1953-coup

The American Establishment and the Democratic Party in this particular presidential election have launched an all out propaganda campaign to blame all ills on Russia and Putin.  The mainstream media pretends the deflection to Russia is the story, rather than the disgusting corruption and stabbing of Bernie Sanders in the back, blocking his ability to gain traction in the primary.  While I don’t support Sanders’ policies and I think Trump has serious personal flaws, the American people would be wise to wake up to the reality that the Democratic Party leadership and the Clinton campaign are liars and propagandists.  The Democratic Party has managed to best the sh*t show that was the 2000 presidential election and the fraud and manipulation the Republicans launched to secure the White House, which I address with Dr. Dave Janda during our discussion, yesterday (click here). 

Jacob G. Hornberger spotlights context about America abroad that is directly relevant – pot calls the kettle, black.  – Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors. 

NATO-Russia-300x201

NATO-Russia-300x201TND VideoCast Spotlight:  Ron Paul Liberty Report

The big NATO 2016 Summit begins in Warsaw today. On the agenda is approving a NATO force of up to 4,000 troops to be stationed on Russia’s borders in the Baltic. It will be the first regular troop deployment aimed at Moscow since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than a quarter-century ago. How would the US feel if a reconstituted Warsaw Pact expanded to include Cuba and Mexico decided to station thousands of troops on the US border with Mexico? Threatened? Yet Russia is not supposed to feel threatened? Also on NATO’s agenda will be prodding European governments to begin spending more money on defense. Though Russia has been declared an “existential threat” by NATO, those countries directly in the line of Russia’s fire do not spend money on defense. Is that odd? Today’s Liberty Report is joined by Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger. NATO is on the menu. Watch below.

Jacob Hornberger will be a speaker at the first the upcomming RPI conference in Washington, D.C.  Click here to learn about the conference.

 

# # # # #

rpilogo-final The above appeared at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website and is reprinted with permission.  To visit the website, click here. Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.  The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.  To support the institute’s important work, click here. TND full (1)

Follow All Of TheNewsDoctors.com’s Exclusive Articles:

http://thenewsdoctors.com/category/thenewsdoctors-exclusive/

OR

Subscribe To Receive All TND’s Exclusive Articles In Your RSS Feed:

http://thenewsdoctors.com/category/thenewsdoctors-exclusive/feed/

 

madeleine albright

madeleine albright

TND Guest Contributor: Jacob G. Hornberger

An interesting controversy has broken out at Scripps College in Claremont, California. Several students and professors are protesting the selection of former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, as the commencement speaker.

The controversy at the small liberal arts college in California has sent the Los Angeles Timesinto emotional hyper-drive, causing the paper to weigh in on the controversy with an editorialand an op-ed criticizing the students and faculty who are doing the protesting. (Also publishing an article on the controversy.)

The title of the Times editorial was “Students Need to Stop Being So Sensitive and Let Madeleine Albright Speak,” which was a bit misleading since the students are not threatening to prevent Albright from speaking or threatening to interrupt her talk with protests.

The students are simply expressing their objections to the selection of Albright as their commencement speaker and, at most, simply expressing a preference for someone else.

What’s wrong with that?

For their part, the 28 members of the faculty are expressing their objections to Albright’s selection by deciding not to participate on stage in the commencement proceedings. But they have all made it clear that they will appear at the commencement proceedings themselves in honor of their students.

How is that preventing Albright from speaking?

The Times accuses the students and professors of being overly “sensitive” in objecting to Albright as their commencement speaker.

Really?

Let’s consider one of the reasons for the protests: Albright’s declaration in 1995 that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the U.S. and UN sanctions on Iraq were “worth it.”

Now, ask yourself: How can the deaths of half-a-million children ever be worth anything? What could possibly be so important as to cause a person to conclude that the deaths of half-a-million children were “worth it”?

In this case, the “it” was regime change in Iraq — the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power by U.S. officials and his replacement with a pro-U.S. ruler. It was that regime-change goal that caused Albright to conclude that the deaths of those half-a-million children were “worth it.”

