Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 14
February 26, 2019
Congressional Deception and Arrogance
After proposing her new plan, dubbed “The New Green Deal,” to combat climate change, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made some startling comments that seem to be the norm in the culture surrounding Washington, D.C. She stated, “Yup. If you don’t like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge - and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.” Without focusing on the merits of the unrealistic proposal set forth by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, it appears that there is a disconnect between the elites who hold positions of power and the American people. Suggesting that people who have a difference of opinion should not have a voice or are inferior to the omniscient wisdom of our leaders is not a principle we should embrace.
The arrogance of our elected leaders is appalling, but AOC is hardly the first politician to believe that her opinion is superior to anyone who opposes her. Politicians strive to keep power in any way possible, whether it is by offering utopian socialistic programs to benefit certain groups at the expense of others or taking corporate money with strings attached. Politicians do not care about the constituents that they supposedly serve, and most of them spend the majority of their time attempting to remain in power instead of doing their actual job, which is to research the issues and vote on them.
Back in 2010 in regards to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi uttered the words, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” No, you need to read the bill so you can have a discussion about it and vote on it. If you argue that bills are too long to read in a timely manner, the solution would be to cut back on the number of words and unrelated proposals in the bill. Congress people are derelict in their duties when they do not do the American people the favor of understanding every aspect of the measures that are in front of them.
Bills are far too complex, and this is how politicians and lobbyists sneak through policies without the cognizance of the American people. They also believe that the American people are ignorant and incompetent and require the benevolence of the policies created by the government. Take for instance Jonathan Grubber, the attributed architect of the ACA. He stated, “the stupidity of the American voter…was really, really critical for the thing to pass", when justifying a tax increase on young people through an individual mandate. Apparently, we need to manipulate the people’s thinking in order to do what is best for them.
Although Gruber is not a politician, he did write the bill that became the ACA, and the representatives in Congress who supported the bill used this mentality to their advantage. In the Mill City Press book, The Confessions of Congressman X, the author, a former congressman who chose to remain anonymous, reveals more of the mentality of our supposed upstanding leaders. Quotes from the book include:
“Fundraising is so time-consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. My colleagues seldom know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it’ll cost.”
“The average man on the street actually thinks he influences how I vote. Unless it’s a hot-button issue, his thoughts are generally meaningless. I’ll politely listen, but I follow the money.”
“It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naïve, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.”
These people claim that they are fighting for their constituents’ best interests, but in reality, they care only for themselves and staying in their positions. They often become career politicians and tangled up in corporate interests. Do we the people really want these disrespectful, arrogant, and manipulative individuals making our policies? Yet, we live our lives not caring much about politics and allow them to continue the status quo. Can we break from this mold and take back control?
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
The arrogance of our elected leaders is appalling, but AOC is hardly the first politician to believe that her opinion is superior to anyone who opposes her. Politicians strive to keep power in any way possible, whether it is by offering utopian socialistic programs to benefit certain groups at the expense of others or taking corporate money with strings attached. Politicians do not care about the constituents that they supposedly serve, and most of them spend the majority of their time attempting to remain in power instead of doing their actual job, which is to research the issues and vote on them.
Back in 2010 in regards to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi uttered the words, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” No, you need to read the bill so you can have a discussion about it and vote on it. If you argue that bills are too long to read in a timely manner, the solution would be to cut back on the number of words and unrelated proposals in the bill. Congress people are derelict in their duties when they do not do the American people the favor of understanding every aspect of the measures that are in front of them.
Bills are far too complex, and this is how politicians and lobbyists sneak through policies without the cognizance of the American people. They also believe that the American people are ignorant and incompetent and require the benevolence of the policies created by the government. Take for instance Jonathan Grubber, the attributed architect of the ACA. He stated, “the stupidity of the American voter…was really, really critical for the thing to pass", when justifying a tax increase on young people through an individual mandate. Apparently, we need to manipulate the people’s thinking in order to do what is best for them.
Although Gruber is not a politician, he did write the bill that became the ACA, and the representatives in Congress who supported the bill used this mentality to their advantage. In the Mill City Press book, The Confessions of Congressman X, the author, a former congressman who chose to remain anonymous, reveals more of the mentality of our supposed upstanding leaders. Quotes from the book include:
“Fundraising is so time-consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. My colleagues seldom know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it’ll cost.”
“The average man on the street actually thinks he influences how I vote. Unless it’s a hot-button issue, his thoughts are generally meaningless. I’ll politely listen, but I follow the money.”
“It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naïve, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.”
These people claim that they are fighting for their constituents’ best interests, but in reality, they care only for themselves and staying in their positions. They often become career politicians and tangled up in corporate interests. Do we the people really want these disrespectful, arrogant, and manipulative individuals making our policies? Yet, we live our lives not caring much about politics and allow them to continue the status quo. Can we break from this mold and take back control?
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
February 7, 2019
The Military Option Is on the Table in Venezuela
If anyone was doubting whether or not a United States military invasion of Venezuela was a serious option, we now have confirmation that this may come to pass. The Trump administration is considering all of its options as eleven out of fourteen countries in the Lima Group have decided that the self-declared president, Guaido, should be allowed to take over power from President Maduro, who has suggested that this may lead to a civil war. A war with Venezuela, a country that is a little larger than Texas in both area and population, would not be the quick and easy victory that the arrogant politicians in Washington, D.C. think it would be. If the sanctions transition into a hot war, it would be long and catastrophic.
The United States government has been imposing economic sanctions against Venezuela for the last couple of years in order to make the already-struggling people even worse off. When we attempt to harm an “evil” regime through this manner, the people are the ones who really suffer. This tactic is useful in a couple of ways. First, it causes a response from the population. Essentially, the United States is attempting to make life miserable for the people so that they rebel.
Second, it is a way to get involved in another country without committing the military. A military option is costly in both lives and finances, and therefore, it is often less popular. Politicians like an option where they can commit acts of war and terrorism against another country and sell it to the American public in a positive light. Look at us. We are punishing this dictator, and we do not even have to send our troops. Yet, sanctions often act as a precursor for full-scale war. Just look at Iraq and how many people our sanctions killed there before we invaded.
Once sanctions have been implemented, the American people often become more open to the possibility of war due to the propaganda against the target country. If Maduro does not step aside soon, the military option is very likely, and the Trump administration will continue its rhetoric against the oil-rich country. The Venezuelan leader has suggested agreeing to have early elections to prove that he is not a dictator, and although he is not interested in ultimatums, he seems willing to peacefully work out an arrangement with the opposition. The United States and the EU are fueling the fire of rebellion across the jungle, and they will probably not allow for a peaceful solution where Maduro stays in power. Interestingly, Maduro had said to the European Union that countries do not go there to demand that Spain recognize Catalonia as an independent nation . Yet, that is exactly what is happening in Venezuela with these demands for Maduro’s expulsion and the recognition of the un-elected opposition leader, Guaido.
