Once upon a time, there was a nation of people who believed everything they were told by their government.

  

Dear The Liberty, Once upon a time, there was a nation of people who believed everything they were told by their government. When terrorists attacked the country, and government officials claimed to have been caught by surprise, the people believed them. And when the government passed massive laws aimed at locking down the nation and opening the door to total government surveillance, the people believed it was done merely to keep them safe. The few who disagreed (like The Rutherford Institute) were labeled extremists. When the government waged costly preemptive wars on foreign countries, insisting it was necessary to protect the nation, the citizens believed it. And when the government brought the weapons and tactics of war home to use against the populace, claiming it was just a way to recycle old equipment, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed (like The Rutherford Institute) were labeled unpatriotic. When the government spied on its own citizens, claiming they were looking for terrorists hiding among them, the people believed it. And when the government began tracking the citizenry’s movements, monitoring their spending, snooping on their social media, and surveying their habits—supposedly in an effort to make their lives more efficient—the people believed that, too. The few who disagreed (like The Rutherford Institute) were labeled paranoid. When the government hired crisis actors to take part in disaster drills, never alerting the public to which “disasters” were staged, the people genuinely believed they were under attack. And when the government insisted it needed greater powers and military intervention to prevent such attacks from happening again, the people believed that too. The few who challenged the government’s narrative (like The Rutherford Institute) were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. By the time the government locked down the nation, using local police and the military to impose martial law, there was little doubt left about the government’s true motives—total control and domination—but there was also no one left to fight back. Now every fable has a moral, and the moral of this story is to beware of anyone who urges you to ignore your better instincts and trust the government. Remember, it was James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, who warned us to mistrust all those in power. In other words, if it looks like trouble and it smells like trouble, you can bet there’s trouble afoot. There’s a lot going on right now in this country for which we don’t have any satisfactory answers, but you can rest assured that The Rutherford Institute will not stop asking the hard questions. Unfortunately, we can’t keep doing this critical work without your help. We’ve got to raise $50,000 between now and October 31, and you’re the only one who can help us. Please take a moment right now to make a tax-deductible donation in support of critical work of The Rutherford Institute. Together, we WILL make America free again. For freedom, John W. Whitehead President P.S. To make a tax-deductible donation to keep our legal and educational programs going strong, click the link below, visit us online at www.rutherford.org, donate using PayPal, call in your donation to 800-225-1791, or mail your donation to our headquarters at PO Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906. ALSO, our 2018 Membership drive is underway. If you haven’t already signed on as a card-carrying member of The Rutherford Institute, please do so today. CLICK HERE TO DONATE To donate via PayPal, please click below:

More Unlawful Presidential Killing

By Judge Andrew Napolitano - Published on Sep 17, 2014

"On Monday of last week, the White House announced that in its pursuit of ISIS, the U.S. will go wherever it finds ISIS targets, and if ISIS hides in Syria and the government of Syria does not permit U.S. jets to use its airspace, the U.S. will attack Syria. That sounds like Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine.

Attacking Syria because its government denied the U.S. airspace would be an unprovoked and unlawful act of war that would probably provoke Putin. Congress rejected declaring war on Syria just a year ago. If it does so now, there would be no lawful or moral basis for such a declaration, as Syria is a sovereign country, lawfully entitled to control its airspace, that poses no present threat to American freedom or security. The U.S. can no more legally commandeer Syrian airspace than Syria can commandeer ours.

Something is amiss here. Last year the president wanted to help ISIS indirectly by degrading the Syrian military. Now he wants to help Syria indirectly by degrading ISIS, but only if Syria stays out of our way. And he is prepared to violate the Constitution, break the law and lie to the American people to achieve his purposes.

Why all the unlawfulness, when he could and should leave these disputants to their own devices and keep the American military at home for genuine defensive purposes?" ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano


Read the Entire Article "Unlawful Presidential Killing" by Judge Andrew Napolitano Here 

Foreign Policy Showdown - Rand Paul Emphatically States: Obama Will Not Get Away With a Syria Strike On My Watch

In 1971, Secretary of State John Kerry famously questioned: “How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?” I would ask Secretary Kerry how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake? That is what he would be doing if the U.S. intervened in the Syrian civil war. 

