INTERNET, R.I.P. by RON PAUL

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty. The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended. The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

WHAT I THINK........ROBERT WENZEL

Though it is good to know that even mainstream media feels compelled to listen to Lew Rockwell podcasts, trouble started yesterday with BuzzFeed reporter Andrew Kaczynski dangling this comment for the Ron Paul haters, after listening to Lew’s podcast interview of Ron Paul: Former Republican Rep. Ron Paul, the father of potential presidential candidate Rand Paul and a former presidential candidate himself, said the Congressional Black Caucus does not support war because they want that money for food stamps. “I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not—they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here,” Ron Paul told Lew Rockwell in early February during a discussion on sanctions. The audio clip is here. Steve Benen at MSNBC, on the Rachel Maddow blog, took it to the next level: Obviously, the notion that Congressional Black Caucus members were only skeptical of wars because of food stamps is racially charged and ridiculous. It’d be an offensive comment from anyone, but the fact that it’s coming from a longtime congressman and former presidential candidate only adds insult to injury. It’d be an offensive comment from anyone, but the fact that it’s coming from a longtime congressman and former presidential candidate only adds insult to injury. Notice closely, there is no consideration at all given to the possibility that Dr. Paul’s observation might be accurate. Dr. Paul is simply saying that the CBC is anti-war because they want to use the funds for domestic support programs. Should an MSNBC reporter be so dismissive of a comment from, as he puts it, ” a longtime congressman and former presidential candidate,” without investigating the charge? Shouldn’t Benen have put in a call to the CBC and asked them their position on food stamps and domestic spending and military adventures of the Empire? Or at least go over to the CBC web site, like I did, to see what CBC’s views are on food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.) and war? After my visit to the CBC web site, it sure sounds to me like Dr. Paul has the CBC perspective exactly correct. This is from an April 2014 statement from the CBC (My bold): This year’s Republican Budget leaves hardworking American families out in the cold. It cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans and pays for it by gutting the social safety net. The Republican budget dismantles the Medicare guarantee, block grants and deeply cuts Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It more than doubles sequester cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, and severely harms programs that keep America competitive around the world in areas such as education, job training, domestic manufacturing, advanced research and development, and infrastructure… the CBC Budget will protect and strengthen the social safety net, which continues to keep millions of families from sinking deeper into poverty. Here is a June 2013 comment from CBC Chair Marcia Fudge (my bold) House leadership will send the Farm bill to the floor that reduces total spending by almost $40 billion over 10 years and most of the cuts come from SNAP. This bill alone would cut off nearly two million people from SNAP. Making matters worse, anti-poverty programs around the country are reducing services because of sequester. Our communities cannot continue to face cut after cut while Washington does little to create economic opportunity. I also examined the entire CBC site for any anti-war commentary. There was none. Just stuff like this with regard to the military: Today, all women Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), sent a letter to Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary Chuck Hagel, encouraging him to reconsider the impact of updated regulation AR-670-1. The updated regulation lists natural hairstyles traditionally worn by minority women as unauthorized. I repeat, there is nothing, nothing at all, against current military adventures of the US, on the CBC web site, but there is no difficulty finding pro-food stamp comments and the CBC in general decrying “non-defense” cuts. Dr. Paul is probably a lot more savvy about how Congress works than your average Ron Paul-hater. The way the game is played is you suck as much money from the public as you can, and then you fight over how the lucre should be divided up. Dr. Paul’s comment was simply a comment on how the CBC wants the haul to be split up. It does not appear that the CBC has a hard driving anti-foreign entanglements drive. It’s desire, judging from its web site, is more in terms of keeping money flowing to its constituencies. Is Dr. Paul really wrong in pointing out what the CBC perspective is? There is nothing “racist” about this. He was simply stating that the CBC didn’t appear to be that principled when it came to opposing war, and judging by their web site, he is correct in his observations. Indeed, the CBC met on February 10 with the President and the topic of US interventions overseas appears not to have come up at all. Here is the full statement issued by the CBC on the meeting: Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden today at the White House. CBC Chairman G. K. Butterfield and CBC Members held a press stakeout immediately following the meeting. CBC Chairman Butterfield: “Today’s meeting with the President and Vice President of the United States was a constructive meeting where we discussed a variety of issues such as criminal justice reform, economic security, education, trade and funding for persistent poverty communities. The CBC had a very robust conversation with the President and Vice President about criminal justice reform, not only about police misconduct but also about prosecutorial misconduct and incarceration rates. Education is one of our top priorities, especially as it pertains to our country’s historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). There are more than 100 HBCUs throughout the country, and we want them to be centers for excellence for many generations to come. Another of our top concerns and most continued discussions is that of the nation’s economic recovery. There is no question that the country’s economy is improving, but for too many Americans, especially for people of color, the recovery has not reached their household. Black America continues to be in a state of emergency, and it’s up to Members of the CBC to continue to make the case for a faster recovery for low-income families. All in all, today was a productive meeting, and we look forward to working with the President and Vice President in the future,” he concluded. To identify a group for its actual perspective helps us to understand that group and to what degree we can count on them to help advance the cause of liberty. It is not racist, the facts are important to know. But to charge a “a longtime congressman and former presidential candidate” as racist when he is making accurate statements, that help inform, is a smear. And, sadly, typical of what Ron Paul has to put up with when speaking up for liberty and against wars and government spending in general. His willingness to go forward in promoting liberty in the face of these regular smears is truly remarkable, inspiring and a lesson for all friends of liberty.

