It is going to cost the US $3.4 billion, but Commander of NATO's European Command Gen. Philip Breedlove announced that the US will be sending thousands of additional troops to deploy on Russia's border in the Baltics, as well as in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. This "European Reassurance Initiative" is said to protect NATO's eastern borders from "Russian aggression." But isn't putting you troops on the border of another country thousands of miles away itself an aggressive act? And what about helping overthrow the elected leaders of another country, as the US did in Ukraine? Is that not aggressive? Who is the real aggressor here -- today in the Liberty Report... read on...
Fifty years ago this year, Murray N. Rothbard offered his thoughts on National Review, the flagship magazine of American conservatism, which had commemorated its tenth anniversary in late 1965.
Murray’s primary complaint: what had once been a movement skeptical of or opposed to overseas adventurism and empire-building had now, under the influence of editor Bill Buckley, come to be defined by those very things.
In Buckley’s infamous formulation, it would be necessary to erect a “totalitarian bureaucracy” within our shores in order to battle communism abroad. The implication was that once the communist menace subsided, this extraordinary effort, domestic and foreign, could likewise diminish.
Since government programs do not have a habit of diminishing but instead seek new justifications when the old ones no longer exist, few of us were surprised when the warfare state, and its right-wing apologists, hummed right along after its initial rationale vanished from history. read on...
Last September the Japanese Diet (parliament) passed legislation "reinterpreting" the nearly 70 year old strictly antiwar constitution to allow for the Japanese military to take part in overseas military operations not directly tied to the defense of Japan. Tens of thousands of Japanese took to the streets this week to protest the enactment of this new law. Will Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's desire to be part of Washington's "pivot to Asia" lead to a fundamental change in Japan's position in the region? Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report... read on...
For thousands of years, states (or equivalent ruling organizations and elites) certainly have acted as if they could enforce virtuous behavior—always of course according to the particular conception of virtue they happened to cherish. And many continue to do so today. Thus, most US states still prohibit possession of, use of, and commerce in a long list of narcotics and other substances deemed bad for people.
Governments have often forbidden free markets in sexual services, gambling, and even doing business on Sunday. They have made various sorts of speech unlawful, along with all sorts of communication in schools and in the labor market. They have outlawed many kinds of interactions, from marriage on down a long list, between adults and persons under a stipulated age of legal consent, sometimes as old of 21 years. So, governments clearly purport to enforce virtuous behavior—or, at least, the avoidance of vicious behavior—among those subject to their rule.
But do they succeed? They obviously do not succeed fully, and in many cases they fall so far short of success that their “virtue laws” are a laughing stock notwithstanding severe penalties provided for convicted violators. Although prostitution has been outlawed far and wide, for example, it has been practiced just as pervasively. read on...
The media focuses like a laser on terror attacks like we saw in Brussels last week. The endless news cycle pores over every detail, every angle. But what happens when US-backed Saudi jets bomb a market in Yemen, killing five times as many as died in Brussels? Silence. What about the million people who died directly or indirectly because of the US-led attack on Iraq, which was illegal and based on lies? One million people. Is this the greatest terrorist attack in modern times -- and why is it not looked at in this manner? Shouldn't those responsible for the carnage be brought to justice? More on the media's selective coverage of terrorism in today's Liberty Report... read on...
Since terrorism’s tragedy is again in the news, it is timely to revisit perhaps one of the biggest acts of terrorism in modern history – the illegal invasion and destruction – ongoing – of Iraq.
March 20th marked the thirteenth anniversary of an action resulting in the equivalent of a Paris, Brussels, London 7th July 2005, often multiple times daily in Iraq ever since. As for 11th September 2001, there has frequently been that death toll and heart break every several weeks, also ongoing.
America and Britain have arguably engaged in and generated the legacy of one of the longest recorded attacks of terrorism since World War Two.
There are no minutes silences or Eiffel Tower bathed in the colours of the Iraqi flag – or indeed those of the other ongoing Western engineered catastrophes, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, or for the US-UK complicity in the human carnage in Yemen, or for the forty three dead and two hundred and thirty nine injured in Beirut in November, reportedly by ISIS, the day before the Paris attack. read on...
The recapture of the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra was the single biggest defeat for ISIS since it declared its caliphate, but the West does not seem interested. Why? Because then they’d have to give some credit to Russia.
Indeed, it must have been a tough weekend for Western media’s favorite Syria pundits. It’s hard to fathom that any observer — regardless of their particular leanings — could feel anything other than relief at such a victory.
Yet, there’s a strange sense that some pundits might actually be a little bit disappointed. Not to see the back of ISIS in the city, of course, but to be faced with the uncomfortable reality that their narrative is quickly unraveling.
No word from the grand coalition
Given the monumental importance of this latest victory in Syria’s war, you would expect at least a comment or two from Barack Obama, who more than a year and a half ago solemnly swore that his grand coalition would “degrade and destroy” the terror group. You might also expect a few words from David Cameron, who, like Obama, has seemed so terribly concerned by the humanitarian situation in Syria and so determined to “defeat” ISIS. But the two of them must have been having a bit too much fun this past Easter weekend, because there wasn’t a peep out of them. In a way, they’ve done us a favor, because their silence speaks far louder than their words ever could. read on...
We know for certain that the CIA and other elements of the "deep state" are deeply involved in rigging and influencing elections overseas. Decades of history have shown us this much. But how much might they be involved in our elections at home? And with the US telling the rest of the world how to hold elections, what rules to adopt, how to count the votes, etc., how does our system of Democrat "super-delegates" and secret GOP back-room "rules committee" changes stack up? And the media? They can be counted on to focus on the most banal aspects of elections. More on this -- and some Ron Paul stories of the 2012 rules committee rip-off -- in today's Liberty Report... read on...
It was not long after last week’s horrifying bombings in Brussels that the so-called security experts were out warning that Europeans must give up more of their liberty so government can keep them secure from terrorism. I guess people are not supposed to notice that every terrorist attack represents a major government failure and that rewarding failure with more of the same policies only invites more failure.
I am sure a frightened population will find government promises of perfect security attractive and may be willing to allow more surveillance of their personal lives. They should pause a little beforehand and consider what their governments have done so far to keep them “safe.” read on...
The nuances of foreign policy do not feature heavily in the ongoing presidential campaign. Every candidate intends to “destroy” the Islamic State; each has concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korea, and China; every one of them will defend Israel; and no one wants to talk much about anything else — except, in the case of the Republicans, who rattle their sabers against Iran.
In that light, here’s a little trip down memory lane: in October 2012, I considered five critical foreign policy questions — they form the section headings below — that were not being discussed by then-candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Romney today is a sideshow actfor the current Republican circus, and Obama has started packing up his tent at the White House and producing his own foreign policy obituary.
And sadly, those five questions of 2012 remain as pertinent and unraised today as they were four years ago. Unlike then, however, answers may be at hand, and believe me, that’s not good news. Now, let’s consider them four years later, one by one. read on...
