The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results

for:

Jacob G. Hornberger

Will Biden Have Blood on His Hands in Afghanistan?

undefined

President Biden has announced that America’s forever war in Afghanistan is finally coming to an end. He says that US forces will exit the country by next September 11. 

That’s a good thing. And it is long overdue. 

But there is one big problem with Biden’s timetable: It violates an agreement that the US government entered into with the Taliban to exit the country by May 1 of this year.

Under that agreement, the Taliban agreed not to attack US troops prior to their scheduled departure on May 1. With Biden’s decision to deliberately violate the agreement by unilaterally extending the withdrawal to September 11, he is knowingly placing the lives of the 3,500 American servicemen still in Afghanistan at risk.

In fact, the Taliban has implied as much. According to the Washington Post, a Taliban spokesman declared back in April, “If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit the country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable.”
read on...

The Terrorist Haven Fallacy on Afghanistan

undefined

Interventionists are saying that US forces need to stay in Afghanistan because otherwise that country will, once again, become a “haven” for anti-American terrorists.

They still just don’t get it. It never ceases to amaze me how blind and obtuse interventionists can be.

Anti-American terrorism is not like the flu or like Covid-19. It doesn’t just spread around the world like an infection or a virus.

Moreover, the 9/11 attacks didn’t occur because the terrorists hated America for its “freedom and values.” They weren’t motivated by anger and rage over Elvis Presley or any other rock and roller. They weren’t motivated by hatred for Billy Graham or any other Christian evangelist.

The 9/11 attacks and all the other anti-American terrorist attacks were rooted in anger and hatred over US interventionism abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Interventionism is the cause of anti-American terrorism. That’s what interventionists still just don’t get.
read on...

The Banality of Evil on Sanctions

undefined

The banality of evil within the mainstream press when it comes to actions carried out by the US national-security establishment never ceases to amaze me. The latest example appears in the New York Times in an investigative piece that absolutely stunned me. The piece consists of a video that details an extensive investigation into a ship that was suspected of violating the system of economic sanctions that the US government and the UN have imposed on North Korea.

The video was put together by what the Times calls its “Visual Investigative Team.” The video, according to the Times, “examines the maze of connections behind secret oil deliveries to North Korea, in defiance of international sanctions.” There are five staff members who were assigned this task. They say that they “spent months reviewing ship-tracking data, corporate records and satellite imagery to uncover one way North Korea evades strict international sanctions.” They didn’t say how much their investigation cost but my hunch is at least a few million dollars.

To which I ask: Who cares? Or to put it another way: Why shouldn’t North Korea evade those “strict international sanctions”? What’s wrong with doing so? Why should their attempts to evade the sanctions be investigated and reported on by the US mainstream press?

I can’t help but think that those types of questions never enter the minds of the people serving on that investigative team. Their assumption is undoubtedly that since the US and UN imposed the sanctions, they must be legitimate and, therefore, that it is illegitimate for North Korea to be violating them.
read on...

Terminate NATO

undefined

The Washington Post has published a long piece calling for NATO to take on a new official enemy — China. The piece is written by Sara Bjerg Moller, an assistant professor in the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University. She argues that after 30 years since losing the Soviet Union as its official enemy and struggling to find a replacement to justify its continued existence, a perfect replacement would be China.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s just put NATO out of its misery and terminate it.

After all, let’s not forget NATO’s original mission: to defend Europe from the possibility of an invasion by the Soviet Union, which had been America’s and Britain’s World War II partner and ally but which had been converted to their official enemy at the end of the war.

But the likelihood of a Soviet invasion of Europe was always nil. The Soviet Union had been decimated by World War II, especially as a result of the German invasion of the country. Even though the invasion was ultimately repelled and Germany was defeated, the Soviet Union’s industrial capacity had been destroyed, not to mention the million of Russian citizens who had been killed. The last thing the Soviet Union wanted was another war, especially given that the United States possessed nuclear weapons and had shown a willingness to employ them against large cities.
read on...

What Next? Spear Control?

undefined

For people who still have fears about the threat of a violent takeover of the federal government, a ruling by Washington, D.C., federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth has gone a long way to relieve such fears. In a decision denying bail to one of the January 6 protestors, Jacob Anthony Chansley, who is often referred to as the “QAnon Shaman,” Lamberth no doubt succeeded in calming the fears of Washington lawmakers and members of the mainstream press who remain convinced that there was a serious danger posed by the January 6 “insurrectionists,” “revolutionaries,” “insurgents,” “rebels,” “terrorists,” “traitors,” “overthrowers,” and “rioters” who were supposedly attempting to violently take over the reins of the federal government.