WHAT I THINK........JACK HUNTER

It’s been eight years since Ron Paul first ran for president as a Republican. It’s worth remembering today just how monumental that decision was. One million people voted for Paul in 2008 out of about 20 million primary votes cast. That number doubled to two million in 2012. The Libertarian Party’s all-time record is Gary Johnson winning 1 million votes in 2012 out of 118 million votes cast. For some reason, libertarianism was really popular in 2012. Arguably the most popular libertarian book ever is Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” published in 1957. It has sold over 7 million copies in its 58-year history. But its strongest sales year ever wasn’t until 2009, when it sold 500,000 copies. It’s second strongest sales year was 2011, when it sold 445,000 copies. We can reasonably assume 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and probably 2008, weren’t too shabby either. For some reason, libertarianism was really popular during those years. The Ayn Rand Institute’s executive director Yaron Brook said in 2012, “This is unheard of in the publishing industry, for a 55-year-old novel to register sales of this magnitude. And what’s even more remarkable is that this is even more than the book sold in 1957… when it was a best seller!” Brook added, “Since Obama was elected, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has sold more than 1.5 million copies.” Obama was elected in 2008. The same year Ron Paul first ran for president as a Republican creating his “liberty movement.” There was a libertarian movement before the liberty movement, in the same way there was a conservative movement before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The conservative movement just mattered much less before Goldwater and Reagan. These men helped popularize conservatism. Particularly Reagan. Few conservatives would disagree. Libertarianism mattered less before Ron Paul. He helped popularize it. He made it mainstream. The reason the Libertarian Party is receiving more attention than it ever has before, however marginal, is because of Ron Paul. The reason there is more interest in libertarian books, figures, philosophers, institutions, and ideas is because of Paul. Most of those books, figures, philosophers, institutions, and ideas were influential and valuable before Paul’s presidential campaigns. But Paul made them all significantly more popular. The liberty movement itself is a broad coalition of people who would not share ideas or a political identity, or even know each other in any meaningful way, if not for Ron Paul. Most would not even be libertarians if not for Paul. Their libertarian ideas would certainly have no popular context if not for Paul. Current national discussions about economic and monetary policy, foreign policy, education policy, civil and individual liberties, and privacy rights are now different than the conversations that would have been had before Paul’s two presidential campaigns. These conversations are often led by Paul’s son Senator Rand Paul and other libertarian Republicans like Congressmen Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. Ron Paul’s movement helped elect these men to high office and one is even considered a serious contender for the White House in 2016. The reason more Americans might understand what “libertarianism” means better than before is because of Ron Paul. Not every American knew what National Review or who Russell Kirk was, but they learned who Reagan was. Not every American knows who Ayn Rand is. Ron Paul is something closer to a household name. There might be others in his wake who become even more so. Ron Paul is not always right. I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, nor should every libertarian. He should be challenged, even by his own movement. I think he would agree. But it should always be done with respect and appreciation for what he’s done. He deserves that. Some wonder if we’re living in a “libertarian moment.” I hope and believe it’s something more than that. Whatever it is, it is a uniquely exciting time to be alive in our history and politics. And it is thanks to Ron Paul.

