Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 12

The West Bank Is Ripe for the Taking: President Trump Reverses Policy in Israel

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced recently that Israel establishing settlements in the West Bank “is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.” In a way this is just stating the obvious, since the United States unconditionally and blindly supports whatever the Israeli government does, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated as part of his campaign promise that he would take control over large portions of the West Bank. If this happens, the Palestinians may lose any hope of being able to establish their own independent state. The Trump administration’s reversal in policy should be condemned because it is detrimental to peace and human rights in the region.

Israel conquered the West Bank in the Six Day War in 1967, and most of the world views the occupation of the territory as illegal. Furthermore, the continued establishment of Israeli settlements that results in the destruction of Palestinian homes is condemned by the international community, so in a way, President Trump’s policy gives Prime Minister Netanyahu the green light to annex parts of the territory and expand into it in any way that he sees fit. This is dangerous because it will inevitably mean more conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and it is obvious which side the United States will take. The United States government already supports (though one could argue inadvertently) the demolition of homes, creating of refugees, blocking of life-essential products, martial law, and unproportioned force against the Palestinians, but increased Israeli control over the West Bank could bring about American support of overt genocide. This would not be viewed in a positive light around the world, and none of this will help promote peace and stability in the region.

Since the Palestinians would like to see a two-state solution with their own independent government, Netanyahu’s actions in the next few years could make it impossible to see it become a reality. The prime minister has no concern for the Palestinians living in the West Bank (or the Gaza Strip), and his primary concern is for Israel to annex Palestinian lands, expand its territory, and dominate the Middle East as a military power (thus the continued conflict with its rival, Iran). Netanyahu should win the Nobel Warmongering Prize, and as long as he is in charge, the human rights violations will not end.

The United States government should withdraw support for the Israeli government and halt the handing out of billions of dollars annually to a nation that violates human rights and continues to push towards a war with Iran. The unwavering relationship between the United States and Israel is a handicap, and it actually makes Americans less safe. The Trump administration’s condoning of the West Bank settlements only stands to create more enemies around the world, which could lead to more terrorism against Americans, plus, if Netanyahu gets his war with Iran, it will inevitably put more Americans in harm’s way. It may be difficult for American politicians to rebel against the status quo and the huge Israeli lobby in the United States, but doing so would prove to be beneficial to the American people.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Not-So-Freedom Act Is Up for Renewal

The debate about whether to reauthorize sections of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 has been underway, as these sections are set to expire at the end of this year. Although this has not been a major headline in the mainstream media, which may be partly due to the obsession with the impeachment procedures of one politician who will eventually leave office and be replaced by another leader who will violate the Constitution in some way, the importance of this issue should not be overlooked. The Freedom Act was a watered down version of the surveillance activities that were taking place prior to the Snowden revelations, and although these reforms were a move in the right direction, there has still always been the potential for abuse. While Americans focus on trivial matters, civil liberties are on the line and potentially being violated.

Although the Freedom Act officially outlawed the bulk collection of telephony metadata, the same data could be obtained from the telecommunications providers if needed for an investigation . The NSA recently ended its Call Detail Records (CDR) program because it was not able to successfully utilize it within the narrowly defined parameters included in the act , however, the intelligence agencies are still arguing that the program should be reauthorized just in case it is necessary again. Congress has been scrutinizing these claims, and even Senator Dianne Feinstein opined, "It’s really not clear to me why a program with limited intelligence value and clear compliance problems should be reauthorized."

The government will pretend that programs like these that violate the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) enhance national security, yet, it is often unable to explain how this is the case, or it pleads “classified.” With the CDR program, for example, there has been no evidence presented that this has prevented a terrorist plot, but there is a clear potential for abuse of power and violations of the Constitution. President Trump is pushing for this program to be permanently reauthorized, and if it is, we could end up taking steps backwards when it comes to civil liberties.

Also up for renewal next month are the “roving wiretap,” “business records,” and “lone wolf” provisions. These have not changed much since their inception subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, and although these are a concern for civil liberty violations, there will likely be little objection to their passing. These provisions allow the government to continue investigating a target if he or she attempts to mislead authorities (for example, switching to a new service provider), to search any business records that are considered vital to an investigation, and to investigate a foreign person who is not acting on behalf of a country or terrorist group but is suspected to be in the process of committing a terrorist act alone, respectively.

