Category: National Sovereignty


The Washington Post

Graphic: Interactive Grid: Keeping track of the conflict in Syria through videos, images and tweets.

The CIA is preparing to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria through clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year in an effort to establish reliable supply routes into the country for nonlethal material, U.S. officials said.

The bases are expected to begin conveying limited shipments of weapons and ammunition within weeks, officials said, serving as critical nodes for an escalation of U.S. involvement in a civil war that has lately seen a shift in momentum toward the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Graphic

Areas in Syria with a rebel presence

Click Here to View Full Graphic Story

Areas in Syria with a rebel presence

Graphic

A look at the Syrian uprising nearly two years later. Thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power, despite numerous calls by the international community for him to step down.

Click Here to View Full Graphic Story

A look at the Syrian uprising nearly two years later. Thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power, despite numerous calls by the international community for him to step down.

Syria experts cautioned that the opposition to Assad remains a chaotic mix of secular and Islamist elements, highlighting the risk that some American-provided munitions may be diverted from their intended recipients.

But U.S. officials involved in the planning of the new policy of increased military support announced by the Obama administration Thursday said that the CIA has developed a clearer understanding of the composition of rebel forces, which have begun to coalesce in recent months. Within the past year, the CIA also created a new office at its headquarters in Langley to oversee its expanding operational role in Syria.

“We have relationships today in Syria that we didn’t have six months ago,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said during a White House briefing Friday. The United States is capable of delivering material “not only into the country,” Rhodes said, but “into the right hands.”

The confidence conveyed by Rhodes’s statement is in contrast to the concerns expressed by U.S. intelligence officials last year that the CIA and other U.S. spy agencies were still struggling to gain a firm understanding of opposition elements — a factor cited at the time as a reason the Obama administration was unwilling to consider providing arms.

“The Syrian puzzle has come into sharper focus in the past year, especially the makeup of various anti-regime groups,” said a U.S. official familiar with CIA assessments of the conflict. “And while the opposition remains far from monolithic, its military structures and coordination processes have improved.”

The official, like most others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence assessments and planning.

The increased certainty is one of several factors that led to the reversal of a U.S. policy against providing lethal aid that had been in place since the uprising began in Syria more than two years ago.

Rhodes said the change was driven by a new determination by U.S. intelligence agencies that Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons, including sarin gas, on at least four separate occasions. Obama also faced mounting pressure to intervene more aggressively as members of Congress and overseas allies became increasingly alarmed that Assad’s forces were gaining strength with expanded assistance from Russia and Iran.

For the CIA, the shift on Syria marks a return to a covert-action role that was familiar to the agency during Cold War-era conflicts but that gave way to increasingly direct lethal operations as the agency’s drone campaign surged in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

 

Read More Here

About these ads

Blood on your hands: Vladimir Putin’s attack on Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of G8 talks on Syria

Russian President says his country will continue to arm the ‘legitimate government’ in Syria as Cameron’s Coalition allies warn against involving Britain in the conflict

Sunday 16 June 2013

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, rounded on Britain on Sunday, accusing David Cameron of betraying humanitarian values by supporting Syrian rebels with “blood on their hands”.

In harsh and undiplomatic language, Mr Putin accused the UK and other Western powers of attempting to arm rebels who “kill their enemies and eat their organs”. He insisted that Russia would continue to arm what he said was the recognised “legitimate government” in Syria and called on other countries to respect the same rules.

Mr Putin’s comments, ahead of Monday’s G8 summit in Northern Ireland, suggest that earlier British hopes of a softening of Russia’s position on Syria were misplaced. After around an hour of bilateral talks with David Cameron in Downing Street, Mr Putin’s spokesman told The Independent that the two sides remained as far apart as ever.

“There are very serious disagreements in terms of who is guilty and who is to blame,” he said. Asked what the impact of the American decision to arm Syrian rebels would be on potential peace talks, he added: “It makes it harder.”

In a press conference after the talks, Mr Cameron admitted that “President Putin and I have our disagreements on some of the issues”, but insisted the G8 could bring “new momentum and leadership” to start negotiations in Syria.

“What I take from our conversation today is that we can overcome differences if we recognise that we share some fundamental aims: to end the conflict, to stop Syria breaking apart, to let the Syrian people choose who governs them and to take the fight to the extremists,” he said.

“If we leave Syria to be fought over between a murderous dictator and violent extremists we will all pay the price,” he added.

 

Read More Here

 

Related articles

 

*******************************************************************************

Cameron warned not to even think about military intervention in Syria

Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:18AM GMT

A group of Conservative MPs and retired officers warned the prime minister that his plan to arm foreign-backed terror groups fighting the Syrian government would be the first step down a path that could lead to another British military invasion of the Middle East region.

This comes as the coalition government is sending redundancy notices to 5,300 Army personnel soon as part of its plan to reduce the number of soldiers from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2017.

The cuts are imposed at a time when David Cameron is contemplating to arm terrorists fighting the popular government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

“Here we are yet again with a government reducing our Armed Services and at the same time talking about military intervention of some sort in Syria”, said Richard Drax, the Conservative MP for South Dorset.

“In such an increasingly unstable world, events like Syria and Turkey can develop at any moment and yet here we are cutting our Armed Services to the size of a gendarmerie. Our Navy is now little more than something you put in the bath”, he said.

Earlier this month, 82 Tory MPs wrote to the Prime Minister to demand a parliamentary vote on any decision to equip Syria’s rebels.

Some Conservative MPs fear that any weapons given to the rebels could fall into the hands of some fighters who have links with al-Qaeda terrorist group.

Meanwhile, David Cameron has said that he will make every attempt to convince the Group of Eight (G8) authorities to support US plans to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, when they gather for the G8 summit in Northern Ireland this week.

