GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING: Lew Rockwell

Showing posts with label Lew Rockwell. Show all posts

Monday, June 6, 2011

Down with the Dictator

Llewellyn Rockwell Jr.
Lew Rockwell

Governments and their intellectual front men believe that nothing unites a population like a war. Actually, that’s not quite true. What happens is that during war, governments strike fear into their domestic opponents and silence them through intimidation. The appearance of unity is wholly illusory.

If you truly want to unite a population, here is a key: drive the dictator out of the country. The fleeing of a despot always leads to unparalleled and authentic celebration because the people perceive a new-found freedom. In the street celebrations, dancing, enthusiasm, and optimism, we gain a glimpse of what freedom is all about. It is about removing the boot from the neck.

Use the Dollar or Else

Only use our monopoly money.
Terrorists use silver and gold
Dees Illustration

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Lew Rockwell

Look up the phrase "a unique form of domestic terrorism" on a search engine and you will turn up a story about a man whom the US government is trying to cage from now until the time of his death.

And his crime? His unique form of terrorism? He minted silver and copper coins and sold them. In other words, he did what innumerable entrepreneurs from the beginning of time have done. He attempted to provide consumers with a store of value. No one was forced to buy. He met a market demand, and that’s it.

Whom did he hurt? No one. Unlike illegal drugs, which the government bans on grounds that it doesn’t want us to hurt ourselves, these silver coins did not endanger their users. They only gave people an option on what to do with their money. Did the proprietor attempt to claim that these were legal tender for monetary exchange? No, he sold them for what they are.

Gold, Guns, and Getaway Plans: Gerald Celente Talks to Lew Rockwell

Lew Rockwell
The government and the power elite are out of control. The president rips up the constitution to start another war, and the American boobeosie sit back and watch TV. Wall Street and the big banks rip us off, and Boobus Americanus eats more junk food. But ignoring the criminals who are ruining the entire West with their monetary Ponzi scheme is hardly a cure. For one thing, we have to be prepared for retaliation by Gadaffi in New York or some other American city. But as individuals and families, we don’t have to take it. Given what lies ahead, here is what courageous Americans can do.

Gerald Celente is Founder/ Director of The Trends Research Institute. The Trends Research Institute publishes The Trends Journal.

Listen to the interview here

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Lew Rockwell Comments On Libya War (Video)

Saturday, March 19, 2011

US Makes War on Another Muslim Country With Oil

Carlos Latuff/Deviant Art

Lew Rockwell

Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.

Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.

But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:

Obama Threatens Kadhafi with Military Action

RELATED VIDEO:

Ron Paul: Libya No-Fly Zone is an Act of War

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Sunday, November 28, 2010

TSA: Thou Shalt Acquiesce

Gary North

Lew Rockwell
by Gary North

As a 40-year student of bureaucracy, beginning with Ludwig von Mises's great little book, Bureaucracy (1944), I have come to recognize a series of near laws governing bureaucracy. This one is, as far as I can see, unbreakable, comparable to the law of gravity.

Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both.

There is no way to write the rules so that some bonehead in the system will not find a way to become a thorn in someone's side – a thorn that cries out for removal.

There are corollaries to this iron law of bureaucracy.

The bureaucrat in question will not back down unless forced to from above.
His superiors will regard any public resistance to the interpretation as an attack on the bureaucracy's legitimate turf.
The bureaucracy's senior spokesman will defend the policy as both legitimate and necessary.
Politicians will be pressured by voters to have the policy changed.
The bureaucracy will tell the politicians that disaster will follow any such modification of the policy.
The public will finally get used to it.
The politicians will switch to some other national crisis.
The internal manual will then be rewritten by the senior bureaucrats to make the goof-ball application mandatory.
Senior management will increase the budget so as to enforce the new policy.
Politicians will acquiesce to this increased budget.

This leads me to North's law of bureaucratic expansion:

Any outrageous interpretation of a bureaucratic rule, if widely resisted by the public, will lead to an increased appropriation for the bureaucracy within two fiscal years.

There is an exception.

If the enforcement of the interpretation requires major expenditures for new equipment, the process will take only one fiscal year.