Although the government will often claim that it adheres to the law and uses these things sparingly and that they are necessary to foil potential terrorist plots, there are real Fourth Amendment concerns with the provisions in the Freedom Act. When the government argues that the reason that only about 0.03 percent of all requests made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) are denied is because the Department of Justice vets the applications in such a manner that the government always has a solid case, it is not only arrogant, but it also misses the point. There is absolutely no room in FISC applications for an opposing opinion or any transparency in the process, and the lack of an adversarial procedure means that the government will almost always get what it wants in secret. The government just has to prove that information to be collected is “'relevant’ to an international terrorism investigation" with no probable cause necessary. The government can also order mass collection of data without specifying a particular piece of data or person to be searched. All of this violates the Fourth Amendment, despite claims by the government that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain cases or that the secret FISC meets Fourth Amendment standards.

As Congress debates the merits or flaws of the Freedom Act, let us at least have a discussion as Americans on whether we cherish our natural rights or whether we believe a sense of strong national security should take precedence over everything. If we do not stand up for our rights, the government will continue to gradually take them until we are no longer able to exercise them. This degradation of the relationship between the government and the people will only lead down the road to totalitarianism. Let us not forget the sacrifice of Edward Snowden and others who have fought to provide us with information that is vital to the interests of the American people.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

More Oil, More Syria

After President Trump’s fake withdrawal that politicians on both sides of the aisle were crying about, it is now apparent that American troops will remain in Syria for an unspecified period. However, the primary purpose of this occupational force is not to defend Syria from ISIS, which was the original justification for the deployment of troops in the country in the first place, but rather, it is to protect the precious resource that helps dominate twenty-first century life. He attempted to appease the anti-war and war hawk groups simultaneously, but the war hawks will have the last laugh in the end.

It is unfortunate that there is so much pressure from politicians and government officials and advisors to go to war and that an American president cannot really be considered great unless he or she starts or continues a war. Our war culture ensures that American troops will always be deployed in some capacity in every part of the world, and Americans have been propagandized into accepting this as the norm. Americans believe the justifications that are spewed from the politicians, officials, and mainstream media outlets without question, and then when the idea of a withdrawal is brought up, there is opposition and claims that the job that was never specified clearly from the beginning has not been completed and that leaving would cause chaos. The cycle continues with each new operation and war, and the result is the same every time. When American troops are deployed overseas, future problems will arise and the invaded country will end up worse than it was before.

Syria is no different, and President Trump was not able to fully implement a withdrawal before there was an outcry and public pressure to remain in the country. As one can expect from historical precedent, it was then announced that American troops would remain in Syria, but this time to guard the oil fields. Superficially, the decision was announced as a measure to keep the resource from falling into the hands of ISIS, but in reality, it should be clear that the United States does not want Syrian oil being controlled by “bad man” Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper even admitted this.

The Trump administration wants “our” oil to be under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and not Russia or Syria. Russia has even claimed that under this plan, the United States government would smuggle over $30 million worth of oil out of Syria per month, which would be a violation of its own economic sanctions. Even if this did not happen, the president did make it clear that he wishes for American energy companies to move into Syrian oil fields. It should not be a surprise to anyone that oil and the economic system in place is motivation for having American troops in Syria, and if you are still not convinced that this is a resource conflict, listen to President Trump’s own words, “We're keeping the oil. I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil."

Even Assad jumped in on the action, “All the US Presidents commit crimes, but get Nobel prizes, and act like defenders of human rights and the noble unique US values -- or Western values -- but they are a group of criminals who act on behalf of lobbies…Trump's declaration that ‘we want the oil' -- at least that's honest.” Whether you like Assad or not, he is being honest here, as the intentions of American administrations is not always what is declared, and decisions regarding war are often about economics and profiting the military-industrial complex. The actions in Syria prove this.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Forgotten Invasion of a Caribbean Island: Grenada 36 Years Later

Thirty-six years ago, the small Caribbean nation of Grenada was invaded by the United States. The stated reason for Operation Urgent Fury was to protect Americans who were on the islands, but the true intentions of the Reagan administration were a bit more complicated. Like many operations around the world during the Cold War, the United States government was concerned more with diminishing Soviet and Communist influence in order to become the dominant power than it was with protecting people. Similarly today, the United States government attempts to use humanitarian sympathies as a way to convince the public to join its cause, but in reality, there is usually a deeper and less altruistic motivation.