What was it that brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children? It was the brutal system of economic sanctions that the United States enforced against Iraq for more than 11 years, both unilaterally and through the United Nations. The idea was to economically squeeze the Iraqi people so hard — to make them suffer so much economically — that Saddam Hussein, in a crisis of conscience, would surrender power, or that the Iraqi people would oust him from power in a violent revolution that would kill tens of thousands, or that the Iraqi military would take power in a coup and restore “order and stability,” much as the U.S.-installed Pinochet regime did in Chile in 1973.

Albright was serving in the Clinton administration during several of the years that the sanctions were being enforced against the Iraqi people and that were killing all those Iraqi children. When she told “Sixty Minutes” that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were “worth it,” she obviously meant it. Virtually nothing — and certainly not the lives of innocent children — was as important as regime change in Iraq.

I would be remiss in mentioning that during the 1980s, the U.S. government was partnering with Saddam Hussein — the man they could later call the “new Hitler” — in the war that he had initiated against Iran.

What’s absolutely fascinating is that the Times editorial board and its op-ed writer, Meghan Daum, seem to have little sense of moral outrage over all this. They don’t seem to view the conscious killing of the Iraqi children with the sanctions to be murder. They seem to consider it as just another public-policy controversy — a matter of political opinion.

That’s not the way that Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponek obviously viewed the killings. They were two high UN officials charged with humanitarian matters in Iraq. In a crisis of conscience, they both resigned their posts in the UN in protest against what they considered was sanctions genocide against the children of Iraq. They obviously didn’t view the matter as just another public-policy controversy involving a difference of political views.

Let’s see now. Let’s assume that the Scripps College student body had invited, well, let’s say, David Duke to be their commencement speaker.

I wonder if the Times and Daum would be saying the same thing in response to protesting students and faculty that they’re saying to those who are protesting the selection of Albright as commencement speaker. Would they be saying: “Stop being so sensitive. Let Duke speak. You don’t have to agree with everything he says. Just see if he might not open your minds to new concepts, new ideas, and different ways of viewing people and the world”?

I don’t think so. I think that they’d be screaming like banshees and encouraging protests against him.

The basic problem, then, is that the student and faculty protestors at Scripps have obviously developed a different set of values and a higher level of conscience than the LA Times editorial board. While the Times might view the U.S. partnership with Saddam, and the subsequent regime-change efforts that used the Iraqi children as pawns, and the statement by Albright (as the official spokesman for the U.S. government to the world) that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were “worth it” as just another public-policy controversy, the students and teachers who are now protesting have obviously been struck by the same deep crisis of conscience that struck Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponek.

The founder of Scripps College, Ellen Browning Scripps, stated: “The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently and the ability to live confidently, courageously and hopefully.”

It’s clearly obvious that that obligation has been fulfilled in those students who are protesting the selection of Albright as commencement speaker. Rather than defer to authority and surrender their consciences and their sense of independent thinking, which characterizes so many other people in society, the Scripps students have displayed the admirable traits that Scripps was hoping to inculcate in students at Scripps college. Undoubtedly, Ellen Browning Scripps would have been proud of the students and teachers who are protesting the selection of Albright as their college’s commencement speaker.

# # # #
hornbergerJacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for 12 years in Texas, where he also served as an adjunct professor in law and economics at the University of Dallas. In 1987 Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become program director at The Foundation for Economic Education, where he served until 1989, when he founded FFF. He served as an infantry officer for eight years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He delivered the keynote address at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention and served three terms on the LP Platform Committee. The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.  The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.  Click here to support FFF.