Ultimately, in order for there to be a war in Venezuela, President Trump would have to sell it to the American populace. This could be done through a false flag operation, such as the CIA attacking Americans and blaming it on Maduro, fabricating evidence against Maduro to make it look like he has murdered massive amounts of his own people, or through manipulation, such as putting the Venezuelan military in a position where they attack Americans in the country or an American ship that should never have been there in the first place. These are the tactics often used in order to draw a country into war when the population is not really all that interested in going. What will it be that draws the American military into the next Iraq in South America? I guess we will have to wait to find out, but one thing is for sure, if we go into Venezuela militarily, there will be a 9-11, Gulf of Tonkin, or Pearl Harbor event to bring us there.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work and research, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
The United States government has been imposing economic sanctions against Venezuela for the last couple of years in order to make the already-struggling people even worse off. When we attempt to harm an “evil” regime through this manner, the people are the ones who really suffer. This tactic is useful in a couple of ways. First, it causes a response from the population. Essentially, the United States is attempting to make life miserable for the people so that they rebel.
Second, it is a way to get involved in another country without committing the military. A military option is costly in both lives and finances, and therefore, it is often less popular. Politicians like an option where they can commit acts of war and terrorism against another country and sell it to the American public in a positive light. Look at us. We are punishing this dictator, and we do not even have to send our troops. Yet, sanctions often act as a precursor for full-scale war. Just look at Iraq and how many people our sanctions killed there before we invaded.
Once sanctions have been implemented, the American people often become more open to the possibility of war due to the propaganda against the target country. If Maduro does not step aside soon, the military option is very likely, and the Trump administration will continue its rhetoric against the oil-rich country. The Venezuelan leader has suggested agreeing to have early elections to prove that he is not a dictator, and although he is not interested in ultimatums, he seems willing to peacefully work out an arrangement with the opposition. The United States and the EU are fueling the fire of rebellion across the jungle, and they will probably not allow for a peaceful solution where Maduro stays in power. Interestingly, Maduro had said to the European Union that countries do not go there to demand that Spain recognize Catalonia as an independent nation . Yet, that is exactly what is happening in Venezuela with these demands for Maduro’s expulsion and the recognition of the un-elected opposition leader, Guaido.
Ultimately, in order for there to be a war in Venezuela, President Trump would have to sell it to the American populace. This could be done through a false flag operation, such as the CIA attacking Americans and blaming it on Maduro, fabricating evidence against Maduro to make it look like he has murdered massive amounts of his own people, or through manipulation, such as putting the Venezuelan military in a position where they attack Americans in the country or an American ship that should never have been there in the first place. These are the tactics often used in order to draw a country into war when the population is not really all that interested in going. What will it be that draws the American military into the next Iraq in South America? I guess we will have to wait to find out, but one thing is for sure, if we go into Venezuela militarily, there will be a 9-11, Gulf of Tonkin, or Pearl Harbor event to bring us there.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work and research, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
January 31, 2019
U.S.-backed Guaido Faces Off Against Maduro: More Involvement in South America
Here we go again. The U.S. government is getting involved in yet another oil-rich country, but this time in South America. When will it stop? It is one country after another until they are all compliant with the American-led global order.
National Security Advisor John Bolton revealed that the president is considering sending 5,000 troops into neighboring Colombia just in case they are necessary for a “support” operation in Venezuela to keep the unelected leader, Juan Guaido, in power over the elected leader, Nicolas Maduro (although there are questions about the legitimacy of his election). It has been made clear by the Trump administration that “all options are on the table.” The translation of this is, “Maduro better stand down, or else the American military will be dispatched to force it upon him.”
Back in 2017, I mentioned that the newly instituted economic sanctions against Venezuela would increase. This is because sanctions (blockading a country or preventing goods from reaching the people of that country for a political purpose) are an act of war and terrorism that often indicate that a hot war is on the horizon. The new Trump administration sanctions target the oil industry and will prevent billions of dollars in assets from utilization. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that this will punish Maduro, but as I have said before, economic sanctions almost always end up hurting the people of the country and do little to stop the ruling class. Mnuchin stated that the frozen assets will prevent “further diversion of Venezuela’s assets by Maduro, and will preserve these assets for the people of Venezuela where they belong.”
Apparently Mnuchin does not understand how political power works, or he is being dishonest. If Maduro cares about holding onto power, he will most certainly acquire the money from other sources, and the people will end up even poorer than they already are. Using economic terrorism against the citizens of Venezuela to entice them to rebel shows the true colors of the leadership in Washington, D.C. Plus, I thought we were condemning Russia for supposedly having meddled in our elections? Yet, somehow it is just to meddle in Venezuelan politics? I guess hypocrisy is just the native tongue of American politicians. We speak about trying to halt the actions of brutal monsters, but if any country is compliant with American demands, it is allowed to violate human rights on any scale that it chooses. A case in point would be Saudi Arabia.
Will Venezuela be the next Iraq or Syria? If Bolton has his way, it will be. Bolton, Mnuchin, Pompeo, and the rest of the federal government do not care about the people of Venezuela, but rather, they are more interested in the resources that the country has to offer. Will President Trump put his foot down and keep his campaign promise of no more senseless involvement in foreign countries’ affairs? I would not hold your breath, but it is worth mentioning that in almost every case where the United States government gets involved in foreign affairs, it leads to problems in the future. For example, when we deposed Saddam Hussein, the result was a struggle for power between the Sunni-led government and the Shia minority, leading to a weak government and the rise of ISIS in the vacuum.
Let us learn our lesson and steer clear of foreign entanglements and wars. As we watch the Super Bowl this weekend, let us be true patriots and not ram a form of government down the throats of the Venezuelans. Let them decide their own fate and choose whether they want Maduro or Guaido. Place your bets now.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about how the United States government has used sanctions as a tool to force countries into compliance or how the operations to oust leaders worldwide has led to ruin, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
National Security Advisor John Bolton revealed that the president is considering sending 5,000 troops into neighboring Colombia just in case they are necessary for a “support” operation in Venezuela to keep the unelected leader, Juan Guaido, in power over the elected leader, Nicolas Maduro (although there are questions about the legitimacy of his election). It has been made clear by the Trump administration that “all options are on the table.” The translation of this is, “Maduro better stand down, or else the American military will be dispatched to force it upon him.”
Back in 2017, I mentioned that the newly instituted economic sanctions against Venezuela would increase. This is because sanctions (blockading a country or preventing goods from reaching the people of that country for a political purpose) are an act of war and terrorism that often indicate that a hot war is on the horizon. The new Trump administration sanctions target the oil industry and will prevent billions of dollars in assets from utilization. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that this will punish Maduro, but as I have said before, economic sanctions almost always end up hurting the people of the country and do little to stop the ruling class. Mnuchin stated that the frozen assets will prevent “further diversion of Venezuela’s assets by Maduro, and will preserve these assets for the people of Venezuela where they belong.”
