America needs an 'America First' foreign policy

"Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones. Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled," 

 

President Trump Should Return to an ‘America First’ Foreign Policy | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

August 25, 2025 - "After four years of unnecessarily confrontational foreign policy under President Biden, Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones. Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled, as his approval rating continues to slip.

"On Ukraine, President Trump wisely observed coming into office that the conflict is 'Joe Biden’s war' not his own. Unfortunately he could not resist the temptation to get involved in the conflict, even under the guise of 'peacemaker.' I’ve often said that getting out of conflicts overseas is not that complicated: we should just come home. Even when there are no troops involved, 'just come home' means disengage from the conflict. But President Trump wants to play referee in the war while arming and supporting one side. Is it any wonder he is making no progress in ending the war?

"Likewise with Israel and Gaza, Trump’s promise to put America first has faltered. President Biden put Americans on the hook for additional billions of dollars to support Israel’s actions in Gaza without even a word about the slaughter and destruction. As more Americans become disgusted by Israel’s obliteration of the property and population of that tiny strip of land, Trump shows no signs of shifting from Biden’s approach. More money and more weapons are sent as starvation claims more and more children each day. Trump has reportedly remarked to a donor that his own base is turning against him because of his Israel policy. Yet he refuses to alter course and 'just come home.'

"Trump has even returned to the failed Latin America policy of his first Administration, in last week’s move toward a military confrontation with oil-rich Venezuela. Trump sent two warships and 4,000 US troops to the waters near Venezuela under the highly suspect accusation that the country’s president is actually head of an international drug cartel. He should have learned from the almost comical recognition of Juan Guaido as the real president of Venezuela in his first term that meddling in that country is not in America’s interest. It seems the neocons around him, including warhawk Marco Rubio, are sucking him into another unnecessary conflict.

"Add in Trump’s military attacks on Yemen and Iran and the balance sheet thus far does not point to an 'America first' foreign policy.

"There is still time for President Trump to change course and fulfill his promises to the American people. 

• Put Ukraine and Russia on notice that from this point the US is withdrawing from any role in the conflict. Let the Europeans work it out if they feel it is in their interest. Getting us out of NATO is also a good idea.
• End US financial and military support for an Israel that cannot seem to get along with its neighbors. Perhaps without the US backstopping Israel’s warmongering, the country and its leadership would start to reflect on the wisdom of starting wars with multiple countries in its neighborhood.
• Stop trying to overthrow Venezuela’s Maduro and everyone else the neocons have placed on the 'hit list.' End all sanctions and open up trade instead. Maduro’s failed socialist economic policies will be his undoing, not American sanctions or saber-rattling.

"America first above all means 'just come home.' It’s that simple."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/president-trump-should-return-to-an-america-first-foreign-policy/

Ron Paul: president Trump, stop bombing Yemen

President Trump: Stop Bombing Yemen and Exit the Middle East! | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

March 17, 2025 - "Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No.... Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.

"Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, 'You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.' Yet once in office, Trump turned to military force as his first option. 

"Since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire plan negotiated by President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Yemen has left Red Sea shipping alone. However, after Israel implemented a total blockade of humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza last week, Houthi leaders threatened to again begin blocking Israel’s Red Sea shipping activities. That was enough for President Trump to drop bombs and launch missiles for hours, killing several dozen Yemeni civilians – including women and children – in the process.

"After the attack, Trump not only threatened much more force to be used against Yemen, but he also threatened Iran. His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added that the US may start bombing Iranian ships in the area, a move that would certainly lead to a major Middle East war.

"Like recent Presidents Bush and Obama, candidate Trump promised peace after four years of Joe Biden’s warmongering and World War III brinkmanship. There is little doubt that with our war-weary population this proved the margin of his victory. Unfortunately, as with Bush and Obama, now that he is President, he appears to be heading down a different path.

"The Republican Party is gradually becoming a pro-peace, America first party, but the warmongers and neocons of the old line in the Party are not going to let go so easily. Unfortunately many of these dead-enders have found their way to senior positions in Trump’s Administration, with voices of restraint and non-intervention nearly nowhere in sight among his top tier of advisors.

"To solve the Yemen problem we must understand it: Russian and Chinese ships, for example, are not being threatened because they are not enabling the Israeli demolition of Gaza. The slaughter there has been facilitated with US money and US weapons. It is the US doing Israel’s bidding both in Gaza and in the Red Sea that is painting a target on us and unnecessarily putting our troops at risk of retaliation.

"The US government, starting with Biden and continuing now with Trump, seems eager to make this our war even though, as Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out over the weekend, Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy. In a real 'America first' foreign policy we would be following the Russian and Chinese lead and staying out of the conflict. It’s not our war." 

Read more: https://ronpaulinstitute.org/president-trump-stop-bombing-yemen-and-exit-the-middle-east/

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Ron Paul: NATO working against U.S. interests

"It has become much clearer these past few months just how far NATO has shifted away from US interests," writes Dr. Ron Paul, "even though the United States funds a whopping 70 percent of NATO’s cost."

Suddenly, Leaving NATO Is On The Table | Eurasia News | Ron Paul: 

March 3, 2025 - "Over the weekend, President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk made quite a stir with just two words posted on his social media platform, X. Responding to a post that, 'It’s time to leave NATO and the UN,' Musk replied, 'I agree.' The comment immediately made the rounds on social media and also on mainstream and alternative media.

"Was this the Elon Musk who owns X speaking, or was it the Elon Musk who has become one of President Trump’s closest advisors? Does it even matter? Having someone so close to the US president who advocates finally extracting the US from these international organizations is a significant and very positive shift for the United States.

Ron Paul in 2012. Photo: David Carleon.

CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons.

"With the truth coming out about how USAID has been working against US interests for decades, the disinfectant of public scrutiny is now turning to our membership in – and generous funding of – international organizations like NATO and the United Nations.

"I have long advocated our exit from NATO. At the end of the Cold War,  with its very reason for existence gone, NATO decided to look for other ways of stirring up trouble. First NATO involved itself in the first Gulf War and then it decided its mission should be to bomb Serbia to smithereens – in the name of 'human rights'.... 