The push for action comes after US President Barack Obama said he would give “direct military aid” to terrorists in Syria.

Cameron was central to the development of a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011, which resulted in thousands of sorties and strikes against people on the ground.

MOL/HE

Read More  on  Press TV
Related Interviews:
Related Viewpoints:

******************************************************************************

 

 

 

 

Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria

World Exclusive: US urges UK and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing conflict

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years.  Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for  2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor – a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala – continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between “Papists and Protestants”.

America’s alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan – flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees – may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle.  Up to 3,000 American ‘advisers’ are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria ‘no-fly zone’ – opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries – will turn a crisis into a ‘hot’ war.  So much for America’s ‘friends’.

Its enemies include the Lebanese Hizballah, the Alawite Shiite regime in Damascus and, of course, Iran. And Iraq, a largely Shiite nation which America ‘liberated’ from Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority in the hope of balancing the Shiite power of Iran, has – against all US predictions – itself now largely fallen under Tehran’s influence and power.  Iraqi Shiites as well as Hizballah members, have both fought alongside Assad’s forces.

Washington’s excuse for its new Middle East adventure – that it must arm Assad’s enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them – convinces no-one in the Middle East.  Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bush’s claim that Saddam’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

For the real reason why America has thrown its military power behind Syria’s Sunni rebels is because those same rebels are now losing their war against Assad.  The Damascus regime’s victory this month in the central Syrian town of  Qusayr, at the cost of Hizballah lives as well as those of government forces, has thrown the Syrian revolution into turmoil, threatening to humiliate American and EU demands for Assad to abandon power.  Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed – unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf – not to be sustained.  Yet Russia has given its total support to Assad, three times vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that might have allowed the West to intervene directly in the civil war.

 

Read More Here

U.S. puts jets in Jordan, fuels Russian fear of Syria no-fly zone

 

 

A Free Syrian Army fighter communicates using a walkie-talkie in the Mouazafeen neighbourhood in Deir al-Zor, June 14, 2013. Picture taken June 14, 2013. REUTERS-Khalil Ashawi

 

 

BEIRUT | Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:55pm EDT

(Reuters) – The United States said on Saturday it would keep F-16 fighters and Patriot missiles in Jordan at Amman’s request, and Russia bristled at the possibility they could be used to enforce a no-fly zone inside Syria.

Washington, which has long called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, pledged military support to Syrian rebels this week, citing what it said was the Syrian military’s use of chemical weapons – an allegation Damascus has denied.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved a Jordanian request for American F-16s and Patriot missiles to remain in the Western-backed kingdom after a joint military exercise there next week, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Western diplomats said on Friday Washington was considering a limited no-fly zone over parts of Syria, but the White House noted later that it would be far harder and costlier to set one up there than it was in Libya, saying the United States had no national interest in pursuing that option.

Russia, an ally of Damascus and fierce opponent of outside military intervention in Syria, said any attempt to impose a no-fly zone using F-16s and Patriots from Jordan would be illegal.

“You don’t have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

The idea of a no-fly zone was endorsed by Egypt, the biggest Arab nation. President Mohamed Mursi, an Islamist more distant from Washington than his deposed military predecessor, made a keynote speech in Cairo throwing Egypt’s substantial weight more firmly than before against President Bashar al-Assad.

Despite their differences, the United States and Russia announced in May they would try to convene peace talks involving the Syrian government and its opponents, but have set no date.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said chemical attacks by Syrian forces and Hezbollah’s involvement on Assad’s side showed a lack of commitment to negotiations and threatened to “put a political settlement out of reach”.

Kerry had not previously expressed such pessimism about prospects for the conference, which has run into many obstacles.

These include disarray in the Syrian opposition and military gains by the Syrian army and its Lebanese Hezbollah allies against rebels who have few ways to counter Assad’s air power.

The involvement of Hezbollah fighters on the side of Assad, a fellow ally of the main Shi’ite power Iran, has galvanized Arab governments, including Egypt, behind the rebels, who mostly follow the Sunni version of Islam that dominates the Arab world.

That has hardened sectarian confrontation across the region, which some Arabs hope might be softened by the election of the moderate Hassan Rohani as Iran’s president – though few believe he can truly influence Tehran’s supreme leader.

Mursi, addressing thousands of cheering supporters at a stadium gathering organized by Egyptian Sunni clerics, demanded Hezbollah pull out of Syria and, after his Muslim Brotherhood joined calls for jihad against Assad and his Shi’ite allies, the president said Cairo had now cut diplomatic ties with Damascus.

Egypt’s powerful, U.S.-backed army seems unlikely to involve itself in Syria, but religious passions are running high and more Egyptian volunteers could travel to join the rebels.

 

Read More Here

 

Epoch Times

Hezbollah Vows to Keep Fighting in Syria

 

 

 

 

 

BEIRUT—The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group vowed Friday to keep fighting in Syria “wherever needed” and said his Shiite Muslim group has made a “calculated” decision to defend the Syrian regime no matter what the consequences.

 

The comments by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah in a speech to supporters in southern Beirut signaled for the first time the Iranian-backed group will stay involved in the civil war raging next door after helping President Bashar Assad’s army recapture a key town in Syria’s central Homs province from rebels.

 

President Barack Obama has authorized lethal aid to Syrian rebels after the U.S. announced it had conclusive evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. U.S. officials are still grappling with what type and how much weaponry to send, but the announcement buoyed opposition forces, which have found themselves heavily outgunned and outmanned by the Hezbollah-backed regime.

 

The Syrian government on Friday dismissed U.S. charges that it used chemical weapons as “full of lies,” accusing Obama of resorting to fabrications to justify his decision to arm Syrian rebels.

 

U.S. officials said the administration could provide the rebel fighters with a range of weapons, including small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and other missiles. The officials insisted on anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions with reporters.

