June 9, 2026

freedom news

election-2014Editorial By Bill Collier-  GOP takeover of the US Senate could have interesting consequences, not so much in bills that will be passed as in the degree of pushback and resistance the President will receive regarding his massive use of executive actions, especially through the policies enacted by unelected regulators.

The EPA will certainly come under scrutiny as its regulatory regimen is seen as illegal on the part of many Republicans. One can expect joint House and Senate Hearings, and investigations, on this very subject. The EPA has been implementing, through the broadest possible interpretation of its regulatory powers (ceded to it by the Congress over the years), a cap and trade regimen aimed at dramatically reducing the coal industry and limited the use of fossil fuels, even at the cost of a loss of hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs and the precipitous increase in energy costs. This very agenda has been voted on in Congress and was rejected by lawmakers. It is also rejected by most voters.

But this is not the only area of concern. Lawmakers will have more clout to investigate Benghazi, the IRS, and the Justice Department’s actions regarding Fast and Furious and its attempts to silence the media by investigating and spying on reporters.

Beyond investigations and regulatory oversight, it will be impossible for the President to continue to determine spending largely without Congressional oversight through the use of “continuing resolutions” which have essentially skirted the Constitutional requirement for an actual BUDGET to be originated in the House and confirmed in the Senate. The President and the GOP will have to work out actual budgets as it is certain that the GOP will not tolerate one more year without an actual budget.

Many votes which were held off by Harry Reid, the now former Majority Leader, to shield Democrats from taking tough stands will be pushed with a vengeance.

What is more, it is possible the rule changes imposed by Reid, which effectively blocked man of the maneuvers formerly open to a minority, will remain unchanged, at least for now. If indeed the GOP leadership roll back those rules, to their own disadvantage, one can be sure their base will be angry. The media will give them no point for doing so, and their opponents will not hesitate to use the relaxed rules to gum up the works as much as possible.

In effect, then, those rule changes which many see as making the Senate far less collegial and deliberative than it used to be, could become permanent, leading to a further erosion of the public’s trust and confidence in their government.

This will be especially problematic for any Obama appointees, including whoever might replace Attorney General Eric Holder. With the current rule changes, Republicans will be able to quickly vote down nominees and avoid long, drawn our hearings and maneuvers by the other side to delay the vote while they and their media allies beat up on the GOP.

No doubt the establishment media, who are largely an adjunct of the Democratic Party machine in the eyes of most conservatives, will extol the virtue of the “rights of the minority party” and the need for “bipartisanship”, which, in practice, amounts to giving the Democrats everything they want while giving the GOP and its base nothing they want. Indeed, the media who place their own liberal bias first and foremost have aided in polarizing America because, like partisan Democrats, they present “fairness” as giving only one side a voice and giving only one side what it wants.

Of course, conservative media, especially blogs, radio talk shows, and Fox News, will be equally uncompromising and will call any compromise with Democrats a surrender. They will snipe at any GOP leader who considers immigration reform or modifying but not repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, and they will in general add to the polarization. Most conservative media sources admit that they are conservative but do little to balance their coverage or go beyond watchdog news and opinion piece writing, and both their language and their coverage serve only conservative readers or viewers.

The difference is that many of these conservative outlets, including pundits on Fox News, disclose their own agenda while leftists in the media refuse to disclose their bias, or even admit to it. The practice of disclosing one’s ideological or party bias on the part of media is not accepted among most of the establishment media.

Between overtly biased partisan pundits and biased reporters who refuse to admit their bias, let alone disclose what it is, politicians face a media environment dominated on both sides by the ends of the political spectrum and will be clobbered unless they throw red meat at their base.

While the GOP are making many noises about cooperation and working with the President, voters in the middle are especially favorable toward this view, they must contend with the perception among many rank and file members that the Democrats (and their media allies) will demonize them unless they abjectly surrender and their own base (whom, feeling alienated, did not support their 2012 Presidential nominee) be further alienated if they perceive that the GOP is giving in too much. Likewise, however, the establishment media and the Democrat base are likely to pressure the President and his Party to “tow the line” and even to resort to more executive actions rather than giving in to the GOP.

In short, we will see real budget battles, more investigations and hearings, much more pushback on executive and regulatory actions not popular with the GOP, and probably more polarization fueled in part by partisan media on both sides which, far from being objective and counseling compromise, will attack anyone on “their side” who dares to go down that road.

October 22, 2014- OPINION AND ANALYSIS provided By William R Collier Jr- What began as reports of a gunman leaping from a car and shooting two guards at the Canadian War Memorial in Ottawa has become a story of multiple attackers disrupting life in the nation’s capital. But police revealed late that night that this was, “a lone wolf act of terror.”

Canada was under attack as police and paramilitary, along with armored vehicles, ranged the streets looking for “multiple shooters.” A shooter described as having long hair and carrying a long gun, exited a vehicle and “slowly but deliberately” approached a soldier at the War Memorial, a ceremonial guard, shooting him in the chest. The attacker then ran some 200 yards (past his car) to the “center block” of the Parliament building, which was filled because today is a caucus day. During caucus days, almost all Members of Parliament (MP’s) are present for caucus meetings of various sorts.

The shootings were first reported at 9:52 AM. The ceremonial guard was taken to the hospital where he would later succumb to his wounds, a terrible symbolic blow aimed at the heart of Canada’s storied martial past, and her honor, which the War Memorial represents. The guard who was killed was Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, reserve soldier from Hamilton, according to reports.

After shooting the soldier, the attacker is reported to have “raised his gun in triumph over his head.”

Craig Scott from Toronto, a Canadian MP, credited Kevin Vickers, Sergeant At Arms, with saving many lives by his quick action outside an MP Caucus Room where he killed the attacker- the attacker’s aim was to gain entrance into Caucus Room where the cabinet along with the Prime Minister Harper were meeting in caucus. With that in mind, the aim of the attack has clearly not been achieved, the goal would have been to kill the Prime Minister and as many cabinet members as possible. Vickers was a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The quick action of a man on scene with a gun gives further credence to the notion that disarming large public spaces does not make them safer- if this had been a university no armed person would have barred access to that room.