JFK and Khrushchev Shake Hands in 1961;  commons.wikimedia.org
JFK and Khrushchev Shake Hands in 1961; commons.wikimedia.org

JFK and Khrushchev Shake Hands in 1961; commons.wikimedia.org

TND Editor’s Note:  The Future of Freedom Foundation frequently makes available at no cost Jacob G. Hornberger’s outstanding books on the JFK Assassination.  FFF does good work, and we’re happy to pass along this message and opportunity.  We post this “above the fold,” front and center because learning about the JFK Assassination happens to be a powerful route by which to understand how “big picture” political dynamics work.  I also highly recommend James W. Douglass’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,” easily one of the top three books on the JFK Assassination ever written.  — Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors

# # # #

Silver Coins Online at the Lowest Prices l SD Bullion

Silver Coins Online

This coming Sunday marks the 52nd anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In commemoration of this event, for two days only–today, November 19, and tomorrow, November 20–The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering for FREE our three JFK ebooks:

The Kennedy Autopsy  by Jacob G. Hornberger

Regime Change: The JFK Assassination
 by Jacob G. Hornberger
 
In addition, Jacob Hornberger’s The Kennedy Autopsy is in such high demand that a print edition is being released starting today. You can purchase your copy for $9.95 here:The Kennedy Autopsy – print edition.
An audio version of The Kennedy Autopsy is also now available for $14.95.
The Future of Freedom Foundation
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 800
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 934-6101
fff@fff.org

 

sirte-after-nato-bombardments

sirte-after-nato-bombardmentsTND Guest Contributor:   Jacob G. Hornberger

Given the ongoing disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and the rest of the Middle East, how can anyone in his right mind still be an interventionist?

Look at Iraq. The US invasion and multi-year occupation of that country was supposed to bring a paradise of peace, prosperity, and harmony to the country. That’s what killing all those Iraqis was about — sacrificing them for the greater good of a beautiful society. Wasn’t it called Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Yet, what do we have now? We have a country with a regime that exercises such totalitarian powers as arbitrary arrests, unreasonable searches, indefinite incarceration, torture, suppression of speech, state-established religion, and assassination.

Of course, as most everyone knows, Iraq is also a country that is filled with ongoing death, destruction, chaos, and crisis.

That’s what Operation Iraqi Freedom has brought to Iraq. Remind me again: What did killing all those Iraqis accomplish? What did all those US soldiers die for or get maimed for?

But that’s not all.

The totalitarian-like regime that the US invasion and occupation brought to Iraq is closely aligned with Iran, which the US government considers to be one of its official enemies. Isn’t that ironic? I thought the purpose of US regime-change operations was to bring into existence regimes that are aligned with the US national-security state, i.e., the Pentagon and the CIA.

The U.S invasion and occupation of Iraq also brought a massive civil war to the country, one involving a brand new entity called the Islamic State. Not surprisingly, it consists in large part of people who were in Saddam Hussein’s government — the government that the US government ousted in its regime-change operation.

Rather than acknowledging that foreign interventionism is a disaster and getting out of Iraq, the advocates of this disastrous philosophy instead insist on doubling down. They tell us how important it is that the US national-security state now combat the Islamic State, the entity their regime-change operation in Iraq brought into existence.

Consider Afghanistan, another major disaster, where, once again, the US government’s regime-change operation has succeeded in bringing a crooked and corrupt totalitarian-like regime into power to preside over a country that is riddled with civil war, death, destruction, chaos, and crisis. Despite more than 10 years of US occupation, Afghanistan is the opposite of a free, prosperous, harmonious society. Wasn’t the Afghanistan regime-change operation called Operation Enduring Freedom?

Look at Syria. The Syrian dictatorship, which, by the way, is also a national security state, used its military and intelligence forces to suppress dissent within the Syrian citizenship, which precipitated a civil war or revolution. Rather than leave Syria to the Syrians, the US national-security state decided that that would be an opportune moment for another regime-change operation — you know, one to follow the great successes of the regime-change operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, in the hope of establishing a pro-US dictatorship in place of the Assad dictatorship, the CIA, one of the principal components of America’s national-security state, began supporting the Syrian rebels who were trying to oust the Assad dictatorship.

Enter the Islamic State, the entity that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq brought into existence. It moved some of its forces into Syria to assist in the ouster of the Assad dictatorship, thereby placing itself on the same side as the CIA and the rest of the US national security state.

But since the Islamic State is one of the US government’s many official enemies, that did not meet with the approval of US officials. So the US government began attacking the Islamic State in Syria even though the Islamic State and the US government are on the same page with respect to regime change in Syria.