 

Hezbollah has come under harsh criticism at home and abroad for sending its gunmen to Qusair, and Nasrallah’s gamble in Syria primarily stems from his group’s vested interest in the Assad regime’s survival. The Syrian government has been one of Hezbollah’s strongest backers for decades and the militant group fears that if the regime falls it will be replaced by a U.S.-backed government that will be hostile to Hezbollah.

 

Nasrallah said verbal and other attacks against his militant group “only serve to increase our determination.”

 

“We will be where we should be, we will continue to bear the responsibility we took upon ourselves,” Nasrallah said. “There is no need to elaborate… we leave the details to the requirements of the battlefield.”

 

Assad’s forces, aided by fighters from Lebanon’s militant group Hezbollah, captured Qusair on June 5, dealing a heavy blow to rebels who had been entrenched in the strategic town for over a year.

 

Since then, the regime has shifted its attention to recapture other areas in the central Homs province and Aleppo to the north.

 

A visibly angry Nasrallah did not say outright whether his fighters would go as far as fighting in Aleppo, but his words strongly suggested the group was prepared to fight till the end.

 

“After Qusair for us will be the same as before Qusair,” he said. “The project has not changed and our convictions have not changed.”

 

Nasrallah reiterated that the fight in Syria was one against the “American, Israeli and Takfiri project” that was meant to destroy Syria, which along with Iran has been the group’s main backer. Takfiri Islamists refers to an ideology that urges Sunni Muslims to kill anyone they consider an infidel.

 

Much of the group’s arsenal, including tens of thousands of rockets, is believed to have come from Iran via Syria or from Syria itself.

 

In addition to the increased military aid, the U.S. also announced Thursday it had conclusive evidence that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against opposition forces. The White House said multiple chemical attacks last year killed up to 150 people.

 

Obama has said the use of chemical weapons cross a “red line,” triggering greater U.S involvement in the crisis.

 

“The White House has issued a statement full of lies about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, based on fabricated information,” a statement issued Friday by the Syrian Foreign Ministry said. “The United States is using cheap tactics to justify President Barack Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian opposition,” it said.

 

 

Read More Here

ABCNews.com

Obama US Syria.JPEG

The Obama administration hopes its decision to give lethal aid to Syrian rebels will prompt other nations to beef up assistance, now that the U.S. has cited evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people. But the international reaction Friday ranged from flat-out disbelief of the U.S. intelligence assessments to calls for negotiation before more weapons pour into the vicious civil war.

The administration now says it has “high confidence” that President Bashar Assad’s forces have killed up to 150 people with sarin gas. Although that’s a tiny percentage of the approximately 93,000 killed in the civil war so far, the use of a chemical weapon crosses President Barack Obama’s “red line” for escalating U.S. involvement in the conflict and prompted the decision to send arms and ammunition, not just humanitarian aid and defensive non-lethal help like armored vests and night goggles.

The administration’s plan heading into the G8 meeting of industrialized nations beginning Monday is to use the chemical weapons announcement and Obama’s decision on arms to persuade Russia to increase pressure on Assad to send a credible negotiating team to Geneva for talks with the opposition.

In addition, Obama is expected to use the G8 meeting and discussions on the sidelines to further coordinate with the British, French and potentially others an increase of assistance — lethal, non-lethal and humanitarian — to the rebels, the political opposition and refugees.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States has determined that sarin was used in a March 19 attack on the Aleppo suburb of Khan al-Assal and in an April 13 attack on the neighborhood of Shaykh Maqsud. She said unspecified chemicals, possibly including chemical warfare agents, were used May 14 in an attack on Qasr Abu Samrah and in a May 23 attack on Adra.

U.S. officials have not disclosed any details about the weapons they intend to send to Syria or when and how they will be delivered. According to officials, the U.S. is most likely to provide the rebel fighters with small arms, ammunition, assault rifles and a variety of anti-tank weaponry such as shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and other missiles.

As of Friday, however, no final decisions had been made on the details or when it would reach the rebels, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal administration discussions with reporters.

Obama has consistently said he will not put American troops in Syria, making it less likely the U.S. will provide sophisticated arms or anti-aircraft weapons that would require large-scale training. Administration officials are also worried about high-powered weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups. Hezbollah fighters are among those backing Assad’s armed forces, and al-Qaida-linked extremists back the rebellion.

The lethal aid will largely be coordinated by the CIA, but that effort will also be buttressed by an increased U.S. military presence in Jordan.

Read More Here

*****************************************************************************

Exclusive: Obama Asks Pentagon for Syria No-Fly Zone Plan

May 28, 2013 3:06 PM EDT Updated

Pentagon spokesman Dave Lapan sent the following statement to The Daily Beast after this story posted: “There is no new planning effort underway. The Joint Staff, along with the relevant combatant commanders, continue to conduct prudent planning for a range of possible military options.”

Along with no-fly zone plans, the White House is considering arming parts of the Syrian opposition and formally recognizing the Syrian opposition council, reports Josh Rogin.

The White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced by the U.S. and other countries such as France and Great Britain, two administration officials told The Daily Beast.

Syria

A Syrian army soldier holds a machine gun during a battle against opposition fighters in the city of Qusayr, in Syria’s central Homs province on May 23, 2013. (AFP/Getty)

The request was made shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry toured the Middle East last week to try and finalize plans for an early June conference between the Syrian regime and rebel leaders in Geneva. The opposition, however, has yet to confirm its attendance and is demanding that the end of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule be a precondition for negotiations, a condition Assad is unlikely to accept.

President Obama’s dual-track strategy of continuing to pursue a political solution to the two-year-old uprising in Syria while also preparing for more direct U.S. military involvement includes authorizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the first time to plan for multilateral military actions inside Syria, the two officials said. They added that no decisions on actually using force have yet been made.

