Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 16

Do We Threaten the World?

Most people are aware that the relationship between the United States and Russia has deteriorated. In the United States, there is constant propaganda centered on the idea that the Ruskies are out there attempting to harm American interests at every turn. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, Hezbollah, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Iran are just the interim enemies until the United States gets the courage to force Russia into compliance. Once that occurs, the United States will have control of the world. In fact, Russian officials appear to be so frightened by the United States’ anti-ballistic missile system in Europe that they have raised concerns of a first nuclear strike by the American military and the disabling of the Russian defense system.

Although this may seem like hysteria to many Americans because of what they hear in the media, this is a dangerous thing. When other countries feel threatened by our government, Americans, in reality, are less safe because those countries ramp up their military activities and anti-American rhetoric. Take North Korea for example. We constantly perform military exercises in South Korea, sometimes simulating the invasion of the northern half of the peninsula. How do you think Kim Jong-un takes this? If Russia executed military drills across the Rio Grande in Mexico, would not the United States feel threatened? So, why then, is it acceptable for us to do it to another country? Do we as Americans accept this because our government officials and the media tell us to, or do we really think hypocrisy and arrogance are tolerable?

When a country like North Korea stands up to the United States, it is hit with economic sanctions, covert operations against it, or worse, invasion. The United States has departed from the concept of leading by example that our founding fathers envisioned. This is imperialism and bullying. With the countless number of times that the United States government has meddled in the internal affairs of weaker nations and overthrown foreign governments, we still had the audacity to complain when there were accusations of Russian intervention in the American election of 2016. Now, the hypocrites in Washington, D.C. are leading us towards conflict with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, and Russia. We have military bases in roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries, and we are constantly in a state of war. Why? Perhaps we are trying to feed the coffers of the powerful military-industrial corporations in a corrupt system that we call a republican form of government (or more generally, if you prefer, a democracy) and a capitalist economic system (more like corporatism and fascism).

As we continue performing military exercises on Russia’s borders and expanding NATO ever-eastward, let us ponder on the consequences of our actions. Perhaps talk of nuclear war is not enough to get Americans to consider alternative views because most Americans probably believe that this option would never come to pass. Instead, let us contemplate on ways to make Americans safer and let diplomacy guide the interactions between nations. It may seem like a fantasy, but we must ask ourselves: is what we are doing working? Do we have fewer enemies now than in the past? Are we not still fearing the next terrorist attack on American soil? Perhaps it is time to heed the warnings of the terrorists who want to attack us and leave their countries alone. It is a simple task that could ultimately lead to the saving of a number of American lives (not to mention civilians in the countries we involve ourselves in).

As the holiday season is upon us and people are trying to be more joyous, I will leave you with a positive news item. The CIA shared intelligence with the Russian government that allowed the latter to foil a radical Islam-inspired terrorist attack against St. Petersburg, and as a result, President Putin assured President Trump that Russian intelligence would do the same to help prevent an attack against Americans. This sort of cooperation is a wonderful gift exchange that will hopefully continue into the new year. Good things can come when we open our minds to diplomacy. My Christmas wish is that my government will stop intervening in places it does not belong and work to normalize relations with all nations. Although this view is erroneously perceived as isolationism, I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances [and intervention] with none”.

Thank you for reading, and if you were interested in what I had to say, please check out my other blogs and my book, The Global Bully, here. Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays!

Will We Repeat History in Korea?

War with North Korea is coming. Why do I say that? Do I have some kind of magic device that can predict the future? Of course I have no such thing, but what I do have is history. History can teach us much about what will happen. They say it is cyclical. Although many events have different details, basic concepts throughout the ages have often remained unchanged. Government officials will always attempt to gain more power at the expense of the people, whether it is a democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. Empires will always attempt to spread their influence, whether this is done through expansion and conquering or economic and cultural domination. There will be rebellions when governments push the people too far, and there will be genocide when leaders believe that a specific identity is superior to another. Wars are fought to gain power over other human beings. These historical norms will continue to guide the history of humanity, and because of these norms, we can often predict what will happen.