Apparently Mnuchin does not understand how political power works, or he is being dishonest. If Maduro cares about holding onto power, he will most certainly acquire the money from other sources, and the people will end up even poorer than they already are. Using economic terrorism against the citizens of Venezuela to entice them to rebel shows the true colors of the leadership in Washington, D.C. Plus, I thought we were condemning Russia for supposedly having meddled in our elections? Yet, somehow it is just to meddle in Venezuelan politics? I guess hypocrisy is just the native tongue of American politicians. We speak about trying to halt the actions of brutal monsters, but if any country is compliant with American demands, it is allowed to violate human rights on any scale that it chooses. A case in point would be Saudi Arabia.
Will Venezuela be the next Iraq or Syria? If Bolton has his way, it will be. Bolton, Mnuchin, Pompeo, and the rest of the federal government do not care about the people of Venezuela, but rather, they are more interested in the resources that the country has to offer. Will President Trump put his foot down and keep his campaign promise of no more senseless involvement in foreign countries’ affairs? I would not hold your breath, but it is worth mentioning that in almost every case where the United States government gets involved in foreign affairs, it leads to problems in the future. For example, when we deposed Saddam Hussein, the result was a struggle for power between the Sunni-led government and the Shia minority, leading to a weak government and the rise of ISIS in the vacuum.
Let us learn our lesson and steer clear of foreign entanglements and wars. As we watch the Super Bowl this weekend, let us be true patriots and not ram a form of government down the throats of the Venezuelans. Let them decide their own fate and choose whether they want Maduro or Guaido. Place your bets now.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about how the United States government has used sanctions as a tool to force countries into compliance or how the operations to oust leaders worldwide has led to ruin, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
January 16, 2019
Will Trump Issue His Edict on the Great Wall of New Mexico?
As the battle between POTUS and Congress wages on and federal government employees continue to not receive their paychecks, let us reflect on what could occur if our federal legislature fails to act and the executive branch decides to fund a border wall on its own authority. Besides the fact that President Trump was either deceitful or dead-wrong about Mexico paying for the wall, we now have a struggle for power between two branches of the government. Going with historical trends, is there any doubt that the executive will win the battle in the end? The executive branch has been greatly strengthened, and the political party in control of this branch often supports near-dictatorial powers until the tables are turned.
Although wall supporters fail to see some basic facts about building a wall; such as the idea that immigrants and drug lords will eventually find a way to tunnel underneath or infiltrate the wall in some manner, illegal immigrants already inside the United States will continue to receive government aid with or without the wall, and most drugs and illegal immigrants entering the United States come through legal ports of entry (e.g. through ships or airplanes or overstaying visas); the fact of the matter is that the United States government cannot afford another large project. Even if the majority of the population supported the wall, from a fiscal perspective, projects should be cut in other areas to make financial room for the Great Wall of New Mexico. But, with the federal deficit that is currently in place, we should be cutting out more than just the wall, and we should be reducing federal welfare programs, military adventures overseas, and the war on drugs (just to name a few).
Some may argue that with the invocation of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president could declare the situation an emergency and repurpose funds set aside for other Department of Defense projects. Yes, perhaps this would get past the financial aspect of the situation because this money would have been spent either way, but do we really want to go down the authoritarian path? Although this type of executive order has been used by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, will President Trump continue in the footsteps of his predecessors or go above and beyond the status quo of dictatorial acts and accept a restriction from Congress (as the Constitution requires)?
We as a society should stop getting so wrapped up in the politics surrounding the issues, such as being anti-Trump or anti-Obama, and focus on the deeper issues at hand. Right now, Republicans are willing to accept authoritarian actions because of the party affiliation of the president and Democrats oppose it, but when a Democratic president takes over, Democrats will support these actions and the Republicans will not. Politicians play off of the political divides of the people, while the authoritarian and status quo momentum continues regardless of the party in power. Whether you agree with building the wall or not, let us at least agree that Congress needs to have a part in the decision. The Constitution established a system of checks and balances, so let us not stray from this principle.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my website and book, The Global Bully.
Although wall supporters fail to see some basic facts about building a wall; such as the idea that immigrants and drug lords will eventually find a way to tunnel underneath or infiltrate the wall in some manner, illegal immigrants already inside the United States will continue to receive government aid with or without the wall, and most drugs and illegal immigrants entering the United States come through legal ports of entry (e.g. through ships or airplanes or overstaying visas); the fact of the matter is that the United States government cannot afford another large project. Even if the majority of the population supported the wall, from a fiscal perspective, projects should be cut in other areas to make financial room for the Great Wall of New Mexico. But, with the federal deficit that is currently in place, we should be cutting out more than just the wall, and we should be reducing federal welfare programs, military adventures overseas, and the war on drugs (just to name a few).
Some may argue that with the invocation of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president could declare the situation an emergency and repurpose funds set aside for other Department of Defense projects. Yes, perhaps this would get past the financial aspect of the situation because this money would have been spent either way, but do we really want to go down the authoritarian path? Although this type of executive order has been used by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, will President Trump continue in the footsteps of his predecessors or go above and beyond the status quo of dictatorial acts and accept a restriction from Congress (as the Constitution requires)?
We as a society should stop getting so wrapped up in the politics surrounding the issues, such as being anti-Trump or anti-Obama, and focus on the deeper issues at hand. Right now, Republicans are willing to accept authoritarian actions because of the party affiliation of the president and Democrats oppose it, but when a Democratic president takes over, Democrats will support these actions and the Republicans will not. Politicians play off of the political divides of the people, while the authoritarian and status quo momentum continues regardless of the party in power. Whether you agree with building the wall or not, let us at least agree that Congress needs to have a part in the decision. The Constitution established a system of checks and balances, so let us not stray from this principle.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my website and book, The Global Bully.
November 28, 2018
Martial Law, the Kerch Strait, and the Donbass War
The situation in Ukraine has been quiet in the news over the last few years, as the world has begun to accept that Crimea now belongs to Russia and that the war out in the Donbass region will likely continue. With Petro Poroshenko’s upcoming presidential election, the Ukrainian president may have needed to stir up a conflict with Russia in order to turn around his dismal performance in the polls. War helps to win elections and solidify one’s political position.
After three Ukrainian vessels entered Russian territorial waters and were captured in the Kerch Strait, even President Trump threatened to cancel his meeting with Putin in Buenos Aires. After the final report is released, there will likely be more condemnation from the United States, despite Ukraine not being an American ally. The anti-Russia rhetoric in the West will likely spark yet again, and Poroshenko raised the possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine.