“The White House is still in contemplation mode but the planning is moving forward and it’s more advanced than it’s ever been,” one administration official told The Daily Beast. “All this effort to pressure the regime is part of the overall effort to find a political solution, but what happens if Geneva fails? It’s only prudent to plan for other options.”

In a May 8 meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee, the White House tasked several agencies with reporting on the pros and cons of two additional potential courses of action: arming vetted and moderate elements of the Syrian opposition, such as the Free Syrian Army, and formally recognizing the Syrian opposition council as the government of Syria, which would mean removing formal U.S. recognition of the Assad regime.

Sen. John McCain—who’s advocated for more aggressive U.S. support of the Syrian rebels and who traveled secretly into the country Monday to meet with the leaders of the Free Syrian Army—told The Daily Beast last week that despite the request for plans he doubts the White House will decide to implement a no-fly zone in Syria. The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs are opposed to the idea, he said.

“One thing about the Pentagon, if they don’t want to do something, they will tell you all sorts of reasons why they can’t do it. It’s going to take significant pressure for them to come up with realistic plans,” McCain said. “They will invent ways for us not to do it until the president of the United States says we’ve got to do it.”

McCain said a realistic plan for a no-fly zone would include hundreds of planes, and would be most effective if it included destroying Syrian airplanes on runways, bombing those runways, and moving U.S. Patriot missile batteries in Turkey close to the border so they could protect airspace inside northern Syria.

In April, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that the military was planning for a range of options in Syria but that he did not necessarily support using those options.

 

Read More Here

 

*****************************************************************************

The Economic Collapse

 

Is Obama Starting A War With Syria Just To Distract Us From All The Scandals?

Is Obama Getting Us Into A War With SyriaWell, isn’t that convenient?  At the moment when the Obama administration is feeling more heat then ever before, it starts another war.  Suddenly everyone in the mainstream media is talking all about Syria and not about the IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA snooping or any of the other political scandals that have popped up in recent weeks.  As if on cue, Obama made headlines all over the globe on Thursday by claiming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels “multiple times”, and that the U.S. was now ready to do more to assist the rebels.  That assistance is reportedly going to include “military support” for the rebels and a no-fly zone over at least part of Syria is being discussed.  Without a doubt, these are acts of war, and this conflict is not going to end until Assad has been ousted.  But Assad will not go quietly.  And all it would take is for Assad to fire a couple of missiles at Tel Aviv for a huge regional war to erupt in the Middle East.  And what happens if Russia or China decides to get involved in the conflict in Syria?  Obama is playing with fire, but he has shown again and again that he is willing to do virtually anything if it will benefit him politically.

As far as the Obama administration is concerned, there is no such thing as a coincidence.  The timing of this announcement regarding Syria was not an accident.  If Obama wanted to use chemical weapons as an excuse to go after Syria he could have done it weeks ago, or he could have waited several more months before taking action.  He chose to do it right now for a reason, and hopefully the American people will be able to see right through this.

So exactly what are we going to be doing for the Syrian rebels?  Well, we will definitely be arming them and training them.  And it is probably reasonable to assume that there will be American “advisers” on the ground inside Syria helping to organize the Syrian resistance.  In fact, according to Debka, a large U.S. Marine force has already been deployed to the Jordanian border with Syria.

In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. aircraft may be involved in enforcing a no-fly zone inside Syria…

A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials.

Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border.

To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials.

No matter how you slice it, the United States is now in a state of war with Syria.  The only question is how “involved” we are going to get.

And several prominent Republicans are already rushing forward to applaud Barack Obama on this latest move.  The following comes from a CBS News report…

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who met with the rebels last month and has been a vocal critic of the president’s Syria policy said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “We appreciate the President’s finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. We also agree with the President that this fact must affect U.S. policy toward Syria. The President’s red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions.”

But you know what?  Many of these Syrian rebels have actually pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The whole point of the “war on terror” was to supposedly fight al-Qaeda, but now the U.S. military is allied with them.

Why in the world would we want to help the people who are supposed to be our greatest global enemy?

 

Read More Here

 

*****************************************************************************

austinagenda21

on Jun 10, 13 • by • with 1 Comment

(Truthstream Media.com) Driving around Austin, Texas over the past year, I’ve noticed a change taking place. Large mixed-use development buildings with apartments on top and businesses on the bottom are popping up all over town. Billboards line the highways telling me I should have a “roadmance” (not…

(Truthstream Media.com)

Driving around Austin, Texas over the past year, I’ve noticed a change taking place.

Large mixed-use development buildings with apartments on top and businesses on the bottom are popping up all over town. Billboards line the highways telling me I should have a “roadmance” (not even kidding) with the new toll roads encircling the city that Texans never really ever wanted; future toll roads subsidizing corporate interests are in the works. Advertisements are pushing high-speed rail as hip and trendy; they are reminiscent of America 2050 goals for the future of our nation involving 11 highly condensed megaregions connected with these same rails (with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, of course).

The entire service area for Austin has been smart metered, without regard to national outcry over the negative health effects. Austin Energy says the meters are “valuable devices” that communicate with the utility via radio frequency waves and “Advanced Metering Infrastructure software to measure the amount of electricity used and at what time of day.” The utility also admitted back in 2012 that “integrating smart meter technology into the operations and services to customers” was one of the its “aggressive goals“.

Each of the city’s smart meters is putting out electromagnetic frequencies as they send customer data to the utility company every 15 minutes. Recently two Texas senators introduced legislation to help residents opt out.

When I first moved here, my roommate was all excited to show me her new smart, motion-sensored thermostat that comes on automatically any time you walk near it. She told me how it was installed in her home for free (how cool is that?) if she agreed to be part of a pilot project through the University of Texas at Austin on monitoring energy consumption. She was pretty excited about how the temperature in her house could be controlled remotely using an Internet interface.