The dead attacker’s name is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32. He is believed to be Canadian born and was a recent convert to Islam. He had been banned from traveling abroad and it was believed he wished to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq. ISIS had been calling for lone wolf operations, which are impossible to detect because they involve no planning or communicating among multiple actors.

Right after the shooting, police were seen moving door to door along Spark street, an historic roadway that extends from Parliament Hill, looking for possible suspects. Residents were told to close and lock doors, barricade themselves, and cover windows and “do not open your door under any circumstances.” This was lifted at around 1:30 PM and people were released to go home in a deliberate process.

All the bridges across the Ottawa River which lead to the province of Quebec have been closed.

This comes just two days after a Muslim extremist ran over two Canadian soldiers in Quebec, killing one, which is one of the reasons fingers had already been pointed at Salafist radicals in Canada who hide among the peaceful, and unwitting, Muslim population. Concerns of an un-merited backlash against Muslims in general have also been raised.

As these accusations were lobbed and concerns raised, Police were urging Canadians in the capital not to post pictures of soldiers or police which might reveal locations and tactics. People are being told to “get off the streets into shelter.”

Coincident with the attacks is that on the same day Canada’s Parliament was expected to consider, and pass, tough new anti-terrorism measures.

Police had confirmed that there were multiple locations where shots were fired but late that same night they retracted the confirmation. There were reported shootings at the War Memorial, inside Parliament, at a local mall (Rideau Centre Mall), and at a hotel. The attacker was killed in the abrupt and short-duration fighting. It is now confirmed that this is related to Salafist Jihad.

The objective of terrorism is to achieve one of two aims: to cause the government to over-react and alien the target population which leads to new recruits for the terrorist group, or to show the ineptness of government which leads to public fears and giving in to terrorist demands. The ability of a government to target the enemy without clamping down harshly on a broader audience is seen as crucial in responding to such acts. Erring too much in either giving in to public outrage which is often directed at a broader audience or giving in to political correctness and appearing to be weak and indecisive are the two dangers which governments must avoid.

Only the day before, at a Canadian Senate hearing, officials warned that a “disrproportionate” number of “radicalized Islamists” have made there way too Canada and through Canada and that “resources to track and stop them” are stretched “too thin” and that Canadian agencies have been forced to make “hard decisions” about who to track. What was recommended was a “change in attitude” toward Canada’s immigration policy, particularly with regards to Muslims, and its policies towards its immigrant Muslim population.

During his speach, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared this to be an act of terror and vowed that terrorists would have “no place to hide.” This is much different from how his American counterpart responded to the lone wolf operation of a Salafo-Jihadist in Fort Hood who killed a number of American service members. President Obama called that act “workplace violence”, but Harper called this act “a brutal and violent act of terror.”

The juxtaposition between the two men and their reactions was not lost on opposition groups in America who used it to paint their nation’s President as indecisive, weak, and bumbling. President Obama has yet to identify this as an act of terror, let alone Islamic terror. Fresh questions about the Administration’s categorization of the 2009 lone wolf act of terror in Fort Hood as “workplace violence” are inevitable.

Canada is now considering its response as the city of Toronto currently has a greater Muslim population than any city in North America. Some are calling for a broad-brush rethink of Canada’s relationship with Muslim immigrants and the Muslim community in general. Others argue that allowing this act of terror to cause such an “over-reaction” will lead to yet more radicalization. The Prime Minister is expected to steer a middle road between the two positions.

The Polish push to military independence can be seen

through the accelerated missile shield program.

The Patriot Missile System- the current Polish Missile Shield Deplyoment
The Patriot Missile System- the initial Polish Missile Shield Deployment

WORLD NEWS- Analysis- William Collier- After the inauguration of President Obama, the US withdrew plans to deploy a missile shield for Europe.  This in agreement with Russia. But the Poles, who were supposed to host key elements of the system, have since then proceeded with their plans to deploy a new anti-air and missile shield of their own.

Owing to a robust and growing economy, spurred on by a pro growth economic policy, the Poles have been investing billions in upgrading their military capability. Deployments overseas in support of NATO operations have given their forces experience and have shown the areas of lack. Overall, it is believed the Poles are investing $5 billion in just the anti-missile element new system, within a total increased outlay of $40 billion for their planned rapid upgrading of their military.   Currently, the poles have a fixed budget of just under 2% of their gross domestic product for their military. This may be increased shortly as the Poles seem convinced that neither the US nor other NATO allies see the threat of Russian expansionism as clearly as they believe they do.

The final phases of their bidding process for providers of their components of a three-tiered anti-air and anti-missile system are being completed, but the process is now being sped up.  Funding is increasing beyond the $5 billion slated for this part of the system. The final two contenders for this project include a consortium of Thales Group, MBDA Missile Systems and the Raytheon Company (Raytheon makes the Patriot system). The total system, which includes missile defense (tier 3), national air defense (tier 2) and local air defense (tier 1) will cost around $13 billion. The Tier 2 system will be capable of shooting down aircraft and cruise missiles, a major new capability, operating 12 batteries. A top competitor is Raytheon’s NASAMS II, a missile system developed with Norway’s Kongsberg Defense. NASAMS stands for “Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System”. NASAMS I was first deployed in 1998, making this a proven system.

image

Back in March of 2014, Jacek Sonta, spokesman for the Polish Ministry of Defense, told Reuters, “The issues related with Poland’s air defense will be accelerated. Poland plans to choose the best offer for its missile defense in the next few weeks.” This was pushed despite pressure from Washington and Berlin to “not increase tensions”, which they believe Poland’s sped up process would do. The Poles rejected this out of hand citing their right to self-defense and have proceeded rapidly.

Action was spurred on as the Russians began what the Poles see as an expansionist policy, beginning with Russia’s war on Georgia and now with Russian war on the Ukraine. While the Poles are calling for more forward deployment of NATO forces in the former Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltic, Germany and France have resisted such proposals. And so the Poles have come to the conclusion that they must rapidly and dramatically invest in improving their own military.

This requires the almost wholesale replacement of Soviet era equipment and Russian technology in general.

Their missile shield will be as capable as what the Americans would have deployed in Poland, only it will be under total Polish control. Because NATO is not cooperating directly, the new system will also be out of NATO jurisdiction. It is possible that some NATO partners, especially Germany and Italy, will share resources for joint development as those two nations also seek their own missile defense shields.