We want to believe that our time period is unique and that events will play out differently from the past, but in reality, American politics, in particular, is extremely predictable. Being the most powerful empire that the planet has ever seen, despite most of us not wanting to accept that our country fits into the same type of category as the Roman Empire, the United States uses intimidation and violence to accomplish its feats. Though the United States does not overtly conquer weaker nations through military force, it utilizes an array of tactics from the manipulation of foreign elections to covertly overthrowing other governments to economic domination through international bodies and sanctions. The United States has troops stationed in roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries, and very little happens worldwide without the approval or disapproval of the American government. Countries that do not comply are made to conform to the United States-led global order. With all of that being said, it should now make sense why I have stated that a war with North Korea is imminent.

Since Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is this week, it seems appropriate that I should mention the events that led up to the horrific attack that killed a couple thousand Americans at the hand of the Japanese government. Most Americans recognize this as the event that led to the entry of the United States into World War II (however, the United States had been involved in the war effort long before this occurred), and very few people ask why Japan attacked the United States. Some people believe that President Franklin Roosevelt manipulated the Japanese into making the first move so there was justification to enter a war that most Americans wanted very little to do with, but regardless, Roosevelt’s economic sanctions against Japan are what led to the attack. This was largely in the form of an oil embargo, which made Japanese imperialism much more difficult, if not impossible. After diplomacy failed due to demands put on the Japanese government, Japan, desperate for oil, concluded that the United States would attempt to halt its expansion into the oil-rich Dutch East Indies. The Japanese decided to make the first strike and cripple the American Navy.

I say all of this, not in defense of imperialist Japan, but rather, because this should be a lesson to Americans not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Economic sanctions are a precursor to war, and it is no different with North Korea. Also, the constant rhetoric against Kim Jong-un is a unifying rally for a future war. Just like prior to the Iraq War, government officials and the media had to try to prove to everyone that Saddam Hussein’s connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks was legitimate. When that premise proved false, the next piece of rhetoric was his alleged chemical weapons program. We now just consider the hundreds of thousands of lives killed as simply a mistake, not to mention the additional hundreds of thousands of people who were killed as a result of the sanctions that were put in place on Iraq before the American invasion.

As we support the military exercises that simulate the invasion of North Korea and the large presence of American troops in the Korean peninsula, let us reflect on the errors from our history. Let us not fight a war over pride and the concept of American domination, but let us embrace the concept of diplomacy and peace. Kim Jong-un may be a malevolent dictator, but he is also not an idiot. Using logic, we can determine that because the Kim regime cares about its existence, an attack against the United States could not be a likely scenario. We also have no reason to believe that the North Korean government is an irrational player in global politics. Although military conflict in Korea seems inevitable, there may be hope that our politicians will take the prudent and moral path towards negotiation. I would not get your hopes up, though, because the United States government likes making demands and hates compromise.

Thank you for reading this blog, and if it was of interest to you, please check out my book, The Global Bully.

When Will the American Presence in Syria End, Oh Yeah, It Won’t

With ISIS on the brink of defeat and becoming less of a threat to the United States, it would seem that the presence of American troops in Syria is becoming more unnecessary with every day. Yet, the excuses from Washington keep coming. What if small pockets of fighters reassemble and regain lost territory that had once been under the terrorist group’s banner? What if Assad is able to solidify his position as an undisputed autocratic leader of Syria? What if American corporations cannot earn more revenue at the expense of civilian lives? We cannot allow any of these scenarios to come into fruition. It may put to question the legitimacy of an empire trying to run the business of a country thousands of miles away. We do not want that. It will make the United States look weak, and arrogance and profit are more important than saving people’s livelihoods.

If history is a good indicator of the duration of an American occupation, we can reasonably conclude that the United States will remain in Syria indefinitely. Even Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis made it clear that the United States will fight to ensure that the rebels in Syria have a good chance of taking over some power in the country. Political pressure from Russia, Iran, and Turkey may make it impossible to get rid of Assad completely, but if the rebels take over key positions in the government, the United States will have some influence. Eventually, CIA or JSOC operations could force the pro-Assad leaders out of power until Syria becomes an American puppet state.

The United States government will not stop short of reducing the independence and pro-Russian and pro-Iranian influence in Syria. If that means overt war, proxy war, economic war, or a deterioration of relations with Russia; it does not matter because Syria must fall in line as a satellite of the American Empire. Whatever means are necessary to accomplish this are on the table.

