"A Global Force for Good"?

The U.S. Navy unveils its new slogan -- and no longer tries to conceal its true mission:

Anyone still want to argue that the U.S. is not imperialistic?

Bombs and Bribes

Ron Paul nails it once again:

What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on U.S. soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the U.S., had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?

Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan.

Memo Reveals U.S. Plan to Provoke an Invasion of Iraq

The Observer has the story:

The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware U.N. inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the U.S. had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in U.N. colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of U.N. resolutions.

Pakistan Plan

Oh, yeah. This headline is comforting:

"U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban."

Brought to you by the same people who had a plan for Afghanistan and Iraq -- only this time there are real weapons of mass destruction involved.

How to Deal with the Pirate Problem

Forget military force and nation-building. Bring back marque and reprisal.

To Each His Own

President Bush holding hands with Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2005.


President Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2009.

Opening Relations with Cuba?

The Obama administration may move to ease trade and travel restrictions with Cuba. But don't be looking for any big changes yet. As one diplomat put it, "It just takes us back to the 1990s."

Bush-Style Scare-Mongering

From CNN:

Iran likely has enough material to make a nuclear weapon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told CNN's John King Sunday.

“We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen said on State of The Union with John King. "Iran having a nuclear weapon, I believe, for a long time, is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

I suppose we can look forward to another "mushroom cloud" speech in the near future.

Ron Paul on Bill Maher's Show

War with Pakistan and Mexico?

The U.S. military has its eye on Pakistan and Mexico as countries considered to be on the brink of collapse. The Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2008 Report (PDF) states:

Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its nuclear weapons. That "perfect storm" of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used.

The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.

How is this any different from the U.S. government's justification for war with Iraq?

Israel's Hold on Congress

It isn't just Republicans who are catering to this powerful special interest group:

4,000 Americans "Had to Die"

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy believes that it was necessary to send 4,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq: "My position is it is regrettable that any Americans died. It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die."



(HT: Chris Knight)

Obama Already Showing His Pro-War Colors

Barack Obama has picked Rahm Emanuel, an influential pro-Israel, pro-war congressman, as his new chief of staff:

Think Obama is going to change directions in the Middle East? Think again.

Ron Paul on the Global Financial Crisis

Ron Paul on Foreign Aid to Georgia

Ron Paul is hated because he is the only representative in Washington willing to stand up to the corrupt establishment:

How dare he question the bureaucratic elitists!

Yet Another Abuse of Executive Power

It seems the Bush administration is close to an agreement with the Iraqi government concerning the U.S. occupation:

A final draft of a military pact governing U.S. forces in Iraq will be presented to the war-torn country's highest authorities on Friday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said on Thursday.

"We are very close, we have a text, but not the final agreement. Everything has been addressed," Zebari told reporters after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Baghdad.

The draft will now be considered by the Political Council for National Security on Friday a strategic body which includes the president, the prime minister and the chiefs of all political parties.

Isn't it interesting that no one is drawing attention to the fact that under the Constitution the president's treaty-making powers are only granted "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article II, Sec. 2), and ratification requires that "two thirds of the Senators present concur." But since when has this (or any other) administration worried about constitutional limitations on executive power?

A Brand New World

After what we've done to Iraq and numerous other nations over the years, what right do we have to condemn Russia for its actions against neighboring Georgia? As Dave Black notes, things have changed since Jefferson's time:

The hypocrisy is appalling, at least to me. That we have become a global hyperpower with imperial ambitions should cause Americans to weep. ...

... Welcome, friends, to a unipolar world in which America allows no peer competitor. A world in which the right of aggression is reserved only to the United States and perhaps a handful of its chosen clients. A world in which lies become truth if repeated often enough. A world in which virtuous declarations of intent suffice to lull a passive citizenry to sleep. A world in which countries with atrocious human rights records are coddled because they support our "war on terror." A world of moral hypocrisy and political double standards.