The significance of all of this is that, if deployed, these systems would actually dramatically reduce the threat of a nuclear war and they would do so without the need for American protection. By withdrawing from missile defense in Europe, the US has ensured a decline in its own influence in Europe. As Poland and other NATO nations increase their defense budgets and capabilities, even while the US military is shrinking in size and investment, it is probable that within 10 to 20 years there will be no real need for American guarantees of security by European nations.

The Polish effort to deploy their own missile shield is serious, well-funded, multi-tiered, and robust. While initial deployment was slated for 2018, plans are under way to accelerate that “as quickly as possible.” The complete system was not slated to be finished until 2022, but this has also been accelerated dramatically.

This will likely mean the use of a modified Patriot system for their first stage of deployment. What is envisioned is a system with better radar and cheaper missiles (a French missile is envisioned). As both the core system and the new components are proven and available “off the shelf”, the Poles could deploy their first batteries for missile defense “within 18 months”, although some want to move even faster than that.

As one Polish officer noted, “every step the Russians take towards the Ukraine only pushes us to speed up the process of building up our forces.” This could become a serious national effort that would transform Poland into a major regional power virtually overnight.

The Ferguson Riots- An American Turning Point?

While politicians and activists from both sides of the political spectrum scramble to benefit from Ferguson, we wonder if Ferguson might be a turning point in American history, when people reject the limousine leadership of the left and the right and start leading themselves.

OPINION- William Collier- There is rioting, police brutality, and racial hate menacing the town of Ferguson, MO as a result of the fatal police shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown.

Michael Brown
Michael Brown (Social Media screen grab)

Events in Ferguson, Missouri, which is in St. Louis County, have taken a course which alarms many citizens across the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, leaders in Ferguson are calling for people like Al Sharpton to remove themselves from a local problem.  They accuse Al Sharpton of inciting a near-riot when he proclaimed that the incident in Ferguson involving a young black man being shot to death by police is ‘bearing witnesses for all of America’, specifically America’s race relations.

According to Sharpton, the Band-Aid has been ripped off, and all of America is seeing that racial hatred is alive and well. The accusations are seen as doing more harm than good, inciting militant activists to violent actions, such as can be seen in Ferguson right now.

image
PHOTO- Facebook MEME circulating allegedly shows another side of Michael Brown. We have not confirmed that this IS Michael Brown FACEBOOK SCREEN GRAB

Regardless of the act that led up to the unstable situation in Ferguson, the reaction by the local police has been dramatic and militaristic.  The police deployed were wearing military-style clothing.  They were armed with heavy weapons and drove armored vehicles.  They were not facing insurgents, but unarmed protesters.

This overt display of military power on American streets by a local police department has come under scrutiny not just from the protesters, but even from the members of the community who do not support the protesters.

image
An armored vehicle with a fully automatic weapon manned and ready…against unarmed protesters. PHOTO Provided by ANONYMOUS Twitter user

The incident that triggered the riots and unrest was the shooting of an 18 year old unarmed man, Michael Brown. Michael Brown had a long criminal background before the incident, so the police might well have been aware of who he was.  According to the police version of the incident, Brown was assaulting an officer.  There was a struggle for the officer’s gun which led to the 7 shots that killed Brown.

A friend of Brown, who is also accused of participating in the assault, claims Brown was attacked for no reason by the police.  The friend claims Brown was shot while trying to raise his hands and surrender.

Police supporters claim this is a cut and dry case.  They note that the officer was injured in the altercation and that both Brown and his friend have a criminal background (as I noted earlier), including assault (this has been confirmed in the case of Brown, but not in the case of his friend).

Michael Brown supporters say this is a case of police brutality and, now, as charged by Sharpton, racism. In fact, President Obama called Michael Brown’s family to offer condolences before any facts had emerged about the actual nature of the shooting.   Obama’s overture to the family is seen by the police supporters to reinforce the narrative that this is about racial hate, not an altercation that went wrong.

ferguson riots al sharpton
Scereen Grab- Fox News covered Al Sharpton’s inflammatory remarks which many local leaders wish he would not have uttered.

But both sides in that debate have problems to contend with.

For the police supporters, there are real and proven incidents of police brutality against members of the community of Ferguson during this unrest.  There have even been reporters that have been roughed up, arrested and let go without any paperwork filed, and a number of other documented ‘irregularities’ by this police department.  These incidents cannot be brushed aside, and they only serve to offer evidence of a police department gone rogue, one that could possibly have done what Brown’s friend alleges they have done.

Two reporters were arrested, one roughed up, at a local McDonald’s when they were clearly not breaking any laws and, though they were released, no paperwork was filed. Another reporter was shot point blank with a rubber bullet. Additionally, I myself watched a live feed as police, in military gear, with armored vehicles, pushed a crowd of protesters INTO an otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood.

The crowd being pressed by the police fled into the neighborhood, running between homes, often being chased by police, bringing chaos to a neighborhood that was not involved in the rioting. The police then proceeded to turn their tear gas and rubber bullets on the people in this neighborhood who had stepped outside to see what was causing all the disturbances on their front lawns and back yards.

The notion that this same police force, the local police force in Ferguson and the St Louis County Sheriff’s Department, never uses excessive force cannot be easily discounted after what has transpired.

For the supporters of Michael Brown, the problem is that the only witness to claim this was police brutality may himself have been involved in the alleged attack on the police officer and, if reports are true (which we have not confirmed), he is himself a criminal.

He certainly has the tattoos that are associated with gangs, say those who disbelieve his story, which we have not confirmed.  It had been alleged that the deceased man, 18 year old Michael Brown, had a criminal record already, including burglary and assault. Man posts with links to court records went viral. What is disconcerting about these allegation was that his juvenile record is closed and he is only 18- this means his list of crimes SINCE he turned 18 would be fairly lengthy. His rap sheet is cited as reason to believe the police officer’s version of the events.  We have learned that possibly 4 other witnesses have also come forward with similar stories. We have SINCE CONFIRMED- Michael Brown had NO CRIMINAL RECORD and no charges were pending against him.

