'George Who??' 'Woke' NYC Set To 'Cancel' George Washington Statues!
Click on the headline to read the full story from
Santayana is credited with saying "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." New York City is considering sending a good chunk of US history down the "memory hole" by destroying statues of George Washington. Also today: Sen. Rand Paul says "no way" to more Ukraine aid; vows to block any fast-track. Meanwhile Ukraine is holding a US citizen Gonzao Lira in prison for having a different opinion about the war and Ukraine's spokesperson threatens to "hunt down" others like Lira. Today on the Liberty Report: 'George Who??' 'Woke' NYC Set To 'Cancel' George Washington Statues! Click on the headline to read the full story from
0 Comments
“War is good for business.” So reads a quote from an arms industry executive in a recent Reuters article titled “At London arms fair, global war fears are good for business” about Europe’s biggest arms show, the biennial Defence and Security Equipment International. You will probably be unsurprised to learn that Reuters does not name the war profiteer whose quote inspired their headline. The article describes the way the war in Ukraine and brinkmanship in Taiwan is leading to surging profits for the military industrial complex, with the UK doubling its arms exports in 2022 and worldwide military spending expected to continue to rise by four percent each year for the next five years. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, European military spending rose 13 percent in 2022 alone, bringing total global spending to an all-time high of $2.24 trillion. “We are extremely busy,” an exaltant head of sales at an armored steel company tells Reuters. War is good for business, and it’s expected to get even better. The world’s largest military contractor Lockheed Martin saw its stock rise by a whopping 37 percent last year — helped along by taxpayer-sponsored stock buybacks — and in a report titled “Lockheed Martin: Huge Growth Ahead”, an investment analyst for AlmaStreet Capital predicted last month that Lockheed’s massive profits will only continue to climb. Calling the escalated geopolitical tensions in the current political atmosphere “the most favorable condition that Lockheed Martin could possibly operate under,” the article’s author writes the following: “Governments worldwide are increasing their budget for defense and security under this heightened geopolitical tensions worldwide. The US government is not an exception. As the largest contractor to the US government, Lockheed Martin is bound to be the biggest beneficiary of the increased defense budget. Given that the company already reached approximately 8% of YoY net sales growth in 2Q23, I believe escalating geopolitical tensions along with easing macroeconomic conditions would allow Lockheed Martin to soon achieve double-digit growth in net sales by the end of the year.”So it’s no wonder that Lockheed CEO James Taiclet called the most recent hike in the US military budget “as good an outcome as our industry or our company could ask for.” There are vast fortunes riding on governments equipping themselves to kill large numbers of human beings. There’s a popular quote, “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society,” commonly attributed to Jiddu Krishnamurti but most likely coined by Kurt Vonnegut’s son Mark. Whenever I read reports like this about corporations raking in billions from death, suffering, and extremely dangerous acts of brinkmanship between military powers, I always find that phrase “a profoundly sick society” rattling around in my head. It’s hard to imagine a society sicker than one in which corporations are not only allowed to profit from war and militarism, but to actually push for more of it using campaign donations, lobbying, and the funding of influential warmongering think tanks. It’s no less evil than if corporations were allowed to slaughter foreigners like livestock and sell their body parts for profit at industrial scale; the only thing that’s different is the payment plan. And yet the people who do this are celebrated as respected job creators instead of thrown into cages like the monsters they are. This is not the sort of civilization we should strive to be well-adjusted to. It is no sign of health to be well-adjusted to a society in which someone can become a billionaire selling weapons of mass murder after lobbying the government to perpetrate those murders. It is no sign of health to be well-adjusted to a society in which the military industrial complex launders information through the media to promote its deadly products and agendas. It is no sign of health to be well-adjusted to a society in which war profiteering corporations can reap massive quarterly profits in a proxy war that was provoked by the west while pouring fortunes into think tanks which helped manufacture consent for those provocations and which spin the west’s actions in a positive light for the media. If this society could give rise to something so depraved as the military industrial complex, then it is not the sort of society we should seek to blend in with. This is the sort of society we should want to stick out like a sore thumb in. The sort of society in which we should be swimming against the current when everyone else is swimming with it. The sort of society in which we say a resounding NO to things that everyone else is saying yes to. This society has failed as spectacularly as anything can possibly fail. We live in a mind-controlled dystopia where war profiteers get to steer public policy, where the entire biosphere is being fed into the wood chipper of global capitalism while we rapidly accelerate toward nuclear