Enter Russia. It sends forces and weaponry into Syria to attack the Islamic State but in the process also attacks the rebels who the CIA is supporting. Russia’s rationale? Russia says that the best way to defeat terrorism is by supporting dictatorship in Syria.

The US government objects, saying that the best way to defeat terrorism is by supporting people who are trying to overthrow dictatorship. Well, except in Egypt, where the US government is flooding the Egyptian military dictatorship with weaponry to help it suppress the rebels there, who the Egyptian national-security state and the US national-security state say are terrorists.

Meanwhile, Libya, where the US government conducted another regime-change operation, continues to be another land of death, destruction, tyranny, chaos, crisis, and oppression.

Yemen, of course, is where the US national-security state continues to murder people in an official state-sponsored program of assassination.

Perhaps I should at least just mention Ukraine, where another US-supported regime-change operation, combined with NATO’s absorption of former Warsaw Pact countries, has produced another civil war and an ongoing crisis with Russia, bringing to mind the old Cold War, which was the original justification for converting the US government into a national-security state.

All this reminds me of Guatemala, where the US national-security state instigated a regime-change operation in 1953, which ousted the democratically elected president of the country, thereby precipitating a horrific civil war that lasted 30 years and killed more than a million people. And it also reminds me of the US regime-change operation in Chile, which again ousted the democratically elected president of the country from office and brought a brutal military dictatorship in his stead, one that proceeded to torture, rape, and murder some 3,000 people and incarcerate, rape, and torture some 30,000 more.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the massive immigration crisis in Europe, which consists of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the lands that the US foreign interventionism has turned into hellholes on earth rather than paradises of freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

What do interventionists say about all these disasters? They say: Don’t forget the “good war.” They’re referring to World War II, which brought (1) Eastern Europe and East Germany under communist control, (2) the Cold War against America’s World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union, (3) a national-security establishment to the US government, (4) the Korean War and the Vietnam War, (5) NATO, (6) the anti-communist crusade, (7) regime-change operations, (8) partnerships with brutal dictatorships, (9) state-sponsored assassinations, (10) the war on terrorism (11) totalitarian-like surveillance schemes, (12) sanctions and embargoes, (13) military torture of Americans and foreigners, and (14) assassination of Americans and others.

I repeat: How can any person in his right mind still be an interventionist? After this sordid record, why isn’t everyone demanding a restoration of a limited-government republic to our land?

# # # #
hornbergerJacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for 12 years in Texas, where he also served as an adjunct professor in law and economics at the University of Dallas. In 1987 Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become program director at The Foundation for Economic Education, where he served until 1989, when he founded FFF. He served as an infantry officer for eight years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He delivered the keynote address at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention and served three terms on the LP Platform Committee. The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.  The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.  Click here to support FFF.

atten-30
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - johann Wolfgang von GoetheTND Guest Contributor: Jacob G. Hornberger |
Consider the impact on the civil liberties of the American people of four of the non-stop wars that the U.S. government has been waging for a very long time: the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on immigrants, and the war on wealth. These four wars have converted what was once a free country into a police state, making the United States the most over-incarcerated nation in the world.The war on drugs has subjected people to an untold number of searches of persons, homes, businesses, and especially automobiles. This war has served as a convenient excuse to made vast inroads on the protections against unreasonable searches provided by the Fourth Amendment. It would be impossible to calculate the number of people who have been stopped, patted down, and searched, especially without a judicially issued search warrant, in the name of the war on drugs during the past several decades.

The drug war has also brought us asset-forfeiture, a money-making operation for law enforcement that has encouraged the police and the DEA to make warrantless stops of people traveling on the highways, in the hopes of finding a large amount of cash to seize. Additionally, it has encouraged law-enforcement personnel to initiate searches of homes, businesses, and cars in the hopes that some drugs will be found, thereby enabling them to seize the property of the owner.