The shooting took place on August 9, a Saturday, at around noon. After the shooting, efforts to organize protests and reprisals went viral on social media, and by Monday the riots had become severe, resulting in businesses being looted,  One local convenience store was not only looted, it was also burned down.

The rioters were further inflamed by the vitriolic and black supremacist rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party, as well as by Al Sharpton, both of whom flew in from out of state to ‘lead’ the protesters’.

The violence-inciting rhetoric was legitimized, police supporters argue, when US Attorney General Eric Holder promised to get involved, as well as by President Obama’s rush to call to offer condolences to Michael Brown’s family before getting the facts of what actually occurred.

But many local citizens and leaders, even those who believe this was police brutality, have accused the politicians and the national figures from outside of making things worse.

I saw one woman on live video, a black woman who had come out of her home. She was outraged at how the violence was encouraged by people from outside the community. She noted that while her taxes were up and schools were failing, these local politicians continue to ask for the “black vote” but do nothing for the black community.  The only time political leaders, local or national, show up in a black community is during times like this, in their helicopters and Lear jets, making matter worse for all concerned. She kept saying “they win, they win”.  When asked who “they” were, she replied, “them politicians!”

She did not appear to sympathize with police, who she saw come through her quiet neighborhood bullying anyone who was seen outside, even homeowners who were concerned about the ruckus.  But she did not endorse the rioting, which she blamed on “people from outside the community coming to stir things up and get their 15 minutes of fame!”

Whatever the truth is now may only matter in the legal sense of the word.  The question from the outside looking in is this, who benefits?

There seem to be two opposing views on this:

The first view is from the leadership on the right.  They believe that whether the killing was justified or not, leftist agitators saw an opportunity to reinforce the demonizing narrative of the white man attacking the black man.  It is the same tactic used by the mullahs of Iran who wish to deflect blame for their own failures away from themselves by attacking the great Satan, America.

In the case of the trusted leftist voting bloc of African Americans, the deflection is away from the failures of democratically controlled governments to deliver prosperity and security to the ghettos of America.  If the black community focuses on hating white people, they won’t pay attention to the failure of government, run by Democrats, to give them a good education, offer them a safe place to live and a path to prosperity.

The countervailing view from the leadership of the left is that the police are attempting to agitate the black community in order to create a similar bogeyman, for different voting bloc, this one for republicans, white America.  The narrative goes something like this; The black mob is being whipped up to a frenzy by republican-leaning agitators to reinforce the notion that white America should fear violent black America and come back to the republican party to check the growing power of the black-supported left.

As outlandish as these theories sound, they have more than a few adherents, and this is the cause of no small amount of division between Americans. But the police reaction may have a rather interesting effect not foreseen by anyone- people from the left and right, people who are of all races, and people who disagree about the original incident, all seem to agree that what the police in Ferguson are doing to protesters and what outside leaders are doing to stir the pot are equally awful and illegitimate in a free and democratic society of equals.

One sees leftwing and rightwing blogs, as well as social media commentary all saying the same thing- the spectacle of a military-styled police force is detestable on the streets of ANY American neighborhood.  It could be that if there are true agitators on the left and the right, neither side will get what they want, greater control over the voting power of a bloc of people.   It could be, at the end of the day, when the dust has settled on Ferguson, that the real winners might be the Americans, of all ethnicities and beliefs, who decide to no longer be led by the helicopter-swooping, Lear-jet parking leaders.  Rather, they will choose to lead themselves where they are, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block, town by town, to build pathways to prosperity, security, and liberty.

In Ferguson, it appears, there are no heroes.  One can only hope that from such flames, a new resolve is forged in America, to build, where you are, with those who will build with you, what most of us really want, across all divides, the freedom to prosper and pass along to our children a better world than the one we were given.

Let us hope at the end of the day, be they Republicans or Democrats, that we do not say the only winners from Ferguson were ‘them politicians’’.

The Obama Bush- Perfect symbol of the reality today?
The Obama Bush- Perfect symbol of the reality today?

 

 

 

 

Netanyahu’s Failed Military Strategy Questioned By Some

netanyahu war strategy

 
Scroll to the bottom for any new updates…

ANALYSIS- WORLD NEWS- William Raymond Collier JR-  Many IDF officers are privately questioning the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his conduct of the war in Gaza. The criticisms are aimed at what is seen as indecisiveness.  The PM’s office often gives no greater guidance than to attack in response to rocket launches or, as some IDF officers complain, “none at all.”

The IDF leadership are firmly convinced they have the means and skill to finish Hamas off. But the moral high ground once attained by Israel to do this, with the blessing even of major Arab powers who loathe Hamas, is slipping away.  It is feared that if things do not change, this war will end as the last one did, a PR victory for Hamas as it prepares for the next round. Indeed, gains won towards actually forging some common ground with Arab powers against the “Jihadist” (Salafist) threat could be ceded if this operation ends indecisively.

When the Prime Minister added as a military goal the limited destruction of the tunnels that go from Gaza into Israel, broad-based penetration of Gaza’s 25 mile western border with Israel had to be scrapped.  This sudden departure from the original plan made hash of the IDF logistics and planning efforts.  It also resulted in a makeshift and reactionary deployment that still lacks a real strategic focus. Simply going after rocket stockpiles and tunnels does not constitute a strategic aim.  In fact, some argue it is not even a tactical aim.

The original plan was aimed at toppling Hamas. The IDF would make 3-4 rapier thrusts across the strip’s 4-7 mile width through areas in between built up areas. Tanks would lead the way and a minimum force would be needed to cordon off the built up areas, thus preventing Hamas from holding a unified command.  Then the infantry, with armor support, would focus on one pocket at a time  Here the objective would be to further sub-divide the populated area, using main roads for armored thrusts, going neighborhood by neighborhood to take out Hamas. Appeals would be made to civilians- give up Hamas and peace would be possible.   The current plan is akin to the Germans invading France and stopping to destroy the Maginot line while the French Army retreated and regrouped.  The Germans bypassed the Maginot line altogether and later had ample time to destroy the defenses without meeting resistance from a now-defeated French army.