INTERVENTIONISM KILLS: POST-COUP UKRAINE ONE YEAR LATER by RON PAUL

It was one year ago last weekend that a violent coup overthrew the legally elected government of Ukraine. That coup was not only supported by US and EU governments -- much of it was actually planned by them. Looking back at the events that led to the overthrow it is clear that without foreign intervention Ukraine would not be in its current, seemingly hopeless situation. By the end of 2013, Ukraine’s economy was in ruins. The government was desperate for an economic bailout and then-president Yanukovych first looked west to the US and EU before deciding to accept an offer of help from Russia. Residents of south and east Ukraine, who largely speak Russian and trade extensively with Russia were pleased with the decision. West Ukrainians who identify with Poland and Europe began to protest. Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the president came from the eastern region. At this point the conflict was just another chapter in Ukraine’s difficult post-Soviet history. There was bound to be some discontent over the decision, but if there had been no foreign intervention in support of the protests you would likely not be reading this column today. The problem may well have solved itself in due time rather than escalated into a full-out civil war. But the interventionists in the US and EU won out again, and their interventionist project has been a disaster. The protests at the end of 2013 grew more dramatic and violent and soon a steady stream of US and EU politicians were openly participating, as protesters called for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Senator John McCain made several visits to Kiev and even addressed the crowd to encourage them. Imagine if a foreign leader like Putin or Assad came to Washington to encourage protesters to overthrow the Obama Administration! As we soon found out from a leaked telephone call, the US ambassador in Kiev and Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, were making detailed plans for a new government in Kiev after the legal government was overthrown with their assistance. The protests continued to grow but finally on February 20th of last year a European delegation brokered a compromise that included early elections and several other concessions from Yanukovych. It appeared disaster had been averted, but suddenly that night some of the most violent groups, which had been close to the US, carried out the coup and Yanukovych fled the country. When the east refused to recognize the new government as legitimate and held a referendum to secede from the west, Kiev sent in tanks to force them to submit. Rather than accept the will of those seeking independence from what they viewed as an illegitimate government put in place by foreigners, the Obama administration decided to blame it all on the Russians and began imposing sanctions! That war launched by Kiev has lasted until the present, with a ceasefire this month brokered by the Germans and French finally offering some hope for an end to the killing. More than 5,000 have been killed and many of those were civilians bombed in their cities by Kiev. What if John McCain had stayed home and worried about his constituents in Arizona instead of non-constituents 6,000 miles away? What if the other US and EU politicians had done the same? What if Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt had focused on actual diplomacy instead of regime change? If they had done so, there is a good chance many if not all of those who have been killed in the violence would still be alive today. Interventionism kills.

