure the mandate is enforced. Fines are up to $5,000 for businesses and $1,000 for patrons. Right now this system is used for contact tracing. Probably it will soon shift seamlessly into a vaccine passport. Premier Gladys Berejiklian last week teased the idea of adding vaccination status to the same official state app that manages QR code check-ins, making it an “all in one” app. This was part of her announcement that vaccinated Sydneysiders would soon be permitted “additional freedoms,” such as an extra hour of outdoor exercise. This system of rewards and penalties is reminiscent of the Chinese social credit system, which, according to second-hand reports I have heard, some Australian bureaucrats explicitly cite in private as a model for their country to follow. Fair use excerpt. Read the whole article here. Say No To Vaccine Passports Click on the headline to read the full story from We previously discussed how Twitter’s growing censorship program has targeted former New York Times journalist and author Alex Berenson who is an outspoken critic of the government’s science and response to the pandemic. Berenson was previously suspended for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Twitter also suspended a journalist for posting CDC information that was deemed as critical of its own official line on vaccines. Now he is permanently suspended after his criticism the vaccine and possible side effects. Twitter has again showed that it will silence those who dare to disagree or even question its approved narrative and that of government. On his Substack page, Berenson posted a brief messagetitled, “Goodbye Twitter.” He then posted the following as the tweet that was the final straw with Twitter. 'Don’t think of it as a vaccine,' he continued. 'Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.'That is an opinion that many share and one that can be debated. I do not agree with Berenson on the vaccine but I would like to hear his views and see the response to them. Like many, I do not want to simply reach corporate or government approved viewpoints. Rather than respond to Berenson with reasoned debate, people demand that he be removed from platforms to prevent others from making up their own minds. The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on left applaud such censorship. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.” As previously discussed, the poll reflects the move among Democratic politicians for years in calling for censorship. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appeared at a key hearing in which he followed up his apology for censoring the Hunter Biden story by pledging more censorship. One of the most chilling moments came from Delaware Senator Chris Coons who demonstrated the very essence of the “slippery slope” danger. Dorsey: Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively. We wanted to scope our approach to start to focus on the highest severity of harm. We focused on three areas, manipulated media, which you mentioned, civic integrity around the election, specifically in public health, specifically around COVID. We wanted to make sure that our resources that we have the greatest impact on where we believe the greatest severity of harm is going to be. Our policies are living documents. They will evolve. We will add to them, but we thought it important that we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.Instead of then raising concerns over censoring views and comments on the basis for such an amorphous category, Coons pressed for an expansion of the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism” There is, of course, a wide array of views that different people or different groups would declare “harmful.” Indeed, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question: 'Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?'“Robust content modification” has a certain Orwellian feel to it. It is not content modification. It is censorship. This call has now been picked up by academics and members of the media. Faculty and editors are actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship. The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. Once again, I resolved these questions in favor of taking the vaccine at the earliest possible date, as did my family. However, voices like Berenson’s are important to our having an informed and vigorous debate. Most importantly, Berenson has never tried to silence others. These advocates of private and government censorship are only undermining faith in vaccines with their aggressive pursuit of anyone expressing doubts or challenging policies. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. Twitter Permanently Bans Former NYT Journalist Alex Berenson Click on the headline to read the full story from Sunday’s news reports that the Biden Administration mistakenly killed nine members of one Afghan family, including six children, in “retaliation” for last week’s suicide attack which killed 13 US servicemembers, is a sad and sick epitaph on the 20 year Afghanistan war. Promising to “get tough” on ISIS, which suddenly re-emerged to take responsibility for the suicide attack, the most expensive military and intelligence apparatus on earth appears to have gotten it wrong. Again. Interventionists love to pretend they care about girls and women in Afghanistan, but it is in reality a desperate attempt to continue the 20-year US occupation. If we leave, they say, girls and women will be discriminated against by the Taliban. It’s hard to imagine a discrimination worse than being incinerated by a drone strike, but these “collateral damage” attacks over the past 20 years have killed scores of civilians. Just like on Sunday. That’s the worst part of this whole terrible war: day-after-day for twenty years civilians were killed because of the “noble” effort to re-make Afghanistan in the image of the United States. But the media and the warmongers who call the shots in government - and the “private” military-industrial sector - could not have cared less. Who recalls a single report on how many civilians were just “collateral damage” in the futile US war? Sadly these children killed on Sunday, two of them reportedly just two years old, have been the ones forced to pay the price for a failed and bloody US foreign policy. Yes, the whole exit from Afghanistan has been a debacle. Biden, but especially his military planners and incompetent advisors, deserves much of what has been piled onto him this past week or so about this incompetence. Maybe if Biden’s Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs’ Chairman had spent a bit more time planning the Afghan exit and a lot less time obsessing on how to turn the US military into a laboratory for cultural Marxism, we might have actually had a workable plan. We know that actual experts like Col. Douglas Macgregor did have a plan to get out that would have spared innocent lives. But because this decorated US Army veteran was “tainted” by his service in the previous administration – service that was solely focused on how to get out of Afghanistan safely – he would not be consulted by the Pentagon’s “woke” top military brass. Trump also should share some of the blame currently being showered on Biden. He wanted to get out years ago, but never had the courage to stand up to the also incompetent generals and “experts” he foolishly hired to advise him. Similarly, many conservatives (especially neoconservatives) are desperate to attack Biden not for how he got out of Afghanistan, but for the fact that he is getting us out of Afghanistan. That tells you all you need to know about how profitable war is to the warmongers. I’ve always said, “we just marched in, we can just march out,” and I stand by that view. Yes, you can “just march out” of these idiotic interventions…but you do need a map! Afghanistan: A Tragically Stupid War Comes to a Tragic End Click on the headline to read the full story from Over the past year and a half, hysterical media reporting on matters Covid-19 has reduced some people to a fearful state of unquestioning compliance – including a great number of otherwise critically-thinking journalists. With screaming headlines in bold and large font such as, ”Will this nightmare ever end?” and “Mutant virus skyrockets…” and ”Fear grows across the country: VIRUS PANIC,” and ”Coronavirus horror: Social media footage shows infected Wuhan residents 'act like zombies’," it is no wonder many people are in a state of panic. In times when many are suffering mentally and physically under unnecessary and prolonged lockdowns, the incessant fear porn is causing excessive anxiety, which in turn will affect the health & mental well-being of some, if not many. In government documents from the UK's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) dated from March 2020 advice was given saying: “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging… This could potentially be done by trained community support volunteers, by targeted media campaigns, social media.” I'd say the UK media campaigns weren’t so much “targeted” as “blanket” but they certainly did the job, and other Western nations got similar directives. The UK government also became the nation’s biggest advertiser in 2020, make what you will of the potential ramifications that could have on cash-strapped newspapers and their supposed “independence.” Having myself been deeply focused on exposing war propaganda and other media lies around Syria, Palestine, Venezuela, and elsewhere over the years, my default position has become one of deep cynicism on mass media reporting. Yes, you can find nuggets of truth, or even excellent journalists in mainstream publications, honestly challenging the narratives. But those are few and far between, generally you find copy-paste propaganda emanating largely from the bowels of the USA and the UK. A study by Swiss Propaganda Research (SPR) noted, “most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.” Those agencies are AP, Reuters, and AFP. SPR notes: The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.Given all of this, I've come to believe that with regard to media reporting on Covid-19, my cynicism is well-deserved. Covid-19 reporting has increasingly been utterly absurd, with stories of people dropping dead in the streets, ice rink morgues to cope with the mountains of bodies, footage of an overcrowded New York hospital (that just happened to be of an Italian hospital), claims of animals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, and more recently reports of people dying post-jab but we are told ”it could have been worse!” This campaign of fear caused the public to massively overestimate the lethality of Covid-19, which as un-alarmist voices note has a survival rate of over 99 percent. When months into the outbreak it became apparent