The IDF have crossed into Gaza on a broad front, with some 22,000 troops and 300 tanks on a 25 mile front, going into built up areas, but staying within a 1/2 mile to a mile of the border.  The operation is now focused on the environs around the border to find and destroy tunnels. Again, if we return to our comparison of the German invasion of France in World War Two, had the Germans stopped at the Maginot line and concentrated on destroying those fortifications, the French would have been able to recover and consolidate their force, blunting the Blitzkrieg action that ultimately led to the fall of Paris and the surrender of the French Army.

If Hamas, its leaders, its command and control locations, and its soldiers, were targeted, they would no longer be able to use the tunnels.  Israel would be free to destroy the tunnels at their leisure.  Netanyahu is focusing instead on those tunnels and assigning artillery and air power to issue salvos in response to either rocket firings or intelligence about rocket storage.

This is leading to civilian casualties.  It is not depleting Hamas’s supple of rockets as much as is claimed, and it is putting the IDF at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Hamas remains in tight control and has unitary command because, beyond Israel’s incursion zone, the Gaza Strip remains cohesive and all the separate population centers are connected by wire and road.

Had the original plan been utilized, and had 40,000 men been deployed, it is likely, many believe, that the casualties on both sides would be lower and Hamas would be defeated, giving the IDF all the time it needed to locate and destroy tunnels in an essentially “cleared” environment.  The action would be more like civilian demolition that a battle. But Netanyahu inexplicably abandoned this plan and opted for a very limited and, for both sides, costly operation.

On the ground, his orders have removed Israel’s best asset, the tanks, as practical weapons and placed his soldiers in the places where his enemy wants to fight. In the air and from a distance, without people on the ground, he has been forced to rely on stand-off weapons which, by their nature, have less accuracy than people on the ground.

One thing, however, has not materialized.  Hamas had claimed to have some new way to defeat Israeli armor and inflict serious casualties on the IDF. In reality, whle there have been IDF casualties, they have not been near as high as Hamas planned or hoped for and in close order battle Hamas fighters have been more prone to flee. That has not meant that the fight is all one-sided, but it is still tilted heavily in favor of the better armed and better trained Israelis.  Hamas, for its part, is switching to a PR offensive now, realizing that the IDF has no intention, at least for now, of actually destroying them “city by city” as was planned by the IDF, and as was feared by Hamas.

Even as open press reports now reveal that many Arab powers are backing any plan that results in the toppling of Hamas, Netanyahu seems determined to keep them in power. And that has many in the Middle East scratching their heads. But look for a possible change of direction as Netanyahu faces growing pressures both from Israelis and from Arabs to “get the job done” once and for all.  Such sentiments are not shared by Washington, but the events of the past few weeks have significantly reduced America’s credibility, standing and relevance to the players in the region.

Update: with the latest truce offer having been accepted for 72 hours, and twith the rhetoric out of Israel still focused on tunnels, it appears that Prime Minister Netenyahu has thrown away any grand strategic plan. Destroying the tunnels is not a strategic aim, it is, at best, a tactical gain won at the cost of a major diplomatic setback and undermining of Israel’s standing with Arab powers who might have considered Israel an unlikely (secret) ally against groups like Hamas. Israel is not serious about replacing Hamas.

Update 2: August 1, 2014
The 72 hour truce has not held. The Israelis say that Hamas sent fighters through tunnels who killed two Israeli soldiers and possibly abducted a third. Hamas says Israel broke the truce by sending artillery fire into Rafah, a city in the Gaza strip.

This broken truce, if indeed an Israeli soldier has been adbucted and two killed, could potentially give Netenhayu an opportunity to switch from a short game to a more strategic approach. But it is unlikely as the Prime Minister, who enjoys a 65% popularity rating, has doubled down on his limited plan by scolding cabinet ministers who have questioned his leadership. This has had a chilling effect on others, including IDF officers, who fear the Prime Minister’s wrath.

Most Israelis are not aware of the difference between the strategic plan described here, which military strategists might argue would have caused fewer casualties on both sides and end Hamas as an entity, and the limited tactical plan that targets only tunnels, rocket supplies, and firing sites.

It would seem that the Prime Minister is a wholly political animal who sees this war in purely political, and not military, terms and it may even be that the Prime Minister wishes to keep Hamas around because their actions delegitimize the Palestinians in general. Hamas does tend to delegitimize the Palestinians and as long as they are lobbing rockets Israel does not feel they have to resume real peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, although the cost is that Israelis will continue to live with rocket attacks and daily disruptions of their lives.

Kerry Fails in Ceasefire Negotiations between Israel and Hamas

WORLD NEWS

L to R-  Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Qatari Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiyah
L to R- Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Qatari Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiyah

William Raymond Collier Jr- In order to come up with a cease-fire agreement between Hamas and Israel, US Secretary of State John Kerry first made a stop in Paris on the 25th of July.

During this stop, he met with Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, as well as foreign ministers from Italy, the UK, Germany, and France. Present at this meeting were representatives from Qatar and Turkey, whose support for Hamas has upset many Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority.

Left out of this meeting? Egypt,  the Palestinian Authority Israel, or any backers of Israel.

Increasingly, Egyptian and Israeli officials are accusing the US of taking sides with Hamas, led largely by Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. In the past, President Obama described Erdogan as one of his “closest friends.” Erdogan recently stated that the Israelis’ actions in Gaza “far outweighed” what Hitler did to the Jews.

Erdogan is in the process of setting up a presidential dictatorship, has been accused of sending arms to the ultra-Salafist group known as either ISIS or ISIL, and has even been making threatening moves against fellow NATO member, Greece.

In recent months, however, President Obama has not had much communication with Erdogan whom, in all fairness to President Obama, may no longer be held in the same esteem by the President.

This US coziness with Turkey, Hamas, and Qatar who are fast becoming pariahs in the greater Muslim world for their support of terrorist organizations, is making Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority nervous.

The Palestinian Authority is the sole legitimate ruler of Palestinian territories and was booted from Gaza by a localized military coup backed, it is now believed, with Iranian and Turkish money.

After his Paris meeting, evidently, Secretary Kerry took up what were essentially Hamas demands as a condition for a cease-fire and, through his personal presence, as well a “frank discussion” President Obama had with the Israeli Prime Minister, strongly pressured the Israelis to accept the deal. But since one of the conditions involves Egypt opening up its Gaza border to Hamas, it would require pressuring Egypt as well.