The Heart of the Conflict in Georgia

F. William Engdahl's perspective on the Caucasus conflict is one you won't get from the mainstream press:

Russia threatens Georgia, but Georgia threatens Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia looks like a crocodile to Georgia, but Georgia looks to Russia like the cat's paw of the West. Since Saakashvili took power in late 2003, the Pentagon has been in Georgia giving military aid and training. Not only are U.S. military personnel active in Georgia today, according to an Israeli-intelligence source, Debkafile, in 2007 Saakashvili "commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics."

It was reported further, "They also have been giving instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel. These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army's preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday."

Debkafile also reported, "Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered to Tbilisi was 'defensive.'"

The Israeli news source added that Israel's interest in Georgia had to do as well with Caspian oil pipeline geopolitics. "Jerusalem has a strong interest in having Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel, Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel's oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean."

This means that the attack on South Ossetia is the first battle in a new proxy warfare between Anglo-American-Israeli led interests and Russia. The only question is whether Washington miscalculated the swiftness and intensity of the Russian response to the Georgian attacks of August 8.

Read the entire article here.

Getting Out of Iraq

Every condition upon which the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq depended has been met. And yet our troops remain.

Ron Paul writes:

The overwhelming will of the people, in both countries, can't seem to get them out. Things going well can't get them out. Things going badly can't get them out. Iraqis telling us to leave can't get them out. Perhaps not even the UN can get them out. My hope is that it does not take the complete collapse of our financial system, but if we don't leave under any other circumstances, economic chaos is inevitable, and will make it impossible to fund the war, even through debt and inflation.

Our New Declaration of Independence

(Originally drafted on July 3, 2002)

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to make that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduces them to despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patience of these fifty states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all working toward the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to abide by the strict guidelines of the United States Constitution, and has instead decided that it alone will decide what is necessary for the public good.

It has forbidden state legislatures to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, and has allowed the federal judiciary to strike down countless state laws as unconstitutional, in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

It has refused all states the proper control of land within their respective borders and has instead used its power to confiscate even more property.

It has enacted legislation, on issues ranging from alcohol consumption to the ownership of firearms, for the sole purpose of forcing states and individual citizens into compliance with its wishes.

It has unlawfully persecuted, under various administrations, citizens and organizations for opposing its invasions on the rights of the people.

It has continued to pass laws affecting campaign financing and election procedures that have only served to exclude ordinary citizens from the political process.

It has endeavored to prevent states from taking steps to curb illegal immigration and has refused to protect the sovereign borders of this nation.

It has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to equally apply the laws it passes to members of the federal government.

It has allowed judges to become dependent upon their own political ideology without any regard for the Constitution.

It has established a multitude of new bureaucracies, and has sent out swarms of officers to harass the people.

It has maintained, in times of peace, standing armies both here on our shores and overseas.

It has effectively rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil authority.

It has subjected us to things foreign to our Constitution, giving its assent to burdensome acts of legislation:

For forcing states to quarter illegal immigrants.

For protecting them and refusing to deport even those convicted of serious crimes.

For implementing protectionist measures that have limited our ability to engage in free trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing taxes, hidden or otherwise, without our consent.

For threatening to deprive us, in times of perceived crisis, of the benefits of trial by jury.

For federalizing offenses that should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

For implementing a foreign policy that has this nation engaged in costly and unnecessary entanglements overseas.

For taking away state sovereignty, abolishing federalism, and altering fundamentally our entire system of government.

For superseding state legislatures, and investing in Congress the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever; including areas such as employment, health care, education, and housing, among others.

It has waged war against citizens of the United States by using armed troops to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It has denied states the control over valuable natural resources within their own borders.

It is, at this time, engaged in armed conflict overseas without a formal and constitutional declaration of war.

It has turned businesses into government agencies, forcing workers to report the "suspicious" activities of their fellow citizens to authorities.

It has succeeded, through its interventionist policies, in funding and arming enemies of the United States of America.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be the government of a free people.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by Congress, the president, and the judiciary to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the founding of our nation. We have appealed to their sense of justice and fair play, and we have appealed to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of reason. We must, therefore, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind - enemies in war, friends in peace.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the existing federal government, and that as free and independent states, they have full authority to reassume those powers guaranteed to the states and the people by the Constitution. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.