In addition, Poroshenko also took the opportunity to gain near-dictatorial authority from the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) and put large sections of Ukraine under martial law, which allows for the suppression of speech and protests. Why declare martial law now? There has been a war brewing in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts for years, and this action was not taken. Could it be that the Ukrainian president is attempting to gain relevance by making the situation seem worse than it actually is? This may increase his chances of success in the upcoming election, but this misleading and manipulation of the political situation is unfair to the Ukrainian people. It also may bring the United States into the fray, and we know that the United States government would be happy to be involved in yet another overseas conflict. It has already taken sides and supported the Ukrainian government in its attempt to suppress the separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Since the Euromaidan protests and the illegal ousting of former President Yanukovych in 2013, residents of eastern Ukraine have been protesting, and looking at maps of presidential elections in Ukraine, you can start to see why. There is a divide between the pro-Russia and pro-European camps in that country, and many of the regions in the eastern areas vote for pro-Russian candidates and have large Russian-speaking populations. So, when the West (mostly the United States) tries to convince the world that the separatist movements are really an attempt by Russia to violate Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, it really neglects the actual situation there. Specifically in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (both of which border Russia), the people often feel disconnected from Kiev and its pro-European policies.
It is not really a surprise that the 2013 revolution and Russian annexation of Crimea triggered a separatist movement and local elections (which are always condemned by the West) in the Donbass region. Yet, this struggle in Donetsk and Luhansk reminds of another historical separatist movement: the American Revolution. So, when American politicians condemn this movement, they in effect neglect our own history of separation from Great Britain and the right of self-determination. Whether this movement is supported by Russia (the United States was supported by France), let us hope that Ukraine and Russia ultimately do not engage in an overt war over a minor incident like what occurred in the Kerch Strait and that the United States does not encourage Ukraine to make imprudent moves by supporting it and its actions.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
After three Ukrainian vessels entered Russian territorial waters and were captured in the Kerch Strait, even President Trump threatened to cancel his meeting with Putin in Buenos Aires. After the final report is released, there will likely be more condemnation from the United States, despite Ukraine not being an American ally. The anti-Russia rhetoric in the West will likely spark yet again, and Poroshenko raised the possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine.
In addition, Poroshenko also took the opportunity to gain near-dictatorial authority from the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) and put large sections of Ukraine under martial law, which allows for the suppression of speech and protests. Why declare martial law now? There has been a war brewing in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts for years, and this action was not taken. Could it be that the Ukrainian president is attempting to gain relevance by making the situation seem worse than it actually is? This may increase his chances of success in the upcoming election, but this misleading and manipulation of the political situation is unfair to the Ukrainian people. It also may bring the United States into the fray, and we know that the United States government would be happy to be involved in yet another overseas conflict. It has already taken sides and supported the Ukrainian government in its attempt to suppress the separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Since the Euromaidan protests and the illegal ousting of former President Yanukovych in 2013, residents of eastern Ukraine have been protesting, and looking at maps of presidential elections in Ukraine, you can start to see why. There is a divide between the pro-Russia and pro-European camps in that country, and many of the regions in the eastern areas vote for pro-Russian candidates and have large Russian-speaking populations. So, when the West (mostly the United States) tries to convince the world that the separatist movements are really an attempt by Russia to violate Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, it really neglects the actual situation there. Specifically in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (both of which border Russia), the people often feel disconnected from Kiev and its pro-European policies.
It is not really a surprise that the 2013 revolution and Russian annexation of Crimea triggered a separatist movement and local elections (which are always condemned by the West) in the Donbass region. Yet, this struggle in Donetsk and Luhansk reminds of another historical separatist movement: the American Revolution. So, when American politicians condemn this movement, they in effect neglect our own history of separation from Great Britain and the right of self-determination. Whether this movement is supported by Russia (the United States was supported by France), let us hope that Ukraine and Russia ultimately do not engage in an overt war over a minor incident like what occurred in the Kerch Strait and that the United States does not encourage Ukraine to make imprudent moves by supporting it and its actions.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
August 23, 2018
Friendly Fire: Sanctions Against an Ally
The United States government is contemplating furthering economic sanctions against Turkey over the capture of and refusal to release an American pastor, Andrew Brunson. What? Turkey? Is Turkey not a member of NATO? Oh yeah, but the United States runs the outdated alliance and determines what is and is not acceptable within it. Now the United States is taking punitive measures that will inevitably contribute towards the deterioration of Turkey’s economy and relations between the two countries.
How dare Turkey defy us? Do they know who we are? We have to get our way. If Turkey does not like this, it is too bad. Try making this sort of demand in any one of your friendships and see how well it goes over. Before making irrational moves over anger associated with Brunson’s imprisonment, perhaps we should wait to see what President Erdogan’s next move will be. Maybe he is just waiting for Thanksgiving to release Brunson so we can celebrate with two turkeys. Two is better than one after all.
Erdogan has suggested moving his country in a different direction in the international arena, perhaps towards Russia, and although this may be largely rhetoric, the fact remains that Turkey is now willing to stand up against U.S. demands. To us Americans viewing the world through the mainstream media, Turkey’s actions may seem defiant and harsh, but consider that Turkey is willing to hand Brunson over in exchange for Fethullah Gulen, a man who is suspected by the Turkish government as having played a large part in the 2016 coup attempt on Erdogan’s government, or the forgiveness of billions of dollars in fines imposed on Halkbank for its role in aiding Iran to get around U.S. sanctions imposed on that country. In addition to sanctions that were put on a few Turkish officials, the Trump administration has also doubled the steel and aluminum tariffs on Turkey, which will only contribute further to that country’s rapidly declining economy and currency.
Imposing sanctions against other countries is an act of economic war and bullying, and this is especially troubling being that Turkey is an ally of the United States. This could cause other U.S. allies to become wary of remaining in an alliance with a country that does not honor its deals. Just look at the Iran nuclear deal. Either way, making demands against a country is not a good diplomatic move, and as I have discussed previously, sanctions are usually detrimental to the people who are devastated by the lack of resources or income sources. The government that is being targeted often does not comply or change course, and sanctions often just strengthen hardliners and increase opposition to the United States.
Ultimately, NATO’s existence will not likely be threatened by the deteriorating relations between the United States and Turkey. The American installations in that country are considered too vital to let Turkey leave the alliance, but this does give Turkey an opportunity to address its grievances with U.S. foreign policy.
It is likely that eventually the United States will get its way and Turkey will cave in, but consider the logic of the situation. The American government is willing to bully Turkey in order to force it to hand over Brunson, but yet, Turkey has a record of human rights violations. Why is it that this is hardly ever mentioned? Does it make sense to contribute towards the destruction of the Turkish economy over the imprisonment of one man? Yet, this type of action is not taken when Turkey commits atrocities against its own people. As I have argued previously, the United States does not care much about human rights violations when it occurs in countries that are allied with it, but it has a fit when those violations are committed by noncompliant countries. Something does not add up here. Perhaps the agenda is covert regime change, or perhaps President Trump really does just want to get Brunson back, or at least act like he is trying in order to avoid criticism. Maybe we really do value the livelihood of one American citizen over that of thousands or millions of the Turkish people. Either way, sanctions are an aggressive tactic that will lead to increased retaliatory actions by both NATO nations until something is worked out.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
How dare Turkey defy us? Do they know who we are? We have to get our way. If Turkey does not like this, it is too bad. Try making this sort of demand in any one of your friendships and see how well it goes over. Before making irrational moves over anger associated with Brunson’s imprisonment, perhaps we should wait to see what President Erdogan’s next move will be. Maybe he is just waiting for Thanksgiving to release Brunson so we can celebrate with two turkeys. Two is better than one after all.