armageddon. This is the most insane civilization anyone could possibly design. We should seek dissent and divergence from it to the fullest extent possible. Reprinted with permission from Caitlin's Newsletter. Support the author here. War Profiteers Are A Sign Of A Profoundly Sick Society Click on the headline to read the full story from Each morning I do a quick scan of the headlines coming over the wire services, clear my emails and Facebook entries, and then take a closer look at The New York Times online, paying particular attention to the opinion pages. I usually am not disappointed in my belief that the President Joe Biden Administration as well as ex-President Donald Trump, have been and continue to be collectively destroying what was once an admirable nation, something like flushing us repeatedly down the toilets of their ambition and greed. In that light, last Friday was particularly bad and I had what I have come to call a Gadarene Swine moment. For those unfamiliar with the New Testament tale, which comes from the Gospel of Mark , it tells how Jesus encountered a madman during his Galilean ministry who was infested with demons. The man sought help to be cured of his infestation and Jesus obliged him, commanding “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”, before confronting the unleashed demon and asking “’What is your name?’ He answered, ‘My name is Legion. For we are many.’ And he begged Him repeatedly not to send them away out of the country. Now there was a great herd of swine feeding near the mountains. All the demons pleaded with Him, asking, ‘Send us to the swine, so that we may enter them.’ At once, Jesus gave them leave. Then the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine. And the herd, numbering about two thousand, ran wildly down a steep hill into the sea and were drowned in the sea.” My first thought was inevitably deep sympathy over what was done to the poor pigs, but that was quickly replaced by bottomless depression induced by the articles that I had just read in the Times that morning. Yes, we Americans have become the Gadarene Swine and are plummeting to our deaths as a people, driven by demons released by the folks that we have unfortunately come to accept as “our leaders.” The three pieces in question were two “opinions,” one by the inevitable Tom Friedman entitled “A Trip to Ukraine Clarified the Stakes. And They’re Huge” and the other a featured piece written by the newspaper editorial board entitled “How to Support Ukraine Beyond the Next Election.” The third article was a news report entitled “As President, Biden Sees Broader War Powers Than He Did as Senator: The president says he can direct limited military operations without lawmakers’ approval.” The three pieces together suggest that the United States has become dominated by the airing of specious and often not very credible threats as an excuse to go onto a war footing forever, or at least until the country collapses due to its misplaced priorities. I will not, however, try to recreate in any detail the nonsense spewed by the country’s “paper of record,” if only to reject the basic arguments being made for “going the course” in wars that have no reasonable raison d’etre for having been started at all. None of the pieces even seek to answer the most basic question, which is also avoided by our warmongering governing class, and that is “What was or is the US national interest in getting involved in these wars in the first place?” And surely the most frightening of the three articles is the one that airs the claim made by a muddle-headed Chief Executive Joe Biden that he can start a new war any time he wants, a bold challenge to the US Constitution’s essentially anti-war balance of government powers and also the existing War Powers Act. The article includes material like “If he is elected to a second term, President Biden pledged that he will go to Congress to start any major war but said he believed he was empowered ‘to direct limited US military operations abroad’ without such approval when such strikes served critical American interests… In 2019, Mr. Biden had already shifted to embracing the view, adopted by the executive branch under administrations of both parties, that presidents have broader constitutional authority to carry out limited attacks on other countries without congressional authorization, so long as it falls short of full-scale war. As president, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden used force unilaterally, citing their claimed constitutional authority to use military force without congressional permission. In April 2017 and again in April 2018 , Mr. Trump directed airstrikes against Syrian government forces, and Mr. Biden in June 2021 and in August 2022 directed airstrikes on Iranian-backed militia groups in Syria.” Should I ask how Biden will determine a “critical American interest?” Or exactly how either Syria or Iran has been “imminently threatening” the United States, which is in fact itself illegally occupying Syrian territory? And what about the current proxy war against Russia in Ukraine? Was Ukraine a threat to the US justifying bringing America to the brink of a nuclear war? Friedman is just back from a three-day trip to Ukraine and opines “What Putin is doing in Ukraine is not just reckless, not just a war of choice, not just an invasion in a class of its own for overreach, mendacity, immorality and incompetence, all wrapped in a farrago of lies. What he is doing is evil… This is as obvious a case of right versus wrong, good versus evil, as you find in international relations since World War II.” Perhaps Tom might make an attempt to look more deeply into the seeds of the Ukraine war and might