that SARS-CoV-2 was far less lethal than first predicted, the media and talking heads moved from talking about “Covid deaths” to “positive cases.” Although relatively early on a goat and pawpaw tested positive for Covid-19, instead of then scrutinizing the accuracy of the PCR test as a means of “detecting Covid-19,” the media continued to hype the rise in Covid “cases.” In lockstep, “Covid testing” was increased dramatically using the PCR test (recently revoked by the CDC). This inevitably pumped up the number of “cases,” which mass media have in turn promoted non-stop, this in turn gave ammunition to those enforcing lockdowns and vaccines. By now hundreds of vocal doctors, nurses, virologists, immunologists, and other professionals actually worth listening to, whose data and experience counter the hype pumped out in media have very quickly disappeared from social media, or otherwise deemed quacks, and are thus largely silenced. This leaves the general public mainly getting their information via hyped-up media. Alongside this, there have been relentless ad hominem attacks on journalists who pose legitimate questions and uncomfortable truths about the official narratives around Covid-19. For offering perspectives which contradict the standard narratives around Covid-19, journalists have been deemed conspiracy theorists, pandemic-deniers, right-wingers, selfish… I'm sure I've missed quite a few slurs. When it comes to matters Covid-19, it is suddenly unacceptable to question “The Science,” question the authorities, or question the same media that sold us WMDs in Iraq and chemical attacks in Syria. Media are the drivers of Covid hysteria, and it is the daily bombardment of fear porn that confuses average people and enables tyrannical powers to be brought in, largely unchallenged. As it is the responsibility of journalists to expose lies around wars of aggression, it is also the duty of journalists to do so around Covid-19. For some journalists who have stubbornly refused to hold power to account, instead toeing the line on all things Covid, it appears their fear is of losing an audience and not of a virus. Whether or not you agree with dissenting voices’ questions and criticisms, we have the right to ask and make them. We do so, knowing that remaining silent in the face of the brutal Covid measures is a guaranteed path to tyranny. Reprinted with permission from RT. The Media's Addiction to Covid-19 ‘Fear Porn’ is Perpetuating an Ever-Worsening Cycle of Societal Damage Across the World Click on the headline to read the full story from Advocates of empire and interventionism are saying that even given the debacle in Afghanistan, America should not “retreat” from the world. Even though our nation has lost “credibility” in the world, they say, it is imperative that the United States continue to project power and influence around the world. To do otherwise, they say, would create a “vacuum” into which would flow Russia, China, Iran, the terrorists, or some other adversary, opponent, or enemy. Some of them are even bringing up the dreaded I word — isolationism! One big problem here is that advocates of empire and interventionism often conflate the US government and the United States. Actually, the federal government and the country are two separate and distinct entities. This fact is borne out by the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the country from the federal government. If the federal government and the country were one and the same thing, the Bill of Rights would be nonsensical. Why is it important to keep this distinction in mind? Because it holds a key to the liberty and well-being of our nation going forward in the wake of the Afghanistan debacle. Two of the founding principles on which our nation was founded were non-interventionism and a limited-government republic. As John Quincy Adams pointed out in his Fourth of July Address to Congress in 1821, the US government does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. At the same time, the American people favored a very weak federal government — that is, one that lacked the military and financial capability of going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Those two concepts are what Americans should be aiming for going forward in the wake of the Afghanistan debacle — a foreign policy of non-interventionism and the restoration of a limited-government republic, one in which the federal government has very weak powers and capabilities. Wouldn’t this mean that America would be “isolated” from the rest of the world? On the contrary. Remember: the federal government and America are two separate and distinct entities. Going forward, the American people — i.e., the country — should be liberated to interact freely with the people of the world. No more sanctions. No more embargoes. No more travel restrictions. No more trade restrictions. No more monetary restrictions. No more state-sponsored assassinations, kidnappings, and torture. No more restrictions of freedom of association with foreigners. In other words, the federal government sector would be prohibited from intervening in the world with invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, coups, sanctions, embargoes, foreign aid, alliances with foreign regimes, and foreign military bases. On the other hand, the private sector — the country — America — the American people — would be unleashed to travel, trade, spend money, engage in cultural exchanges, and associate with others. In this way, the nation would become stronger, freer, and more prosperous while the governmental sector would become weaker — i.e., limited to protecting the United States from a foreign invasion, much like Switzerland’s government is. Foreigners love Americans, especially our money. They just hate the US government, with justification. Restoring liberty, prosperity, and harmony to our land necessarily entails recognizing that the federal government and our nation are two separate and distinct entities, the first of which needs to be weakened and restrained while the second of which needs to be unleashed and freed. Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation. The US Government vs. the United States Click on the headline to read the full story from The question I get more than any other: "I had Covid. I had an antibody test to prove it. Am I protected (and do I need to get the vaccine)?" Let me start with the usual disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. I AM NOT A PHYSICIAN. But the answer is now increasingly clear: natural immunity from Covid following infection and recovery is HIGHLY protective against future Covid infections. Rates of reinfection are very low. Perhaps natural immunity eventually wanes, but we don’t know when. In fact, a little-noticed paper from June suggests it may actually strengthen for at least a year - and provide plenty of protection from Delta and other variants. I am not going into the problems with vaccine-generated protection today or with our political unwillingness to recognize natural immunity. (Remember, GOOD NEWS - we could all use it). Let’s just look instead at why natural immunity works so well. You immune response comes in two forms: “humoral” and “cellular.” When you are infected with Sars-Cov-2, your body’s “B-cells” - part of the immune system - quickly pour out “antibodies.” These antibodies attack the viral particles circulating in your blood and other fluids, hoping to keep the virus from entering your cells and replicating itself. This is humoral immunity. Your B-cells make antibodies in many different shapes. Some are better at sticking to the virus. Scientists call these “neutralizing” antibodies because they neutralize the “antigen,” the foreign body attacking you, keeping it from entering your cells. Amazingly, your B-cells quickly figure out which antibodies neutralize most effectively and make more of them, while cutting back on those that don’t work. At the same time, another part of the immune system - killer or CD8 T-cells - attacks cells that the virus has already infected. You destroy your own cells to prevent the virus from using them to make more copies of itself. This is cellular immunity. For a few days after you are infected, your immune system is in a race with the virus. If you win the race, defeat the virus, and recover - as the vast majority of people infected with Sars-Cov-2 do - within a week or two you should have no measurable levels of virus in your body. Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here. Natural Immunity for the Win Click on the headline to read the full story from President Joe Biden is being praised in some circles because he finally ended the war in Afghanistan that in all likelihood should never have begun. President George W. Bush initiated the conflict on a series of lies about 9/11 and the Taliban role in that attack and what followed. After bringing about regime change, he decided to remake the country into a western style democracy. President Barack Obama subsequently allowed a “surge” which actually increased the militarization of the conflict and made things worse. The joint effort produced no free elections but delivered instead tens of thousands of deaths and a huge hole in the US Treasury. Bush and Obama were followed by President Donald Trump who actually promised to end the war but lacked the conviction and political support to do so, handing the problem over to Biden, who has bungled the end game but finally done the right thing by ending the fiasco. Biden also has been right to accede to a withdrawal of the last US combat troops from Iraq by year’s end, a move that will considerably ease tension with the Baghdad government, which has been calling for such a move since last January. But America’s war on those parts of the world that resist following its self-defined leadership is not about to go away. An interesting recent article in the foreign policy establishment The Hill written by a former senior CIA operations and staff officer Douglas London sees an Orwellian unending war against major adversaries Russia and China. Derived from his own experience, he concludes that sustained and enhanced clandestine actions should now replace conventional military forces confrontation, which has been somewhat outdated as an option due to the development of relatively cheap missile technologies that have undermined classic conventional weapons. Some of the clandestine activity he appears to recommend would undoubtedly fall under cover of classic espionage “plausible denial,” i.e. that the White House could disavow any knowledge of what had occurred, but sabotage and cyber-attacks, particularly if implemented aggressively, would quickly be recognized for what they are and would invite commensurate or even disproportionate retaliation. This would amount to an