THE SCANNERS

The new scanners are expensive. Some firm is making a bundle of money by supplying them to the TSA. It is clear – transparent, even – that this technology is coming to an airport near you.

It is fun to imagine that the TSA screeners get their jollies by subjecting people to the process. This is unlikely. Most employees in a bureaucracy want to decrease the number of tasks they are required to perform. Like all of us, the want more for less. Adding a step is not in their self-interest.

On the other hand, it is in the self-interest of their supervisor. Now we come to another law of bureaucracy, an extension of Parkinson's famous law: "Work expands so as to fill the time allotted for its completion." Professor Parkinson had another law, less known but more rigorous: promotions take place when a bureaucrat increases the number of employees subordinate to him. Parkinson worked out the numbers in the 1950s. It was no joke. There is a large body of academic articles devoted to this rule. Here is a recent example.

The supervisors want these scanners. They want employees with their sanitary gloves. These people must be trained to do these jobs. They must be moved out of the line. This means the supervisor will be able to call for additional staff. His budget will rise.

The official goal of the scanners is to discover ever-more concealable explosives.

I rue the day when a terrorist on a plane blows it up by inserting a powerful explosive into a large orifice.

Talk about bin Laden winning the war! If the see-through scanners are there to detect explosive underwear, think of the anal bomb's impact on airport security procedures.

"No," you think to yourself. "It could not go that far." You are ignoring Law #1:

Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both.

I assume that there are terrorists out there who think up low-tech weapons, not for terrorizing the populace, but rather for the annoyance factor. It give TSA an opportunity to tighten the screws.

Osama: "Hey, guys. I've got one. What about some PETN in a condom?"
Massam: "Where should Allah's Devoted One hide it?"
Osama: "Where the sun don't shine."
Ayman: "Now that's really good. Can you imagine what the TSA will do with that one?"
Abu: "Assume the position!"
Saif: "Toward the East!"
Osama: "It's time to invest in latex gloves."

OVER THE LINE

While the #1 rule is unbreakable, it is not yet possible to predict which bureaucrat will adopt which goof-ball application of the bureaucracy's general assignment.

The scanners have pushed a vocal minority of the public over the line. "This goes too far!" Yet, on the face of it, the procedure seems harmless. No, there will not be any explosives discovered. But there is no big risk to the traveller, other than missing a flight. That threat will pressure travellers to get into line early. That will demonstrate the power of the TSA. That is good from the point of view of TSA's senior officials. It means that they can ask for a larger appropriation next fiscal year. "We are experiencing long lines and delays. We need more personnel."

The public is under assault by every conceivable government agency. This is so common that the public no longer senses it. Hardly anyone knows that the "Federal Register" publishes 70,000 pages of regulations each year: fine print, three columns. These rules are rarely rescinded, only added to.

But then came the immortal words: "my junk." Somehow, that phrase began to spread. The public gets it. It doesn't get the "Federal Register." The scanners have become the symbol of the entire burdensome mess that we deal with, every day, morning to night.

There is no way to predict which preposterous intrusion will catch the public's fancy. Like the particular rule implemented by a faceless lower bureaucrat, the specifics are not predictable.

We forget that the universal outrage in East Germany in the 1980s was the absence of bananas in the stores. The secret police were everywhere, and had been, from 1934 on. The residents had acquiesced sullenly for decades, but finally that one issue pushed them over the line. After the Berlin Wall came down, Germans were seen holding up bananas. It was the symbol of their liberation.
The scanners are the symbol of our submission.

The TSA now has a problem. It's not Congress. It's not President Obama. It's YouTube. It's Saturday Night Live.

And now, by popular demand, I offer a delightful collage of videos. There is music. There is an SNL skit. David Letterman does one of his Top Ten lists.

What is the head of the TSA – John Pistole (I am not making this up) – able to do with any of this? He tells us that this is necessary for our security.

Do most people believe him? A CBS poll reveals that over 80% of Americans think the see-through scanners are acceptable. But they don't like the pat-downs.

My guess is that the scanners are a done deal. At some point, the prime time jokes will cease. It will be old news. The American public is not willing to sustain a long-term resistance movement against this latest technological intrusion. But the digital underground will keep the story alive. The outrages – which there will be (Rule #1) – will continue, and they will spread virally.