I have also argued that the reason that the United States got involved in Syria was to oust Assad from the beginning and not to defeat radical Islam. The Obama administration began by sending aid to the rebels, and many of these rebels were linked to our enemy, al-Qaeda. The administration was relieved when ISIS joined the fight because then there was justification to be in the country. Now that ISIS no longer looks like a long-term threat, the Trump administration is looking to set up camp and impose American interests on the Syrian people.

If you do not believe me about the United States not really caring about ISIS running rampant throughout the Middle East, look at how the United States allowed ISIS fighters and their weapons to quietly leave Raqqa without any kind of opposition. Iran or North Korea having weapons is condemned as the end of the world by the media and American politicians. I guess if we allow ISIS to keep their weapons, they may attack Americans, which could be used to justify violations of American liberties at home. We fund whichever side is necessary to spread the American gospel of “democracy” and “liberty” across the lands, even if it means supporting our enemies. Welcome to the status quo of American foreign policy!

Thank you for reading, and if you are interested in learning a new perspective on political topics, please check out my book, The Global Bully.

The Scariest Boogeyman Doesn't Have to be Fictional

During an episode of truTV’s “Adam Ruins Everything,” the host (Adam Conover) focuses on Halloween myths that many people believe that are untrue. At the end, he suggests the scariest events can be those involving everyday people. We constantly hear about murders, kidnappings, terrorist attacks, and many other unpleasant undertakings. I then began to think about this. What about government? Can that not be considered one of the most terrifying things of all? A group of people sits together to create policies that are enforced by well-trained people with powerful weapons and technology.

Throughout history, governments have been responsible for massive amounts of pain and sorrow. Whether you want to talk about the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against the Armenians, Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, Saddam Hussein’s Kurdish and Shia slaughters, or the Israeli government’s non-proportionate force against the Palestinians; we must admit that governments commit casualties to a much larger extent than individuals or groups. The United States government killed tens of thousands of people during the nuclear attacks against Japan. Currently, the same government is killing hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East with its wars, drone strikes, and economic sanctions.

We do not have to look outside of the borders of the United States to see the same types of atrocities. For many years, the federal government had its own genocide against the Native Americans. Black people have been treated unequally. Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned the Japanese. Nonviolent drug offenders are incarcerated, which has contributed to the United States’ prison population that dwarfs even China’s. The Patriot Act and other policies have unconstitutionally allowed the government to listen to our conversations without a proper warrant, targeted us based on our lifestyle choices, and turned our personal devices into listening machines. The federal government has handed weapons, equipment, and vehicles to local law enforcement to terrorize us in the streets.

Yet, somehow, we largely trust that the government is doing what is in our best interest, and we are fine with giving it more power to run and control our lives. Let us also not forget about the ghost-like bankers and corporations or the ghoulish elites that influence and fund the directors’ horror films. While we go out to parties or bring our kids trick-or-treating this Halloween, perhaps it would be warranted to ponder on this Boogeyman among us. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

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

Niger, Uganda, Mauritania, and Central African Republic to Name a Few

The incident in Niger has become big news as of late, but we still know little of what transpired. Some people argue that our troops do not have enough equipment or that we are not tough enough on ISIS (or IS or whatever), which is on the verge of collapse as a semi-state. What many Americans learned as a result of this ambush is something that they do not realize that they have learned. The United States has its troops committed in yet another African country. Yeah, we knew about Somalia and Djibouti, but Niger? Would you be able to locate this country on a map? Would it surprise you if I said the American military is also in Chad, Burkina Faso, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)? What about Mali or Ethiopia? Do you get the picture yet?

Now, it is unfortunate that we lost four servicemen in the attack, but there are bigger questions at stake here. Why are we there in the first place? What benefit do Americans get from this vast presence across the African continent? How long will we be there? Are the military-industrial corporations profiting from this? These are the types of questions that the media should be asking but is not.

You will often hear arguments suggesting that the United States has an obligation to stop tyranny across the globe or that the United States would be in danger if it did not have a military presence in two-thirds of the world’s countries. Should we not stop Joseph Kony or Boko Haram from ravaging the African countryside?