The city’s water is in the process of being smart metered, too. The Citizens Water Conservation Implementation Task Force filed the report “Water Conservation 2020: Strategic Recommendations” with Austin’s City Council in 2010, calling for a smart meter program with “real-time” water use data. The committee also recommended the city “Target customers with high water use with an audit campaign to look at outdoor and indoor conservation measures” [emphasis added] as well as reducing the city’s water use by two percent every year.

So What Is Agenda 21?

Although buzz terms like “sustainable development” and “smart growth” sound friendly enough on the surface, Agenda 21 is a pact the U.S. signed on to with 177 other countries after the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit. Agenda 21 describes itself as a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally” as a new vision for the 21st century.

In short, Agenda 21 is about global control from the ground up. Agenda 21 expert Rosa Koire sums it up (those are her caps below, not mine):

“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.”

Though Agenda 21 is technically a ‘non-binding treaty’, that didn’t stop President Clinton from binding America to it with Executive Order #12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, an official push to align U.S. environmental policies with U.N. Agenda 21 directives. Today it’s continued through President Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

For all the ways Agenda 21 will seeks to destroy everything from national sovereignty to personal property rights, check out this video:

Randomly taking a peek at recent Austin City Council meeting minutes from the last few months, we can see Agenda 21 at work:

  • “Authorize negotiation and execution of agreements with Ecobee, EnergyHub, and other thermostat vendors who qualify for participation in Austin Energy’s Power Partner Program for a demand response program to provide customer incentives in exchange for thermostat data access, for a combined total amount not to exceed $950,000 over a 24-month period.”
  • “Authorize the negotiation and execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for Services to Develop an Analytic Tool for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning with the Capital Area Council of Governments to increase the amount payable to the City by $12,500 to employ summer interns, for a total contract amount not to exceed $205,507.”
  • “Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to collect data on multi-family units participating in Austin Energy’s Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Program.”
  • Land use map designations are being formally changed from “Single Family land use to Higher Density Single Family land use” or “Mixed Use land use” all the time.
  • Approving an ordinance “repealing and replacing Article 11 of City Code Chapter 25-12 to adopt the 2012 International Residential Code and local amendments“.

All of these will significantly impact how people live in Austin, a city that appears to be on the cutting edge of Agenda 21 trendiness.

Read Full Article Here

***************************************************************************

UN Agenda 21 Exposed with Rosa Koire

corbettreport corbettreport

Published on Oct 20, 2012

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=5950

Corbett Report Radio #241

Tonight we talk to Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21 about the ideology and people behind Agenda 21. Topics discussed include: What is Agenda 21? What is communitarianism? What is the history of this agenda? How is it being implemented? And what can people do to combat it?

*NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the third segment of this broadcast was not recorded on video. It is available on the mp3 audio version of the broadcast, available for download from corbettreport.com.

***************************************************************************

 

 

 

Putin warns against foreign military intervention in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin (file photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin (file photo)
Tue Jun 4, 2013 12:47PM
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against any attempt at foreign military intervention in Syria, stressing that the move would only make the situation worse.

Speaking at a joint news conference after a summit with European Union leaders in Yekaterinburg, Putin said on Tuesday that any future foreign military intervention in Syria is doomed to fail.

“We once again underscored that any attempts to influence the situation through force and direct military intervention are doomed to failure,” Putin said.

He also criticized the EU for not extending an arms embargo on militants fighting against the Syrian government.

The Russian president also defended his country’s decision to deliver advanced S-300 air defense missile systems to the Syrian government, saying it complies with the international law and will help to tilt the balance of power in the region.

“It’s perhaps the best such weapon in the world. It’s indeed a serious weapon. We don’t want to throw the region off balance,” Putin added.

He, however, said that Russia has not yet fulfilled the contract, which was signed a few years ago.

On May 28, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow will go ahead with the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and that the arms will help deter foreign intervention in the Arab country.

He also stated that the air defense system was a “stabilizing factor” that could dissuade “some hotheads” from entering the unrest in Syria.

The US, Israel and several Western countries have been pressuring Russia not to go through with a promised delivery of S-300 missiles to the Syrian government.

The S-300 missile system, which has a range of up to 200 kilometers and the capability to track down and strike multiple targets simultaneously, could increase Syria’s air defense potential and at the same time limit the Israeli air force’s ability to hit targets inside Syria. Israel has threatened to attack the missiles if they are delivered.

HM/PR/SS

 

*******************************************************************************

NPR

The Fear That Drives Russia’s Support For Syria’s Assad

Neal Conan: Repeated American attempts to work with Russia on Syria have floundered on a fundamental difference. Vladimir Putin insists on a deal that includes Bashar al-Assad as part of Syria’s future. So the civil war grinds on and the situation of civilians there grows ever more dire. So why? Arms exports? Access to the port of Tartus? Standing up for old allies?

 

In a recent article in foreign affairs Fiona Hill argues that Putin looks at Syria and sees his old fears of Chechnya brought back to life. Fiona Hill was co-author of “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin,” and joins us now on the phone from Florida near Miami. Good to have you with us today.

 

Fiona Hill: Hi. Thank you, Neal. Thanks for having me.

 

Conan: So how can Mr. Putin look at a civil war in Syria and she – a nightmare for him, the old rebellion in Chechnya?

 

Hill: Well, this is a prism that he’s brought to looking at most conflicts like the conflicts in Syria that threatened the sanctity of his state. Mr. Putin actually came in to the presidency if you can recall back in ’99, 2000 in Russia, just as the second war in Chechnya was starting off. And he saw that as his biggest challenge of keeping the Russian state together, so it didn’t fall down the same path as the Soviet Union into collapse. And Putin was really brutal in pursuing the war in Chechnya. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in that holocaust of conflict including many civilians.