Think about all the invasions of financial privacy that now form a permanent part of American life. That’s what both the war on drugs and the war on terrorism have wrought. People no longer have the freedom to keep their financial affairs secret from the government. People now have to take great care in how they deposit money into banks or withdraw it, owing to laws against “structuring.” Bankers have been converted into snitches, reporting to the government any large deposits of money by their customers or any other “suspicious” behavior. The idea is that the customer might be a drug dealer or a terrorist.

People traveling outside the country are required to report whether they’re carrying large sums of cash. If they’re caught failing to do so, they have their money confiscated. That’s because of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism.

Consider what the war on immigration has done to civil liberties. Immigration checkpoints on public highways, where federal officials not only have the authority to demand identification papers of people who are travelling domestically but also to conduct a full-scale, warrantless search of their vehicles. If they find anything illegal in the vehicle during these immigration checkpoints, such as illicit drugs, they turn the person over to the DEA or police for arrest and prosecution.

There are also roving automobile searches, where the Border Patrol arbitrarily stops cars on the highways and, after stating some excuse for the stop, such as “automobile riding low,” conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle. Once again, if drugs are found, the person is turned over to drug war agents for criminal prosecution.

Additionally, there are the daily warrantless searches of farms and ranches that are located both on the border and several miles away from the border. These warrantless searches are justified under the rubric of controlling the border or the “functional equivalent of the border.”

The war on terrorism has placed the American people under the ultimate control of the military and the CIA. The military now wields the legal authority to take any person into custody as an “enemy combatant,” incarcerate him in a concentration camp or military dungeon, torture him, or execute him. Moreover, both the CIA and the military now wield the power to assassinate any suspected terrorist, including American citizens, and to do so anywhere in the world, including here in the United States. No right to jury trial, no protection from cruel and unusual punishments. Thanks to the war on terrorism, the military and the CIA, now have the authority to deprive any person, including American citizens, of life and liberty, without due process of law, notwithstanding the clear prohibition on such conduct in the Fifth Amendment.

The war on terrorism has also subjected the American people, as well as everyone else around the world, to the omnipotent surveillance powers of the NSA. Emails, telephone calls, and other electronic communications are now subject to being read and recorded by NSA agents. Judicial processes to judge such actions are held in secret, just like in totalitarian regimes. The very existence of the NSA has eradicated any reasonable expectation of privacy. Everyone must now operate on the assumption that his private communications are being monitored and recorded and live his life accordingly.

The war on terrorism has also subjected Americans to severe penalties, both civil and criminal, for engaging in trade with people in countries that are being sanctioned by the U.S. government.

The war on wealth has long subjected the American people to the omnipotent power of the Internal Revenue Service. To collect money from the American people to fund the welfare-warfare state, the IRS has been given omnipotent powers that strike fear in the hearts of any reasonable person. Under the income tax laws, everyone is mandated by law to report his most private of personal financial affairs to the government. If the IRS suspects the person of lying, it will hit him with an assessment and begin seizing his assets with attachments, garnishments, and liens. No lawsuit. No due process. No presumption of innocence. Just raw power to collect the monies that are necessary to fund the welfare-warfare state while, in the process, destroying both civil liberties and economic liberty.

The problem is that all too many Americans, believe that these four wars are part and parcel of a free society, a belief they demonstrate every time they praise the military and the CIA for “defending our freedom.” They exemplify the words of Johann Goethe: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Even many of those who have knowingly traded our liberty for security, are convinced that it was necessary to do so. But nothing could be further from the truth, as our American ancestors, who lived without these four wars for more than a century, demonstrated.

For Americans who are interested in regaining their freedom, security, and economic well-being, a good place to start would be by terminating, not reforming, these four long-standing wars of the federal government: the wars on drugs, terrorism, immigration, and wealth.