FROM THE LIBERTY SHOW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EBsDIsNE5k#t=148 PLEASE COPY AND PASTE

RON PAUL IN HOUSTON

WHAT I THINK........DANIEL McADAMS

Ron Paul revealed Thursday that he is preparing for publication a new book he has written about war. Paul made the revelation at the conclusion of a wide-ranging foreign policy interview on the Scott Horton Show. The former US House member and presidential candidate discloses in the interview that his new book concerns the issue of war and is “written from a personal viewpoint.” Paul says the book addresses his experience as a child during World War II and the question “How did I become so antiwar?” The new book, the name of which Paul did not disclose in the interview, will be Paul’s first book-length examination of the war issue — an issue on which Paul has focused through decades of political and educational activities. Paul has continued this focus after retiring from the House of Representatives. In 2013 Paul founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, where he serves as chairman. Paul is the author of several books including best-sellers The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed, and Liberty Defined. Paul’s 2007 book A Foreign Policy of Freedom is a collection of his foreign policy speeches and writings from the previous 30 years. Paul did not provide an expected publication date in the interview. The interview: http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/02/12/21215-ron-paul/ Please copy and paste.

HOW MANY MORE WARS? by RON PAUL

Last week President Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against ISIS “and associated persons and forces” anywhere in the world for the next three years. This is a blank check for the president to start as many new wars as he wishes, and it appears Congress will go along with this dangerous and costly scheme. Already the military budget for next year is equal to all but the very peak spending levels during the Vietnam war and the Reagan military build-up, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives. Does anyone want to guess how much will be added to military spending as a result of this new war authorization? The US has already spent nearly two billion dollars fighting ISIS since this summer, and there hasn’t been much to show for it. A new worldwide war on ISIS will likely just serve as a recruiting tool for jihadists. We learned last week that our bombing has led to 20,000 new foreign fighters signing up to join ISIS. How many more will decide to join each time a new US bomb falls on a village or a wedding party? The media makes a big deal about the so-called limitations on the president’s ability to use combat troops in this legislation, but in reality there is nothing that would add specific limits. The prohibition on troops for “enduring” or “offensive” ground combat operations is vague enough to be meaningless. Who gets to determine what “enduring” means? And how difficult is it to claim that any ground operation is “defensive” by saying it is meant to “defend” the US? Even the three year limit is just propaganda: who believes a renewal would not be all but automatic if the president comes back to Congress with the US embroiled in numerous new wars? If this new request is not bad enough, the president has announced that he would be sending 600 troops into Ukraine next month, supposedly to help train that country’s military. Just as the Europeans seem to have been able to negotiate a ceasefire between the opposing sides in that civil war, President Obama plans to pour gasoline on the fire by sending in the US military. The ceasefire agreement signed last week includes a demand that all foreign military forces leave Ukraine. I think that is a good idea and will go a long way to reduce the tensions. But why does Obama think that restriction does not apply to us? Last week also saw the Senate confirm Ashton Carter as the new Secretary of Defense by an overwhelming majority. Carter comes to the Pentagon straight from the military industrial complex, and he has already announced his support for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. Sen. John McCain’s strong praise for Carter is not a good sign that the new secretary will advise caution before undertaking new US interventions. As we continue to teeter on the verge of economic catastrophe, Washington’s interventionists in both parties show no signs of slowing. The additional tens of billions or more that these new wars will cost will not only further undermine our economy, but will actually make us less safe. Can anyone point to a single success that the interventionists have had over the last 25 years? As I have said, this militarism will end one way or the other. Either enough Americans will wake up and demand an end to Washington’s foreign adventurism, or we will go broke and be unable to spend another fiat dollar on maintaining the global US empire.