"It has become much clearer these past few months just how far NATO has shifted away from US interests. Even though the United States funds a whopping 70 percent of NATO’s cost, our own NATO 'allies' are working against the United States as President Trump attempts to pull us back from the brink of war with Russia.

"A simple telephone call between Presidents Trump and Putin was met with hysteria among NATO member countries, and just as US and Russian high-level delegations were meeting in Saudi Arabia to look for way to walk back from a war footing, our 'allies' decided to hold their own summit.... In Paris our 'partners' pledged to continue their failed Ukraine policy and to ridicule the United States.... To add insult to injury, right at the center of the table in Paris was none other than the Secretary General of NATO himself, former Dutch politician Mark Rutte!...

"Also over the weekend Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY) echoed Elon Musk’s sentiment, with Sen. Lee posting a chart showing the wildly disproportionate amount of US taxpayer dollars that go to funding NATO with the statement, 'Get us out of NATO.' Rep. Massie added to Lee’s comment, 'NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be relegated to a talking kiosk at the Smithsonian.'

"As in the time of Sen. Robert Taft, the sentiment against NATO membership is coming from the conservative end of the US political spectrum. With President Trump’s clear mandate to pursue his 'America first' agenda we have the best opportunity in decades to sever our damaging and expensive entangling alliances across the globe. Let’s start with NATO!"

This article was originally published by the Ron Paul Institute.

Read more: https://www.eurasiareview.com/03032025-ron-paul-suddenly-leaving-nato-is-on-the-table-oped/

The beginning of the end for NATO?

75 years after it was set up to protect Europe from the Soviet Union (and 35 years after the Soviet Union ceased to exist), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance may finally be coming to an end. 

NATO Could Effectively Die This June | Reason | Matt Welch:

February 28, 2025 - "Libertarians, progressives, and national conservatives who've been pining for a de-Americanization of European military security are experiencing their most newsworthy week on that front in at least three decades. The Trump administration's ongoing negotiations and public messaging around a potential Russia-Ukraine peace deal, along with the weekend electoral victory of Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), have led to the bluntest talk since April 1993 about a future without Washington's mutual defense commitments to the easternmost members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

"'My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the U.S.A.,' presumptive German chancellor Friedrich Merz said just after his long-prominent CDU ... beat out the White House-favored Alternative for Germany* (AfD).... 'I never thought I would have to say something like this… .But after [President] Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans — at least this part of the Americans, this administration —are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.'

"Trump's recent statements and actions have included blaming NATO expansion for Russia's invasion of Ukraine ('That's probably the reason the whole thing started,' he said Wednesday), rejecting a G7 statement criticizing Russia as the 'aggressor,' joining a rogue's gallery of international authoritarians in voting against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity....  Washington has already floated Russian sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization while ruling out U.S. peacekeeping troops and Ukrainian NATO membership.

"Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fanned out to European capitals this month delivering what Hegseth characterized as a 'stark' message to America's treaty allies: 'Now is the time to invest [in defense], because you can't make an assumption that America's presence will last forever'.... [T]he message appears to have sunk in. Prior to each embarking to Washington this week for Ukraine-focused meetings with Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer announced significant ramp-ups in defense spending — from 2 percent to 5 percent (conditionally) in Macron's case, and from 2 percent to 2.5 percent up toward 3 percent in Starmer's. 

"'[The] transatlantic relationship, former NATO secretary-general (2009-2014) Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrote in The Economist this week, 'is crumbling before our eyes'…. But the details of this aspirational burden-shifting are filled with more land mines than Ukraine's farmland, beginning with the three-headed beast of putative policy deciders (France, Germany, and the U.K.) that make the trolls in The Hobbit look cooperative by comparison..... Then there is the not-insignificant problem of an eight-decade buildup of American-led dominance on strategy, military technology, and nuclear weapons....

"'Europe must … ensure it can act independently of America. This will require significant investments in capabilities such as air [defense], refuelling and other logistics that sustain military operations — and for which Europe is almost entirely reliant on America,' Rasmussen wrote. 'Roughly 80% of its [defense] procurement is from outside Europe — primarily from the United States. Europe's [defense] companies, spread across different countries and reliant on small national orders, lack the scale required to compete with their American counterparts. As a result, the continent produces less of what it needs — often at a greater cost. This must change quickly'....

"[T]hose changes could happen more quickly than people think. Having effectively granted Moscow a veto over its independent neighbors seeking to join the only multinational organization that has thus far been able to provide the security guarantee of a mutual defense pact, the president could conceivably walk back from NATO's Article 5 assurances of defending members from attack, which is already sending tremors across the Baltics and other Russia-bordering nations.... 

"Germany's Merz, for one, is talking as if Article 5 is indeed dead. 'I am very curious to see how we are heading toward the NATO summit at the end of June,' Merz said after the election. 'Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form, or whether we will have to establish an independent European defense capability much more quickly.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2025/02/28/nato-could-effectively-die-this-june/

End Of NATO Alliance Could Be ‘Days Away’, Warns Former Commander | World DNA | WION | March 1, 2025: 

Abramson would bring troops home on 1st day

Q&A with Max Abramson, Libertarian presidential candidate | Opinion | laloyolan.com- Christobel Spielmann:

January 24, 2020 - "While many Americans are caught up between the Democrats and Republicans ... running for president in 2020, there are other lesser-known candidates running for third parties.... I interviewed one of those presidential hopefuls, State Rep. Max Abramson (L-NH), to talk about why college students should examine his platform.

Cristobal Spielmann (C.S.): You've spoken out against the 'Academic Industrial Complex'.... Why should college students pay attention to third parties, and in particular, the Libertarian party?
Max Abramson (M.A.): Well, the Academic Industrial Complex, that is both the public school system, which is about a trillion dollars a year, and colleges and universities [which] are about 560 billion dollars a year. That's a big Democrat[ic] Party contributor, or I should say, constituency. The hospital industry and the medical industry is like a trillion dollars. They are also a big Democratic contributor. So, together they're called 'Meds and Ed.' In my opinion, the reason that the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class, is their biggest constituency: trial lawyers and advanced ed[ucation] are no longer about helping ordinary people.... Our college campuses almost always go Democrat, every single year, no matter what....