# # # #
hornbergerJacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for 12 years in Texas, where he also served as an adjunct professor in law and economics at the University of Dallas. In 1987 Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become program director at The Foundation for Economic Education, where he served until 1989, when he founded FFF. He served as an infantry officer for eight years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He delivered the keynote address at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention and served three terms on the LP Platform Committee. The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.  The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.  Click here to support FFF.

nullification

TND Guest Contributor:  Adam Dick |

Isn’t it absurd that a prosecutor and judge will tell a jury to find a defendant guilty even if jury members think what the defendant did — possessing or selling an illegal drug, for example — should be legal? Doesn’t such a restriction on jurors fly in the face of the historical power of jurors to judge both the facts and the law instead of being just another tool for enforcing the many volumes of statutes, regulations, and case law that define criminal offenses in America?

In a new outstanding video presentation, Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger answers these questions and more, presenting the history of American jury nullification dating back to British law as well as the still exercisable power of a juror to decide a defendant is not guilty because the juror disagrees with the criminalization of the defendant’s actions.

As Hornberger explains in his video presentation, all it takes to defeat the government’s effort to fine and incarcerate is for one juror to adamantly stand by the conclusion that a criminal defendant is not guilty. This is because a conviction and the resulting punishment can be imposed only if the jury members unanimously decide the defendant is guilty. While Americans often feel powerless when confronted by a government bent on criminalizing nonviolent human activities, in a jury one steadfast individual can defeat theleviathan.

In addition, if a jury unanimously finds a defendant not guilty, then that is the final word; the government cannot even seek a retrial. Hornberger explains:

Now what’s interesting about this is that the jury is not told that they have this power. They clearly have the power because, if they acquit a guy because they don’t like the law, there’s nothing that can happen to them. The judge can’t send them to jail. And keep in mind that the verdict is final — the verdict of acquittal. That is to say that the state cannot appeal that verdict. They can’t go into the court of appeals and say ‘Hey, reverse what the jury did.’ It’s absolutely final. The judge can’t reverse it. He can’t overturn it. Once that jury says “not guilty,” that person, that defendant walks out of that courtroom a free person. He’s immediately released from the clutches of the state — the judge orders his release, and he walks out of that courtroom a free man or a free woman. That’s the power of trial by jury.

The power of jury members to nullify the law in a particular case is one of the reasons Hornberger says the trial by jury guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is “one of the bastions of a free society and one of the protective devices that the American people have against the tyranny of their own government.” Thus, not surprisingly, with the US government — as well as state and local governments — often focused on exercising tyrannical powers, government agents take great efforts to prevent the education of potential jurors regarding their jury nullification powers, to keep people willing to nullify off of juries, and to intimidate jurors not to nullify.

Watch here Hornberger’s complete jury nullification overview, in which you can also hear Hornberger relate an engaging story of a Laredo, Texas attorney successfully presenting in court a stealth argument for a jury nullification-based acquittal in the 1960s:

Read here about how jury nullification saved Doug Darrell from up to three and a half years of imprisonment. In 2012, a New Hampshire jury decided to acquit Darrell after being informed by Darrell’s defense attorney and the judge that the jurors could exercise jury nullification. Darrell was lucky to have his case heard in one of the few American courtrooms where his lawyer would be allowed to make such an argument and the judge would offer such a jury instruction.

# # # # #

rpilogo-final The above appeared at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website and is reprinted with permission.  To visit the website, click here. Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.  The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.  To support the institute’s important work, click here. TND full (1)

Follow All Of TheNewsDoctors.com’s Exclusive Articles:

http://thenewsdoctors.com/category/thenewsdoctors-exclusive/

OR

Subscribe To Receive All TND’s Exclusive Articles In Your RSS Feed:

http://thenewsdoctors.com/category/thenewsdoctors-exclusive/feed/

 

pentagon

TND Guest Contributor:  Jacob G. Hornberger |pentagon

It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of the warfare-state revolution that transformed the federal government and American society after World War II. The roots of America’s foreign-policy crises today, along with the massive infringements on civil liberties and privacy and the federal government’s program of secret indefinite incarceration, torture, assassination, and extra-judicial executions can all be traced to the grafting of a national-security apparatus onto America’s federal governmental system in the 1940s.