Egypt, the PA, and Israel have a version of a cease-fire they have agreed to, but Secretary Kerry, according to the Egyptians, “is digging a tunnel under Egyptian diplomacy.”

The Egyptian-PA-Israeli approach is to end hostilities, leave all forces in situ, allow the closing of Hamas tunnels to continue, and open a two week negotiation in Egypt brokered by Egypt and participated in by the PA, Hamas, and Israel. The Kerry-Hamas proposal allows Hamas to attack Israeli soldiers in Gaza, calls for opening the Egyptian border with Hamas, and calls for massive aid supplies to Hamas, along with Israel ending its anti-tunnel operations. It does not include a provision for Egyptian or PA involvement.

The Egyptian Government is still smarting over the US Government’s backing of the radical Salafist group, Muslim Brotherhood, which Hamas supports. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ouster from power by a dramatic popular uprising that included almost half the population hitting the streets, was condemned by the Obama Administration, even as it continues to support the radical Salafist group today, according to Egyptian sources.

By discarding the Egyptian led effort in favor of Qatar and Turkey, Secretary Kerry has won the ire of US allies in the region who are openly questioning which side the US is on, the moderate and peaceful Muslim nations, or radical Salafists groups, and those nation, Qatar and Turkey, which now back them?

Others argue that Kerry’s diplomacy with Qatar and Turkey stems from the fact they represent Hamas’ interests and that any notion that the US is taking sides is absurd. Kerry’s staff also accused the Israelis of leaking a cease-fire proposal before it was finalized.  The Israelis have denied the charge by Kerry.

Qatar has earned ire from its neighbors for how it allegedly welcomed the 5 released Taliban terrorists released by the US as heroes, for the editorial content of Al Jazeera, which leans towards the Salafists, and for accusing the UAE of secretly working with Israel. Increasingly, many Arab Nations are becoming estranged from Qatar, including Saudi Arabia.

The net effect among regional powers, whether fair or not, is that US standing as an “honest broker” is being diminished because regional powers feel snubbed and are concerned that the US may be more favorable towards the enemies of her allies than they are towards their allies. This can be a complete falsehood but unless it is addressed head-on it could lead to a degrading of US influence in the region.

With talk now that Hamas may indeed agree to the Egyptian brokered plan, which in effect freezes out the US from the process, Secretary Kerry, Turkey, and Qatar are essentially “bit players” in the drama. Meanwhile Israeli forces have been ordered only to fire if fired upon.

BUSINESS NEWS- WORLD

China’s Debt Reaches 250% of GDP

Chinese Debt

 

William R Collier Jr. – For the past five years, we have been writing about China as a paper tiger with inflated numbers, and now analysis has revealed that China’s much-vaunted “economic miracle” is nothing more than the result of debt spending on a massive scale.

Stephen Green at Standard Chartered has calculated that China’s actual debt is now 250% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But in 2009, China’s debt was only around 70% of its GDP, making this meteoric rise alarming. This debt includes both public and private debt.  However, in China, the government controls much of the corporate world and financial institutions.

With a reported GDP of $9.6 trillion, China’s total debt should equal around $24 trillion. The US, by comparison, has a GDP of around $16.24 trillion, with a total debt burden of $42.2 trillion. Total public debt stands at $17.1 trillion.

While total government debt may be 53% of GDP, a major portion of the corporate and financial sector debt is directly driven by the government which operate a communist “management” policy that, at best, mixes free market policies with their overall Party agenda.

In the United States, government and private debt equal 260% of the GDP, with federal government debt right at 105% of GDP and private debt at 155% of GDP, but much of this private debt is independent of government obligation.

US Debt has also risen. At the end of 2008, just before President Obama was sworn into office, US public debt stood at around $10 trillion with a GDP at around $14.5 trillion. At the end of 2013, US public debt stood at $16.7 trillion compared to a GDP of $16.9 trillion. It is projected that 2014’s GDP will stay at around $16.9 trillion, while public debt has gone over $17.6 trillion. Household debt in the US, money owed by individuals, it at $13 trillion, near where it was in 2007, and has shrunk since the end of 2008 both as a percentage of total debt and in terms of raw amounts.

But while the total US debt has risen around 40% since 2009, an alarming number to be sure for some, Chinese debt has risen from a little under 80% of GDP to 251% of GDP, and that’s just the debt we know about. The Chinese are known for manipulating numbers in their favor, which usually means that if the numbers look bad, they are probably worse.

It would appear then that much of China’s “success” and even “growth” has been driven by a massive spending program, funneled through “private” but government controlled institutions to prop up what remains an essentially communist, and, therefore, unsustainable economy.

WORLD NEWS
William R. Collier Jr

The New Jihadi?
The New Jihadi?

Iraq’s warring factions, and the government, have come to the realization that controlling cyber-space is a necessary war-fighting element, as important as land warfare or aerial domination. Cyberspace, the place where people communicate, get information, and collaborate is the new target.  Those who dominate the landscape can operate freely while preventing their enemy from operating freely.

We have learned how ISIL/ISIS has used cyberspace for sophisticated command and control, giving them quite modern and advanced communications capabilities once only available to first world nations. Simply turning off the space is becoming as difficult as turning off the sky: too many communications and transactions depend on the existence of that space.

In Iran, for instance, during the 2009 uprising the government tried to turn off the space. The problem? Millions of government and financial transactions required the use of that space. So the internet was “turned back on” and the government tried to control the space. Today, the ability of governments to control that space short of turning it off is limited. A simple software solution, such as creating a program that filters out certain sites based on content or location, will not work- insurgents and criminals can get around those blocks or simply burrow deep into “spaces” (websites or social networks) that are not blocked.

Criminals and insurgents in Iraq have taken to employing groups of cyber operators.  Some act as sleuths, some create malware and other programs designed to spy on targeted computers and networks, some operate “clone accounts” to insinuate themselves into groups, some conduct “operations” (like denial of service attacks, physhing schemes that are meant to steal user names and passwords) and still others operate web crawling and spidering tools to obtain data.

