Category: Foreign Policy

The Founders Knew, Why Do We Then Keep a Standing Army? Government is our God!

Adrift in a sea of feelings is where this country’s society is now. Principles do not matter, faith does not matter, it is most about what we can get for little or no effort or how can we feel safe both physically and emotionally.

A society like this should expect to be slaves, good compliant tax slaves on the government plantation. The elites love this.

In light of the approaching celebration of what was called Armistice Day, since WWII called Veterans Day, it is worth revisiting what some of the founders KNEW as a result of their own experiences:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.- James Madison

From a 2005 post by Jacob Hornsberger, he rightly predicts what our future holds:

Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”

Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?

The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”

Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.

Jacob also offers a solution, one that will never be taken seriously since our trust as a society is in government and not in the founding father’s Providence:

There is one — and only one — solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “Citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.

How will our society ever have a faith that could help them have hope while being attacked by a foreign empire? More importantly, how did the founders and militias have such faith in the  1770s?

What remains to be seen is how of if the various parts of American society can once again trust God instead of government for a free future. I guess time will tell.

-SF1

What is Good for America, Is Not Good for US Congress Representative’s Finances

The US House votes 354-60 against the withdrawal from the ILLEGAL US presence in Syria .. I think we found 354 people ready to volunteer themselves, or their kids and/or their grand-kids for the next war they dream up.
It must be all that MIC [Military Industrial Complex] lobbying money in their pocket and the promise of more $ that had them all voting against another illegal war in a far off land.
At the end of the day, this is great news for America, for American teenagers approaching the age where the military tries to attract them to the noble mission to occupy 700-1000 bases around the world, drone strike WITHOUT documentation in half a dozen countries and basically fail at bringing real democracy or freedom to any country in four decades PLUS.
Moon of Alabama’s post highlights all the good things going on in Syria which of course means that US politicians and their media start crying:
.. The mainstream borg is up in arms that Turkey uses Jihadis to attack their beloved anarcho-marxist PKK terrorists group. They have conveniently forgotten the history of the U.S. war on Syria, its arming of those Jihadis and its pampering of al-Qaeda. The U.S. did not betray the Kurds any more than it betrayed Turkey and the Jihadis which the Obama administration armed throughout the war…
On Lew Rockwell’s web site, Michael S. Rozeff writes:
This vote shows that the House members from both parties are captured by both military/intelligence/deep state interests and world government/democracy ideology. Both such elements go against the well-being of America..
You think? Bi-partisan agreement on unlimited wars, ‘wars without end, amen’ is what I hear from these sociopath politicians. Between the Israeli and MIC lobbies, these politicians can retire comfortably after only a few years in office.
To hear the politicians tell it, it was “shock and horror” when Turkey’s extremists start their NORMAL brutal tactics, but this time against the Kurds. It was all good when 500,000 Syrian’s were killed by Obama’s decision to “regime change” Syria.
Rania Khalek on Twitter outlines what REALLY came down:

“.. The US armed and funded extremists in Syria to overthrow the Syrian government and the media cheered. Those same extremists then attacked the Kurds on Turkey’s behalf to the horror of the same media…”
Yeah, main stream media (MSM) and a majority of US politicians acting the same way on the same day .. what can you say. They are all crazy.
Actually, things are going really well in Syria now with the US finally quitting their trespassing:

The Turkish controlled Jihadis made little progress. Mostly Kurdish fighters are preventing them from expanding from the area they are informally allowed to hold. The Turkish command has called up more irregular ‘rebel’ troops including Jihadis from Jaish al-Islam who had once controlled Ghouta in the east of Damascus. They had been transported to Idleb after their defeat. .. The Russian air force in Syria is preventing the use of the Turkish air-force in support of the Turkish attacks. Yesterday a Turkish F-16 entered Syrian air space but retreated when some Russian fighters appeared to hunt for it.

Can we do the same with Afghanistan now?

Asking for a friend.

-SF1

US Sends Warship into Russia’s Gulf of Mexico – Amid Tensions with Turkey

There are no coincidences really. I wonder if the US Empire’s navy commanders read Paul Craig Roberts blog and then react accordingly:

It appears that Washington intends to withdraw from the Open Skies agreement with Russia .. The Open Skies Treaty allowed the US and Russia to overfly each other’s territory in order that there could be mutual assurance that one country or the other wasn’t building up forces for attack ..