all-out semi-covert war against powerful adversaries which could easily escalate into a shooting war. The London article is an interesting insight into the thinking of those in both the Democratic and Republican parties who continue to argue that the United States is threatened by largely asymmetrical warfare being conducted by what are regarded as “autocratic” regimes in Moscow and Beijing as well as by non-governmental terrorist groups that is seeking to undermine confidence in US policymakers, the “democratic” government system and the stability of its other institutions. That the White House is listening to at least some of the complaints coming from the neoconservatives and neoliberals calling for more “democracy promotion” and “regime change” would appear to be the case as there have been renewed calls for greater engagement in various fora, to include NATO leadership now urging the alliance to stand up to Russian “aggression.” The US has meanwhile also called on “friends” in the Middle East to block any attemptsby China to establish “military bases” in that region, with the State Department arguing that “The current assessment is that China has a global strategy of pursuing military installations all over, including in the Middle East.” The United States, by one estimate, has nearly 1100 military bases worldwide while China has only one in Djibouti. Admittedly this time, the US will have to go about its usual school bully behavior without much in the way of allies. The Europeans will not show up as they are disgusted with American vacillation and inability to anticipate obvious developments, as was the case in Afghanistan. Israel and Saudi Arabia will likely line up, or pretend to, while also continuing their collaboration with radical groups that Washington would prefer to avoid. To be sure there are many in Washington who would be quite happy to continue the US naval build up in the South China Sea while also sending ships to the Black Sea to cruise defiantly off the Russian coast. And then there is also Iran and its ally Syria, both of which continue to be targets of opportunity for sabotage, covert action and the Israeli Air Force, which last week again attacked Syria after penetrating Lebanese air space. So there are always wars and rumors of wars available, which is precisely what the US military-industrial-congressional complex wants to sustain. And in so doing they know that they will have the mainstream media on board, which has the same objective. But still, it is important to have a plausible threatening enemy, and China is still somewhat over the horizon in that context. So, you turn to the one-size-fits-all option, which is “international terrorism,” preferably Islamic, to continue to empower the central government and fatten one’s friends in the national security industry. And it doesn’t hurt along the way to label some domestic opponents in the same fashion to guarantee one’s political supremacy for the foreseeable future. It’s a win-win. So, the Biden Administration is either inadvertently or by design setting up the next chapter in its “America goes to war” narrative even as it has not yet figured out how to extricate the soldiers it has sent to assist in the evacuation of Kabul and who are now potential hostages at the airport surrounded by heavily armed Taliban. But key figures in the Administration and elsewhere inside and outside the government are already looking beyond that, arguing that the new Afghan state will become a terrorist haven and those radicals will look to the United States for a target, as al-Qaeda reportedly did. Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University argues that “There’s no question that the return of the Taliban opens up space in this new Islamic emirate for al Qaeda to return, rebuild a base, and for other groups associated or previously associated with al Qaeda, like ISIS, to return to the region. Jihadi fighters of all stripes will now once again make Afghanistan their home, as they did in the lead-up to 9/11.” Indeed, some of those “experts” are seeing the twenty years spent in Afghanistan as a plus as it kept in check those extremists who might have been inclined to act in Europe and the US. That of course ignores the continued existence of many other unsettled parts of the world where terrorists of various kinds have been able to flourish successfully without feeling any need to bomb New York. Senators Lindsey Graham and Mark Warner have warned of a likely resurgence in terrorism, as have both General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Graham laments that “The likelihood of an attack coming from Afghanistan now is through the roof.” The Department of Homeland Security has also done its bit, warning that possible Afghanistan-derived attacks from Islamic extremists on or near the 20thanniversary of the 9/11 event “could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence.” Anyway, you look at it, terrorism with be the national security flavor du jour over the next year or more. The only real question is, “Will it be domestic or foreign?” Either way the seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be history but the search for new enemies will continue no matter who is president or which party dominates congress. Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation. Here Come the Terrorists. Again Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|