In Iraq, cyber warfare observers have noted that full-on cyber war is being waged. In one instance, a Trojan Horse program was inserted through a link to a “friendly” article clicked on by the targets.  The program turned on microphones and video and allowed ISIL to literally see and hear the internal workings of an opposition group operating in Iraq.

Of all the actors, including the government, ISIL has perhaps invested the most resources into these operations, while their operators have also devised clever ways to maintain secure communications for a sophisticated command and control. We have even hear rumors of an ISIL program that allows for a missile hack whereby a “dumb” rocket is guided to a target by Google maps. This is not as precise as US “smart munitions”, but it is far more sophisticated than what has been available.

The now “old” idea of tracking IP addresses is also not enough. These groups create multiple layers of proxy servers and, now, “ip hopping” programs change the IP address of a server every few seconds. The best way to locate the enemy is to actually get an operator into their network who obtains that information, or enough hints to allow for “investigations” to track locations.

It is believed that ISIL operators succeeded in tracking an Iraqi police chief to his home, the location of which had been a closely guarded secret, by infiltrating an online group and inserting a “snooper” program into the police HQ’s computer network which had been accessible to informants. The infamous video of his beheading is proof enough that, for ISIL. cyber warfare is a major component of their warfare.

Near as we can tell, the Iraqi government has not been up to the task of countering this. Cyber space in Iraq is dominated by closely knit groups. The government’s operations are compromised because there are infiltrators involved and they have not worked out a process for vetting potential cyber operators that has worked. Only government cyber units that are coherent by tribe and sect have had any real success in preventing infiltration.

So the cyber landscape for average Iraqis is a dangerous one, although most malware infections have been rather targeted. Generally when “civilians” have had their computers compromised, it is because they are associated with or physically near a target of such operations. We are witnessing the first “collateral damage” due to cyber warfare.

But could this cyber battlefield be extended?

ISIL, for its part, envisions a Caliphate stretching from the Turkish border that includes the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula at least.  Future targets of their cyber warfare will include all those nations and, possibly, even Turkey (this despite reports that Turkey’s Prime Minister has been secretly sending them arms).

All around the world, criminals and potential insurgents are seeing cyber space as the next frontier in lateral warfare or guerrilla warfare and many of the world’s governments are ill prepared for this onslaught.

REPORT
William R Collier Jr

ALARM BELLS RING OVER ERDOGAN’S INTENTIONS

Recep Tayyip Erodgan
Recep Tayyip Erodgan

Is Turkey secretly preparing for war again Greece? Meanwhile, a Turkish politician says Erdogan is secretly arming ISIL and al-Qaeda. Is Erdogan a secret Salafist bent on war and dictatorship?

Three developments are raising alarm bells regarding the true intentions of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist, and possibly Salasfist, Prime Minister. The three developments include accusations that Erdogan is arming ISIL and al-Qaeda, accusations that Erdogan will set up a presidential dictatorship if he wins the August 10th to 24th Presidential elections, and accusation that his military is preparing for war against Greece.

A Turkish politician from the “Republican People’s Party” has made the stunning accusation, with alleged documentary proof, that the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, is actively funneling money and weapons to the so-called “Islamic State”, an  extremely radical Salafist group that has seized territory and is terrorizing Muslims and non-Muslims who do not conform to their ideological fanaticism.

erdogan arming isil

Party Deputy Chairman Bülent Tezcan held a press conference on the very steps of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara. According to Tezcan, a National Intelligence Organization (MIT in Turkish) truck was seized in the city of Adana as part of an investigation several months ago. The documents, which Tezcan showed at the press conference, revealed that police who seized the truck discovered a large stash of small arms.

Tezcan said, “the records leave no room for doubt that the government has sent weapons and ammunition to the terrorist organizations al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria.” Attached to the weapons were further documents, written in a Cyrillic script, probably indicating that they are Russian. The truck picked up the shipment from Ankara’s Esenboğa Airport, having been flown in, possibly from Russia, according to the testimony of the driver and other people involved in the shipment.

Party Deputy Chairman Bülent Tezcan scuffles with Erdogan's party in parliament earlier this year.
Party Deputy Chairman Bülent Tezcan scuffles with Erdogan’s party in parliament earlier this year.

He said, “the weapons that were given to ISIS have now beeen turned against Turkish citizens. “ He also asked “whether the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government have struck a deal with ISIS?” This is the part of the government in power.

Most sensationally, he accused the government of arming these groups directly.

“So have you [the government] carried the missiles you will throw at Turkey with these trucks in advance? Was it these trucks that carried the weapons used in the Reyhanlı attacks?” he asked. He was referring an attack in the border town of Reyhanlı on May 11, 2013. The attack resulted in 53 causalities and is believed to have been carried out by al-Qaeada.

“Is it not a crime in international law to arm the militants of ISIL and al-Qaeda like this in the Middle East?” Tezcan asked during the press conference. “We know the answers to all of these questions and the government also knows the answers and they will one day give their answers in front of the Supreme State Council in Turkey, the name the Constitutional Court assumes while trying the current or former members of a government, and before international courts.”

The idea that elements of the Turkish government might be arming such groups goes hand in hand with reports that Turkey and Qatar are alone in the Muslim world urging Hamas to turn down cease-fire offers in what some see as a bid to create further unrest and instability. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party may be seeking to create external bogeyman and crisis in order to gain support during elections, or they may be secretly pursuing a Salafist agenda, which is worrisome to Turkish citizens.

The second accusation leveled against Erdogan is that he is plotting to create a dictatorship.

Erdogan, a would be dictator?
Erdogan, a would be dictator?

The first round of the Turkish Presidential Elections is slated for August 10, 2014 and some fear that Erdogan wants to win at all costs. Currently, he is the Prime Minister and as President It is expected that if Erdogan won the Presidency he must resign as Prime Minister, but if he chose to hold on to both offices together he could set himself up as a dictator, say some opponents.

Recently. Erdogan raised eyebrows when he stated that Israel’s operations in Gaza were far worse than anything Hitler did.

The Turkish people do not support groups like al-Qaeda or ISIL and if these accusation gain traction it could hurt Erdogan in the polls on August 10. Erdogan wants to change the Turkish system of government through a new Constitution that would make the government a “presidential system” in which the President holds most of the power.