Erdogan has suggested moving his country in a different direction in the international arena, perhaps towards Russia, and although this may be largely rhetoric, the fact remains that Turkey is now willing to stand up against U.S. demands. To us Americans viewing the world through the mainstream media, Turkey’s actions may seem defiant and harsh, but consider that Turkey is willing to hand Brunson over in exchange for Fethullah Gulen, a man who is suspected by the Turkish government as having played a large part in the 2016 coup attempt on Erdogan’s government, or the forgiveness of billions of dollars in fines imposed on Halkbank for its role in aiding Iran to get around U.S. sanctions imposed on that country. In addition to sanctions that were put on a few Turkish officials, the Trump administration has also doubled the steel and aluminum tariffs on Turkey, which will only contribute further to that country’s rapidly declining economy and currency.
Imposing sanctions against other countries is an act of economic war and bullying, and this is especially troubling being that Turkey is an ally of the United States. This could cause other U.S. allies to become wary of remaining in an alliance with a country that does not honor its deals. Just look at the Iran nuclear deal. Either way, making demands against a country is not a good diplomatic move, and as I have discussed previously, sanctions are usually detrimental to the people who are devastated by the lack of resources or income sources. The government that is being targeted often does not comply or change course, and sanctions often just strengthen hardliners and increase opposition to the United States.
Ultimately, NATO’s existence will not likely be threatened by the deteriorating relations between the United States and Turkey. The American installations in that country are considered too vital to let Turkey leave the alliance, but this does give Turkey an opportunity to address its grievances with U.S. foreign policy.
It is likely that eventually the United States will get its way and Turkey will cave in, but consider the logic of the situation. The American government is willing to bully Turkey in order to force it to hand over Brunson, but yet, Turkey has a record of human rights violations. Why is it that this is hardly ever mentioned? Does it make sense to contribute towards the destruction of the Turkish economy over the imprisonment of one man? Yet, this type of action is not taken when Turkey commits atrocities against its own people. As I have argued previously, the United States does not care much about human rights violations when it occurs in countries that are allied with it, but it has a fit when those violations are committed by noncompliant countries. Something does not add up here. Perhaps the agenda is covert regime change, or perhaps President Trump really does just want to get Brunson back, or at least act like he is trying in order to avoid criticism. Maybe we really do value the livelihood of one American citizen over that of thousands or millions of the Turkish people. Either way, sanctions are an aggressive tactic that will lead to increased retaliatory actions by both NATO nations until something is worked out.
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn more about my work, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or my website.
August 8, 2018
Are We Ditching the TSA at Small Airports?
Recently, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) toyed with the idea of cutting out screenings at small airports, where typical flights have less than sixty passengers, as a way to save money and divert resources to larger airports. It is likely just a ploy to gain sympathy from the federal government in order to secure more funding, or perhaps, it is a way to test public reaction to the possibility of decreased security. Either way, the TSA is not likely to forgo its extra-constitutional powers to search every passenger without a warrant or probable cause of a crime.
If the proposal were actually to go into effect, would that not be an interesting thought? You would actually be able to travel on an airplane without getting frisked, having your naked photograph brought up on a government screen, having to walk barefoot around the airport floor, or sound off an alarm because you forgot to take off your belt or put your wallet that contains your money in a little basket and float it down a metal river of detection.
Some experts will claim that decreasing security at smaller airports would increase the chances of terrorist attacks because terrorists would hijack flights from these facilities or infiltrate larger airports and wreak havoc on them, and although there may be a slight risk in this scenario, it would allow Americans to retain their constitutional rights and dignity while traveling from small regions to other places, as well as allow airlines to take charge of their own security. I know allowing private entities to perform security that they deem as necessary seems scary to some people, but consider this: the TSA is not the almighty and terrorist-slaying knights that people think that they are. In fact, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tested the TSA undercover at airports around the country, it was found that the agency had about a twenty percent success rate in 2017, up from about five percent in 2015. This means that explosives, guns, and knives could be making it on flights without the TSA even being aware.
This is astounding, being that we place so much faith in the TSA’s ability to foil terrorist plots. Yet, in reality, it seems as if most, if not all, of the money being invested by the American taxpayers is wasted. Therefore, would private security be such a bad thing? Each airline would be responsible for security, and any one that allowed hijackings would gain a bad reputation, and as a result, it would lose profits. Maybe it would not be perfect, but would it be worse than what we have now? Feel-good measures may reassure us of safety when we board the gate, but if we are sacrificing our liberties each time we do, is it worth it?
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to read about other ways that the federal government is violating your liberties, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
If the proposal were actually to go into effect, would that not be an interesting thought? You would actually be able to travel on an airplane without getting frisked, having your naked photograph brought up on a government screen, having to walk barefoot around the airport floor, or sound off an alarm because you forgot to take off your belt or put your wallet that contains your money in a little basket and float it down a metal river of detection.
Some experts will claim that decreasing security at smaller airports would increase the chances of terrorist attacks because terrorists would hijack flights from these facilities or infiltrate larger airports and wreak havoc on them, and although there may be a slight risk in this scenario, it would allow Americans to retain their constitutional rights and dignity while traveling from small regions to other places, as well as allow airlines to take charge of their own security. I know allowing private entities to perform security that they deem as necessary seems scary to some people, but consider this: the TSA is not the almighty and terrorist-slaying knights that people think that they are. In fact, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tested the TSA undercover at airports around the country, it was found that the agency had about a twenty percent success rate in 2017, up from about five percent in 2015. This means that explosives, guns, and knives could be making it on flights without the TSA even being aware.
This is astounding, being that we place so much faith in the TSA’s ability to foil terrorist plots. Yet, in reality, it seems as if most, if not all, of the money being invested by the American taxpayers is wasted. Therefore, would private security be such a bad thing? Each airline would be responsible for security, and any one that allowed hijackings would gain a bad reputation, and as a result, it would lose profits. Maybe it would not be perfect, but would it be worse than what we have now? Feel-good measures may reassure us of safety when we board the gate, but if we are sacrificing our liberties each time we do, is it worth it?