C.S.: You’ve run as a Republican in the past; is that correct?
M.A.: Yeah. Well, a group called the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is actually Libertarians and Constitution Party member guys running as Republicans.

C.S.: Why did you run for the Libertarian Party as a 2020 presidential candidate, and not, say, run as a Republican and introduce Libertarian ideas potentially on a larger platform?
M.A.: Well, my one issue is bringing the troops home. And you're not going to unseat Donald Trump on a platform of bringing the troops home. Because when you go to a lot of die-hard Trump supporters, Trump has indicated he'll gradually bring troops home, but he's just doing the same thing that Obama did, which is escalating the war [and] escalating troop involvement....

"I'm bringing the troops home on my first day in office, but I'm not unrealistic about what would happen in the Middle East. Those countries have been at war with each other for centuries, and whether we choose to stick in there or pull out, they're going to continue.... I don't believe that there's anything we can do that will stabilize the Middle East....

"C.S.: Lastly, assuming that you fail to win the nomination, would you support whoever the delegates chose as their nominee for the Libertarian party?
M.A.: No. As I've said over the years, I only support Dallas Accord candidates. I used to support the Libertarian [Party] automatically, but I've seen a combination of neocons, socialists, anarchists and other people win the nomination, and I've finally decided I'm only going to support small "L" Libertarians for the Libertarian nomination.

"C.S.: Could you repeat, "Dallas Accord," is that correct?
M.A.: Right. 1974 [Libertarian] National Convention. There was a dispute between Constitutional Libertarians and people who wanted to just do away with government completely. So, the agreement was made both in writing and in blood, which is about giving back to the Constitution, and I take it as kind of a slap in the face when people want to push an agenda that's completely contrary to the Constitution."

Read more: http://www.laloyolan.com/opinion/q-a-with-max-abramson-libertarian-presidential-candidate/article_0055ce17-85f9-567f-9d03-f63fdbf64c61.html

'via Blog this'

Iraqi parliament votes for US troops to leave

Iraqi Parliament votes for plan to end US troop presence in Iraq after Soleimani killing - CNN - Eric Levenson, Fred Pleitgen, Schams Elwazer & Amir Vera:
January 5, 2020 - "The Iraqi Parliament voted Sunday to obligate Iraq's government 'to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops on Iraqi soil,' according to the media office of the Iraqi Parliament.

"The vote represents a rebuke of the United States over its targeted airstrike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq early Friday. The attack has sharply escalated tensions with Iran and has pushed Iraq to reconsider the presence of American troops in the region.

"Iraqi officials were preparing a memorandum for the withdrawal of foreign forces Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi told French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in a phone conversation.

Muqtada al-Sadr, a leading Shia cleric and the head of Iraq's largest political bloc, Saeroun, called the Iraqi Parliament's vote Sunday a 'weak response'.... He called for Parliament to terminate the security agreement with the United States immediately and to close the "evil American embassy" and all American bases immediately.

"US officials tried to persuade Iraqi leaders to stop the parliamentary vote Sunday, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. Despite US officials claiming it would be harmful for Iraq to follow through on such a move and hold the vote at all, ultimately the argument fell flat.... 'The mood in the country was pushing for it,' one source familiar with the discussions said of the vote. 'This was not something that could have been avoided.'

"The US was 'disappointed' in Iraq's actions Sunday, a US State Department spokeswoman said.... US State Department and National Security Council officials [planned] to meet with Iraqi officials Monday and Tuesday in Washington."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/world/soleimani-us-iran-attack/index.html
'via Blog this'

Carlson & Graham: libertarians run Washington

The bizarre fiction of libertarians' control of Washington - Bonnie Kristian, The Week:

October 9, 2019 - "It is with great pleasure that I announce to my fellow libertarians: We have won.

"We thought ourselves the acolytes of a largely ignored vision for American governance. We saw a $22 trillion national debt ... while both major parties bailed out big business, using tax dollars to paper over the consequences of bad policy calls. We watched the rise of the post-9/11 security state — mass digital surveillance, the terror watchlist, the TSA.... We wondered if these numerous and apparently permanent wars, with their deplorable carelessness about civilian casualties, war crimes, and due process, would ever end. We objected to the brutality and militarization of American law enforcement.... We talked about abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the drug war, eliminating entire federal departments, and more, all with relatively little reason to believe our goals would ever be realized on any mass scale....

"But we were wrong! We didn't realize it, but we controlled Washington this whole time. This is big news for us, and I think we owe Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a huge thanks for letting us know.

"Carlson was the first to give us an inkling of our true power. 'The leadership class is resolutely libertarian,' he revealed in early June, bemoaning Washington's plentiful 'libertarian zealot[s] controlled by the banks, yammering on about entrepreneurship and how we need to cut entitlements.' Later that month, he indicated this dynamic exists because the Koch brothers are 'libertarian ideologues, passionate and inflexible' who 'run the Republican Party,' dictating the GOP platform on key issues including immigration, drug and prison policy, and free speech.

"You may find this surprising — I know I did! — as it seems to bear little resemblance to the actual state of Republican policymaking in 2019. On immigration, for example, the bulk of the GOP has followed Trump into calls for strict border security and limited refugee and immigrant admissions ... but the Koch brothers' perspective Carlson decries includes support for DACA and liberalized immigration policy more generally.... Carlson correctly noted Koch support for the First Step Act, but libertarians like yours truly deemed it a limited achievement. Is backing it anyway what it means to be ideologically 'inflexible'?.... And as for free speech, we do tend to be passionate about the First Amendment.... Rising GOP stars like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), by contrast, back proposals that would, as National Review's David French put it, 'invite an enormous amount of bureaucratic meddling online'....