In Grenada, Marxist leader Maurice Bishop overthrew the corrupt and brutal government of Prime Minister Eric Gairy to form the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG), which became an ally of Cuba. A few years later, Deputy Prime Minister of the PRG, Bernard Coard, staged a coup with the aid of the military because he believed that Bishop was not Marxist enough. After failing to get the support of either Cuba or the Soviet Union, Coard resigned as leader and was replaced by Hudson Austin, but violence continued between the military and protestors of the new government.

The United States got involved in the conflict officially to protect the roughly 1,000 American nationals on the islands, however, there was a more strategic reason for the invasion. With the building of a new airfield on the main island that would have been able to accommodate Soviet aircraft, the United States worried about Grenada welcoming a Soviet military presence. If Grenada was allowed to remain a Marxist haven under Soviet or Cuban influence, it would have hindered the U.S. military’s passage through a triangle forming between Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada.

It was also partially about saving face after the recent failures in Vietnam and Iran. Bad publicity would not have served the government well if another hostage crisis occurred.

The invasion initially involved roughly 2,000 American troops, which was expanded to about 6,000 towards the war’s conclusion, to battle against Grenada’s military and Cuban forces who were assisting with the airfield. It did not take long for Grenada’s government to be replaced by an interim U.S.-friendly one, and the operation was deemed a success by those who had wished to keep the Soviets out of the Caribbean nation. However, this also showed the imperial intentions of the United States in its quest to determine the path of one country at a time.

Americans need to take a look at these Cold War regime change operations because they formed the basis for what was to become the norm, and governments not friendly to American interests quickly became targets of coups. Presidents all the way through President Trump have followed this precedent, and anyone who advocates against taking such action is looked down upon and not considered legitimate in American politics. Just look at Hilary Clinton’s latest tirade against Hawaii congresswoman and Democratic hopeful for the 2020 presidential race, Tulsi Gabbard. Clinton slandered her and preposterously and without evidence suggested that she was a Russian asset. Why is it that if one has anti-war views, he or she is considered a foreign agent? Perhaps this is because the war machine has control over American politics. It is now about time that the people decide the foreign policy course and not those controlled by the money.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more information on Cold War and more recent regime change operations.

Really, War Against a NATO Ally?

Secretary of State Pompeo previously alluded to the possibility of utilizing military action against Turkey if it continued its offensive against the Kurds in Syria. Although President Trump seems to be unwilling to muster up an American strike force to bomb a NATO ally, the fact that a high U.S. official was even suggesting this is ludicrous and demonstrates the arrogance and sinister intent on the part of many government officials. With so much discontent with the president's withdrawal from Syria, war hawks in the United States government may attempt to pressure him into increasing the troop presence in Syria and keeping them there indefinitely, as well as re-implementing economic sanctions against Turkey.

Both parties are claiming that this extraction will lead to genocide against the Kurds and a resurgence of ISIS (or ISIL or whatever other acronym you prefer). Although these two possible scenarios are a concern, the pulling out of troops from Syria is not what caused this situation in the first place. Many people like to blame the Obama administration’s withdrawal plan from Iraq as a reason that ISIS swept through and conquered vast territory throughout Iraq, Syria, and Libya, but the reality is much more complex. The United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the regime change operation under President Bush to take out Saddam Hussein, as well as the Obama administration’s decision to support the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad's Syria, was largely what led to an area ripe for the taking by a radical Islamic group. The United States has contributed to the problems plaguing the region, and a continued presence in Syria will only add to this trend. Plus, it will increase government spending and bring more troops home in coffins. The best approach is to withdraw and stop making matters worse in the Middle East.