even consider Googling “Minsk accords,” “Boris Johnson visit to Kiev,” and “NATO Expansion,” but he certainly exhibits the type of judgmentalism that he has displayed for so many years at the Times while covering the Middle East, where he has finally been able to recognize “apartheid” after a journey of nearly fifty years during which time numerous crimes against humanity committed by his Israeli friends have been staring him in the face. The Times editorial group piece also is unwavering in separating good from evil: “ While this board has questioned some specific decisions by Mr. Biden, such as supplying the Ukrainian Army with cluster munitions, we agree with him that it would be ‘wrong and contrary to well-settled principles’ to pressure another country to negotiate over its sovereign territory. Ukraine deserves full support against Russia’s unprovoked invasion, and it is in America’s national interest to lead its NATO allies in demonstrating that they will not tolerate Mr. Putin’s revanchist ambitions. It is a demonstration of America’s commitment to democracy and leadership that other would-be aggressors are watching.” It is the well-worn “we have to be firm” assertion to set the example and warn other potential aggressors of consequences. But at the same time, to describe Russia’s attack as “unprovoked” is complete nonsense. And the real irony, not to mention hypocrisy, is the “negotiate over…sovereign territory” line when the US is occupying Syrian national territory and looking the other way and smiling as Israel steals the West Bank and Golan Heights. Some who have been closely following the developing situation in Syria are now reporting that it appears that the US is preparing to mount a new series of attacks to remove the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad. Three Republican congressmen recently traveled to occupied Syria to meet with groups that the United States government itself has labeled as terrorists. That is referred to as materially supporting terrorism which is a crime and one must ask the dwarflike Attorney General Merrick Garland where was the FBI to interrogate and possibly charge and indict the three when they returned? A major war in Syria would inevitably involve Lebanon and Iran. It would be a disaster for the entire region particularly when Israel takes advantage of the situation and Washington steps in to “have Israel’s back” even if the Jewish state starts the fighting. But the US rarely cares about how heavily its boot comes down on the local population or bothers to count the cost either in dollars or lives. And, of course, the real danger is that if you buy into this type of nonsense, as both of the major political parties have, there is more to come to us long suffering Gadarene Swine, who will continue to endure an endless series of interventions based on nothing beyond the principal that one can get away with nearly anything when backed by a trillion dollar “defense” budget. And, oh by the way, Ukrainian “leader” Volodymyr Zelensky will be in Washington this week to meet with Biden and all his friends in Congress even as they “debate” giving him another $24 billion. He will want to make sure that the message is delivered to his hosts that he is the man who is in charge. Let’s see how the New York Times covers it! Reprinted with permission from Unz Review. Americans Are Being Led By a Lying Media and Corrupt Political Class Click on the headline to read the full story from
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is seeing another open revolt from his conservative and populist flank among House Republicans, with firebrands Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) stomping their feet at the "compromise" 30 day stop-gap. Ron Paul has a solution to the dust-up, so watch the show! Also today: ammo is getting very expensive and NATO promises to Ukraine may suffer. Finally...Ron Paul discusses his new book, The Great Surreptitious Coup and tells you how you can get your own copy! Watch today's Liberty Report: Guerilla Warfare In The GOP: House Erupts Over Budget Bust-Up Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
After shipping some $45 billion in military equipment to Ukraine, the Biden Administration is bringing Ukrainian President Zelensky back to Washington to beg for more money. But with the war going badly for Ukraine and strong US opposition to spending more on the effort, it looks to be an uphill battle. Also today: who was the armed guy impersonating a cop at the RFK rally...and why can't RFK get Secret Service Protection? Finally...Homeland Security has a new target: you! Watch today's Liberty Report: Hold On To Your Wallets! Zelensky's Back In Town! Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute A 12-year-old Colorado boy became a victim of “woke” education when he was taken out of class and told he could not return unless he removed a Gadsden flag, or “Don’t Tread on Me,” patch from his backpack. The school backed down after a video went viral in which a school official told the boy and his mother that the problem with the patch is that the Gadsden flag’s origin is related to slavery and the slave trade. The school was criticized by individuals from across the political spectrum for seeming ignorance of the role the Gadsden flag played in the American Revolution. Among the critics was Colorado Governor Jared Polis, one of the few remaining Democrats willing to defend free speech from the woke mob. This incident reminded me of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security “fusion center” report warning that individuals with Gadsden flag bumper stickers, or bumper stickers supporting my presidential campaign or the Libertarian or