"Even more surprising for me was Graham's disclosure this week that we libertarians also control America's foreign policy. 'The Obama-libertarian foreign policy does not make America safe,' the hawkish senator tweeted Monday in response to Trump's reshuffling of U.S. troops in Syria. 'If ignoring radical Islam made America safe, there would NOT have been a 9/11.'

"I never would have guessed libertarians dictated U.S. foreign affairs not only from 2008 to 2016 but also in the run-up to 9/11. I thought we were very angry about American foreign policy in those years, always complaining about the blowback, the drone strikes, the unconstitutional executive war-making, the attacks on innocent civilians, the costly and incompetent nation-building efforts, and so on. I thought we were always raising objections to former President Barack Obama's foreign policy on pretty much every possible basis.... Little did we know we were Obama's puppet masters all along!...

"I jest, obviously, but only because it is enormously bizarre to find oneself attacked in wildly inaccurate effigy. The most plausible explanation I can muster for this fiction of libertarian power is that libertarianism is in broad strokes the opposite of the Trumpian GOP's ... current mood of state-enforced social conservatism and what Carlson has dubbed 'economic patriotism,' which we would call protectionism, corporatism, and rank profligacy....

"Libertarians may sometimes punch above our weight in national debate, but when it comes to effectively wielding power in Washington, we're weaklings. I wish Carlson and Graham were right about us running the country. The reality is they're wrong."

Read more: https://theweek.com/articles/870276/bizarre-fiction-libertarians-control-washington
'via Blog this'

Endless war continues under Trump, says Amash

Amash on Syria: Trump's not ending anything | TheHill - Zack Budryk:

October 9, 2019 - "Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) blasted President Trump on Thursday, saying he isn't 'ending anything' with his decision to pull U.S. troops from northern Syria.  Amash, a former Republican who left the party in opposition to Trump earlier this year, said the president isn't really bringing American troops home, and that he has done little to end U.S. involvement in foreign wars.

"'Despite President Trump’s bluster about ending endless war, he’s not ending anything. Our troops aren’t coming home; a small number were moved so Turkey could escalate the war,' he said in a tweet. 'And the president has expanded our role in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq.'

"Turkey launched an offensive on northern Syria on Wednesday, days after Trump said he would remove U.S. troops from the area. Turkey is attacking a Kurdish militia force allied with the United States in the fight against ISIS....

"Amash left the Republican Party and the House Freedom Caucus, which he co-founded, earlier this year after he said special counsel Robert Mueller’s report led him to conclude Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

"Amash has frequently criticized Trump’s moves on Syria from a libertarian perspective, tweeting earlier this week, 'U.S. forces should not even be in Syria without congressional approval. Regardless, Turkey would not take this action without the express consent of the White House. It’s disingenuous for President Trump to suggest it’s all about "ISIS fighters" when the target is Kurdish forces.'

"'Endless war continues,' the Michigan congressman tweeted Monday."

Read more: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/465067-amash-on-syria-trumps-not-ending-anything
'via Blog this'

No authority for war with Iran, U.S. House votes

House Votes To Stop Trump From Attacking Iran Without Congressional Authorization – Reason.com - Christian Britschgi:

July 12, 2019 - "Earlier this afternoon, the Democrat-controlled House voted 220–197 in favor of a $733 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which will fund the Pentagon and its various foreign wars through the end of the next fiscal year.

"Included in the bill was a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.). It clarifies that Congress has passed no legislation that would allow the president to strike Iran. Their amendment says that 'no Federal funds may be used for any use of military force in or against Iran' unless Congress declares war on the country or passes some other statutory authorization for an attack.

"Stopping a war with Iran proved more popular than the spending bill as a whole. It earned the support of 20 House Republicans and passed with a commanding 251–170 vote....

"Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been rising throughout the summer, with the U.S. hitting Tehran with increased sanctions and sending more troops and ships to the Persian Gulf. Iran has reportedly responded by sabotaging oil tankers and shooting down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. Trump ordered air strikes on Iran in response to the loss of the drone but called the attacks off at the last minute.

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been pitching lawmakers on the idea that the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) — passed in the wake of 9/11 to permit the U.S. to attack Al Qaeda — allows the U.S. to attack Iran without further congressional approval. Khanna and Gaetz's amendment makes it clear this is not the case, stating explicitly that the 2001 AUMF does not authorize any sort of hostilities against Iran.

"Having passed, the House's NDAA now goes to the Senate, which has already passed its own, larger $750 billion military spending bill. That bill does not include any additional limitations on Trump's ability to attack Iran, nor does it seem likely that Senate Republicans will agree to fold that into the final version of the legislation."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/07/12/house-votes-to-stop-trump-from-attacking-iran-without-congressional-authorization/
'via Blog this'

Trump vetoes congressional resolution on Yemen

Yemen War: Trump vetoes congressional resolution to end US involvement - CNNPolitics - Allie Malloy:

April 17, 2019 - "President Donald Trump issued the second veto of his presidency Tuesday, stopping a congressional resolution that would have sought to end US involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

"This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future," Trump wrote to the Senate Tuesday. Trump was expected to veto the resolution....

"Supporters of the War Powers Resolution argued the US shouldn't be involved in the war without explicit permission from Congress. Opponents argued the US does not have 'boots on the ground' and is offering noncombat technical assistance to Saudi Arabia....

"The bill passed the House 247-175. Sixteen Republicans voted yes with Democrats and one voted present. In the Senate the vote was 54 to 46, with seven Republicans voting with Democrats.

"While the Democratic-controlled House unsuccessfully sought to override Trump's first veto on an unrelated issue, it appears unlikely it will hold an override vote this time since the Yemen resolution originated in the GOP-controlled Senate. The override process must start in whichever chamber first passed the bill."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/trump-vetoes-yemen-war-powers-resolution/index.html
'via Blog this'

Iraq was the Democrats' war, too

When Iraq Was Clinton’s War - Chip Gibbons, The Jacobin:

May 6, 2016 - "When [George W.] Bush entered the White House, the US (with help from the UK) was bombing Iraq an average of three times a week. In 1999, the US spent  $1 billion dropping bombs in Iraq; in 2000, that number was up to $1.4 billion....