Certainly, the seeds for what happened in the post-WWII era were sown prior to that time, specifically in the move toward empire, which, interestingly enough, occurred during the same period of time that Progressives were inducing Americans to abandon their system of economic liberty and free markets in favor of socialism and interventionism in the form of a welfare state and regulated economy.

I’m referring to the year 1898, when the US government intervened in the Spanish American War, with the ostensible aim of helping the Cuban and Filipino people win their independence. It was a false and fraudulent intervention, one that was actually designed to place Cuba and the Philippines under the control of the US government. The result was a brutal war in the Philippines between US forces and the Filipino people, along with a never-ending obsession to control Cuba, one that would end up becoming a central focus of the national-security state.

A national-security state and an empire certainly weren’t among the founding principles of the United States. In fact, the revolution in 1776 was against an empire that the British colonists in America no longer wanted to be part of. They were sick and tired of the endless wars and ever-increasing taxes, regulations, and oppression that come with empire and overgrown military establishments.

In fact, there was a deep antipathy toward standing armies among the Founding Fathers. The words of James Madison, the father of the Constitution, reflect the mindset of our American ancestors:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

For more on how 18th- and 19th-century Americans felt about standing armies, see my article “The Biggest Threat to American Liberty.”

What about foreign interventionism? The speech that John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on the 4th of July, 1821, entitled “In Search of Monsters to Destroy,” expressed the sentiments of our predecessors. Adams pointed out that there were lots of bad things in the world, things like tyranny, oppression, famines, and the like. He said though that America would not send troops to slay these monsters. Instead, America would build a model society of freedom right here at home for the people of the world. In fact, if America ever became a military empire that would engage in foreign interventionism, Adams predicted, it would fundamentally change the character of American society, one that would look more like a society under dictatorial rule.

That’s not to say that 19th-century America was a libertarian paradise with respect to warfare, any more than it was a libertarian paradise in general, as I pointed out in my article “America’s Welfare-State Revolution.” But the fact is that there was no overgrown military establishment, no CIA, no NSA, no conscription, no foreign interventionism, and no foreign aid (and no income tax, IRS, Federal Reserve, and fiat money to fund such things).

There was a basic military force but in relative terms it wasn’t very large. There were also wars, such as the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Mexican War, and many military skirmishes, but with the exception of the Civil War, the casualties were relatively low, especially compared with such foreign wars as World War I and World War II.

Moreover, it was an established practice to demobilize after each war. That is, a permanent war machine and perpetual war were not built into the system. War and military interventionism were the exception, not the rule.

That all changed with the embrace of a national-security establishment after World War II. In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower observed that the national-security state — or what he called the military-industrial complex — constituted an entirely new way of life for the American people, one that entailed what amounted to a new, permanent warfare-state branch of the federal government, consisting of an overgrown military establishment, a CIA, and an NSA, along with an army of private-sector contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough on a permanent basis.

Most significantly, Ike pointed out that this national-security apparatus constituted a grave threat to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people.

This revolutionary transformation was justified in the name of “national security,” which have become the two most important words in the American lexicon, notwithstanding the fact that no one has ever been able to define the term. The warfare-state revolution would be characterized by an endless array of threats to national security, beginning with communism and communists, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and others, and later morphing into Saddam Hussein, terrorism, terrorists, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and even the Muslims.

In the process, Adams proved right. By grafting a totalitarian-like structure onto America’s federal governmental system, the United States began displaying the characteristics of a dictatorial society.

Assassination, torture, rendition, secret prisons, medical experiments on unsuspecting Americans, the hiring of Nazis, indefinite detention, partnerships with criminal organizations and foreign dictators, coups, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, undeclared wars, wars of aggression, and extra-judicial executions. When any of those types of things occurred in the 19th century, they were considered exceptions to the system. Now they have become permanent parts of the system.

And look at the results of this gigantic warfare-state transformation: ever-increasing infringements on liberty and privacy, ever-increasing spending, debt, and taxes, and ever-increasing anger and hatred toward our country. Yes, all the things that characterized the British Empire that British colonists revolted against in 1776. How’s that for irony?