OBAMA'S FORCE AUTHORIZATION IS A BLANK CHECK FOR WAR WORLDWIDE by RON PAUL

The president is requesting Congress to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution against ISIS. Congress has not issued a similar resolution since 2002, when President Bush was given the authority to wage war against Iraq. The purpose of this resolution is to give official authority to the president to do the things that he has already been doing for the past six years. Seems strange but this is typical for Washington. President Obama’s claim is that he does not need this authority. He claims, as have all other recent presidents, that the authority to wage war in the Middle East has been granted by the resolutions passed in 2001, 2002, and by article II of the Constitution. To ask for this authority at this time is a response to public and political pressure. It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years. Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars. The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence. We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region. Even if our policies led to no boots on the ground, the unintended consequences of blowback and the enemy obtaining more American weapons will continue. The CIA has said that 20,000 foreigners are on their way to Iraq and Syria to join the ISIS. Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams. Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex. It’s my opinion that giving additional authority to wage war in the Middle East is a serious mistake. Instead, the authority granted in 2001 and 2002 should be repealed. A simple and correct solution would be for our elected officials to follow the rules regarding war laid out in the Constitution. Ironically there may well be some Republicans in the Congress who will oppose this resolution because of their desire to have an all-out war and not be limited in any way by the number of troops that we should be sending to this region. The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it’s in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition. There is no doubt that ISIS represents a monstrous problem – a problem that should be dealt with by the many millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region. ISIS cannot exist without the support of the people in the region. Currently it is estimated that their numbers are in a range of 30,000. This is not the responsibility of American soldiers or the American taxpayer. Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts. Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire. Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.

VACCINE CONTROVERSY SHOWS WHY WE NEED MARKETS, NOT MANDATES by RON PAUL

If I were still a practicing ob-gyn and one of my patients said she was not going to vaccinate her child, I might try to persuade her to change her mind. But, if I were unsuccessful, I would respect her decision. I certainly would not lobby the government to pass a law mandating that children be vaccinated even if the children’s parents object. Sadly, the recent panic over the outbreak of measles has led many Americans, including some self-styled libertarians, to call for giving government new powers to force all children to be vaccinated. Those who are willing to make an “exception” to the principle that parents should make health care decisions for their children should ask themselves when in history has a “limited” infringement on individual liberty stayed limited. By ceding the principle that individuals have the right to make their own health care decisions, supporters of mandatory vaccines are opening the door for future infringements on health freedom. If government can mandate that children receive vaccines, then why shouldn’t the government mandate that adults receive certain types of vaccines? And if it is the law that individuals must be vaccinated, then why shouldn’t police officers be empowered to physically force resisters to receive a vaccine? If the fear of infections from the unvaccinated justifies mandatory vaccine laws, then why shouldn’t police offices fine or arrest people who don’t wash their hands or cover their noses or mouths when they cough or sneeze in public? Why not force people to eat right and take vitamins in order to lower their risk of contracting an infectious disease? These proposals may seem outlandish, but they are no different in principle from the proposal that government force children to be vaccinated. By giving vaccine companies a captive market, mandates encourage these companies to use their political influence to expand the amount of vaccine mandates. An example of how vaccine mandates may have led politics to override sound science is from my home state of Texas. In 2007, the then-Texas governor signed an executive order forcing eleven and twelve year old girls to receive the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, even though most young girls are not at risk of HPV. The Texas legislature passed legislation undoing the order following a massive public outcry, fueled by revelations that the governor’s former chief of staff was a top lobbyist for the company that manufactured the HPV vaccine. The same principles that protect the right to refuse vaccines also protect the right of individuals to refuse to associate with the unvaccinated. Private property owners have the right to forbid those who reject vaccines from entering their property. This right extends to private businesses concerned that unvaccinated individuals could pose a risk to their employees and customers. Consistent application of the principles of private property, freedom of association, and individual responsibility is the best way to address concerns that those who refuse vaccines could infect others with disease. Giving the government the power to override parental decisions regarding vaccines will inevitably lead to further restrictions on liberties. After all, if government can override parental or personal health care decisions, then what area of our lives is off-limits to government interference? Concerns about infection from the unvaccinated can be addressed by consistent application of the principles of private property and freedom of association. Instead of justifying new government intrusion into our lives, the vaccine debate provides more evidence of the need to restore respect for private property and individual liberty.