"Omitting the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion distorts the roots of the war, which wasn’t just a product of post–9/11 hysteria or the creation of various Bush administration personalities. The February 2001 assault was part of a bipartisan policy that put continuous war with Iraq at the center of strategies to maintain US hegemony in the Middle East....

"[A]t a February 1998 town hall... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and ... replied, 'No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction'.... Just a few years later, similar scenes, with different players, would be reprised in the buildup to the Bush administration’s invasion.

"Much as George W. Bush inherited his initial Iraq policy from Bill Clinton, Clinton inherited his from Bush’s father. Following Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq.... Even after Hussein pulled out, however, the US ... refused to allow the sanctions to be lifted. Their new rationale was that the restrictions were needed to  disarm Iraq. Yet as early as 1992 the US knew Iraq had given up its weapons of mass destruction, and the sanctions remained....

"Iraq experienced shortages of food, medicine, and clean drinking water. And a 1995 Lancet study sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization concluded that 576,000 children under the age of five perished because of the policy, while a “conservative” estimate put the death toll for the same age group at 350,000. Dennis Halliday, a thirty-four-year UN veteran, resigned ... after spending a little over a year as the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. He said the sanctions constituted genocide.... Clinton simply denied the facts in question....

"Like his successor, one of Clinton’s early acts in office was to bomb Baghdad. In 1993, he sent twenty-three cruise missiles to hit the city.... Five years later, Clinton signed the 'Iraq Liberation Act' into law, formalizing the US’s demand for regime change. The legislation, which also appropriated $97 million to fund Iraqi opposition groups, was followed up with ... Operation Desert Fox ... sold to the public as retribution for Hussein’s decision to kick UN weapons inspectors out of the country. Yet ... Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn’t kick them out....

"From the end of Operation Desert Fox [in December 1998] until the 2003 invasion, the US and UK bombed Iraq at least once a week."

Read more: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/war-iraq-bill-clinton-sanctions-desert-fox/
'via Blog this'

Billions in aid to Afghanistan wasted

Billions in aid to Afghanistan wasted, including money from Canada, U.S. agency finds - The Globe and Mail - Robert Fife and Michelle Zilio:

November 2, 2018 - "Billions of dollars in Western foreign aid to Afghanistan, including from Canada, has been lost to widespread waste, lax oversight and endemic corruption, a U.S. watchdog agency says.

"The U.S. Special Inspector-General for Afghanistan Reconstruction said in a report to Congress that aid money has gone to build medical clinics without electricity or water, schools without children and buildings that literally melted away in the rain. Also, corrupt local officials who were in charge of paying workers with some of the funds created what the audits called “ghost workers,” civilian bureaucrats, police and soldiers who did not exist, then kept or diverted money recorded as being paid to them."

“'There is a lot of corruption, [but] most of what we have identified are just head-smacking stupid programs and really poorly managed and no accountability. Nobody is really held accountable for wasting the money,' Special Inspector-General John Sopko said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

"Unlike the United States, Canada does not independently audit the money it puts into Western trust funds for international aid. But Mr. Sopko said he is certain the problems he identified for U.S. taxpayers are the same for Canadian taxpayers.

"Nearly 2,400 U.S. soldiers have been killed fighting the Taliban, and 158 Canadians died before Canada pulled its combat troops out of Afghanistan in July, 2011. The Afghan government is still fighting intense battles across most of the country and millions of Afghans have been displaced.

"As the country became increasingly dangerous, Western countries pooled their aid dollars into trust funds managed by the World Bank, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization....

"Mr. Sopko’s office found a troubling lack of financial oversight and far-reaching mismanagement of two Western trust funds – the World Bank’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund and the UN-administered Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, used to train and equip Afghan security forces.

"According to the Library of Parliament, Canada has donated more than $3-billion in foreign aid to Afghanistan since 2002, including US$850.9-million, to the two funds. (Foreign aid money is delivered in U.S. dollars.)"

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-billions-in-aid-money-for-afghanistan-wasted-us-agency-finds/
'via Blog this'

Unbridled military spending endangers liberty

The Military Industrial Complex’s Assault on Liberty | The American Conservative Michael Shindler:

June 22, 2018 - "[T]he House Appropriations Committee advanced a lavish $674.6 billion Pentagon spending bill for fiscal year 2019. That means Congress is preparing to spend even more on defense, which isn’t at all shocking. To even marginally decrease defense spending, according to its champions, would be disastrous....

"America’s military has over 800 bases worldwide, more than any other nation or empire in history. In order to staff, equip, and maintain this body, the U.S. spends more on defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, and France combined.... According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute, the strength of the American military exceeds that of all other countries.... Yet legislators still claim that the military is experiencing a 'readiness crisis,' which necessitates further fattening of the defense budget.

"This 'crisis' is often exaggerated or confused by its proponents because 'readiness' is an ambiguous term that hints at urgency without ever specifying a threat. In that vein, arguments often focus on the health of particular programs while failing to contextualize them within clearly defined geopolitical aims.... Emotion, not genuine geopolitical insight, drives popular support for inflated defense spending, and, in the words of horror writer H. P. Lovecraft, 'the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.'

"When World War II ended, defense spending fell significantly. President Truman was left wondering how to persuade Congress to fund various geopolitical projects.... Senator Arthur Vandenberg forthrightly advised him to 'scare the hell out of the American people,' and so he did with great success. Later presidents followed suit throughout the Cold War and, together, they funded an extravagant arms race that lasted until the Soviet Union fell....

"Shortly, however, new demons were conjured up from the Middle Eastern sands and the defense budget has been distended ever since. If this cycle of inflated spending and fearsome rhetoric were some sort of perverse exercise towards geopolitical predictability, perhaps it would be pardonable. But it isn’t. In addition to our scruples, it costs us our liberty.