Thank you for reading, and if you would like to read about other ways that the federal government is violating your liberties, please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
July 25, 2018
Grover Cleveland, the Forgotten President, and Hawaii
Since the Cold War, the United States government has regularly participated in coup d'état operations and invasions of weaker nations’ governments that it deemed contrary to the interests of the United States, its politicians, and its corporations, from Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Turkey to Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, and Chile. The United States has become a superpower, and it has the power to decide which governments are fit to exist and which ones should be replaced by rebel groups. As I have argued previously, the United States was not founded upon the principle of empire, yet this is exactly what we have become. The natural inclination towards imperialism began with the country’s inception and grew out of control during the Cold War. There was, however, a president that hindered imperialism in Hawaii in the late nineteenth century.
Grover Cleveland is not considered a great president by many, nor is he even well-known by most Americans, yet his actions in Hawaii (as well as in other areas) were heroic. Imagine if a president were to challenge the foreign policy status quo today. He or she would be considered by the war hawk-run politics in Washington, D.C. as weak on national security, uncompassionate towards the plight of others, an isolationist, or an ignorant and naïve idiot. Even during his time as president, there was much pressure to ramp up activities in Hawaii and even annex it. Yet, Cleveland, like in many of his endeavors as president and governor of New York, fought for what was right and against corruption.
During Cleveland’s first term as president, he renewed a trade treaty with Hawaii that was first initiated during the Ulysses Grant administration, and this treaty allowed the United States to have access to build a naval base at Pearl Harbor. After Cleveland lost the 1888 election, President Benjamin became a proponent of Hawaiian annexation. The United States attempted to establish a protectorate over the islands, and Harrison even sent in American troops to quell a rebellion in 1889. Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani, who was an anti-imperialist, took over as the country’s monarch after a depression swept across the islands due to the McKinley Tariff being passed by the United States Congress (Hawaiian sugar relied heavily on the American market). Liliuokalani was more of a traditionalist leader who strengthened the power of the monarch, and the nationalist view of her reign was an obstacle to the idea of American annexation.
In 1893, a coup was planned by United States Minister (to Hawaii) John Stevens, Sanford Dole and other white and wealthy sugar planters, and native Hawaiians who wanted a republic. Stevens, without even presidential approval, brought in an American warship and troops to prevent the monarchy from fighting off the rebellion. Dole was named president of the new American protectorate, now called the Republic of Hawaii. The Harrison administration supported annexation, but before the treaty could be ratified in the Senate, Cleveland made his way back to the presidency, becoming the first and only president in American history (so far) to have two nonconsecutive terms. The new president took the treaty out of consideration, and he even sent a team to Hawaii to investigate the coup and American wrongdoing in it. The report that came back stated that annexation was not supported by native Hawaiians, and that the coup was really about protecting the interests of white sugar planters. Cleveland, though not willing to send in American troops to overthrow the new government, ordered Dole to step down and to have the former government under Queen Liliuokalani reestablished, but Dole ignored Cleveland’s request. After much resistance, Cleveland had no choice but to leave the matter to Congress, and the white-dominated Hawaiian government remained in power until Hawaii became an American territory in 1900.
This story may not have a happy ending for the Hawaiians and does show the early stages of American global imperialism, but it also shows the courage and principal of an American president who tried to do what was right and resist the urge for domination of a smaller nation. In 1993, Congress and President Clinton passed a joint resolution apologizing on behalf of the United States to the native Hawaiians for the American-led coup one hundred years earlier. Perhaps one day, the United States will have another American president who stands up to the war hawks and terminates American involvement in the affairs of other countries. Until that day, we continue to meddle and cause deteriorated relations with other nations and resentment abroad.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more examples of United States involvement in other nations.
Grover Cleveland is not considered a great president by many, nor is he even well-known by most Americans, yet his actions in Hawaii (as well as in other areas) were heroic. Imagine if a president were to challenge the foreign policy status quo today. He or she would be considered by the war hawk-run politics in Washington, D.C. as weak on national security, uncompassionate towards the plight of others, an isolationist, or an ignorant and naïve idiot. Even during his time as president, there was much pressure to ramp up activities in Hawaii and even annex it. Yet, Cleveland, like in many of his endeavors as president and governor of New York, fought for what was right and against corruption.
During Cleveland’s first term as president, he renewed a trade treaty with Hawaii that was first initiated during the Ulysses Grant administration, and this treaty allowed the United States to have access to build a naval base at Pearl Harbor. After Cleveland lost the 1888 election, President Benjamin became a proponent of Hawaiian annexation. The United States attempted to establish a protectorate over the islands, and Harrison even sent in American troops to quell a rebellion in 1889. Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani, who was an anti-imperialist, took over as the country’s monarch after a depression swept across the islands due to the McKinley Tariff being passed by the United States Congress (Hawaiian sugar relied heavily on the American market). Liliuokalani was more of a traditionalist leader who strengthened the power of the monarch, and the nationalist view of her reign was an obstacle to the idea of American annexation.
In 1893, a coup was planned by United States Minister (to Hawaii) John Stevens, Sanford Dole and other white and wealthy sugar planters, and native Hawaiians who wanted a republic. Stevens, without even presidential approval, brought in an American warship and troops to prevent the monarchy from fighting off the rebellion. Dole was named president of the new American protectorate, now called the Republic of Hawaii. The Harrison administration supported annexation, but before the treaty could be ratified in the Senate, Cleveland made his way back to the presidency, becoming the first and only president in American history (so far) to have two nonconsecutive terms. The new president took the treaty out of consideration, and he even sent a team to Hawaii to investigate the coup and American wrongdoing in it. The report that came back stated that annexation was not supported by native Hawaiians, and that the coup was really about protecting the interests of white sugar planters. Cleveland, though not willing to send in American troops to overthrow the new government, ordered Dole to step down and to have the former government under Queen Liliuokalani reestablished, but Dole ignored Cleveland’s request. After much resistance, Cleveland had no choice but to leave the matter to Congress, and the white-dominated Hawaiian government remained in power until Hawaii became an American territory in 1900.
This story may not have a happy ending for the Hawaiians and does show the early stages of American global imperialism, but it also shows the courage and principal of an American president who tried to do what was right and resist the urge for domination of a smaller nation. In 1993, Congress and President Clinton passed a joint resolution apologizing on behalf of the United States to the native Hawaiians for the American-led coup one hundred years earlier. Perhaps one day, the United States will have another American president who stands up to the war hawks and terminates American involvement in the affairs of other countries. Until that day, we continue to meddle and cause deteriorated relations with other nations and resentment abroad.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more examples of United States involvement in other nations.
July 18, 2018
The Trump-Putin Summit and the Reality of Politics
The Trump-Putin summit in Finland this week was considered a disappointment by the media and politicians alike, but was all of the criticism against President Trump warranted? The headlines have been reading something along the lines of, “Trump betrayed the United States and sided with Putin over the intelligence agencies.” But, is this what actually happened, and could there be more to the story than what the media is telling us?