Although President Trump has decided to halt economic coercion against Turkey for the time being, members of both parties are pushing for punitive action, which just goes to show that an aggressive foreign policy of bullying and policing the world is bipartisan. One party may oppose the actions of an individual president in order to give an illusion that the parties differ on fundamental issues, but at the end of the day, both parties have hawkish tendencies that endure through several presidencies.

Separately, Russia and Turkey have come to their own agreement to patrol the border area between Turkey and Syria, removing Kurdish fighters (considered terrorists by Ankara) further from Turkish territory and sparing the Kurds from slaughter. Although this is a step in the right direction, American war hawks will likely not be impressed because it makes Russia look like a peacemaker and draws a NATO ally closer to what they view as an enemy (a missile deal has already been reached between Turkey and Russia, despite U.S. condemnation), and this is not acceptable to many who see Russia as the great Satan.

Although we may not want to admit it, the United States creates more problems around the world than it solves, and keeping our troops in Syria is not going to make the Middle East a better place. Ultimately, the fate of the countries in that region is up to the people who live there, and a foreign power going in to force democracy and peace on countries will fail. We have seen it time and time again. Plus, despite what the media and government officials will tell you, the primary objectives for waging these wars involving regime change and forcing compliance are to improve the global economic system led by the United States and to enhance the interests of corporate cronies. Where is the cry against oppression and genocide in countries that do not have abundant natural resources or are compliant with U.S. interests (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel)?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Can We Talk About the Elephant in the Room with Ukraine?

When it comes to Ukraine, it seems that most people are fixated on President Trump’s potential corrupt dealings with that country, but what about the elephant in the war room? Why does the United States even lend a helping trunk to that country in the first place? Why do we send money, supplies, and training to assist the Ukrainian military in sharpening its tusks? This has become a six ton fiasco that has cost taxpayers money and worsened relations with Russia.

Since 2014, American citizens have been forced to pay roughly $1.5 billion in military aid to a non-ally, and in addition, they have had to foot the bill for $3 billion in loans between 2014 and 2016 and roughly $320 million per year in non-military aid. All of this is because the United States government claims that Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014 and continues to threaten it, which is absurd.

The people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted in favor of secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia. The mainstream media and government officials go on and on about territorial sovereignty violations, but how can this be the case if the so-called victims welcomed the “invaders” with open arms? Also, even if there were a covert invasion, the United States government violates territorial sovereignty all the time and does not condemn itself.

The pro-Russian sentiment in eastern Ukraine led to separatists declaring independence as the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. A quick study of Ukraine will reveal the political and cultural divide between the pro-Russian eastern portions and the pro-European west, so despite what the media will tell you, it is really no surprise that two of Ukraine’s eastern oblasts attempted to separate from the strict unitary government when the opportunity arose.

The neo-Nazi supporting Ukrainian government has been waging war against the two self-declared countries for several years now, and American politicians enjoy the chance to spew anti-Russia propaganda and convince Americans that Russia is an enemy that needs to be combated. Although it should be obvious how this is dangerous, politicians and government officials would rather risk nuclear war and keep another cold war going than to utilize diplomacy and keep Americans safe.

Another part of this Ukraine story that most Americans would prefer to ignore is that the United States was immediately involved in the aftermath of the 2014 coup (dubbed as the Euromaidan protests to make it sound less unconstitutional) against democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych. President Obama admitted that his administration was involved in the transition of power to the unconstitutional interim government in Ukraine, plus we have the leaked phone call where Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland discussed plans for the new government. This means that in all likelihood, the United States was actively involved in the coup throughout its entirety, and there is much precedent for this sort of thing throughout modern history. The actions of the United States government in Ukraine were largely about pushing out pro-Russian elements and moving Ukraine closer to NATO and the European Union, as well as chipping away at Russia’s sphere of influence.