"In his famous 'Cross of Iron' speech, President Eisenhower said, 'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed .... In the words of American political philosopher Lysander Spooner, 'the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances … that it will be used as they wish it to be used''....

"In a capitalist economy such as ours, money is the fuel of freedom. To take so much of it away from taxpayers to fund military bloat, which is neither necessary nor beneficial, is to not only deprive them of some good or service, but to deprive them of their choice, which is the essence of liberty."

Read more: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-military-industrial-complexs-assault-on-liberty/
'via Blog this'

Uprising in Venezuela

Venezuelan Crisis Boils Over as Opposition Leader Declares Himself President - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Eric Boehm:

January 23, 2019 - "Nicolás Maduro was sworn in for his second term as Venezuela's president earlier this month ... at the country's Supreme Court — rather than, as is typical, in front of the National Assembly.... Five days earlier, when the Assembly opened its new session, opposition leader Juan Guaidó stood in front of his colleagues and accused Maduro of being a 'dictator' and 'usurper' who had used a fraudulent election to claim another six-year term....

"In the days since Maduro's January 10 inauguration, things have moved quickly. The United States, Canada, and 17 Latin American countries signed a declaration refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro's government. Some have cut off diplomatic ties with Venezuela. Those official actions have bolstered unofficial efforts to oppose Maduro in the streets of Caracas and other cities, where people impoverished by the Venezuelan regime's socialist policies have clashed with the military, which (along with the courts) remains loyal to Maduro.

"In the midst of huge protests Wednesday that marked the anniversary of the 1958 uprising that toppled a military dictatorship, Guaidó declared himself to be the interim president of Venezuela — a bold move that was quickly endorsed by President Donald Trump and other world leaders. 'The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law,' the White House said Wednesday in a brief statement. An op-ed from Vice President Mike Pence ... Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal ... called Maduro a 'dictator with no legitimate claim to power' and encouraged Venezuelans to support Guaidó....

"Whether Maduro can cling to power likely depends on whether he can use the country's military to crush the current uprising — similar to what happened in 2017 when an anti-Maduro uprising was violently suppressed. Hopefully, the military will abandon Maduro....

"Maduro is a monster, and Venezuelans are right to want to remove him from power. He sought to continue the socialist policies of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and has now brought those ideas to their inevitable conclusion. Chavez nationalized the Venezuelan oil companies and used the profits to fund a massive welfare state, but production declined  ... in the absence of competition and foreign investment. When oil revenues fell, ... Chavez (who died in 2013) and Maduro printed money.... When inflation resulted, they closed off Venezuela to imported goods. Before long, what had once been the richest country in Latin America was reduced to a place where toilet paper is considered a luxury. An estimated 3 million Venezuelans have fled the country, turning the nation's collapse into a regional humanitarian crisis....

"[T]he Trump administration's response ... has been admirable in its restraint. After all, it was Trump who suggested, in August 2017, that American military intervention could be used to 'topple' the Maduro regime. In September 2018, White House officials met with Venezuelan ex-patriots to discuss the possibility of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow Maduro. Ironically, both incidents served to only tighten Maduro's grip on power, as he was able to point to U.S. machinations as the source of Venezuelans' problems....

"An American-backed military coup in the style of the ones that toppled governments elsewhere in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s would likely trigger endless internal conflict in Venezuela — and foment distrust towards whomever eventually replaces Maduro....

"The United States ... has an opportunity to show that it has learned a lesson from the decade-plus quagmire in the Middle East. Namely, that regime change is never as neat and tidy as it might appear at the outset, and that nation-building is best done by the people who will have to live there when the job is finished."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/23/what-is-happening-in-venezuela-socialism
'via Blog this'

U.S. support for Yemen war raises opposition

Lawmakers alarmed by U.S. support for bombing campaign in Yemen - Deirdre Shesgreen, USA Today:

September 12, 2018 - "Lawmakers in both parties are increasingly alarmed by America’s support for a bombing campaign in Yemen that has left thousands of civilians dead – including 40 children who were killed [in August] when an airstrike hit a school bus....

“'It is as clear as day that the Saudi-led coalition is recklessly – and likely intentionally – killing innocent civilians and children, and they’re doing it with U.S. bombs and so-called targeting assistance,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....

"In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said ... the U.S. is working to ensure that Saudi Arabia and the UAE support efforts to end the war, and in the meantime, that the coalition allows humanitarian support to reach those in need and mitigates the impact of the conflict on civilians and civilian infrastructure. But others said the civilian casualties and a severe humanitarian crisis in Yemen is getting worse, not better.

"'The civil war in Yemen has been raging for more than three years and has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis,' Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Todd Young, R-Ind., wrote in a joint op-ed published [in September] by The Washington Post. They noted that three-quarters of Yemen’s population – about 22 million people – need humanitarian assistance. Of those, 8 million are on the brink of starvation, and 400,000 children are suffering from severe malnutrition.

"'A major contributor to the devastation and chaos is the indiscriminate bombing campaign led by a coalition made up of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which receives refueling, intelligence and targeting support from the United States,' the two senators wrote.

"A Sept. 5 report by the United Nation’s human rights office found that since March 2015, at least 5,144 civilians have been killed in Yemen and more than 8,749 injured. Children accounted for 1,184 of those killed and 1,592 of the injured.... 'Coalition airstrikes continued to be the leading cause of child casualties as well as overall civilian casualties,' the U.N. concluded....

"The Yemeni conflict is essentially a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as they compete for power and influence in the region. The civil war began three years ago when Houthi Shiite rebels, backed by Iran, overthrew President Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi's government. A Saudi-led coalition, backed by the U.S., launched a military campaign against the Houthis soon after. Iran is an arch-rival of Saudi Arabia, which has a Sunni majority."

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/12/lawmakers-alarmed-u-s-support-bombing-campaign-yemen/1283798002/
'via Blog this'

U.S. military spending endangers American liberty

The Military Industrial Complex’s Assault on Liberty | The American Conservative - Michael Shumer:

June 22, 2018 - "Last week, the House Appropriations Committee advanced a lavish $674.6 billion Pentagon spending bill for fiscal year 2019. That means Congress is preparing to spend even more on defense, which isn’t at all shocking. To even marginally decrease defense spending, according to its champions, would be disastrous....