Constitution parties, were potentially dangerous extremists. After I and many other Americans objected, the offending report was withdrawn. But, the fact that it was issued in the first place, just like the fact the Colorado student was ever removed from class for his Gadsden flag patch, shows how the authoritarians view the “Don’t Tread on Me” symbol. The reason the woke authoritarians hate the Gadsden flag has nothing to do with racism or extremism. It is because the flag represents a rejection of authoritarianism and an embrace of liberty. Benjamin Franklin originally used the rattlesnake to symbolize the rebellious American colonies. He chose the snake because the rattlesnake “never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders.” In other words, rattlesnakes follow the nonaggression principle that forbids the use of offensive force against another’s person or property, but allows the use of force to defend against any violations of one’s rights — including those committed by government officials. In contrast, authoritarianism is rooted in the notion that politicians, bureaucrats, and their favored special interests have the right to tread on everyone. The smearing of the Gadsden flag as racist is just the latest example of how the woke left is using its power in American education and cultural institutions to discredit the symbols and ideals of limited government and free markets. The woke left views schools as a place to indoctrinate children into Cultural Marxism rather than a place where children can gain a good education. The rise of woke education is leading many parents to consider homeschooling. Parents looking to provide their children a quality home-based education that promotes real learning that does not push a political agenda, but does instruct in the history and philosophy of liberty, should look into my homeschooling curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own businesses. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize free-market economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools — alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty without sacrificing education for indoctrination — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program. Don’t Tread on Homeschoolers Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute Long-range cruise missiles supplied by UK and France, hit Russia’s Black Sea fleet at its home port of Sevastopol, Sept 13, 2023 The ground war in Ukraine has run its course, a new phase is beginning. Even diehard supporters of Ukraine in the western media and think tanks are admitting that a military victory over Russia is impossible and a vacation of the territory under Russian control is way beyond Kiev’s capability. Hence the ingenuity of the Biden Administration to explore Plan B counselling Kiev to be realistic about loss of territory and pragmatically seek dialogue with Moscow. This was the bitter message that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken transmitted to Kiev recently in person. But President Zelensky’s caustic reaction in a subsequent interview with the Economist magazine is revealing. He hit back that the western leaders still talk the good talk, pledging they will stand with Ukraine “as long as it takes” (Biden mantra), but he, Zelensky, has detected a change of mood among some of his partners: “I have this intuition, reading, hearing and seeing their eyes [when they say] ‘we’ll be always with you.’ But I see that he or she is not here, not with us.” Certainly, Zelensky is reading the body language right, as in the absence of an overwhelming military success shortly, western support for Ukraine is time-limited. Zelensky knows that sustaining the western support will be difficult. Yet he hopes that if not Americans, European Union will at least keep supplying aid, and but may open negotiations over the accession process for Ukraine possibly even at its summit in December. But he also held out a veiled threat of terrorist threat to Europe — warning that it would not be a “good story” for Europe if it were to “drive these people [of Ukraine] into a corner”. So far such ominous threats were muted, originating from low ranking activists of the fascist Bandera fringe. But Europe has its limits, too. The western stockpiles of weapons are exhausted and Ukraine is a bottomless pit. Importantly, conviction is lacking whether continued supplies would make any difference to the proxy war that is unwinnable. Besides, European economies are in doldrum,’ the recession in Germany may slide into depression, with profound consequences of “deindustrialisation.” Suffice to say, Zelensky’s visit to the White House in the coming days becomes a defining moment. The Biden Administration is in a sombre mood that the proxy war is hindering a full-throttle Indo-Pacific strategy against China. Yet, during an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Blinken explicitly stated for the first time that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow has previously called a “red line,” which would make Washington a direct party to the conflict. The well-known American military historian, strategic thinker and combat veteran Colonel (Retd.) Douglas MacGregor (who served as advisor to the Pentagon during the Trump administration), is prescient when he says that a new “Biden’s phase of the war” is about to begin. That is to say, having run out of ground forces, the locus will now shift to long-range strike weapons like the Storm Shadow, Taurus, ATACMS long-range missiles, etc. The US is considering sending ATACMS long-range missiles that Ukraine has been asking for a long time with the capability to strike deep inside Russian territory. The