.. then Roberts writes:

.. Washington is currently raising tensions in the Black Sea, arming Ukraine, Georgia, and Romania, countries that border the Black Sea along with Russia, Turkey, and Bulgaria.The US and its NATO puppets are conducting military exercises in this internal sea that hosts Russia’s Crimean naval base ..

.. then Roberts suggests a strategic move that would stop the US/NATO in their tracks:

.. Russia can declare the Black Sea on Russia’s own coast to be a Russian national security interest.

It would be a highly responsible decision for the Russian government to prevent the dangers that Washington is creating by taking a lesson from Ancient Rome.

Rome declared a much larger sea, the Mediterranean Sea,to be “mare nostrum,” — our sea.The Russians could declare the Black Sea to be “our sea.”

Russia should be able to treat the Black Sea like the US treats the Gulf of Mexico, right? If Iranian or Russian naval vessels were performing military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, the US media (neo-con mouth pieces) would be crying and shouting foul!

Here is the US Navy’s response as shared by Sputnik:

The US warship, armed with cruise missiles and interceptors, marks the seventh entry of an American missile destroyer into the Black Sea since the beginning of the year, as well as the second of the USS Porter.

Commander of the US 6th Fleet Vice Admiral Lisa Franchetti has commented on the USS Porter’s arrival in the Black Sea.

According to a statement published in the newspaper Stars and Stripes, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer was deployed to an area near Russia’s borders in order to carry out routine operations, showing NATO allies and US partners in the region the country’s “dedication to freedom of navigation”.

How about that. Great timing!

Then, on queue, the US talks about some sanctions (1st level of warfare when negotiations breaks down) against Turkey for invading Syria (but the US did that and was not sanctioned, “above the law” anyone?). Turkey has already agreed to purchase Russian S-400 missile defense platforms, and these sanctions seem to push Turkey towards Russia. Geographically, it might help to note what role Turkey plays in Black Sea access:

 

Turkey’s ability to restrict access to the Black Sea comes from a pre-WWII agreement:

Montreux Convention

.. the 1936 Montreux Convention [2], which makes Turkey the gatekeeper to the Black Sea and lays down the rules to be applied by Turkey in allowing the entry of ships from the Mediterranean.

These rules state that “in time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag and with any kind of cargo” (Article 2).

However, they impose very severe restrictions on the entry of warships belonging to non-Black Sea states and on how long they can remain in the Black Sea… And Article 18(2) stipulates:

“Vessels of war belonging to non-Black Sea Powers shall not remain in the Black Sea more than twenty-one days, whatever be the object of their presence there.”

In addition, under Article 13, Turkey must be notified in advance of a proposed passage through the Straits by a warship, 15 days in advance in the case of warships belonging to non-Black Sea powers, and the notification must “specify the destination, name, type and number of the vessels, as also the date of entry for the outward passage and, if necessary, for the return journey”.

Now you can see why NATO advances into Ukraine also needed a Turkey NATO membership as well to ensure US Empire warship access ANYTIME.

I believe that the US Empire/NATO has over played its hand since the USSR dissolved into various republics. Even though the US Empire promised that NATO would not advance in the wake of the Soviet collapse, it did so anyway.

So whether Russia becomes bold at this point and follows Paul Craig Robert’s suggestion about the Black Sea (based on how Rome essentially did the same centuries ago) or if Turkey flips back out of NATO over the US Empire’s bully tactics, things seem to be a changing in the Geo-political world at an increasing rate.

Stay tuned!

-SF1

 

12OCT2019: Blog Post Trilogy Finale – Sedition Criminalization Back in Vogue

10 years after the Constitution was drafted, this act was signed by “patriot” John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

Just from my history education from the government, I know there were times in our history that one had to just agree with the government and not speak or write critically of their actions. Words like treason and sedition became mainstream.

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. – John F. Kennedy

From the “Copperheads” during the Civil War (those who called out the tyrant Lincoln) to those critical of entering the “Great War” (WWI), who had to content with Woodrow Wilson’s  U.S. Sedition Act of 1918, the act that made it a crime to ”willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.” Less than 25 years later aviation hero Charles Lindbergh would be criticized by FDR by not going along with his secret plan to get America involved in yet another world war. (WWII) From George Bush stating “you are either with us or against us” in his decision to invade Iraq to the same treatment when Barack Obama decided to attack Libya and back ISIS in Syria, it is the same song, different verse ad nauseum.