What about countries that are disengaged around the world? Is Switzerland immoral because it does not prevent wrong-doing thousands of miles away? If a government has an obligation to its own people, is there not a point where it should be argued that there is little that can be done. The world is a messed up place. No one country can prevent trouble on every corner of the planet all of the time, nor does any one have the resources to do so. The United States chooses winners and losers on the international stage based on its own national interests, and in doing so, it utilizes its self-proclaimed altruism and moral high-ground to expand its influence worldwide. The last time I checked, this qualifies as imperialism.

Is the United States any safer as a result of its endeavors overseas? If you turn on the television, all you see is a bunch of fear-mongering. The Russians are coming! Al-Qaeda may be under your bed while you sleep. The Chinese are spying on you. The Iranians are planning a nuclear holocaust. You would think that if we were spending exorbitant amounts of money on defense and intelligence, Americans would at least feel safer. Instead, we sit around afraid of our enemies and willing to give up our liberties for a false sense of security. Meanwhile, politicians and corporate leaders are laughing their way to the bank and gaining more power at our expense.

So, what does all of this have to do with the events in Niger? In short, we need to alter the existing foreign policy that empowers our leaders. The more troops we have in other countries, the more deaths of servicemen and women we will have to explain to loved ones. The more troops we have in other countries, the more conflict there is. The more troops we have in other countries, the more resentment we get from governments and people who do not want us in their regions. The more troops we have in other countries, the more we get to claim that the United States is an empire.

Is this what we want for the future of our country? Do we want to continue being the very thing our founding fathers fought to prevent? This is not simply about an operation in Niger, but rather, it is a wake-up call to all Americans to think about how much longer we will continue down this path. Will we continue to feed the coffers of military-industrial corporations, or will we demand an end to the endless wars and expansion of the military across every continent?

Thank you for reading, and if you would like a more in-depth look at American global operations and where the military is being sent, please check out my book, The Global Bully.

Should We Care about Catalonia?

Spain may be on the brink of losing one of its wealthiest regions and its second largest city, but what does this mean for people outside of the Iberian Peninsula? It could mean that other marginalized groups and regions of the world will follow Catalonia’s model and excuse themselves from oppressive national governments. More importantly, this issue represents a conflict between two mentalities common in the twenty-first century. That is, on one hand, we want to ensure that there is continuing globalization, consolidation of governmental power, and centralization to keep order. Yet, on the other hand, we want to keep our national and local identities and ensure that the people retain the ability to pick their leaders and form of government.

The former view seems to be the most dominant as people flock to the convenience of technology (and the lack of privacy that comes with it) and allow the government more elasticity in decision-making. In exchange for giving up some rights and enriching politicians, people receive benefits. It seems like a win-win for everyone, until you begin to see the corruption that is built up around it. Once you give up some of your rights for so-called security or welfare, you will never get them back, save for a revolution. The government tightens its grip like a python until you are no longer free.

So, what does this have to do with Catalonia? The government of the autonomous region decided to hold a referendum for independence, and like any other centralized government, Spain is waiting to strike the Catalonian people with its military might should the region actually make a move towards independence. Considering that the Spanish police took several measures, including the shutting down of the internet, the physical prevention of access to polling stations, and the threat of arrest, to prevent the vote from happening; the overwhelming majority of those who did make it to the polls voted for independence (by a margin of ninety percent). If the people of Catalonia decide to proceed with the results of the vote, a decision that will likely have to be made soon, hardship will ensue. The Spanish government will wage war and replace the Catalonian government with a more subservient one. The autonomy of this region with its own unique culture and history will become a thing of the past.

Today, we do not really have a stomach for secessionist movements, unless it benefits our own government in some way. Americans are accepting of break-away regions like Kosovo or South Sudan, but are less likely to accept those that are allied with our enemies, such as Donetsk and Luhansk. This inconsistency creates a problem. We are less inclined to believe in the right of the people to choose their own form of government and more willing to desire what is in our own national interests at the expense of the people living in those parts of the world. In doing so, Americans, in particular, forget their own history, which began with secession from the British Empire. We tend to believe that our founding fathers were justified in rebelling and illegally exiting a sovereign country, but when we get to the American Civil War or modern history, self-determination becomes a negative thing. We like to cherry-pick the rebels that are most pleasing to our eyes.