When did blind faith in the intelligence agencies become the only position that we are permitted to have in order to be deemed good Americans? Have we gone so far down the fascist road that we can no longer question the legitimacy of reports put out by our officials? Have we forgotten about the statements by Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper when he blatantly lied on the public record about the NSA collecting data on Americans? Is this the United States that we have become, where the government can conduct unconstitutional programs, hide it, and lie to the public in order to make it seem like everything is fine? What else has the government lied about and manipulated public opinion on? Yet, we continue living our daily lives believing what these people have to say?
And where is all of the evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC or our elections in 2016? Oh yeah, it is classified. How convenient for them. We are supposed to just take their word for it and ignore facts like how the government has the capability to mimic cyber procedures utilized by Russia (and other governments) and blame a cyber-attack on that country. If you respond to this with, “this would have to be a massive conspiracy against the American people,” consider Operation Northwoods, where top U.S. military leaders planned terrorist attacks against Americans in order to blame Fidel Castro and gain public support for a war with Cuba. This operation was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it fell short because it was rejected by President John Kennedy, who was later assassinated, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. I bring this up not to say that Russia definitely did not hack into the DNC or our elections, but rather, it should be made clear that it is at least within the realm of possibility that the intelligence agencies had their own agenda and are attempting to trick the American people. People who think that this type of manipulation and conspiracy are not possible are naïve to the reality of politics. Also, what about Iraq?
On the international front, when did diplomacy with Russia and trying to listen to our foes and rivals become a bad thing? The news stories I have seen in the mainstream media remind me of anti-Russia propaganda. Would we really prefer to continue the status quo in our relations with that country and keep the conflict between two nuclear powers going than attempt to resolve our problems? It is like American news anchors, writers, intelligence agencies, large corporate leaders, and politicians are afraid of what will happen if we no longer have an enemy in Russia. The summit coverage has become so politicized, and it has turned into anti-Trump rhetoric. We would prefer to go after Trump than solve the real issues at hand.
Not having Russia as an enemy could mean no more fear-mongering and passing laws to restrict actions of Americans. It could mean a reduction of weapons sales for government-linked corporations. It could mean that NATO is no longer relevant, and it could mean no more amassing of large troop movements on Russia’s borders or the costly protection of European countries that clearly see no threat to justify a bloated military budget. It could mean that Russia may compete economically on the global market with the United States. It could mean that former Soviet satellite states may prefer to join Russia or become allies with it. It also could mean that Americans no longer have to fear nuclear annihilation because of the arrogance of their officials. After watching and reading the news coverage on the Helsinki summit, it seems that Americans are not ready to leave the impression of a Russian threat behind. It is like the Cold War is ingrained in our culture, and we just cannot get past the idea that Russia could be a partner instead of an enemy.
It is disappointing that the media focuses on Trump instead of the possibility of diplomacy with a long-time enemy of the United States and a fully-loaded nuclear power, but the reality of the situation is even more serious. Russia views the United States as a threat, especially considering that since the end of the Cold War, NATO has moved ever-closer to Russia’s borders. The United States also has a history of manipulating foreign elections and overthrowing governments that it dislikes, whether overtly or covertly, so any outrage against Russian hacking of our elections is hypocritical. Before you say that I am a Russian propagandist, that I am trying to spread fake news, or something of the like (all charges that are sometimes thrown at people who disagree with the government or the mainstream media’s perspective and question our policy towards Russia), consider that diplomacy requires compromises and listening to what the other party has to say. We have to acknowledge our faults and be willing to alter course when things are not working. I am not suggesting that Russia does not have its faults either, but I do not live in Russia. I live in the United States, and I desire what is best for my country and the American people. Conflict with Russia is not in the best interest of Americans.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more information on topics that I research and write about.
When did blind faith in the intelligence agencies become the only position that we are permitted to have in order to be deemed good Americans? Have we gone so far down the fascist road that we can no longer question the legitimacy of reports put out by our officials? Have we forgotten about the statements by Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper when he blatantly lied on the public record about the NSA collecting data on Americans? Is this the United States that we have become, where the government can conduct unconstitutional programs, hide it, and lie to the public in order to make it seem like everything is fine? What else has the government lied about and manipulated public opinion on? Yet, we continue living our daily lives believing what these people have to say?
And where is all of the evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC or our elections in 2016? Oh yeah, it is classified. How convenient for them. We are supposed to just take their word for it and ignore facts like how the government has the capability to mimic cyber procedures utilized by Russia (and other governments) and blame a cyber-attack on that country. If you respond to this with, “this would have to be a massive conspiracy against the American people,” consider Operation Northwoods, where top U.S. military leaders planned terrorist attacks against Americans in order to blame Fidel Castro and gain public support for a war with Cuba. This operation was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it fell short because it was rejected by President John Kennedy, who was later assassinated, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. I bring this up not to say that Russia definitely did not hack into the DNC or our elections, but rather, it should be made clear that it is at least within the realm of possibility that the intelligence agencies had their own agenda and are attempting to trick the American people. People who think that this type of manipulation and conspiracy are not possible are naïve to the reality of politics. Also, what about Iraq?
On the international front, when did diplomacy with Russia and trying to listen to our foes and rivals become a bad thing? The news stories I have seen in the mainstream media remind me of anti-Russia propaganda. Would we really prefer to continue the status quo in our relations with that country and keep the conflict between two nuclear powers going than attempt to resolve our problems? It is like American news anchors, writers, intelligence agencies, large corporate leaders, and politicians are afraid of what will happen if we no longer have an enemy in Russia. The summit coverage has become so politicized, and it has turned into anti-Trump rhetoric. We would prefer to go after Trump than solve the real issues at hand.
Not having Russia as an enemy could mean no more fear-mongering and passing laws to restrict actions of Americans. It could mean a reduction of weapons sales for government-linked corporations. It could mean that NATO is no longer relevant, and it could mean no more amassing of large troop movements on Russia’s borders or the costly protection of European countries that clearly see no threat to justify a bloated military budget. It could mean that Russia may compete economically on the global market with the United States. It could mean that former Soviet satellite states may prefer to join Russia or become allies with it. It also could mean that Americans no longer have to fear nuclear annihilation because of the arrogance of their officials. After watching and reading the news coverage on the Helsinki summit, it seems that Americans are not ready to leave the impression of a Russian threat behind. It is like the Cold War is ingrained in our culture, and we just cannot get past the idea that Russia could be a partner instead of an enemy.
It is disappointing that the media focuses on Trump instead of the possibility of diplomacy with a long-time enemy of the United States and a fully-loaded nuclear power, but the reality of the situation is even more serious. Russia views the United States as a threat, especially considering that since the end of the Cold War, NATO has moved ever-closer to Russia’s borders. The United States also has a history of manipulating foreign elections and overthrowing governments that it dislikes, whether overtly or covertly, so any outrage against Russian hacking of our elections is hypocritical. Before you say that I am a Russian propagandist, that I am trying to spread fake news, or something of the like (all charges that are sometimes thrown at people who disagree with the government or the mainstream media’s perspective and question our policy towards Russia), consider that diplomacy requires compromises and listening to what the other party has to say. We have to acknowledge our faults and be willing to alter course when things are not working. I am not suggesting that Russia does not have its faults either, but I do not live in Russia. I live in the United States, and I desire what is best for my country and the American people. Conflict with Russia is not in the best interest of Americans.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website for more information on topics that I research and write about.