It is alleged that Erdogan arranged to supply the weapons for two reasons- a secret Salafist sympathy and to barter for the release of 32 Turkish hostages held by ISIL, seized from Mosul, Iraq, in order to “look tough.”  ISIL for its part has threatened to kill Erdogan, but, critics say, “he doesn’t appear to be a man under threat.”

The third allegation is that Erdogan is plotting to wage war against Greece.

Since 2011, military observers have raised suspicions that Erdogan intends to attack Greece on the European mainland itself.

In December of 2011, the Turks began to take deliveries of 52 offensive amphibious bridges, which delivery has now been completed. The bridges would allow the Turkish Army to cross the Evros River which separates Turkish territory from the Greek mainland. The Turks also took delivery of 40 heavy de-mining vehicles which could be used to push past any Greek minefields in potential area of operations.

The 52 offensive amphibious bridges- from defencegreece.com
The 52 offensive amphibious bridges- from defencegreece.com

All of this equipment, which has value only in offensive operations, was delivered solely to the 1st Army in Eastern Thrace and to no other units of the Turkish Army.

On November 13, 2013 Greek Secretary of Defense Athanasios Davakis claimed, “There is no doubt that there is an active threat formulated by our neighbor and there is also no doubt that there is over-concentration of military forces on the Ebro (river) and Asia Minor (Aegean), and significant increase in military spending in Turkey. Also, no one denies that they have a daily air and naval practice concerning violations, procedures for search and rescue, which means that our country must at all times have corresponding and similar data, in order not to be found lacking in this reality. Since that is the fact, then (we must) manage defense planning at all levels including new structures which will weight the proper assessment of the threat and our country’s national strategy. ”

Erdogan is believed by some to be harboring a secret Salafist ambition which would come into the fore only if he wins this Presidential election, which many fear will be “highly irregular.” Others dismiss this as highly speculative and sensationalist, including many Greek politicians, who have often spoken of an improvement of Greco-Turkish relations.

Greek efforts to broaden its base of support, including with China, out of nervousness about NATO’s commitment to its sovereignty, especially in light of the Ukraine crisis, might seem understandable in light of these development in Turkey, and while few seriously believe Erdogan is a secret Salafist, the low probability is offset by the severity of the possible consequences if this is true. If these allegations are true, however, it would seriously alter the geopolitical reality in the region and could lead to a rupture of NATO.

Stay tuned here as we will continue to cover this and analyze events.

REPORT
William R. Collier Jr.

World News- Business News-  ANALYSIS of the Chinese Espionage Threat

china spy ship

Nations spy on nations. That is always a fact of life However, there are limits to which you can go before crossing a line, and increasingly nations around the world are saying that China has crossed the line.

In the latest dust-up over China’s incessant spying, the Chinese were invited to a biennial exercise called RIMPAC, a maritime safety exercise hosted by the US out of Hawaii that involves many nations. This year 24 nations have naval units on scene. They drill together, doing maritime safety and security exercises, getting to know how each navy operates, and even participating in on-shore sporting events and fraternization among personnel. It is a goodwill exercise.  Among the invited participants this year is China. So when participants noticed a Chinese spy ship shadowing the fleet not a few among the officers were incensed. It is one thing to spy on the exercise as a non-participant but to do so as a participant is considered to be rather impolitic and undiplomatic.

With so many Naval units operating together, the Chinese could obtain lots of critical data, including the sound and electronic signatures of hundreds of different types of vessels, and even signals and communications data that cannot be obtained together in one spot anywhere else.  US Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Darryn James claimed that the US has taken measures to prevent security breaches, but critics say this is simply impossible and constitutes a weak response.

But while this incident may not in and of itself be extremely alarming, it is part of an ongoing pattern of aggressive espionage that few nations of any importance have not endured at the hands of the Communist Chinese dictatorship. Aggressive efforts to obtain data have extended to both the military and civilian sector, and increasingly corporations are facing Chinese espionage in order to allow Chinese firms to steal technology and catch up with their competitors, Inside China almost every technology patented by foreign firms has been stolen and duplicated in Chinese products, especially those that do not leave China where patent and copyright laws are actually enforced.

This has not only given the Chinese an unfair economic advantage, it is allowing their military to make technical advances which could, some warn, make China a greater military threat than the Japanese Empire of World War Two was to Asia and the Pacific.

The use of aggressive cyber warfare, with every Chinese University hosting what amounts to a cyber-espionage center with tens of thousands of “cyber sleuths” and hackers being employed, has earned the ire of its many victims- hacking directly into intelligence computers or even a nation’s corporate computer systems is technically an act of war.  Under that definition, the Chinese have been waging war on MOST of the world’s leading nations for over a decade.

But this effort is not the only effort, it is “all encompassing”, and includes potentially every single one of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals who go abroad as students, tourists, and for business. Every Chinese national who leaves the country has to be interviewed by state security and many, certainly not all or most, are asked to obtain information which it is illegal for them to obtain.

Increasingly, world intelligence agencies are casting about over “the Chinese question” and how to “make them pay.” A May 2014 filing by the Justice Department against three Chinese who were accused of hacking into computers from US companies in Western Pennsylvania to steal technology was widely viewed as a “shot across the bow”. essentially warning the Chinese that there will be consequences for these activities.

The “dragon of Asia” is in fact a communist dictatorship and if or when the supply of stolen technology is cut off, their system is itself incapable of making such advances and they would quickly begin to lose ground. The policy of “economic engagement” was meant to allow the West to “influence” the Chinese for the cause of freedom and free markets.

Instead, this policy has benefited the Chinese at everyone else’s expense and has allowed them to become a serious military threat to their neighbors. Chinese “enlightenment” in the area of human rights has been limited and shallow, often involving no more than “show cities” where an “open” policy is somewhat pursued while throughout most of China traditional communist oppression is rather the norm.

How angry the world powers are, and what kind of push back they give, remains to be seen but China has succeeded in the grand theft of trillions of dollars worth of stolen technology, but the price may be the eventual economic and diplomatic isolation of the Chinese Community e, which would very quickly lead to economic retrenchment and military decline. The only question is, do the world powers have more to offer in their own defense other than mere words and warning?

Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here