most provocative part is that NATO reconnaissance platforms, both manned and unmanned, will be used in such operations, making the US a virtual co-belligerent. Russia has been exercising restraint in attacking the source of such enemy capabilities but how long such restraint will continue is anybody’s guess. In response to a pointed query about how Washington would see the attacks on Russian territory with American weaponry and technology, Blinken argued that the increasing number of attacks on Russian territory by Ukrainian drones are “about how they’re [Ukrainians] going to defend their territory and how they’re working to take back what’s been seized from them. Our [US] role, the role of dozens of other countries around the world that are supporting them, is to help them do that.” Russia is not going to accept such a brazen escalation, especially as these advanced weapon systems used to attack Russia are actually manned by NATO personnel — contractors, trained ex-military hands or even serving officers. President Putin told the media on Friday that “we have detected foreign mercenaries and instructors both on the battlefield and in the units where training is carried out. I think yesterday or the day before yesterday someone was captured again.” The US calculus is that at some point, Russia will be compelled to negotiate and a frozen conflict will ensue where the NATO allies would retain the option to continue with Ukraine’s military build-up and the process leading to its membership of the Atlantic alliance, and allow the Biden Administration to focus on the Indo-Pacific. However, Russia will not settle for a “frozen conflict” that falls far short of the objectives of demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine that are the key objectives of its special military operation. Faced with this new phase of the proxy war, what form the Russian retaliation will take remains to be seen. There could be multiple ways without Russia directly attacking NATO territories or using nuclear weapons (unless the US stages a nuclear attack — of which the chances are zero as of now.) Already, it is possible to see the potential resumption of military-technical cooperation between Russia and the DPRK (potentially including ICBM technology) as a natural consequence of the aggressive US policy towards Russia and its support for Ukraine — as much as of the current international situation. The point is, today it is with DPRK; tomorrow it could be with Iran, Cuba or Venezuela — what Col. MacGregor calls “horizontal escalation” by Moscow. The situation in Ukraine has become interconnected with the problems of the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu said on state television on Wednesday that Russia has “no other options” but to achieve a victory in its special military operation and will continue to make progress with their key mission of mowing down the enemy’s equipment and personnel. This suggests that the attritional war will be further intensified while the overall strategy may shift to achieving total military victory. The Ukrainian military is desperate for manpower. In the 15-week “counteroffensive” alone, over 71,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. There is talk of Kiev seeking repatriation of its nationals in military age from among the refugees in Europe. On the other hand, in expectation of a prolonged conflict, the mobilisation in Russia is continuing. Putin disclosed on Friday that 300,000 people have volunteered and signed contracts to join the armed forces and new units are being formed, equipped with advanced types of weapons and equipment, “and some of them are already 85–90 percent equipped.” The high likelihood is that once the Ukrainian “counteroffensive” peters out in another few weeks as a massive failure, Russian forces may launch a large-scale offensive. Conceivably, Russian forces may even cross Dnieper river and take control of Odessa and the coastline leading to the Romanian border, from where NATO has been mounting attacks on Crimea. Make no mistake, for the Anglo-American axis, encircling Russia in the Black Sea has always remained a top priority. Watch the excellent interview (below) of Col. Douglas MacGregor by Professor Glenn Diesen at the University of North-Eastern in Norway: Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline. ‘Biden’s phase’ of Ukraine war is beginning Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute If you are under age 65, do not take the new coronavirus shot being rolled out this month. That is the recommendation of Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo in the “Guidance for COVID-19 Boosters” publication he released Wednesday. And, even for older individuals, Ladapo is not giving a blanket OK for the shots. The publication advises that people 65 years old and older should discuss the information in the publication “with their health care provider, including potential concerns outlined in this guidance.” This stand by Ladapo puts him at odds with top government health officials in other states who are recommending the latest experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shot for everyone from babies to the elderly. This will be coronavirus shot number eight for people who have taken the experimental shots on the recommended schedule as they became available from day one. This is not the first time Ladapo has stood apart from his counterparts in other states’ governments in regard to coronavirus shots. In October of 2022 he advised that a smaller subset of people — men ages 18 to 39 — should not take the mRNA coronavirus shots; earlier in 2022 the Florida Department of Health that he leads advised that healthy children ages 5 to 17 