This is my 3rd post today, a trilogy of sorts, which:

  1. covered the unhealthy big-business/government alliance and its impact on regions of this nation.
  2. covered on a macro scale how there were two visions of the American Colonies “cause” for independence from the British Empire.
  3. covered on a micro scale, where what one individual says or writes is held against them as a crime against the government.

Pure Redcoat.

Pure Soviet Union circa 1950s/1960s.

It turns out, it is also Pure America in 1798!

Today, under Trump, this whole critical views of government has again gotten personnel. In the last few years, individuals have been banned from social media or experienced a demonetization of their work online because of their words. The attitude these days aligns with that of John Adams back in 1798 when he signed the Alien and Sedition Act as described by Robert Ringer nearly 10 years ago:

… which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government ”through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.”

Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal. This by a group of men who themselves had escaped bondage only twenty-two years earlier!

It was an audacious move by the Federalist-controlled Congress to silence the Republicans, particularly regarding their support of the French Revolution. It was, of course, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, which clearly states, in the First Amendment, that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.”

With the 21st century press looking more and more like the 20th century USSR mouthpiece “Pravda”, the only true “press” is the independent blogger, tweeter and friend of liberty that risks being the rebel in social settings both in the workplace/marketplace and in the neighborhood.

Daniel McAdams frames it nicely:

Are we agents of a foreign power for opposing the foreign policy of the US government? This is the way of thinking that dominated communist Europe for decades. The Party was always right, guided as it was by the inevitable and undeniable march of history. Any foreign policy position put forth by The Party was by definition the correct foreign policy. So anyone who disagreed was also by definition incorrect and a “wrecker.” When The Party is by definition correct, any deviationist must be punished and any deviation must be disappeared.

New interpretations by Trump’s Administration indicate that in its “Maximum Pressure” exercise with Iran have changed the rules to criminalize individuals who “associate” with Iranians. Originally intended to mean:

Responding to a query by a potential participant, an OFAC employee explained that ‘transaction’ and ‘dealing in transactions,’ as those terms are used by OFAC, are broadly construed to include not only monetary dealings or exchanges, but also ‘providing any sort of service’ and ‘non-monetary service,’ including giving a presentation at a conference.

So simple truth-telling about the US Empire’s sanctions that ban Iranian import of components to make medicine, there by indirectly causing unknown number of deaths in that nation, could subject one to fines and imprisonment.

We have all kinds of freedom in the USA today because of all the interventions around the world, especially in the Middle East, since 1990, NOT!

Pretty soon, your neighbors will be encouraged to “say something, if you hear something”, or maybe not, since your smartphone can report your words 24/7.

Sorry to end on a note like this, but there is a bright side, a silver lining if you will in the empire’s quest to silence us. A weakness.

Pride.

The myth of American Exceptionalism will help to unravel the powerful.

Pride will do 🙂

-SF!

Below: Script from the movie “The Patriot”:

MARTIN
	I've just been inside the mind of a
	genius.  Lord Cornwallis knows more
	about war than I could in a dozen
	lifetimes.

		BILLINGS
	Cheerful news to greet the morn.

		MARTIN
	His victories at Charleston and
	Camden were perfect, strategically,
	tactically, logistically.  But he
	has a weakness.

They all turn to Martin.

		MARTIN
	Lord Cornwallis is brilliant.  His
	weakness is that he knows it.

		GABRIEL
	Father?

		MARTIN
	Pride is his weakness.

The men consider that.

		DELANCEY
	Personally, I'd would prefer
	stupidity.

		MARTIN
	Pride will do.

Know Your Enemy: Even Jesus Did This – Religion and Empire

While Sun Tzu said:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Jesus said:

“Love your enemies,
Do good to them who hate you.”

But do notice, in pragmatic terms, Jesus made himself scarce around the religious elites who were out to get him and his small band. He too encouraged the selling of a cloak (coat) to purchase a sword (gun) for the disciples to use as self defense in times of crisis.

However, the truth is there as Paul notes in his letter to those in Rome:

“But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Jesus too set the stage for a unique way with dealing with those out to do one harm:

Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.