While we are watching to see news about the impeachment procedures, let us at least consider some of the issues surrounding our foreign policy, and specifically with Ukraine. Leaders come and go, but the policies remain in place across administrations, so fixating on one president’s unethical dealings may or may not prevent future corruption. Proponents of the Trump presidency generally dismiss these charges, while opponents claim that this is an existential threat to our republic. To the former, I will say that if the president is found to be guilty of the charges set before him, he should be held accountable and punished accordingly. To the latter, I will say that an ever-expanding government is more of a threat to our republic, and there are a plethora of issues that contribute to the United States’ degradation. Acting like this is the worse incident in American history is not helpful in identifying the root problems. Both Republicans and Democrats are corrupt and attempt to expand the power of government for their own gain, and until we realize that and focus on changing the culture in Washington, D.C., the status quo will continue to bring us on a path that we might not want to go down.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Even with Bolton Gone, the Trump Administration Pushes for War with Iran After the Oil Field Attack

Over the weekend, a drone strike carried out by an unknown culprit took out Saudi Arabia’s oil facility and fields at Abqaiq and Khurais, which may disrupt over five percent of the world’s global daily oil production (or about 5.7 million barrels of daily crude production) until the facility and oil fields can become operational again. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately put out a statement suggesting that Iran was the culprit, and President Trump tweeted that the United States is “locked and loaded” once Saudi Arabia confirms that Iran was responsible. Yet, the Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attacks, but no, it automatically has to be the Iranians because they are responsible for everything bad that occurs in the Middle East. Why would the Houthis lie about this? What would be the benefit of that?

Even with National Security Advisor John Bolton out of the picture, the Trump administration is eager to attack Iran. This goes to show that the aggression and bullying committed by the United States government is a product of the culture of arrogance and Empire-building in Washington, D.C. and less based on individual politicians or officials.

First of all, the Iran-backed Houthis and the Saudi Arabian coalition are engaged in a war over the future of Yemen, so an attack like this should not surprise anyone. Saudi Arabia’s military campaigns, which have had the blessing and logistical and intelligence support of the United States government, have slaughtered countless civilians and caused destruction of infrastructure and starvation across Yemen. Somehow, the Saudi attacks are permissible, and any attack against Saudi Arabia is considered a terrorist attack. Instead of taking sides on this conflict, why does the United States not look to end the war in Yemen or pull support from the brutal Saudi government? Nah, let us escalate the conflict by placing the blame solely on Iran without clear evidence or an investigation. Going to war is more important than the facts or safety of Americans, silly.

The military policy seems to be bomb first and ask questions later, and although this is a good strategy for politicians and their cronies in the military-industrial complex, this is actually detrimental to the interests of the American people. The United States does not need another Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria, but it seems as if that is the direction that the United States is being dragged down. American officials and politicians erroneously believe that a war with Iran would be a cakewalk. However, Iran’s population is about one quarter of the size of the United States’, and its military is nothing to underestimate. Plus, a wrong move could bring Russia into the fight. Yet, the United States government keeps pushing the envelope towards a potentially dangerous war.

In the upcoming days, the Trump administration will plan out its strategy of retaliation against Iran, and this will likely mean an air or drone strike on Iranian territory, even if there is not enough evidence to condemn the Iranians. Since the United States government is so adamant that the attack came from the north or northwest (indicating Iraq or Iran), there is no stopping the anti-Iran rhetoric that will be used as justification to further provoke conflict. Will President Trump de-escalate the situation before it is too late, or will he insist on a conflict with the Persian nation that puts Americans in jeopardy?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Is Cuban Missile Crisis II Coming to an Island Near You?

The United States’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) has contributed to the prospective idea that a missile arms race will develop throughout Europe and Asia. After the withdrawal and without hesitation, the Department of Defense began testing a Navy Tomahawk cruise missile in California that would have been banned under the treaty. This development could lead to American missiles being pointed at Russia, and then Russia would reciprocate, causing fear and panic among the American populace. The revival of the duck and cover drills would be worth it to American politicians, who only care about intimidating Eurasian rivals in order to make their military-corporate cronies happy. Government officials and the media will then successfully push the blame onto Russia for starting a new missile crisis.