may not benefit from coronavirus shots and Florida alone among states refused to distribute coronavirus shots to children age four and younger. As with Ladapo’s new advice, the concern earlier was that the dangers of the shots outweigh the benefits, if any. Ladapo’s advice offered Wednesday is quite similar to the advice offered by America’s Frontline Doctors in December of 2020 — during the rollout of the original campaign pushing coronavirus shots. Many Americans would have saved themselves from regret, and more, if they had followed this advice from the beginning. Of course, by this point, most Americans are wise to the coronavirus fearmongering and pro-shots hype. Instead of rushing out to take the new shot, their reaction to being urged to take it will be along the lines of “you’ve got to be kidding,” “not a chance,” or just a simple “nope.” It would be nice if many top health officials of other state governments would join Ladapo in standing up to the coronavirus shots propaganda that threatens individuals’ health through the encouragement that they be injected repeatedly with dangerous and ineffective shots. If these officials have not warned by now about the shots like Ladapo has, then they should be judged as either too ignorant, too meek, too lazy, too fraudulent, or too corrupt to merit continuing in their positions. Florida Surgeon General: Most People Should Not Take the New Coronavirus Shot Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute What happened to Elon Musk this past week showcases how completely unhinged and dangerous US policy to Ukraine has become. The condemnation began when the Washington Post published excerpts from a new biography on Musk revealing that he turned down a Ukrainian request to help launch a major sneak attack in September 2022 on the Crimean port of Sevastopol. There were numerous, legitimate reasons why Musk refused to activate his Starlink internet services for Ukraine to carry out the unprecedented, surprise attack on Russian naval vessels: Musk was providing terminals to Ukraine for free; he was not on a military contract at that time; the late-night request came directly from the Ukrainian—not American—government; and Starlink had never been activated over Crimea because of US sanctions on Russia. Most importantly, Musk was concerned that enabling the attack could result in serious "conflict escalation." He worried that he was being asked to turn on Starlink for a "Pearl Harbor like attack" and had no wish to "proactively take part in a major act of war," possibly provoking a Russian nuclear response. In response to this nuclear aversion, Musk was called "evil" by a high-level Ukrainian official and "traitor" by American war enthusiasts. Rachel Maddow on the Russia conspiracy network MSNBC said Musk was "intervening to try to stop Ukraine from winning the war." Not to be outdone, CNN's Jake Tapper described Elon as a "capricious billionaire" who "sabotaged a military operation by Ukraine, a US ally," an act that demands "repercussions." For his part, chief Iraq war salesman-turned-Democrat-darling, David Frum, said that Musk must be stripped of his US government contracts for not reflexively acceding to the Ukrainian Starlink request, and former "progressive," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, called for an immediate Congressional investigation "to ensure foreign policy is conducted by the government and not by one billionaire." But the Musk pile-on was just getting started. In the days that followed, his detractors used a Ukrainian operation as proof that Musk was overreacting. Days after the Starlink story broke, Ukraine successfully launched British Storm Shadow cruise missiles into the Russian naval headquarters in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. It was the largest attack since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly 19 months ago, and it damaged a Russian submarine and warship. When the military action was not followed by World War III, Musk was torched again. As the pro-war media noted, "It was precisely such a strike, according to Musk, that should have provoked a nuclear war." A torrent of international relations pundits on Twitter mocked Musk, tweeting things like "I was assured by an internet service provider executive that this would have caused WWIII and the use of nuclear weapons" and "How's it going man, after the splendid attack on Sevastopol? WW3 started already?" Musk's detractors might think this is all very funny, but attacking Crimea—not to mention the Russian mainland in increasingly frequent drone strikes on Moscow—is no laughing matter. Even the staunchest Western war enthusiasts from the NATO-aligned Atlantic Council to the Estonian defense minister to Biden's own Secretary of State Antony Blinken all previously acknowledged that threatening Crimea is a possible "red line" that could lead to nuclear war. As the Russian military specialist Nicolo Fasola pointed out in April, "There's a definite risk that Putin would use nuclear weapons to counter a Ukrainian offensive in Crimea. And that's why Ukraine's Western allies are reluctant." Fair Use Excerpt. Read the whole article here. You're Not Supporting Ukraine Enough Until the Nuclear Blast Hits Your Face Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute Last week, the Governor of New Mexico confronted what she claimed was a health crisis, and her solution was to deny law-abiding folks the right to bear arms. The health crisis she identified was an uptick in the murder rate in the city of Albuquerque. And her solution was to turn off the personal liberty of all persons there. She purported to do this by issuing an executive decree that prescribed the penalties