Geographical differences exist within many political entities. Even within my home state of New York, the mega-urbanized region of New York City and its suburbs (an area making up roughly five percent of the land area but sixty-four percent of the population) contrasts with the much less densely populated upstate region (home to forested hills, small towns and farms, and many lakes). I just moved to rural Rensselaer County, which contrasts with the urban-suburban Albany-Schenectady area where I lived for most of my life.

Differences in culture or geographical areas do play a large role in how people perceive the world and wish to subsist, but they do not necessarily have to be a dividing factor. In fact, diversity in ethnicity, religion, etc. can lead to the strengthening of a society and a better understanding of people in general. However, there may be times when marginalized people need to separate themselves from the existing political structure. It does not even have to be to the extent of George Washington and Mohandas Gandhi igniting the fire of a new country, but instead, it could be Martin Luther King, Jr. fighting for what is right and helping to bring about a separation from ineffective and unjust policies and practices.

As we watch the events unfold, let us not overlook the deeper issue at hand. Catalonia has believed that it has contributed more to Spain than it has received, and perhaps it is time for the two nations to part ways. Whatever your views are on this, try to remember that from the perspective of the Catalonians, this is a struggle between whether people are free to choose their own government or are forced to remain compliant to an ever-growing centralized authority.

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

Do You Want to Live in a Police-State?

Imagine walking home from the corner store on a beautiful fall evening. The orange, red, and yellow patterns in the foliage compliment the sky as the Sun begins its descent. The crisp air across your face and the scary faces of pumpkins decorating front porches remind you of when you were a kid. Then, all of a sudden, an MRAP comes zipping by you. You wonder what an armored military vehicle is doing in your neighborhood, but you brush it off because the police department probably has a good explanation for utilizing it. Suddenly, more response vehicles approach the area as the sound of several sirens singing in a strangely harmonious chorus fills the previously silent night. As several law enforcement members disembark with rifles pointing in all directions, you realize that something terribly wrong is about to take place. A man with a bullhorn silences the crowd and announces that the city is in lockdown and everyone must go into their homes for the night. You passively comply with the order and head home because you are afraid of whatever threat has terrorized the city.

This may seem like something out of a police or military drama, but events like this have occurred in the United States. One such event was the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Parts of Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown were locked down, and people were illegally searched and coerced from their homes. The streets were filled with well-armed law enforcement units and military vehicles in order to prevent a teenager from wreaking havoc across eastern Massachusetts.

Regardless of what you think about the events that transpired that day, one policy (1033 Program), in particular, has allowed this type of monstrosity to become reality. When the federal government sells or transfers military equipment and vehicles to state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies across the country, it inevitably leads to the militarization of the police. This idea turns police from people who deeply care about the community and protecting it into predators ready to pounce on their prey. This is not to say that every law enforcement member is a raging leopard ready to drag his or her victim up a tree of tyranny, but when people on the street are viewed as potential threats and police are more concerned about meeting arrest quotas, imprisonment rates rise and people are less free. You know something is wrong when the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world (much of this is due to the preposterous War on Drugs).

All of this talk is to bring up an executive order that President Trump has recently ended , which is President Obama’s order that prohibited armored vehicles and large-caliber weapons from making their way from the Department of Defense to local police departments. Although the order did not ban all military equipment from trickling down the government ladder (and the program existed throughout most of Obama’s presidency), it did minimally halt the efforts of the federal government to militarize the police.

Liberty takes a back seat to tyranny when the federal government turns state and local law enforcement into little minions ready to enforce federal laws, and we are not talking about little cute and yellow creatures running around with toy guns. These are full-scale soldiers equipped to fight drugs and terrorists and take away unapproved firearms. If we as a society cherish freedom and do not want to live in a police-state, we should oppose these types of measures. Today it may be martial law in the Boston area, but tomorrow it could be martial law across the country. We must ask ourselves if we want to live in the footsteps of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, or we want to stand up for American principles.