June 20, 2018
Global Quest for Monsters: Was the United States Founded Upon an Interventionist Foreign Policy?
It has become the norm and well-accepted that the United States has a role in shaping the geopolitical climate and determining the conduct that is permitted in our current global order. Any country that does not comply is sanctioned economically, invaded militarily, overthrown covertly, or destabilized rhetorically. In all of these scenarios, the United States government has taken it upon itself to be both an empire and the arbitrator of global rules. But, is this the type of nation that the United States was founded upon? Would the American founding fathers advocate for the type of foreign policy that has become commonplace in the United States?
War hawks will often claim that the United States, as the most powerful country to have ever existed, must stabilize the world through its policies in order to bring about lasting peace in the world. If the American military was not stationed across the globe spreading “democracy” and fighting for freedom, it is argued, Americans would be inherently less safe and unfree. Yet, for all of its efforts, the United States government has not brought about peace or democracy to the world, and in some places, it has actually brought more violence and destruction. Plus, Americans are actually less safe when fully engaged globally because we end up creating more monsters when we kill innocent people and destroy infrastructure abroad, as this leads to the desire for retaliation. Other countries feel threatened by our never-ending presence in their lands, and they often feel the need to utilize anti-American rhetoric to rally the people against what they view as an invading force.
In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, made an Independence Day speech on foreign policy, and in it he said, “She [the United States] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings….she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Adams, later the sixth President of the United States, was making an observation about America’s standing in the world and the principles in which it was founded. We can no longer claim that the United States follows these principles that were once viewed as vital to the interests of the country. Through its military and economic operations abroad, the United States government no longer respects the independence of nations that do not comply with its global order or its interests, and the United States involves itself in most conflicts around the world.
In 1801, during his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson laid out the principles under which he believed the United States should adhere to and stated, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Currently, the system of alliances that the United States maintains divides the world further and increases the possibility of conflict. NATO continues to expand, despite the Cold War having been over for many years, and corner Russia, which leads to worsening relations with that country. Our unwavering alliance with Israel puts us at odds with many Arab countries that disapprove of the Israeli government’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. George Washington in his farewell address stated, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Yet, we believe that we are wiser than our founding fathers and above the idea that history repeats and that all empires come to an end eventually. This arrogance may lead to our demise.
To justify continuing conflict, perhaps to benefit the military-industrial complex, war hawks will argue that times have changed, so this means that the United States has to be proactive to avoid conflict. However, as I have mentioned previously, this proactive behavior is viewed as a threat by other countries, and therefore, it actually makes things worse for Americans. Technology and the borders of countries may have changed, but the quest for empire-building and competing for resources and wealth among nations has not. We like to pretend that we are more civilized than past empires, but in reality, American imperialism is being done in a more covert manner.
If you argue a position where the United States disengages from world conflict, you will erroneously be labelled as an isolationist. Just as Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the United States should trade and be friendly with other nations, we in the modern era should do the same thing. Advocating for trade and engaging in diplomacy with other nations is far from isolationism, but if this is what I am to be called because I desire peaceful solutions to world problems and the act of leaving other countries to govern themselves in a manner that they see fit, so be it.
As we approach Independence Day, let us think about the principles that led to our founding, the type of nation that we wish to be, and perhaps how we can alter what we have become. I realize that this is a difficult thing to think about when we grow up propagandized into believing that what our government does abroad is just and moral, but I urge you to take a minute outside of the news and the internet to at least consider these points.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and my website for more information on my work. In conclusion, I will leave you with a continuation of John Quincy Adams’ speech: “She [the United States] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
War hawks will often claim that the United States, as the most powerful country to have ever existed, must stabilize the world through its policies in order to bring about lasting peace in the world. If the American military was not stationed across the globe spreading “democracy” and fighting for freedom, it is argued, Americans would be inherently less safe and unfree. Yet, for all of its efforts, the United States government has not brought about peace or democracy to the world, and in some places, it has actually brought more violence and destruction. Plus, Americans are actually less safe when fully engaged globally because we end up creating more monsters when we kill innocent people and destroy infrastructure abroad, as this leads to the desire for retaliation. Other countries feel threatened by our never-ending presence in their lands, and they often feel the need to utilize anti-American rhetoric to rally the people against what they view as an invading force.
In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, made an Independence Day speech on foreign policy, and in it he said, “She [the United States] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings….she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Adams, later the sixth President of the United States, was making an observation about America’s standing in the world and the principles in which it was founded. We can no longer claim that the United States follows these principles that were once viewed as vital to the interests of the country. Through its military and economic operations abroad, the United States government no longer respects the independence of nations that do not comply with its global order or its interests, and the United States involves itself in most conflicts around the world.
In 1801, during his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson laid out the principles under which he believed the United States should adhere to and stated, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Currently, the system of alliances that the United States maintains divides the world further and increases the possibility of conflict. NATO continues to expand, despite the Cold War having been over for many years, and corner Russia, which leads to worsening relations with that country. Our unwavering alliance with Israel puts us at odds with many Arab countries that disapprove of the Israeli government’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. George Washington in his farewell address stated, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Yet, we believe that we are wiser than our founding fathers and above the idea that history repeats and that all empires come to an end eventually. This arrogance may lead to our demise.
To justify continuing conflict, perhaps to benefit the military-industrial complex, war hawks will argue that times have changed, so this means that the United States has to be proactive to avoid conflict. However, as I have mentioned previously, this proactive behavior is viewed as a threat by other countries, and therefore, it actually makes things worse for Americans. Technology and the borders of countries may have changed, but the quest for empire-building and competing for resources and wealth among nations has not. We like to pretend that we are more civilized than past empires, but in reality, American imperialism is being done in a more covert manner.
If you argue a position where the United States disengages from world conflict, you will erroneously be labelled as an isolationist. Just as Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the United States should trade and be friendly with other nations, we in the modern era should do the same thing. Advocating for trade and engaging in diplomacy with other nations is far from isolationism, but if this is what I am to be called because I desire peaceful solutions to world problems and the act of leaving other countries to govern themselves in a manner that they see fit, so be it.
As we approach Independence Day, let us think about the principles that led to our founding, the type of nation that we wish to be, and perhaps how we can alter what we have become. I realize that this is a difficult thing to think about when we grow up propagandized into believing that what our government does abroad is just and moral, but I urge you to take a minute outside of the news and the internet to at least consider these points.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and my website for more information on my work. In conclusion, I will leave you with a continuation of John Quincy Adams’ speech: “She [the United States] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