"America’s military has over 800 bases worldwide, more than any other nation or empire in history. In order to staff, equip, and maintain this body, the U.S. spends more on defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, and France combined—to great effect. According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute, the strength of the American military exceeds that of all other countries, based on factors that include its quantities of soldiers, tanks, and aircraft. If any nation is prepared to brave the whirlwind of geopolitics, it is the United States. Yet legislators still claim that the military is experiencing a 'readiness crisis,' which necessitates further fattening of the defense budget.

"This 'crisis' is often exaggerated or confused by its proponents because 'readiness' is an ambiguous term that hints at urgency without ever specifying a threat. In that vein, arguments often focus on the health of particular programs while failing to contextualize them within clearly defined geopolitical aims. Whether a certain squadron of pilots is getting enough flight hours is a very different question than whether the U.S. is ready to maintain its current commitments abroad or hold its ground in a world war. Emotion, not genuine geopolitical insight, drives popular support for inflated defense spending, and, in the words of horror writer H. P. Lovecraft, 'the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.'

"When World War II ended, defense spending fell significantly. President Truman was left wondering how to persuade Congress to fund various geopolitical projects.... Senator Arthur Vandenberg forthrightly advised him to 'scare the hell out of the American people,' and so he did with great success. Later presidents followed suit throughout the Cold War and, together, they funded an extravagant arms race that lasted until the Soviet Union fell....

"Shortly, however, new demons were conjured up from the Middle Eastern sands and the defense budget has been distended ever since. If this cycle of inflated spending and fearsome rhetoric were some sort of perverse exercise towards geopolitical predictability, perhaps it would be pardonable. But it isn’t. In addition to our scruples, it costs us our liberty.

"In his famous 'Cross of Iron' speech, President Eisenhower said, 'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.' Even worse, excessive defense spending is an assault on liberty. In the words of American political philosopher Lysander Spooner, 'the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances…that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.'

"In a capitalist economy such as ours, money is the fuel of freedom. To take so much of it away from taxpayers to fund military bloat, which is neither necessary nor beneficial, is to not only deprive them of some good or service, but to deprive them of their choice, which is the essence of liberty."

Read more: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-military-industrial-complexs-assault-on-liberty/

'via Blog this'

Paul and McCain oppose Trump's CIA pick

Rand’s rep as Senate rebel on the line - POLITICO - Burgess Everett:

May 14, 2018 - "Rand Paul is once again the talk of the Senate.... [W]ith the Senate preparing for a nail-biter on Trump’s CIA nominee Gina Haspel, the chamber is abuzz over the latest will-he-or-won’t-he Rand guessing game. The libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator says he’s a hard 'no,' but Democrats and Republicans believe he may yet fold under pressure from Trump, as he did with Mike Pompeo for secretary of state.

""Paul had a simple answer when asked if he again can be persuaded by the president to support one of his crucial nominees: 'No.'

"'Someone who has been an active participant and enthusiast for torture is not someone who should represent America,' Paul said in an interview as he left the Senate for the week on Thursday.... In a POLITICO op-ed Friday, he criticized the CIA nominee for selectively releasing information about her record of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees and said 'that fact alone should be enough to cause the Senate [to] reject her nomination'....

"For Paul, it’s the latest test of his resolve in the face of enormous pressure from his party and the president to toe the party line....

"In February, Paul single-handedly caused a brief government shutdown by refusing to relent in his opposition to a budget deal, but then backed off before forcing a second one in March. In the case of Pompeo, he relented after being personally lobbied by the president....

"Paul does not serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will hold the first vote on Haspel’s nomination. Pompeo was first taken up by the Foreign Relations Committee, which Paul does sit on, and his opposition threatened an embarrassing 'unfavorable' vote by the panel.

"For now, Haspel is short of votes for confirmation. {Democratic Senators Joe] Manchin, an Intelligence Committee member, and [Joe] Donnelly support her. But other moderate Democrats ... are not yet behind her, and neither are Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).

"Though he‘s unlikely to be present for the vote, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) came out against Haspel last week over what he called her evasive responses to questions about the morality of torture, which he called 'disqualifying.' That marks one of the few times the hawkish McCain and libertarian-leaning Paul have agreed — McCain once called Paul 'wacko,' and Paul last year said McCain was 'unhinged' — on foreign policy."

Read more: http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.com/2018/05/paul-and-mccain-oppose-trumps-cia-pick.html
'via Blog this'

U.S. media: Don't give peace a chance in Korea

Historic Korean Summit Sets the Table for Peace — and US Pundits React With Horror | The Nation - Tim Shorrock:

May 2, 2018 - "April 27, 2018, was a historic day for Korea, and for the millions of people on both sides of that tragically divided peninsula. In a meticulously planned event, Kim Jong-un, the 34-year-old hereditary dictator of North Korea, stepped carefully over the border running through the truce village of Panmunjom and clasped hands with Moon Jae-in, the democratically elected president of South Korea....

 "Kim’s action marked the start of a remarkable day in which the two nations 'solemnly declared' an end to the Korean War, which ripped the country apart from 1950 to 1953.

"Over the next few hours, accompanied by top aides and diplomats, generals and intelligence chiefs, the Korean leaders discussed an agreement that would lead to what they both described as the “complete denuclearization” of the peninsula. The two also 'affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord,' a signal to both the United States and China that the days of great-power intervention in their divided country may be waning....

"But almost from the moment of that first handshake, the pundits who shape the US media’s coverage of North Korea were spinning the summit, and Kim’s outreach in particular, as a dangerous, even ominous, event....

"'Yada, yada, yada,' the perennial hawk Max Boot wrote disparagingly in The Washington Post about the 'Korea summit hype,' adding that 'there is very little of substance here.' Similar hot takes were offered by Nicholas Kristof and Nicholas Eberstadt in The New York Times, Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post, Robin Wright in The New Yorker, and Michael O’Hanlon in The Hill. Their doubts were repeated and amplified as gospel by the usual critics on cable TV.