Like Nazi (National Socialist) Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia, the United States has developed into a corporatist state with elements from these three socialist governments. This mixed with a police-state can only lead to ruin. Instead of focusing on how much more power we can give the government, let us attempt to limit its authority. 1033 Program needs to take a hike so the people can breathe the fresh mountain air without the police lurking around every corner with weapons that they do not need to keep us “safe.” If we really want to be safe from terrorists, perhaps we should examine our own government and stop provoking other countries.

Thanks for reading, and if you would like more information about the militarization of local police departments or on ways that the federal government uses violence and intimidation to get what it desires, please check out my book, The Global Bully.

The Largest Empire in History is Afraid of a Madman?

Imagine sitting on a nice warm beach on a tropical island in the Pacific Ocean soaking up the rays. Life could not be any better. Tranquility and relaxation are all around. Then, you see an explosion miles off the coast and reality sinks in. The island is being invaded. But by who? World War II is over, so it could not be the Japanese. “Oh yeah,” you scream with excitement. “I read the brochure. More than a quarter of the island’s area is covered by American military installations. The television told me that Guam is a target of North Korea, so it must be true. We should have rained down ‘fire and fury’ on those bastards before this got out of hand.”

Now, this is the narrative that the United States government has painted in regards to North Korea. Kim Jong-un is an illogical lunatic who is bent on destroying Japan and the United States and reuniting the Korean peninsula through coercion. The United States is innocently minding its own business in South Korea and has become a victim of empty threats by an isolated, third-world nation. Does this not sound like state-run propaganda? If you even suggest that North Korea is not as much of a threat as it is made out to be or that the country is being provoked by the United States, you will likely be called anti-American or a Kim-supporter.

In the United States, we often do not like to bring up what our own government contributes to the deterioration of relations between nations, but if we want to achieve diplomatic solutions to problems in world affairs, understanding how other countries view our government is important. Performing military drills near the DMZ that are perceived as simulations of invasion, sending aircraft carriers as a show of force, and implementing economic sanctions are not ways to make friends, nor will they deescalate the situation.

Granted, North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world, but let us think from a rational standpoint. If Kim were to attack Guam or any American city, it would inevitably mean the end of his regime. The United States government would conquer the northern half of the peninsula in no time. Even if North Korea could keep up militarily with the United States (which seems highly unlikely), it would collapse under its own weight due to the lack of resources. The country is known for the nightly satellite views depicting the lack of electrical power across the land as compared to neighboring countries. Do we seriously think that a country where a large portion of the population is starving will be a threat to the most powerful empire to have ever existed? So, why then, do we continue to pretend that North Korea is a threat? Is Kim really a suicidal maniac?

I understand that people are afraid when they hear statements that suggest that a rogue nation has nuclear missiles that can reach the American mainland and the leader is ready to utilize them, but we need to put these things into perspective. Are not citizens of weaker nations around the world terrified when they hear rhetoric by American politicians that suggest that if their governments do not comply, they may be the next victim of invasion or economic sanctions? We need to separate rhetoric from action.

If you are not convinced that Kim is a rational player in global politics, let us talk about how war with North Korea would be bad for Americans and the rest of the world. If the United States goes to war, China will likely become involved because it will lose its buffer between an American “territory” and itself. Russia may even come to the aid of North Korea, and a proxy war between South Korea and its allies and North Korea and its allies has the potential to go nuclear. Is it really worth risking this because of pride? Even a conventional war will devastate both sides with civilian and military losses of life, destruction of infrastructure, and economic setbacks. I suppose the military corporations who are connected with the government would make out like bandits, but for most of us, it would mean disaster.

President Trump has made it clear that if North Korea does not comply with the demands of the United States, a military invasion could be underway. Although the launching of a ballistic missile over Japanese airspace is unacceptable, let us not use this as justification for war. You cannot even count on both hands the number of times that the United States has disrespected the territorial boundaries of other countries. As far as the other ballistic missile tests that the United States abhors, there really is not much that can be done, aside from aggressive actions that lead to war.

In conclusion, diplomacy can be a viable solution with North Korea, but this means that the United States has to be willing to give something up. In this case, it means military exercises near the border. It is arrogant to say that the exercises are nonnegotiable, and this violates the very concept of compromise. I urge everyone to do a little research on this topic and come up with your own conclusions. If you read profoundly on these issues, you will likely see that Kim Jong-un is willing to compromise and that the United States is provoking North Korea. If you disagree, fine, but knowing why you disagree is important. Thanks for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, for more information on acts of violence and intimidation committed by the United States government.