CRITICAL MASS

The bureaucrats now face a problem that they did not face a decade ago: YouTube and Facebook. Posting by posting, these stories will steadily undermine people's confidence in the system. It is like the famous Chinese water torture: drop by drop, they get people's attention. Posting by posting, the legitimacy of the Federal government is undermined.

This will eventually produce a minority of citizens who will say, "No more." Issue by issue, outrage by outrage, the number of people who have been pushed over a line will grow.

This is why the Tea Party exists. It reached critical mass in the aftermath of the bailouts: Bush's (Goldman Sachs) and Obama's (Goldman Sachs). There is a growing minority of people who are convinced that the Federal government is acting against their self-interest.

Now the law of bureaucracy works against the government. The outrages are cumulative. Those 70,000 pages a year add up. This is nothing new. But the YouTube is also cumulative. The stories do not go away anymore. They are there for anyone to pick up and send to friends at any time.

Always before, cumulative bureaucracy grew, but protests were rare and short-lived. They went away when newspapers got thrown out. We could call this the bird cage effect.

Today, digital storage has undermined the bird cage effect. Old stories can be dredged up with a Google search.

The individual issues are like suitcase nukes. They attain local critical masses. They push people over the line, issue by issue. Issue by issue, there is an explosion.

What threatens the Federal government is the critical mass of too many suitcase nukes. This will set off a chain reaction.

The trigger will probably be a financial crisis that pushes T-bond interest rates through the roof. The PIIGS in Europe are now experiencing this, nation by nation. This will continue. It will become cumulative.

When the Federal government sends checks that no longer buy much, there will be a chain reaction. The public remains loyal because it is paid to remain loyal. The Federal government's creditors are sustaining the entire system. When they finally say, "no more" (at today's interest rates), the explosion will take down what remains of the government's declining legitimacy.

Legitimacy is the key to the cumulative process. People pay, people consent, people "assume the position" only because they believe that the Federal government protects them, and is there to support them when tough times arrive. They do not care who funds this, as long as no one asks them to pony up the money.

CONCLUSION

Increasing Federal debt allows the public to avoid the pain of paying for the safety nets and subsidies. But increasing bureaucracy is an annoyance that confronts us daily. Voters do not understand the capital markets. They do understand pat-downs.

The government is vulnerable, because it cannot pass a law against bureaucratic rule #1. It cannot stop some bureaucrat from enforcing the letter of some regulation. The list of regulations grows by 70,000 pages per year. It is cumulative.

We should enjoy what is happening to the TSA. We should send along videos to those we interact with. We must use the tools at our disposal to remind people that the government is intrusive, the government is stupid, and the government does not back down.

When the day of fiscal reckoning arrives, and there is no way to get the money for another bailout except from the Federal Reserve System, we will have an opportunity to remind the people around us: "We told you so." More to the point: "We told you why."

Rule #1 can be stopped in only one way: to cut off the funding. That can be done in two ways: (1) outright government bankruptcy; (2) inflation.

Either way, we told them so.

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Monday, October 18, 2010

Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'

by Michael Roberts
Lew Rockwell

October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.
As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.
Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.
"Am I under arrest?" I asked.

"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"
"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."
"We just need to hold you here so he can…"
"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.
"Detain you while we…"
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.
We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?
"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.
"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."

"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."
As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.
The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.
His reply: "That’s irrelevant."
It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."
"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.
"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"
"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."
"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.
"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"
"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."
"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.
Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.
It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
901.237.6308
FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com

October 18, 2010
Michael S. Roberts [send him mail] is a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines.

Related Articles:

Debunking the Department of Justice's Hit Piece, Part 1

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

One Nation, Under God, and Its Child Soldiers

by C.J. Maloney

Lew Rockwell
by CJ Maloney

Recently by CJ Maloney: Good Luck and Good Hunting

Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
~ Matthew 18:2–6
My brain did not begin the day thinking about war, the base activity which Lew Rockwell once termed "the murder end of the state." (Rockwell, Jr, Llewellyn H. Speaking of Liberty. Auburn, AL, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2003, p.139) It was thinking about the beach, a far more pleasant activity. This being modern America, though, it wasn’t long, not even five minutes after our arrival, when my wife exclaimed an "Oh…my…God." That’s when I noticed she’d bought along The New York Times and the war crawled onto the beach with us.
She handed the paper to me in disgust, as if it were covered in filth. Shielding my eyes from the sun to read the article I see we’ve been arming and training Somalia’s army, at least the one we favor, and they in turn are using that money to arm children (some as young as nine) to fight our War of Terror. As I read further into it I am, needless to say, dripping in proud patriotism. What fresh hell is this? We’re back in Somalia?
I have vague memories of Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down, a nice tale of our last disastrous fool’s errand into Somalia. Granted, we left once but an empire never truly leaves anywhere forever. Now, not wanting to put our own soldiers at risk this go round we are instead using locals as armed proxies to do our bidding. In this case, that means fighting whomever we’ve designated as the enemy for this month and, to make the American flag unfurl even more proudly in the sun, we’re arming and training child soldiers to do it.
All these little boy soldiers are funded and armed by a tentacle of the Pentagon called AFRICON, which was created in 2008 to make certain that no matter where in Africa mayhem may erupt an American weapons dealer will be there to cash in. Some of the latest entries onto the list of our "allies in the War of Terror" include Nigeria, Ethiopia, Liberia, Uganda, and now Somalia’s "Transitional Government." To the informed, that reads as if the local police department has been funding and arming the local pimps, drug dealers, Mafia dons, and cutthroats, but our War of Terror requires these types of compromises, so I am told.

Of course, all the guilty parties are just shocked to the very core of their shrunken, shriveled souls that American taxpayers have been (and are) arming children. "Now, now," the U.S. State Department says to the Somalia faction that we back, "Don’t you go using children as soldiers, you hear?" The head master of our Somalia proxy, a Fagin-like thug named Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, has ordered his army chief to conduct a "full review" to get to the bottom of things. The United Nations estimates that up to 25% of our allied army in Somalia consists of child soldiers, so it shouldn’t be too tough a task for him to find one of our little armed urchins.The more historical minded could sit back and wonder what all the (little bit of an) uproar was about, and would point to the ubiquitous drummer boys used by both sides during America’s Civil War. The American use of children in battle is nothing new; it merely faded as we climbed up the ladder of civilization. Over the past decades we’ve come tumbling back down that ladder and here we are, 2010, knowingly arming children to fight on the empire’s behalf. What we are seeing is what one always sees in a militarized society – the slow devolution away from civilized behavior and towards what the soldier-scholars call "total war," sparing no woman or child. It is the American Way.
While our political masters are upset, no doubt, over the embarrassment this caused them (for a few moments, until the story quickly faded) don’t think for a moment that this has made them cut off the flow of money, weapons, and ammo to these child soldiers. Our army of little African boys is "a critical piece" of our War of Terror in the Horn of Africa, say the experts. Plus, consider the cost savings, as doubtless Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has. Not too long ago he whined that an all-volunteer force was getting awful expensive, and according to The New York Times our little boy soldiers are getting paid, if at all, only $1.50 per day, and that’s quite a bargain by any measure.
So as not to appear too one-sided, it must be admitted that AFRICON has provided (and is providing) these children with certain job skills that they can fall back on until the end of their days. For instance little Ahmed, all of 15-years-old, was sent to Uganda at the age of 12 and taught by American trainers "how to kill with a knife." His fellow soldier Awil, now 12-years-old, says he "loves the gun."

And to be fair, while the political grandees around the globe have laws (specifically the Convention on the Rights of the Child) that prohibit the use of children in combat, neither the United States or Somalia ever signed it, so it’s a bit of a stretch to expect us to adhere to something we are not signatories on.

Enough. I stop reading the paper and watch my son running the length of the shoreline with the ocean waves his backdrop, and I think of all the children, barely older than he, that part of my every workday is spent to supply with weapons. I gag on a surge of patriotism.
There are many predictions on this site for the coming demise of the American empire, and with God’s mercy that blessed day can’t come soon enough.

October 18, 2010

CJ Maloney [send him mail] lives and works in New York City. He blogs for Liberty & Power on the History News Network website and the DailyKos. His first book (on Arthurdale, West Virginia during the New Deal) is to be released by John Wiley and Sons in February 2011.

The Best of C.J. Maloney