for doing what was perfectly lawful the day before the decree -- openly carrying a registered handgun. She did this notwithstanding the expressly guaranteed right in the U.S. Constitution to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's most recent interpretations of the constitutional guarantee, notwithstanding the natural right to self-defense and notwithstanding comparable guarantees in the New Mexico Constitution and laws. Stated differently, the Governor took the law into her own hands and defied and perverted it. Can this possibly be legal? In a word: No. Here is the backstory. In 1939, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in U.S. v. Miller, a case in which the defendant had been convicted of carrying a rifle across state lines that was too short, according to federal statutes. The statutes were based on the power of Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Even though Miller was not engaged in commercial activity, and even though no lawyer appeared or presented an argument for him in the Supreme Court, the court upheld his conviction. From and after that case, the feds and the states began aggressively regulating the possession, sale and movement of weapons. The big-government types in both political parties regularly either enacted laws or gave the power to bureaucrats to promulgate and enforce regulations that severely impaired the right to keep and bear arms. Their view was that their governments would keep them safe, so why does anyone need arms? This attitude prevailed until 2008, when a retired District of Columbia police officer applied for a permit to own and possess a handgun in his own home, and his application was denied. The Supreme Court reversed that denial, and an opinion called District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the right to keep and bear arms is personal and pre-political; meaning, it is possessed by individual persons and it does not derive from the government. It is the modern mechanical extension of the natural right to self-defense. Justice Scalia reasoned that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms; rather, it restrains the government from interfering with it. As if to defy the Supreme Court, liberal states, begrudgingly recognizing the right to own a gun, made it nearly impossible to carry or use a gun, since Heller only addressed ownership and use in one's home. Then, last year, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of carrying guns in public places. In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court overruled Miller and reaffirmed Heller, and ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment means today what it meant to those who wrote and ratified it in 1791. Thus, the original public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms -- which is the right to use guns to protect life, liberty and property from bad guys and tyrants -- is the governing principle of all gun laws today. Add to this the basic constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and one can easily see just how wrong and dangerous the behavior of the Governor of New Mexico is. Under the separation of powers, only the legislature can write laws, and only the executive can enforce them, and only the judiciary can say what they mean. Since governors are in the executive branch, they are not constitutionally competent to write laws; they can only enforce those that the legislature has already written. Thus, when the Supreme Court has defined the right to keep and bear arms as a personal, individual, natural right, no gubernatorial decree can interfere with it. What about emergencies? The Supreme Court has also ruled consistently that there are no emergency exceptions to the fundamental rights guaranteed from infringement in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the Governor of New Mexico has violated federal law by issuing her decree. Federal civil rights laws expressly prohibit all government officials from using government power to infringe upon individual fundamental liberties. But there is more here about which to be weary. Many of us who monitor the government's lack of fidelity to constitutional norms firmly believe that its so-called lockdowns and other mandates, issued under the guise of health regulations three years ago, were profoundly unconstitutional. All violated the separation of powers, as these unlawful commands were issued by governors and bureaucrats, not enacted by legislatures. And all infringed upon natural human rights, like worship, speech, assembly and travel, none of which can be impaired without proving fault or guilt at a jury trial. Surely, the Governor of New Mexico knows this. She has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of New Mexico. Her oaths are to the values underlying government, not just to the pieces of paper on which those values are articulated. The values that she violated -- perhaps as a dry run for future gubernatorial aberrations -- recognize that our rights are natural to our humanity. As such they cannot be interfered with by a decree or even by a popular majority. Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill, because modern-day self-defense is a natural right, if all America but one were of the view that self-defense by guns is unlawful, the government would no more be justified in seizing the guns of the one than would he, if he had the power, be justified in seizing the guns of the government. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://judgenap.com/. COPYRIGHT 2023 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO Can the Government Cut Off Personal Liberty? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute |
Ron Paul
|