Many Americans still erroneously believe that the Soviet Union started the Cuban Missile Crisis by randomly and aggressively placing missiles on the Caribbean island, however, like most things, the truth is actually a bit more complicated. In fact, the missiles in Cuba were a response to missiles that the United States had aimed at the Soviet Union from Turkey . The Soviets were concerned that the United States might again attempt to invade Cuba like it had in 1961 (Bay of Pigs), and therefore, the missiles also acted as a deterrent. Yet, these embarrassing facts were withheld, and the removal of American missiles from Turkey as part of the resolution to the crisis was kept secret from the American public. Additionally, the United States had to agree not to invade Cuba in order to get the Soviet missiles removed. The federally-funded education system in the United States and the mainstream media have done little to quell the myths surrounding this event and others, and I fear that Americans will be misled about any new missile crisis that arises.

Russia has already started to respond to the United States government’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty and cruise missile testing by test-firing nuclear-capable missiles from submarines and air-to-air missiles from jets out of Crimea, conducting nuclear missile drills in Kaliningrad, and announcing that it will put missiles around the Black Sea. These types of actions will all be viewed by the media and politicians as an escalation on the part of Russia without taking into consideration the actions of the United States. Ultimately, the goal is to convince Americans, many of whom naively trust the government and media, that Russia is a threat that requires large sums of money into the military-industrial complex. More missile tests, placements, and drills mean increased responses from Russia, and in turn, a bloated military budget and profit for defense contractors (at the expense of American taxpayers) can be justified and advanced unhindered.

As Americans, we should seriously consider whether we want to start (or continue, depending on one’s view) another cold war. Despite what the media and politicians attempt to pound into everyone's head, living in fear of a possible Russian attack is not in the best interest of the American people. Diplomacy and treaties can work, but they must be tried with full commitment. Instead of trashing a deal that was likely violated by both sides, why not attempt to make it better in order to reduce tensions? The key reason is China. With the INF Treaty out of the way, the United States government will be able to counter growing Chinese influence throughout Asia in a more successful manner, which may lead to a missile crisis or arms race with that country. None of this will fare well for the people, but American politicians and officials will be delighted.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Bald Eagle vs. Giant Panda: The Trade War with China

When President Trump is not busy harassing Iran or Venezuela or throwing a hissy fit over Denmark not wanting to sell Greenland to the United States, he is waging his economic war with the largest country on earth (in terms of population). That makes sense, right? Let us go after one of our largest trade partners. They are currency manipulators after all, right? It is not like the United States devaluates its dollar or artificially manipulates its economic situation through the Federal Reserve. No, of course we would never do that. Ultimately, those pesky Chinese need to learn the lesson that only the United States is allowed to dominate the global market and the world as a whole. If American citizens suffer along the way, it is just collateral damage.

Tariffs increase the price that Americans pay for certain goods, as businesses must choose to eat the tax (something not likely to occur), move the cost onto the consumer, or import goods from other countries. It is estimated that goods such as electronics, toys, food, and apparel will be hit hard by the tariffs. As a result, President Trump has oddly admitted this (while claiming otherwise) by extending the ten percent tariffs on $300 billion of imports until after the holiday shopping season. In addition, a possible upcoming economic recession could be exasperated by these policies, and some predict that many stores could face layoffs and closures just from the tariffs alone.

American farmers are also taking a hit from the trade war with China. Agricultural exports to China have decreased over $10 billion from 2017 to 2018, and the downward trend has continued into 2019. As a result of the decrease in farmers’ income and instead of allowing the markets to work in a less restrictive manner, the president responded by having the American taxpayers bail out farmers with a $16 billion stimulus package. This socialist-style manipulation of the economy is detrimental to both farmers and consumers, but hey, as long as we stick it to China, it is all good in the end, right?

Obviously, relations between China and the United States have deteriorated, and with a possible crackdown by Beijing on Hong Kong, a trade deal may be further delayed or cancelled. Attempting to coerce China into bending to the will of the United States government was President Trump’s goal from the beginning. Reports have shown that China’s economy is struggling due to the trade war as intended.

In addition to this, the president issued these tariffs on his own without congressional approval. Congress just sits back and continues to cede more power to a position that becomes more authoritarian and monarchical every day, and then it wants to pretend that it is powerless to stop this madness. Have we lost touch with our democratic form of government and the idea of leading the world by example and resisting the urge to become an empire? The United States no longer follows these principles. Whether the United States government’s economic tactic against a country includes sanctions and embargoes, utilizing the IMF and World Bank, or a trade war, economic and military domination is a key factor of the American Empire.