Venezuela Leader Makes His Debut on the Economic Sanctions Mound

I must have missed the memo, but this month has to be national sanctions month. It is that time of the year where we all get together and celebrate how badly our enemies are behaving and punish them for their rebellion against the United States government. This week marked sanctions against Russia, sanctions against Iran, and of course, sanctions against everyone’s favorite lunatic in North Korea. However, what was new about this year’s festivities was a new country being added to the roster. Nicholas Maduro, the rookie pitcher hailing all the way from Venezuela, has a mean changeup at his disposal. He apparently has the power to turn a wonderful, thriving democracy into a dictatorship overnight. Well folks, let us not underestimate this prospect. He deserves to be added to the Sanctions Hall of Fame along with other notable figures such as Fidel Castro and Vladimir Putin. I wonder if the federal government will coerce Otsego County, New York into opening a facility to honor the great sanctioning of international adversaries of the United States.

The United States government made statements suggesting that Maduro is now a dictator and that he is crushing the will of the people. What about Saudi Arabia? Does that government not suppress dissenters or implement harsh policies against the people? What about the will of the people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk? The majority of the people in those regions decided that they no longer wanted to remain as part of Ukraine. Oh yeah, I forgot. The will of the people only applies when the United States government agrees with the movement, or the movement furthers the American agenda.

I am not advocating for Maduro’s consolidation of power, nor his socialist regime. In fact, I am personally opposed to socialism or any other government expansion of power, whether it is domestically or against foreign nations (governments are corrupt and should not be given more power than what is necessary), but what is interesting is the principle that the United States gets to choose the form of government for the people living overseas. If a government is not a perfect democracy like the United States (apparently Congress, the president, and the American bureaucracy believes that it follows the will of the people and that members of the same are not more interested in personal pursuits than serving the best interests of their constituents) and not an ally, it must be removed or punished in some manner.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made it clear that anyone who does business with Maduro’s government or participates in the National Constituent Assembly (ANC), the newly formed body established by Maduro to circumvent the constitution and replace the opposition-led legislature with a more friendly one, could be subject to penalties. This arrogant position will only lead to further involvement by the United States into the civil crisis. Since, like I have argued many times, the United States only uses authoritarianism as an excuse when it is convenient (Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian regime, but it is a key ally and a compliant nation in the world order), we should be concerned about why we have to be involved in a conflict in South America. Much of the continent (or subcontinent if the Americas are classified as one land mass) is already hostile towards the United States due to the manipulation and covert operations in the region undertaken by American presidents and policymakers. Perhaps the United States’ position on this issue has to do with oil or control, but one thing is certain. Economic sanctions will not change the attitude of the ruling class. Further sanctions will only exasperate the situation in Venezuela (brought on by socialism) and push the already-starving people deeper into poverty.

Although the current sanctions against Venezuela are mild, they will likely not remain as such. In my book, The Global Bully, I talk about how the United States may have performed covert operations in Venezuela in the 2000’s. If you are interested in covert operations that the United States has been involved in to coerce other countries or how economic sanctions really just end up harming innocent people, please check out the book. Thanks for reading!

What Exactly Does Independence Mean?

For most Americans, the Fourth of July is thought of as a day to party and rest from work, but we rarely look at what the day represents. What exactly does independence mean from a political perspective? We tend to picture the events surrounding the American Revolution as a bunch of men sitting in a room discussing rebellion against King George III and glorious battles won by General George Washington. However, in reality, as is the case with many things, the story is much more complex.

First of all, we must understand the concept of independence. What Americans mean when they celebrate independence is that our founding fathers and those who supported the cause seceded from the British Empire. In other words, they rebelled and broke away from the existing governing structure and the entity in which they were previously dependent upon. Thomas Jefferson’s eloquent thesis (though the ideas were largely taken from John Locke, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and others) stated in the Declaration of Independence determined that the people should decide their fate when it comes to governance.

This could lead to discussions about two other events. The Donetsk and Luhansk secessionists in eastern Ukraine, where the people are largely Russian, fight for either a federation (stronger government at the local level instead of authority being dictated from the top down) or independence from Kiev altogether. Yet, the United States government of today does not support such a movement because it seemingly strengthens Russian interests.