 

The capital city of Grozny in Chechnya was reduced completely to rubble, and Putin felt that this was worthwhile because it kept the state together. And over the course of the conflict in Chechnya it morphed in the same way that we’ve actually seen in the war in Syria. It went from a conflict that was mostly focused on political secession from Chechnya, from the Russian Federation and over time, really took on more of an extremist element, more of Sunni extremist groups who moved in to exploit the conflict and also many people who came from outside including from Syria to fight in Chechnya.

 

And Putin is now pretty much concerned that we’re going to see a repetition, the collapse of the states in Syria, knock-on effect for conflicts at home for him as well as (unintelligible) across the hall in the Middle East. And yet again, another collapse of the state, that is something that he would like to see avoided at all costs.

 

Conan: Now Russia, a state with considerable resources was able to pacify, I think that’s probably the right word – Chechnya. It is a completely different situation in Syria.

 

Hill: Neal, I’m very sorry. I didn’t hear that. Could you repeat it, please?

 

Conan: I was saying that because of its enormous resources, Russia was able to pacify Chechnya, at least for the time being. Syria seems to be a very different situation.

 

Hill: That’s very much the case. Yes. Mr. Putin has a lot of things that he was able to draw upon that Mr. Assad has not. He was able to take out the Chechnyan position, both at home and also abroad. In 2004, the Russians assassinated one of the top leaders of the Chechnyan opposition, Mr. Yandarbiyev, who had been an acting president and he was in Doha in Qatar at the time and was killed in a car bomb explosion.

 

Also other members of the opposition were picked off in other cities including in Europe. And Mr. Putin brought the full weight of the Russian army against the Chechnyans. And also he was able to perceive the war for such a long time quite ruthlessly because the Chechnyan opposition, generally, because of the number of very high level terrorist attacks and this infiltration of extremists lost any kind of support among the population.

 

So it was a very different conflict. It was very much confined to one region of Russia although there were terrorist attacks and spillover across the whole of the Russian Federation. But it wasn’t at all like Syria where it’s a full-blown civil war. And Mr. Assad is actually, at this point, seemingly perhaps not outgunned but certainly outnumbered by the number of opposition that are arrayed against him.

 

Read Full Transcript  and  Listen To Interview  Here

*******************************************************************************

Russia’s Putin Says No Missiles Delivered to Syria

 

 

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the European Union-Russian Federation (EU-Russia) Summit in Yekaterinburg, June 4, 2013.

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the European Union-Russian Federation (EU-Russia) Summit in

Yekaterinburg, June 4, 2013.

 

 

VOA News

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Moscow has not delivered advanced air-defense missiles to Syria, saying Russia does not want to upset the balance of forces in the Middle East.

Putin’s comments are in line with Russian media reports last week that Moscow had not yet given the S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Damascus and that the system could not be delivered this year.

The Russian comments contradict an interview given last week by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV in which he implied that Moscow had already delivered some of the missiles.

While Putin said the missile deal is not against international law, he added that Russia has not fulfilled the contract yet.

The United States and Israel have warned Russia against delivering the missiles, which would dramatically increase Syria’s air defense capability.

Deployment of the S-300 system would likely complicate further possible Israeli airstrikes in Syria.

 

Read Full Article Here

*******************************************************************************

 

Destruction in Homs  By  Bo yaser  Courtesy  of Wikimedia Commons

*****************************************************************************

Syria has the right to peace and to self-defense, despite western claims

There can be little doubt that the lifting of the arms embargo to the armed insurgents and terrorist groups operating in Syria is one of the most egregiously callous, self-serving, reckless and irresponsible moves made by the international community since the beginning of the internal conflict in the country.

The West’s complete and total lack of regard for the precious lives of innocent Syrian civilians, including all non-Muslims, non-Sunnis, Jews, Christians and ethnic minority groups is mind-boggling in its persistency, premeditation and complete and total lack of anything resembling humanity.

The West has once again truly shown the entire planet, that is anyone with their eyes half open, its monstrous and evil face when it comes to Syria. It is evident in everything the West has done in Syria. From the day the western “masters” decided that elected President Bashar al-Assad had to go because he was not a Western puppet, to the instigating and fueling of the internal conflict, to the bellicose rhetoric and endless sanctions, to the actual real and documented funding, arming and importing of every kind of terrorist, mercenary and killer under the sun, the West has shown time and time again that they will do absolutely anything to bring about their ends, while packaging it in marketable terms evoking righteousness and pride by calling it “iron resolve”, “taking the lead” and “ridding the world of evil”.

Even the world’s “poster boy of persecution” Israel, which has been allowed to do what it pleases, act with impunity in violating international laws and norms and has remained untouchable since the Holocaust, has shown that they too have forfeited their humanity for mere geo-political goals, by bombing Syria with reckless disregard and using the Nazi pretext of preventive attacks, disgracefully showing ignorance to the lesson that should have been learned from the Great Patriotic War, that all life is precious and no group has the right to eradicate another.

There is nothing noble in what the West is doing in Syria. There is nothing noble is war and death and destruction and those who promote it and use it and spread it have forfeited their right to be members of humanity.

Recently the new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that it was too late for the U.S. to take an active role in seeking a peaceful settlement in Syria, he may be right after the years of rhetoric and the importing and funding of terrorists into the conflict, but I bear to differ, it is never too late to do the right thing, and the right thing here would be to completely ban all weapons deliveries to Syria, to sanction those who would use them, to force the warring factions to the negotiating table sanctioning those who refuse and to bring about an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

That would be the noble and human thing to do but will the West do that, perhaps Kerry would, but then again he is not the “decider” and the those who make the decisions in the West want war and are obtuse and ignorantly stubborn in their foolish and unyielding “resolve” to forcefully remove a leader who has stated time and time again that he will leave if he is voted out of office.