While this all sounds like life on a personal level, this also extends to relationships between communities, cultures and countries as well. I am guessing I would get booed like Ron Paul did during a GOP debate in South Carolina years ago, but I stand by it. So would Francis Marion! But I digress.

The reality is that those that choose to do good in this world will find opposition. Even back in the 1st century Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:

“For we wanted to come to you — I, Paul, more than once — and yet Satan thwarted us.”

The Roman Empire had good roads too .. so this was not an infrastructure issue, but a real one with a real adversary. There is evil in this world that makes life difficult.

So on to the core of my message here and the article and book that led me down this strange path. “The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs” by Andrei Martyanov does a convincing job at painting an accurate picture for the state of the American Empire, which by definition is the enemy of most of the people of the world and IF we were honest, considering our erosion of privacy and freedoms, it is also an enemy of its own citizens, not unlike the USSR of its day.

This book gives an insight into the evolution of weapons and the way they influenced international relations in the 20th and 21st centuries. It also defines Revolution in Military Affairs as manifested via policy, politics, and technology. It reviews some models which are useful in assessing the current geopolitical situation. This book also tries to give a forecast of the future development of warfare and the ways in which it is going to change the whole system of international relations, hopefully towards a new geopolitical equilibrium.

Some helpful early quotes from this book will help you see the value of knowing your enemy, knowing the truth, so that y’all can be prepared.

modern war between nation-states became so complex, in reflection of the tools of such wars, that it is an axiom, not even a theorem, that people who cannot grasp fundamental mathematical, physical, tactical and operational principles on which modern weapon systems operate are simply not qualified in the minimal degree to offer their opinions on the issues of warfare, intelligence operations and military technology without appropriate backgrounds. Failing that, what can one think but that they are merely in the business of content provision (filling space/entertainment) or of propagating the official line—of propaganda, in short—mostly with regard to warmongering? In today’s information-oversaturated world of massive egos nurtured by the dopamine of public visibility and of American politics turned into showbiz, these are the types who dominate the discussion on the most important, vital issue of war and peace in our time.

This is so true, the information overload renders most people helpless in sifting through the lies to find the foundational truth. So much of media is indeed government blow-horns used to confuse and disorient the sheep on any given day making them in fact impotent.

I can only hope that the knowledge readers will gain through this book will help to increase public awareness of the deadly consequences of even a conventional war between global superpowers and will help to dispel the war propaganda being pushed on the public by ignorant and incompetent pundits who have no business offering even an iota of their opinions on what is today a Revolution in Military Affairs of historic magnitude.

Again, the ignorance of the elite usually leads to the slaughter of the innocent. Herein lies the dilemma, how does one find the time to sift through all the Geo-politics while real life is raging right along side in real time in their own communities and their own relationships?

Those holding a modern Ph.D. in philosophy or political science, unless they have a serious education and experience in other fields, will be hard-pressed to derive any sensible conclusions on automation, for example, barring some self-evident and easily accessible truths such as that increased automation removes workers from the manufacturing floor, thus increasing unemployment. This same Ph.D. will have very little knowledge of what goes into the fundamental technological principles relating to the automation of modern industry or, for that matter, how G-code interpreters work for Computer Numerical Control machining centers and what is required to run them—a knowledge domain belonging to college-educated engineers.

This is why we have the blind leading the blind. Those at the top are ill-informed by their own ignorance in attempting to make good decisions. This happen not just in government committees, think-tanks or even at the state and local level, but this also occurs in most major corporations these days as technology has outpaced the knowledge that middle and upper management were taught as little as one decade ago.

The article by Moon of Alabama is a good one to understand the pragmatic situation we find ourselves in with the latest Russian technology advances (such as underwater drones pictured below) as well as the coordinated drone (two pictures down) strike on the Saudi oil production facility.

Artistic rendering of a drone submersible

Martyanov explains why the models the ‘experts’ use fail. He shows how the advantage of one weapon system against another one can be calculated. People who have had a military education know these formulas. Those who only studied political science have likely never heard of them.

I will allow MOA to be the expert on that aspect of this book.

Houthi drones on display

My own interest lies in the philosophic underpinnings of Martyanov’s book itself. More posts on this book will be in the works shortly.

Stay tuned.

-SF1