In the upcoming months, Americans will continue to suffer from President Trump’s tax increases through tariffs and his war waged against a giant in the East for economic superiority. Instead of cage fighting a bald eagle against a giant panda, let us work together for peace and prosperity for the sake of the people in both countries.

Thank you for reading, and if you would like to find out more about my work, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.

The Plight of Upstate New York and the Domination of New York City

If someone from outside of the Northeast or overseas asks you where you are from and your response is New York, he or she will likely follow up with something like, “how is the City?” As someone who is living outside of the “Big Apple,” this can be frustrating, especially given that roughly 99.5% of the state’s land area is outside of the city limits. Where Upstate New York begins is a matter of debate, but the areas outside of the New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is anything north and west of Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester Counties, holds roughly 95% of the land area but only 36% of the population.

This means that the culture of the more conservative people living on the vast agricultural land, rolling hills, mountains, forests, and lakes and rivers of upstate clashes with the busy, densely populated, and liberal downstate. However, because the downstate region has the population, it can effectively make laws without the upstate region’s approval (not to mention dominate the presidential and senatorial elections federally and the governorship and assembly statewide). Therefore, Upstate New York becomes marginalized and without a voice on many issues. Though it is technically represented, it is not fairly represented (taxation without fair representation). Since New York is both one of the most expensive states to live in and the most heavily taxed states in the country, Upstate New York suffers. Laws like the NYSAFE Act and the Green Light Law, which is likely going to be partially nullified by Rensselaer, Erie, Niagara, and Allegany counties and perhaps others, show a division among the two regions.

There are a few ways that could improve quality in the state for those who want a quieter, cheaper, and less restrictive standard of living without having to pack up and move south (something the governor has suggested for those who oppose his progressive agenda). First, and perhaps the most obvious, there is secession from the state. If the federal government approved of the formation of another state, perhaps alongside Puerto Rico, which should either be added as a state or released as an independent country (depending on the will of the people), Upstate New York would finally have a voice in politics and its own governing structure and could free itself from the City. The New York State government would not likely approve of this because New York City and its suburbs would lose the tax revenue of upstate and natural resources (including its water supply, which could be worked out between the two states), yet if the will of the upstate people is strong enough, downstate may not have a choice.

Another solution is to subdivide New York into three autonomous regions, New Amsterdam (Upstate New York), Montauk (Long Island counties outside of the New York city limits and Westchester and Rockland Counties), and New York (the five boroughs within the city limits), leaving the state together for federal issues. The bills being introduced in the Assembly (A05498) and Senate (S5416) would allow for a separate regional legislature and governor in order to enact and enforce local laws that work better for the people of those regions. In this scenario, there would be no federal approval necessary, and the state could restructure itself from within. Issues involving New York City’s water supply and state pensions would be unaffected. Upstate would be free to choose its own local laws and tax structure without coercion, but it could still keep its ties to the City.

A third option for moving fair representation northward would be to restructure the state government by allowing for a more representative senate. There are sixty-two county entities (fifty-seven counties plus the five boroughs of New York City), so each one could be represented by two state senators. This would give smaller counties a voice in politics in a manner similar to the United States Senate, where every state regardless of population has two representatives. The Assembly could remain as it currently is with New York City dominating the body due to its large population. Since legislation would require the approval of both chambers, Upstate New York would be able to block laws that it did not want passed. Any laws that did pass would need both regions’ blessing for a more unified state.

How much longer should Upstate New York have to live without fair representation? If New York City does not want to make any concessions and continues to prefer the domination of state politics, the momentum could move towards one of the above scenarios. All three may be unlikely because politicians will not want to give up power or tax dollars, but we will see what his majesty, Governor Cuomo of New York City, will do or allow. Currently, the governor is enjoying the ability to do as he pleases with little to no opposition in the state legislature. The people of Upstate New York should not have to choose between accepting underrepresentation or moving to another state (something that is happening on a large scale, giving New York City even more power). Will Upstaters step up and take action, or will they remain passive and accept the status quo of marginalization?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for my views and research regarding federal issues, particularly pertaining to foreign policy.