"The kicker came on Sunday, April 29, when the Times’ Mark Landler painted the Korean summit as an affront to US national-security interests. Citing every establishment pundit he could find, Landler argued that a resumption of diplomatic ties between the Koreas 'will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North,' while making it hard for Trump 'to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch.' It was depressing to see such overt cheerleading for US imperial control over Korea in the media."

Read more: https://www.thenation.com/article/historic-korean-summit-sets-the-table-for-peace-and-us-pundits-react-with-horror/
'via Blog this'

Kochs invest millions to reshape US foreign policy

Getting Realist: Charles Koch Ramps Up Efforts to Reshape U.S. Foreign Policy — Inside Philanthropy:

December 14, 2017 - "The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe reported recently that the Charles Koch Foundation is making 'major investments' in foreign policy programs at elite American universities, including a $3.7 million grant to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"That news comes on the heels of roughly $10 million in similar grants the Charles Koch Foundation has given in recent months to Notre Dame, Tufts University, Catholic University, and the University of California San Diego — with much more on the way.

The grants, according to Jaffe, are part of a 'larger effort to broaden the debate about an American foreign policy Koch and others at his foundation argue has become too militaristic, interventionist and expensive.' Longtime watchers of Koch philanthropy won't be surprised here; the Cato Institute, which the Kochs helped found in the 1970s, has long made these same arguments....

"Charles has never been aligned with Republicans on foreign policy. He was against the Vietnam war and more recently ... America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as mentioned, Cato has long been among the leading voices challenging the globalist security dogma largely embraced by both political parties.

"To that end, according to Jaffe, the grants are 'aimed at generating new ideas about how America should use its military power and vast economic influence,' and adhere to a 'realist school' of foreign policy that is leery of humanitarian interventions, nation building, or other causes that are tangential to American interests.... The gifts will primarily pay for graduate-level and postdoctoral fellowships....

"Charles' expanding anti-interventionist grantmaking aims to intellectually bolster a strain of thinking that's lately gained steam on an increasingly populist right and has fans on the left, too. While Trump's crude America First rhetoric isn't very persuasive, the arguments made by realist scholars like Stephen Walt carry more heft. Walt, who's getting in on this new Koch funding, has lately emerged as a leading critic of a national security strategy that has America embroiled in multiple wars, with 200,000 U.S. troops stationed in 177 countries....

"The Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) and the Foundation Center recently found that conflict, national security, and peace ... funders have made an 'outsized impact'.... Such high-leverage giving goes back decades, but it's typically been supported by donors who embrace an expansive U.S. role in the world, and that's still largely the case.

"Now it's fair to say that such funders are going to have some competition. These success areas are precisely the kinds of foreign entanglements that Charles Koch, armed with an impressive Rolodex and billions in the bank, would like the U.S. to avoid."

Read more: https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2017/12/14/koch-anti-intervention-grants-posen-walt
'via Blog this'

Johnson's the only candidate worth considering

Why Gary Johnson Is the Only Presidential Candidate Worthy of Consideration | HeatStreet - Sebastian Doggart:

October 24, 2016 - "When the Trump campaign imploded, I finally felt it was safe to come out as a supporter of Gary Johnson.... The response was more hostile than if I’d announced I was engaged to Kim Jong Un.

"'I’m genuinely concerned you’ve lost your mind,' wrote my pro-Clinton friend Eliza....  I knew Eliza opposed the death penalty, so asked her why she was voting for Clinton, who still believes the government can kill people legally. When I showed her that, unlike Johnson, Clinton is indeed a cheerleader for lethal injections, Eliza went silent.

"Capital punishment is just one issue where many Americans, in their heart of hearts, may well agree more with Johnson than with ClinTrump. Peace is another one. Hawkish Hillary voted for the Iraq war, backed military action in Libya and sending American troops into Syria. Trigger-happy Trump also gave the Iraq war a thumbs-up.... Johnson opposed the Iraq war, and has pledged to slash the military budget ... scale back on nuclear programs, close down some foreign bases and end foreign invasions.

"Johnson is a far braver free-speech advocate than ClinTrump. He has been steadfast in his opposition to the Patriot Act, censorship of the Internet, militarization of the police and the indefinite detention of prisoners. In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union gave him the highest score of any presidential candidate....

"Johnson is the champion of the challenge to the bankrupt two-party system, with which millennials are so fed up. That’s especially true with Social Security ... an entitlements program that is heading off a cliff.... 'Millennials are getting screwed,' Johnson warns.... The same is true with healthcare. As Johnson said: 'President Obama’s affordable healthcare is dependent on young healthy people paying for older unhealthy people'....

"On education, Johnson ... will completely abolish the grossly wasteful Department of Education and will expand vouchers for private schools. Unlike Clinton, his plan favors teachers over unions; local educational processes over federalized testing.

"Johnson is passionate in his belief that the Federal government should stay out of both your bedroom and your wallet. That is most apparent in his tax plan, which would eliminate the IRS and replace most of the tax code with a single consumption tax. He’s promised to submit a balanced budget to Congress within his first 100 days in office....

"Johnson could win the White House it if he prevails in just one state, and neither Clinton nor Trump secures 270 electoral college votes.... Terror of this scenario is what’s brought out the Obamas to turn their sights on Johnson and led the liberal-limousine echo chamber to sink to personal insults. Bill Maher recently called Johnson a 'ventriloquist dummy' and a 'fucking idiot.' John Oliver drank the two-party Kool-Aid, laid into Johnson as 'weird… an ill tempered mountain-molester with a radical, dangerous tax plan.' David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, called him 'the least informed candidate for the presidency'.... The Clinton propaganda machine and their loyal media supporters ... hammered Johnson [and] MSNBC ... organized a Gotcha-ism orgy."

Read more: http://heatst.com/politics/pot-shot-heres-why-gary-johnson-should-be-the-next-president/
'via Blog this'