9/11 - Ten Years Later

Here is an amazing piece by Chris Hedges entitled "A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe."

Obama: "No Ground Troops in Libya"

I will reference this article when ground troops do, in fact, invade Libya. And mark my words, US troops WILL invade Libya. Obama is a war-mongering liar, just like the despot before him.

Military Reunion Show

I came home this evening to find my wife watching a show on the Lifetime channel. One of the promos playing during a commercial was about a new show on Lifetime that follows military dads reuniting with their children. It was a very emotion invoking presentation as it showed a little girl crying as she went to hug her father dressed in a full military uniform.

The only thing I could think about was how many Iraqi and Afghan children will never get to hug their fathers again as a result of the bombs and bullets coming from military men like the one depicted in this program.

Things look very different depending on one's perspective.

Joe Rogan on the American War Machine

Here is a great 9 minute video of Joe Rogan explaining the truth behind the American War Machine. NSFW (language)

Iraq War Veteran Speaks the Truth

Here is a great speech by a "true" hero. Forget the propaganda heard in the media about how "heroic" the troops are by "protecting our freedom" in the countless wars of aggression across the globe. A "true" hero knows when to abandon the lies that have been propagated, seek and find the truth, and then speak the truth in the face of adversity.

And for those keeping score, Obama is just as much of a warmonger as Bush. Perhaps worse because he cloaks the war rhetoric with the glimmer of the possibility that he wishes to end the wars. As I've said before, today's establishment Democrats are as "pro-peace" as the establishment Republicans are "pro-small-government."

Obama Fail

"Pro-lifers" Are Hypocrites

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are prevalent in today's world but the so-called "pro-lifers" are the biggest hypocrites of them all. Every Friday morning on my way to work, I drive past a group of picketers holding signs with messages against abortion, some containing extremely graphic depictions of the aborted fetuses, and others with the words "support life" or some variation thereof.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to support the unborn life of a child, and I certainly don't take issue with their right to peaceably assemble, provided they are not trespassing on private property. And I also think that being "pro-life" is a commendable position if applied consistently.

This is in no way a debate about the specific topic of abortion as too often people get caught up in the minutia of the details and lose sight of the big picture. I've come to this conclusion by critically looking at the issue of abortion and recognizing that certain people are always going to be "pro-life" and certain people are always going to be "pro-choice". The mere fact that the factions of support on both sides are so evenly distributed, one can conclude there is not a clear cut moral absolute when it comes to determining the beginning of life.

Contrast this divide to the practically unanimous moral conclusion that murder outside the womb is wrong and should not be tolerated. This should be the focus of the "pro-lifers" because the audience has overwhelmingly accepted that premise and no further effort need be exerted in the attempt of that persuasion.

So why don't more "pro-lifers" support the lives of Iraqis and Afghans? How many of these picketers set down their aborted fetus sign and pick up a peace sign on their way to a war protest?

It doesn't take an unreasonable level of assumption to conclude there's a strong correlation between those self described as "pro-life" and those who support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else the US military holds occupation. This logic holds true with the subject of torture, about which I have previously written.

Where are the prominent "pro-life" leaders denouncing the mass killing done at the hands of the US government and its military? Why don't the Iraqis and Afghans get the same support as the fetuses? Do "pro-lifers" also support foreign fetuses?

As is the case with most collectivist-minded simpletons, thoughtless decisions are made based on groupings and borders, and those who reside on the "wrong" side of those borders are just "out of luck", I guess. So the lesson that must be learned is this: if you want to be protected by the "pro-lifers", don't reside on the wrong side of a womb wall or the wrong side of the United States border.

Collateral Damage?

Is this one of the eggs broken to make the omelet for the US government and its band of mercenaries?

[picture from Laurence Vance at lewrockwell.com]

Obama = Peace?

I saw a bumper sticker this morning that had Obama's name and the "O" had a "peace" sign in the middle of it.

Now THAT is just downright comical.

Obama to Send 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

As Obama continues in the exact foot steps of the warmonger Bush, how is it that he gets a free pass from the mainstream media and the so-called peace activists?

Is the desire to eradicate thousands of brown people in a foreign land exclusively a Republican stance? Could it be that Obama and the rest of his Democrat buddies simply share the same insatiable desire to wield their power over others and continue to reward their connected coherts in the military industrial complex?

When will people realize that there is NO DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats? Sure, they toss around the political footballs of abortion, capital punishment, health care, etc. But when it comes to spreading the empire, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Legitimate pro-peace Democrats and media, prove me wrong. I've lost all hope for the Republicans and neoconservatives.

UPDATE 12/6/09

Support "Our" Troops

See the following email from Robert Katz to Butler Shaffer as posted on Lewrockwell.com. What a logical and concise presentation of the loss of individuality regarding the collectivist propaganda surrounding the military and the public support thereof.


Support Our Troops, Why Not?

To Whom It May Concern:

I’m letting you know, whoever you are, that I support our troops—yours and mine. Now this is not at all a hard decision to make. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to decide at all. All things considered, I doubt whether you yourself guide any soldiers whatsoever. As for me, I say unequivocally that I direct no soldiers at all. So even if I’m wrong, and it turns out that you do manage one, a few, or even many soldiers, and since I regulate none and consider it unlikely that you’ll let me share command of any of yours, it follows that the number of troops that are under our common control is zero. In other words, we (you and I) don’t have any troops. So what difference can it make whether or not I support something that doesn’t exist?