NO DOUBT: U.S. TAXPAYERS WILL BE ROBBED TO ARM POROSHENKO by RON PAUL

President Petro Poroshenko, who the US, along with the Europeans and NATO, helped place in power after last year’s coup, has declared that he has “no doubt” America's taxpayers will provide the lethal weapons he desires to fight the separatists in eastern Ukraine. I never had any doubt, either. Of course it's all to stop "Russian aggression." NATO's expansionism is never considered an important issue in the very dangerous war. Our policy in Ukraine is a far cry from "neutrality," staying out of the internal affairs of others, or avoiding entangling alliances. It is more like being the policeman of the world and claiming the title of the greatest arms manufacturer of all history. The military-industrial complex must be pleased with its repeated successes. I'm sure the neo-cons are also ecstatic. And sadly it looks like Sen. Lindsey Graham may get his way and get US troops further involved. The claimed need for our sending lethal weapons to Ukraine is to combat the Russian troops supposedly already in Ukraine. Yet the propagandists never provide any evidence to verify this assertion. Both sides are now recruiting and even drafting the young to prepare them to do the fighting. There's evidence that resistance is building to this effort. It would be nice if the young victims of wars started by old people and foreigners would just go on strike and refuse to fight. Let the instigators of the war put their own “boots on the ground."

THE FAILED "YEMEN MODEL" by RON PAUL

Last September President Obama cited his drone program in Yemen as a successful model of US anti-terrorism strategy. He said that he would employ the Yemen model in his effort to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But just a week ago, the government in Yemen fell to a Shite militia movement thought to be friendly to Iran. The US embassy in Yemen’s capitol was forced to evacuate personnel and shut down operations. If Yemen is any kind of model, it is a model of how badly US interventionism has failed. In 2011 the US turned against Yemen’s long-time dictator, Saleh, and supported a coup that resulted in another, even more US-friendly leader taking over in a “color revolution.” The new leader, Hadi, took over in 2012 and soon became a strong supporter of the US drone program in his country against al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. But last week Hadi was forced to flee from office in the coup. The media reports that the US has lost some of its intelligence capability in Yemen, which is making it more difficult to continue the drone strikes. Nevertheless, the White House said last week that its drone program would continue as before, despite the disintegration of the Yemeni government. And the drone strikes have continued. Last Monday, in the first US strike after the coup, a 12 year old boy was killed in what is sickeningly called “collateral damage.” Two alleged “al-Qaeda militants” were also killed. On Saturday yet another drone strike killed three more suspected militants. The US government has killed at least dozens of civilian non-combatants in Yemen, but even those it counts as “militants” may actually be civilians. That is because the Obama administration counts any military-aged male in the area around a drone attack as a combatant. It was al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that claimed responsibility for the brutal shooting at an anti-religious magazine in Paris last month. At least one of the accused shooters cited his anger over US policy in the Middle East as a motivation for him to attack. Does anyone wonder why, after 14 years of drone strikes killing more than 800 al-Qaeda militants, it seems there are still so many of them? As a Slate Magazine article this week asked, “what if the drones themselves are part of the problem?” That is an excellent question and one that goes to the heart of US anti-terrorist strategy. What if it is US interventionism in general and drone strikes in particular that are motivating so many people to join anti-US militant movements? What if it is interventionist and militarist western foreign policy that is motivating people to shoot up magazines and seek to bring terrorism back to the countries they see as aggressors? That is the question that the interventionists fear most. If blowback is real, if they do not hate us because we are so rich and free but because of what our governments are doing to them, then US interventionism is making us less safe and less free. The disintegration of Yemen is directly related to US drone policy. The disintegration of Libya is directly related to US military intervention. The chaos and killing in Syria is directly related to US support for regime change. Is there not a pattern here? The lesson from Yemen is not to stay the course that has failed so miserably. It is to end a failed foreign policy that is killing civilians, creating radicals, and making us less safe.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH LEW ROCKWELL

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/self-determination-and-liberty/