Who is suffering in the Western power play in Syria? The Syrian people, the civilians, the women and children and anyone who keeps the vicious cycle going must be restrained and removed from the conflict, even if that is the mighty dictator of the world, the United States of America and all of their surrogates.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stated regarding the lifting of the arms embargo to the terrorist groups: “We have, of course, given our assessment to the decision adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the EU last week on the lifting of the embargo on arms supplies to the Syrian opposition. I will not hide the fact that it has disappointed us.”

The president very wisely noted: “Any attempt to influence the situation by force or direct military intervention is doomed to failure and will inevitably lead to grave humanitarian consequences.”

The main proponents to lifting the arms embargo within the EU were the UK and France, classically U.S. surrogates, while a number of other states rightfully opposed, knowing it would only aggravate the already difficult and violent situation in Syria.

President Putin also recently spoke about the supply of S-300 air defense systems to Syria; “The S-300, is really one of the best air defense systems in the world, if not the best. The best, I think. This, of course, a serious weapon. However we do not want to disturb the balance in the region. Russian arms supplies to Syria are solely and entirely within the framework of international law and transparent, internationally recognized contracts that do not violate any international regulations.”

The supply of S-300s to Syria has of course been met with bellicose and indignant rhetoric from the West and in particular from Israel with comments such as “this will upset the strategic balance between Israel and Syria” taking the forefront. This is of course true, Israel reserves to itself the right to bomb Syria with impunity whenever it so chooses, and the West of course does not want anything to interfere should it bring about the conditions for a military intervention. It is of course more convenient for the West when they can bomb and destroy a country and do so with no threat to themselves, as they did in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.

The U.N., perhaps the last voice of reason in the world and the last hope for peace recently released a report on the matter asking the nations of the world to “counter the escalation of the conflict” by not delivering weapons “given the clear risk that the arms will be used to commit serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.”

The report says right at the beginning: “Anti-government armed groups have also besieged towns, especially in Aleppo governorate. They are committing war crimes on an increasing scale, including extra-judicial executions, torture, hostage-taking, and pillage. The violations and abuses committed by anti-Government armed groups did not reach the intensity and scale of those committed by Government forces and affiliated militias.”

The UN report also states: “The desperation of the parties to the conflict has resulted in new levels of cruelty and brutality, bolstered by an increase in the availability of weapons. Increased arm transfers hurt the prospect of a political settlement to the conflict, fuel the multiplication of armed actors at the national and regional levels and have devastating consequences for civilians.”

Peace can never be attained with the barrel of a gun and anyone who would tell you so is either delusional or has their own agenda, and those would supply terrorists with arms and promote the killing of civilians have forfeited their place among civilized nations.

 

*******************************************************************************

Why the West and the Sunni Monarchies Want the Fuel the War

Who Gains From Syrian Bloodbath?

by PATRICK COCKBURN

The best hope for an end to the killing in Syria is for the United States and Russia to push both sides in the conflict to agree a ceasefire in which each holds the territory it currently controls. In a civil war of such savagery, diplomacy with any ambition to determine who holds power in future will founder because both sides believe they can still win.

There appeared to be an opportunity for productive talks after it was announced on 7 May that the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, had agreed to hold a peace conference on Syria in Geneva. The US, Russia and Iran could see themselves being sucked into an ever more violent conflict and one that is rapidly spreading. It is destabilising Syria’s neighbours in Jordan and Lebanon as Shia and Sunni support opposing sides. Even Turkey’s new-found prosperity is vulnerable as a result of its whole-hearted backing for Syria’s rebels.

However, the chance of any talks taking place in Geneva have dimmed in the past few days. The Syrian opposition has rejected the idea, though its intentions are very much determined by its paymasters in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Going by the evidence of their own leaders, the rebels, inside and outside Syria, are so divided and dysfunctional they may not be in the business of talking to anybody.

Even if the opposition were better organised, they might still not want to talk. One of its leaders said: “We have to make the removal of the regime fundamental to any political solution.” This may sound obvious, but an unstated part of opposition policy is that they can only win if the West and its allies among the Sunni states of the Middle East decide on massive military involvement to remove President Bashar al-Assad. They want a Libyan-type solution in which Assad would be overthrown, as was Muammar Gaddafi by Nato in 2011, with the rebels conducting a well-publicised mopping up.

 

Read Full Article Here

*******************************************************************************

West dishonest over Syria unrest, supporting terrorists: Chossudovsky

Wed May 29, 2013 8:19AM GMT
 
Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

If they (Western Leaders) were concerned and sincerely committed to the peace process, they would immediately cease supporting a terrorist organization which is linked to al-Qaeda and which is involved in atrocities and killings in Syria.”

Press TV has talked with Michel Chossudovsky, with the Center for Research on Globalization from Montreal, to get his opinions on the role of the Israeli regime in the ongoing foreign-backed unrest in Syria.

Below is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Mr. Chossudovsky, today we have Israel threatening Moscow possibly with force.

How does Israel play into this equation and how much physical involvement can we expect from Israel?

Chossudovsky: Well, first I should say that Israel is supporting the insurgency. In other words, it is supporting al-Qaeda in Syria.

This is not known to public opinion but through the Golan Heights, it is supporting terrorist units of al-Nusrah, which are fighting the Syrian government.

It has logistics, weapon supplies, Israeli vehicles going into the Syrian territory, it also has a hospital facility for the rebels located in the Golan Heights.