While the death and destruction stemming from the Syrian civil war is difficult to watch, I believe the U.S. must exercise maximum restraint and uphold the constitutional requirement that grants Congress, not the president, the right to declare war. The president’s announcement that he will seek congressional approval before unilaterally going to war is a step in the right direction.

From a strategic standpoint, there are three questions that should always be asked and sufficiently answered before going to war: What is the U.S. national interest? What is the military objective? What is the exit strategy?

We should also be skeptical of the Islamic rebels that our nation would be fighting alongside. Our knowledge of the relationship with these rebels is murky at best. What reason do we have to believe that they have America’s best interest? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. On one side, we have Assad; on the other, we have Al-Qaeda. On one side we have Islamic jihadists; on the other, we have Christians. We have priests and civilians kidnapped and killed by Islamic rebels. It seems on all sides we have chaos and it is unclear if any side will, in the end, be a friend to the United States.  (Read Entire Article Here)

Chuck Hagel: The Libertarian Case For Obama's Pentagon Pick

With the recommendations of both President Obama and Colin Powell at his side, former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel should feel confident that he will be confirmed by the Senate as the next secretary of defense. While Hagel represents a welcomed foreign policy shift, there are multiple factors that suggest that both Hagel's supporters and opponents overstate the impact his confirmation would have.

In a recent post at the libertarian Cato blog, Christopher A. Preble gives his full endorsement of Hagel. Although Hagel voted for the Iraq war, argues Preble, he has admitted this error in judgement. Hagel would represent a restraint on Washington's interventionist tendencies, believes in engagement with the rest of the world, and supports free trade.

For the many of us — libertarians and non-libertarians alike — sick of perpetual war, open-ended military interventions, and increasing military budgets, Hagel would appear to be the foreign policy realist that Washington desperately needs. Hagel is "a decorated Vietnam war veteran, [who] understands war, and doesn’t take it lightly," concludes Preble.

But before libertarians and non-interventionists should cheer on a possible Secretary of Defense Hagel, the first rule of libertarianism and government should be applied — always be skeptical of politicians, especially the higher up the ladder you go.

While Hagel's resume and past words suggest that he is serious about restraining U.S. military power abroad, a closer look at Hagel's background reveals that he is very intimately intertwined in the establishment financial and military industries. While virtually unreported on by the media, Hagel serves on the Board of Directors of Chevron and Zurich's Holding Company, the Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank America, and is a Senior Advisor to Gallup. These are just a few of the mega-multinationals Hagel is connected to.

In other words, if confirmed, Hagel would have many, many conflicts of interests in restraining a Pentagon, policy of military interventionism, and levels of military spending that corporations like the many that Hagel represents benefit from. Call me a cynic, but it is nearly impossible to become Senator, earn prestige, and be nominated as Secretary of Defense without a willingness to sell your soul up the greasy totem pole of government power.

But then again, maybe I am too harsh on Hagel. No one would ever go broke underestimating the corruption of politicians and government officials, but perhaps it is my soft spot and desperation for restraining U.S. foreign policy that makes a possible Hagel nomination and confirmation so enticing. (READ THE FULL STORY HERE)

War is the Health of the Sate (and the Economy too)

David Broder in his Washington Post Article, seemingly is advocating that Obama ramp up war with Iran to spur economic growth, and the war faction of the Republican Party will love him for it (though secretly).


You know the old saying:


"War is the Health of the State."


I guess in their view the economy too. They want to repeat history. War got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's policies as claimed by revisionist historians.




Obama's policies, like FDR's will only get us in worse economic conditions and prolong the financial mess. People don't realize that the rest of the world got over the Great Depression in a couple of years, and only called it 'The Depression'; only we called it the great Depression. But FDR, like Obama now, enacted policies that made it worse.


People also believed that Herbert Hoover was a Laissez Faire conservative Republican. History really has repeated itself:


A fake non-free market Conservative Republican (Hoover/Bush), who was really a socialisy-lite, became president and enacted policies that hurt the economy, then rushed to bail it out with more failed economic policies.


Then a Democrat progressive socialist was elected President (FDR/Obama) because of the failed policies of the Republican socialist (Hoover/Bush), and blamed the problem on the Free Market.


Then once the Free Market was blamed, the Socialist Democrat President (FDR/Obama) began to enforce more failed socialist/fascist policies and near dictatorial presidential power. And this caused a depression to turn into a great depression, and the only way out:

WAR!