Although this is very unpopular to talk about, the American Civil War was also fought on similar grounds. Despite the Confederate States of America being built around the culture and expansion of slavery, the primary purpose of the war was to coerce the South back into the Union, as stated by Abraham Lincoln himself (wars are rarely declared on governments just because they violate human rights, so the argument that the Civil War was fought to end slavery is false, and in fact, the Union permitted slavery in some border states in order to keep them from seceding). Slavery, of course, should never be condoned (and it was the major issue that led to secession), but the original principles in which the United States was founded were those where the states were sovereign and could secede from the Union whenever the people decided that that form of government no longer served their interests. The principle of secession has since become unacceptable in American society, except when July 4th rolls around or terrorist gangs attempt to take land from Bashar al-Assad. We make preposterous arguments about which states are allowed to secede or which rebels in faraway lands may leave their countries, but we fail to see how the American colonists illegally left the protections of their British rulers. The will of the people takes precedence over any established laws created by politicians.

If I have not caused you to turn away due to controversial statements, let us now move to the American Revolution. Prior to the American Revolution, the American colonies were largely self-governing, but at the same time, they were full of aristocracy that left many people marginalized (particularly slaves). After the global Seven Years’ War (the North American theater was known as the French and Indian War), Great Britain decided that since the American colonies benefited from the protection and innovation associated with the empire, they should have to take part in paying for the debt incurred by the war.

This led to the cycle of tax implementation, boycott, and repeal that many Americans should be familiar with from high school. At the time, there was little talk of the colonies becoming independent countries, and most colonists considered themselves British citizens and thought of those who spoke of independence as radicals. It was not until the Boston Tea Party where the idea of secession began to gain momentum. Because of the “terrorism” displayed by the members involved in the incident, Britain passed the Coercion Acts (known as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies), which effectively dissolved Massachusetts’ legislature and placed the colony under martial law. The outrage that ensued led to the First Continental Congress and subsequently the Second Continental Congress. The latter body bitterly debated whether or not the American colonies should continue its current course of utilizing diplomacy to persuade Parliament to back down from its tightening grip on the colonies.

However, John Adams and others believed that the time for diplomacy was over and that military action was needed to defend themselves from British aggression. They were opposed by John Dickinson and others who believed that a war with Britain would cause unnecessary bloodshed and would ultimately fail. The Congress managed to adopt the Massachusetts militia as an army led by George Washington, and roughly one year later, an unanimous decision (though just barely and with a lot of politics involved) was reached to issue the Declaration of Independence as the official statement for the independence of thirteen autonomous states united under a confederate government (the issue of independence was actually decided on July 2). The colonial representatives then became terrorists to the British crown, and anyone who supported the cause had to become ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

For seven more years, the United States military struggled against the most powerful nation at the time. There were major defeats and setbacks, but ultimately, the United States was able to establish itself as a new nation in the world and set the precedent for many other fledgling republics across the globe. The world of monarchies and oligarchies was replaced with that of rule by the many (or at least in theory).

The aristocratic society that had dominated for many years gradually began to slip away as less wealthy white males became allowed to vote. This was followed by the right of black males to become franchised, and later women joined this group. Then, in 2008, the unthinkable happened. A black man became president of the United States.

The United States did not become a country over night, nor did the freedoms that became associated with being American come into existence by people who sat silently. This Fourth of July, while you are watching fireworks or eating hamburgers from the grill, take some time to remember the sacrifices made by our founding fathers, the American military members who have been forced over the years to fight politicians’ wars, civil rights heroes (like Martin Luther King, Jr.) who fought for equal rights for blacks, and whistleblowers (like Edward Snowden) who have fought to keep the American public informed of wrongdoings committed by the federal government. The American story is too great to let it be ruined by politicians who only have their own interests at heart, and if people let the government get more and more involved in their lives, freedom will continue to disappear. Do not be afraid to speak your mind or criticize the government. That is exactly what our country was founded upon. Patriots are not sheep that blindly follow the politicians’ rod and staff to destruction. Thanks for reading, and have a happy Independence Day!

If you are interested, this is my website.