So, in effect, right from the outset Israel has been involved in supporting the various factions, the so-called Islamist factions, which are, as we know, mercenaries trained in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

So, in effect, we have to ask ourselves who are the main military actors in the Syrian war theater. The al-Nusrah rebels, which allegedly represent the opposition, are supported by the Western military alliance and Israel.

These are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance and they are waging a war against the Syrian people.

Now when the European Union decides to lift the embargo, the arms embargo, what they really have in mind …, it is not to say that they have not been supplying the rebels with weapons, all the time they have; but what they have in mind is to channel military aid to this mercenary force, which is supported by foreign powers.

That is a very different proposition to the Russians or Iran for that matter, through bilateral agreements providing military assistance to a sovereign country and to a government and in effect what we are also dealing with is…, well it is illegal under the international law but it is also in violation of the US’ anti-terror legislation.

Press TV: Mr. Chossudovski, recently US senator John McCain went to Syria via Turkey. How do you interpret this visit?

Chossudovsky: Well, John McCain['s trip] is actually in blatant violation of the US’ guidelines on anti-terrorism.

There is an anti-terrorist list, there is a list of terrorist organizations, which is made up by the State Department and John Kerry is negotiating, interfacing, with representatives of that terrorist organization and the same thing is true for John McCain when he crosses into Syria or the same thing is true with the former ambassador to Syria Robert Steven Ford, who is also supporting these terrorists.

So we have to distinguish between military aid through official channels, from government to government, which is what the Russians are providing to Syria on the one hand and the type of assistance which Israel, Britain, France, the United States, are channeling to an illegal organization according to their own criteria.

So in other words they should be arrested on anti-terrorist charges because they are in violation of international law.

Press TV: Despite the fact that the European Union has lifted arms embargo on Syria, how optimistic are you that the Geneva II talks would bear fruit and resolve the Syrian crisis politically?

Chossudovsky: Well, I think that the Western leaders are, in effect, attempting to build peace and democracy by threatening war. Essentially that is what they are doing, heightening the threats, channeling weapons to the terrorists, incidentally those terrorist have been decimated by the Syrian Armed forced, so in effect the Western military alliance is in a dead end.

So, they are now considering all the options but essentially if they were concerned and sincerely committed to the peace process, they would immediately cease supporting a terrorist organization which is linked to al-Qaeda and which is involved in atrocities and killings in Syria.

MY/NN

 

*******************************************************************************

File:USA123.jpg

***************************************************************************************

By Paul Rosenberg, FreemansPerspective.com

More or less every modern politician talks about “freedom” or “liberty.” Actually, they don’t talk about it as much as they use it as a magic incantation. They go on at length about “our free country,” but if you could get them to define freedom, that definition would be something along the lines of “what we have.”

Once we’re past such self-praising nonsense, we’re still left with the original question: What exactly is this “liberty”? And then the trouble begins. There are dozens of definitions. This is a problem. We’re all going around talking about liberty, but no two of us mean precisely the same thing. If you’re looking for reasons why liberty gets so little real traction in the world, this would be a good place to start.

So, it’s about time that we clarified what we mean by these terms. And, since I’ve spent decades pursuing liberty, and since no one else seems to be addressing this, I’ll take on this chore myself.

First of all, I’m going to treat “liberty” and “freedom” as the same concept. After all, the word freedom comes to us from old English and liberty from old French, and they both mean the same thing: unconstrained.

The problem with unconstrained lies in the fact that we are constrained by the natural world, by everything from gravity to rocks to weather. Nature constrains us. Yet, we don’t feel oppressed by nature – it isn’t trying to hurt us or limit us, it simply is what it is, and we can use it as we wish too. Our bodies are part of nature, after all.

It is when other people force us to obey, use violence against us, our simply intimidate us, that we feel constrained and abused. (Which tells us all we really need to know about the nature of liberty and humanity.)

So, here is a precise definition for freedom/liberty:

A condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will.

That is the bedrock. From there you can add other aspects if you wish, but you cannot deviate from this core and still be talking about “liberty.”

For example, Thomas Jefferson used the same core idea (notice the inclusion of “will”), but added a political aspect:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

The great John Locke also held to this core, but took it in a more philosophical direction:

All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

Personally, I like a very plain version of the same sentiments:

We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as we don’t hurt others.

I generally call these statements as Lockean, since John Locke was the first person to clearly define the concept of liberty in modern times. But, that’s just my preference.

These statements are clear, and they define liberty. No more really need be said.

You can ignore manipulative “freedom to” statements like Franklin Roosevelt’s famous Second Bill of Rights, whose proposed ‘rights’ included the right of everyone to their own home. This, of course, would require the enslavement of builders, suppliers and taxpayers. (Roosevelt never mentioned that side of the equation, of course.)

There’s only one thing which I will add to this discussion, and that is this: None us have a monopoly on Lockean liberty.

Anyone who holds to Locke’s formulation is your brother and sister, and you must accept them as such.

We are past the time when we can be insular (if there ever really was such a time). You don’t have to agree 100% with the Ron Paul people or the free-market anarchists, or with anyone, but if they accept the core statements above, you must accept them as joint heirs of the Lockean liberties.

If you think someone is wrong, you can ignore the difference of opinion, or you can, respectfully, correct them. Better still, you could laugh at your joint human frailties and move forward together. What you may not do, is to cast them off as idiots; you may not resent them for honestly disagreeing. If they believe in John Locke’s liberty, they are your allies, not your enemies.

If we can’t do that, we don’t deserve to succeed.

[Editor's Note: Paul Rosenberg is the "outside the Matrix" author of FreemansPerspective.com, a collection of insights on topics ranging from Internet privacy and economic freedom, to alternative currencies. Join our free e-letter list to receive other articles like this one... and immediately get a report that explains in a unique way how the US Government got into the mess it's in, the dangers that creates for us, and how to protect ourselves from it.]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 829 other followers