Meanwhile, like with the welfare state, modern-day Americans continue to remain convinced that their system of government has never changed in a fundamental way. They continue to play like their governmental system is founded on the same constitutional principles as when the country was founded. It is a supreme act of self-deception.

The truth is that America has now had two different governmental systems: One without a national-security apparatus and one with it. It seems to me that it’s a no-brainer as to who was right and which system was better in terms of freedom, privacy, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

# # # #

hornbergerJacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for 12 years in Texas, where he also served as an adjunct professor in law and economics at the University of Dallas. In 1987 Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become program director at The Foundation for Economic Education, where he served until 1989, when he founded FFF. He served as an infantry officer for eight years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He delivered the keynote address at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention and served three terms on the LP Platform Committee. The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.  The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.  Click here to support FFF.

pax-americana empire

TND Guest Contributor:  Jacob G. Hornberger |pax-americana empire

George Washington pointed out, “Overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.

Wise words by the father of our country, but ones, unfortunately, rejected by modern-day Americans, who love and idolize the enormously overgrown military establishment that now characterizes our federal governmental system.

Eastern Europeans are getting a gander at America’s overgrown military establishment. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a huge contingent of U.S. military forces is winding its way through Eastern Europe as some sort of good-will tour and also to serve as a message to Russia that the United States is ready to go to war to protect Eastern Europe from Russia’s aggressive designs.

Never mind that it is America’s overgrown military establishment that gave rise to Russia’s so-called aggressive designs. Ever since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been absorbing Eastern European countries with the ultimate aim of absorbing Ukraine, which would enable the U.S. military to place bases and missiles on Russia’s borders.

There was never a possibility that Russia was going to let that happen, any more than the U.S. national-security establishment would permit North Korea to place military bases and missiles on Mexico’s side of the Rio Grande. In the eyes of those who believe that America’s overgrown military establishment can do no wrong, that makes Russia the aggressor in the crisis.

But let’s face it: These people are ingenious at producing crises and then playing the innocent. The fact is that NATO should have been dissolved at the end of the Cold War. It wasn’t dissolved for one big reason: in order to produce endless crises with Russia so that Americans would feel the need to keep their overgrown, Cold War-era, military establishment in existence.

Moreover, under what authority is America’s overgrown military establishment telling Eastern Europeans that the United States will come to their defense in a war against Russia? I thought that under the U.S. Constitution it is the responsibility of Congress to decide when America goes to war. The U.S. military march through Eastern Europe is just another sign of how the national-security branch of the federal government — the most powerful branch — calls its own shots when it comes to foreign policy.

Moreover, it’s a sign of the times when America’s overgrown military establishment is our country’s good-will ambassador. It used to be that the American private sector served that purpose. Not so anymore. Now, it’s U.S. generals and other military personnel who serve that purpose, as they parade through Eastern Europe showing off their tanks and other military equipment, just like the Soviets did in their May Day parades.

Meanwhile, America’s overgrown military establishment is also engaged in a massive military exercise called Operation Jade Helm, only this one isn’t in some foreign country but instead right here at home. With more than 1200 participants, including Army Special Forces, Navy Seals, and Marine Special Operations, this large-scale military operation is slated to launch in around 20 cities in the American Southwest.

Perhaps it would be wise to review America’s founding principles regarding overgrown military establishments and the threat they pose to the liberty of the citizenry, in addition, that is, to the sentiments against overgrown military establishments expressed by America’s first president, George Washington:

James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Patrick Henry: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788: “… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

Pennsylvania Convention: “… as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.”

U.S. State Department website: “Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.”

Finally, let’s wrap up this piece with the warning that President Eisenhower issued in his 1961 Farewell Address regarding America’s new, Cold War-era, overgrown military establishment:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.

# # # #
hornbergerJacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for 12 years in Texas, where he also served as an adjunct professor in law and economics at the University of Dallas. In 1987 Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become program director at The Foundation for Economic Education, where he served until 1989, when he founded FFF. He served as an infantry officer for eight years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He delivered the keynote address at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention and served three terms on the LP Platform Committee. The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.  The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.  Click here to support FFF.