It’s amazing how much politics and mathematics have in common. It’s equally amazing that an overwhelming number of private citizens don’t understand that first and foremost they are individuals who have not even an iota of significance to government machinations.


I haven't been called "un-American" in a while or told to "love it or leave it", either. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why I should continue to support the paid mercenaries killing brown people in a far away land. And by "support", I'm referring to the emotional and/or political support of the troops, not the extraction of my money through taxation which finances these wars of aggression. That question has already been answered: men with guns will come to my house, kidnap and throw me in a cage if I decide not to pay for the eradication of people who happen to be born on a different plot of land.

2007 Obama: "I Will Get Our Troops Home..."

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

Another campain (spelling intentional) promise broken by another appeasing politician. Obama is no different than any other bureaucrat and it is so unfortunate, yet predictable, that he picked up the warmongering where Bush left off. The Democrats are no more the "party of peace" than the Republicans are "small government conservatives".

Afghanistan War is Useless

So opines Ralph Peters. Peters' piece in the NY Post is written in a style that reminds one of a conversation with a friend - it feels informal, like it's from the heart.

I’ve selected three quotes from the article which are very astute and deviate from the typical war-mongering cries from the media to which we’ve come so accustomed.

Now we are warned that, unless we send another 40,000 US troops to convince Afghans we're their friends, unspecified woes will fall upon us like biblical plagues.

The generals refuse to recognize that, from the local viewpoint, the Taliban are the patriots. We're the Redcoats.

So our troops hold their fire and die to protect Afghan villagers who back the Taliban and to protect an Afghan government the people despise. How, exactly, does this advance our national security?

Peters was doing so well until the final four paragraphs where he apparently realized that he was, in fact, a member of the main stream media and the day ended in ‘Y’. A leopard never truly loses its spots, no? Peters feigns the idea of peace (but only against the Taliban) but continues the war cries against the American boogieman: al Qaeda.

Why, according to Peters, are the Taliban patriots but al Qaeda must be eradicated? Is al Qaeda’s skin browner than the Taliban’s?

Peters wrote:
Killing our nation's enemies always makes sense. [his emphasis]

There are so many things wrong with that simple, but powerful, sentence.
First, who gets to decide who “our nation’s” enemies are?
More to the point, who is this collective that Peters has failed to identify that obviously makes up the “our”?
By virtue of the fact that I was born on this land mass known as America, am I to be lumped in with “our”?
If I am part of “our”, am I to wait until I have been given direction by some person or some group of persons so that I can be enlightened as to who “our”/my enemy is?
What if I don’t agree with the fact that someone or group of persons has been labeled as “our” enemy?
Does killing them still “always make sense”?

Tell that to the Japanese Americans during WWII.

Against a Standing Army

"A nation without a standing army is worth fighting for."

This may not rank among the quotes of the historical greats, but I'd like to think that this collection of words I spouted during one of my rants to my dad will help present an ideological solution to the disasters created by US foreign policy.

This phrase has two meanings:

First, the actual idea of a nation without a standing military was proposed and supported by the founding fathers. It is this very idea that is worth fighting for because it removes the temptation and the ability for the federal state to engage an imperial and global policy, as well as an oppressive feudal domestic system.

Second, a nation that commits to a policy where there is no standing army is a nation worth defending because of the freedom that will unquestionably come as a result of such principled standards. It is this freedom that its citizens will fight for in the event of an attack on its land. Note: The probability of an invasion will be greatly diminished because of the nation's non-interventionist policy - even if only defacto due to its lack of offensive army - and its desire to attend to freedom instead of meddling in other nations' affairs. This nation's citizens will gladly and without hesitation pick up a weapon to defend its land.

What If Government Policy was Felt Immediately in our Paychecks?

What if, instead of pushing the tab off on to future generations, the ACTUAL war expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?

What if the countries who foolishly continue to subsidize the US spending stopped buying up US debt and the ACTUAL war expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?

What if the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve did not have the printing press, and thus inflation, to fund our wars and the ACTUAL expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?

What if all politics were set aside and people actually had to vote with their wallets? Would you still support the government’s wars?

Another Soldier Refuses to Deploy to Afghanistan

Here is another man with courage who knows when to say no to orders when they conflict with what he knows is right and moral (not to mention legal). Of course, he will be derided as non-patriotic, etc, and whatever else the talking heads of the military industrial complex can come up with. Another tired argument is "he knew what he was getting in to when he signed up". No, he agreed to uphold the constitution and defend against enemies, foreign AND domestic, including (and ESPECIALLY) those parasites in DC.

Me on Free Talk Live radio

Free Talk Live is radio show broadcasted internationally and airs Monday through Saturday from 6-9 pm Central. See their website here.

The discussion this past Saturday was about Memorial Day and how it is treated throughout the mainstream media. I called into the show earlier this evening to discuss.

Click here for the shortened clip of my conversation with the hosts Ian, Mark, and Nick.

Obama Wants Another $83 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan

Yes, the leader of the "party of peace" has requested more money from Congress to ensure the killing can continue. But I thought that Obama was going to bring the troops home?

Despite the rhetoric, Obama's foreign policy agenda might be worse than Bush's because not only does he have an insatiable desire to police the world, he has the political support of the domestic and international sheep AND - even more devastatingly - the congressional purse.