One of the most fascinating aspects of this phenomenon is the weapon that Chansley chose to lead the charge to take over the Capitol. He used a spear, a weapon so dangerous that Lamberth cited it as one of the principal reasons that he was denying pretrial bail to Chansley.

A spear? Yes, a spear! What could be more dangerous than that? No, don’t say an AR-15 or a Glock 19. Those weapons run the risk of malfunctioning or misfiring. Moreover, unless a person is highly trained in the use of firearms, one runs the definite risk of missing the target when firing.

A spear is obviously a much more effective weapon to employ when trying to violently overthrow a government. A spear doesn’t lock up and misfire. And it’s virtually impossible to miss with a spear. Moreover, its history as a weapon goes back a lot further than the history of guns.
read on...

The National-Security State Racket

undefined

Some people are criticizing President Biden for the recent US air strikes in Syria as well as his refusal to sanction Saudi dictator Mohammed bin Salman, the man who US officials have concluded orchestrated the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
read on...

The Anti-Terrorism Screws Tighten on the American People

undefined

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, in the aftermath of the January 6 melee at the Capitol there are increasing calls for the US government’s Department of Homeland Security to “play a more muscular role in combating domestic extremism.” The article points out that up to this point, DHS has been “responsible for securing the country’s borders, ports, transportation and cyber systems, generally leaving the monitoring of extremist groups and terrorism investigations to the FBI.”
read on...

The Omnipotent Power to Assassinate

undefined

It goes without saying that the Constitution called into existence a government with few, limited powers. That was the purpose of enumerating the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution was bringing into existence a government of unlimited or omnipotent powers, then there would have been no point in enumerating a few limited powers. In that event, the Constitution would have called into existence a government with general, unlimited powers to do whatever was in the interests of the nation.

If the Constitution had proposed a government of omnipotent powers, there is no way the American people would have accepted it, in which case America would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation. Our American ancestors didn’t want a government of omnipotent powers. They wanted a government of few, limited, enumerated powers.

Among the most omnipotent powers a government can wield is the power of government officials to assassinate people. Our American ancestors definitely did not want that type of government. That is why the power to assassinate is not among the enumerated powers of government in the Constitution.
read on...

Milking the Capitol Melee for All It’s Worth

undefined

Not surprisingly, leftists are milking the January 6 Capitol melee for all its worth. There is a simple reason for that: they wish to use it to introduce a new wave of domestic tyranny into America, just as Republicans did after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start referring to the melee as simply 1/6.

That’s why they continue to describe the melee as an insurrection, revolution, rebellion, sedition, terrorism, invasion, and a grave attempt to destroy our democratic system and overthrow the government. It’s clear, according to leftists, that the intent of the “invaders” was to take control over the reins of the federal government and make Donald Trump king. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they determine that Russia was behind the “invasion.”

Thus, don’t be surprised to see a new version of the USA PATRIOT Act. Anyway, the original one is getting a bit old in the tooth. And don’t be surprised to see a renewed and reinvigorated “war on terrorism,” albeit here in the United States, with increased secret surveillance, suppression of speech, indefinite incarceration, torture, and even perhaps assassination (a power that the Supreme Court has upheld with respect to both foreigners and Americans).
read on...

Anomalies in the Capitol Melee

undefined

Somebody needs to get a memo to the FBI and the US Attorneys in charge of arresting and prosecuting the people involved in the January 6 melee at the Capitol. At this point, all I see is that these people are being charged with offenses like trespass, disorderly conduct, and theft. Judging by what leftists are saying and what the mainstream press is reporting, these people should be charged with treason, insurrection, revolution, rebellion, invasion, terrorism, and an attempt to violently overthrow the government of the United States. How come the Justice Department doesn’t realize that, at least not yet?

In fact, I’m surprised that leftists and the mainstream press aren’t insisting that all the protestors, including those on both the inside and outside of the Capitol, be charged with a gigantic conspiracy to violently overthrow the US government. Maybe they’re concerned about being labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

One of the fascinating aspects of this supposed attempt to conquer the US government is the small amount of bloodshed. In fact, only one person was shot during the melee. That’s incredible. Wouldn’t you think that revolutionaries would enter the Capitol with all guns blaring, including M-16s, AK-47s, and Glock semiautomatic handguns?
read on...


Authors

Tags