The Billo Battalion

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bill O’Reilly is a warmonger. Nobody who has even occasionally watched him on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” can have any doubts about that. There are hardly any nations in the world where he has not urged American military intervention. Whether Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Mexico, or Russia, O’Reilly may not know all of the subtle geopolitical nuances, but he does know that he wants the American military to take swift and violent action. The United States is currently involved in military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The United States has the largest and most powerful military in the world by far. The United States has nearly 1.5 million active military personnel. It has an arsenal of thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and fighter jets. The United States Navy has 10 aircraft carriers, 72 submarines, and 62 destroyers. The Islamic State has perhaps 30,000 fighters. The Islamic State has few heavy weapons, no air force, and no navy. Yet somehow this insurgent group based in Syria and Iraq has O’Reilly saber rattling on a whole new level. News that the United States planned to spend more than $500 million to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels caused O’Reilly to think outside of his traditionalist box. Instead of suggesting something sane such as refraining from intervening in Syria and Iraq’s civil wars, O’Reilly came up with a very different and very dubious idea.

O’Reilly has recently outlined a plan for a mercenary army of English-speaking “elite fighters” who would be “well paid and well trained.” These mercenaries—who would number 25,000—would be trained in the United States by American Special Forces. Their mission would be to “defeat terrorists all over the world.” This “anti-terror army” would be led by United States and NATO commanders and would follow American military rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions. The “anti-terror army” would be paid for by nations in a coalition that want “intelligence and protection from the U.S.A. and NATO.” According to O’Reilly: “If you don’t pay, you get no help.” Active military personnel—including members of the United States armed forces—would not be eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army.”

The problems with O’Reilly’s proposal are legion. However, here is a short list of the most serious difficulties with the “Billo Battalion.”

1.  Placing this mercenary army outside of the United States armed forces raises questions about how it will function under the Constitution. Would the President or NATO be able to deploy it without authorization from Congress? Would Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution apply or not? This has the potential of giving an already Caesarian Imperial President even greater power.

2. It is ridiculous to believe that any nations in the coalition that O’Reilly imagines will actually pay for the services of the mercenary army. Nations such as Saudi Arabia will continue to assume that the United States will grant it military assistance as required because the precedent has already been set. The Saudis will naturally assume that—like during the Gulf War—when it needs military help, the United States will grant it no questions asked because of American need for oil. Other nations such as Iraq may be unable to pay for such assistance due to poor economies or anti-American public sentiment which could foment a rebellion. At best, this mercenary army would become yet another expensive boondoggle for the American taxpayer.

3. If no active military personnel are eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army,” then where will it find its members? It will either be left with inept fighters, rogues, or foreign terrorists. Or it may lead to the best-trained members of the United States military and allied militaries leaving the service in order to become mercenaries. And what will this do to morale in the United States military? Will brave and selfless American military personnel be pleased that there are these dubious mercenaries earning far more money than they do? American soldiers who have been  grievously wounded serving their country are not getting proper care through VA hospitals. An increasing number of military families are reliant upon food stamps. How would this be fair? Would the American people put up with it? 

4. Why assume that foreign mercenaries will bravely fight against terrorists if things become intense? Shiite soldiers in Iraq simply walked away rather than risk their lives protecting Sunni or Kurd communities against Islamic State insurgents. 

5. Why assume that mercenaries will be likely to follow United States rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions? Mercenaries, such as those from the Academi (the company formerly known as Blackwater) have been accused of all manner of atrocities. So have UN peacekeepers. Even if commanded by capable American or NATO commanders, how can it be certain that these mercenaries will not end up being a real life version of Kurtz’s army from Apocalypse Now?

6. A potentially volatile and likely unconstitutional group of fighters is almost certainly going to create blowback. Innocent civilians will inevitably be killed. Even if such collateral damage is unintentional and even if these mercenaries perform as admirably as American soldiers do, it is still likely to inspire suspicion and hatred among the populace in areas where this “anti-terror army” performs its deadly missions. The last thing that the American people needs is its government going out of its way to create even more enemies who wish to commit terrorist attacks.

7. How can it be guaranteed that some future Commander-in-Chief would not use this “anti-terror” army against the American people? Senator Harry Reid has called supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists.” If some future President decides that the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, PETA, or some other group of Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights are terrorists, what will stop him or her from employing this “anti-terror” army against these “domestic terrorists?” It is unlikely that American soldiers will fire upon their fellow citizens. However, foreign mercenaries will have few qualms about firing into crowds of American citizens if ordered to do so. Is giving an already tyrannical government a group of vicious Hessians to use against the American people really a good idea?

It is important to Bill O’Reilly that the United States and its President be macho. His self-esteem is apparently so low that he needs the government to knock down any other nation or group that even looks at the nation funny. Such out of control militarism has consequences. It costs blood and treasure, and it creates blowback. O’Reilly’s mercenary army is an even worse idea than those that the host usually has. 

(For a much more detailed critique of the arguments and worldview of Bill O’Reilly, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

The Fearmongering of King Abdullah

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has recently issued dire warnings about the Islamic State and other Jihadists that are wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria. He claims that the West will be the next target of the Jihadists unless the United States and its allies act quickly:

If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month. … Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East.

The remarks of the decadent and cruel Saudi tyrant raise two questions. Why is he saying this? Is he correct?

It is obvious why King Abdullah is fearmongering. He wants the United States to do his dirty work. He fears that Jihadists such as those in the Islamic State may threaten his corrupt rule. Any time that Saudi Arabia fears that its monarchy is threatened, it inevitably tricks the United States into sacrificing its blood and treasure in defense of the brutal human rights violating kingdom. When Saddam Hussein was rattling a saber at Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah coaxed the United States to attack Iraq. Knowing that inviting Osama bin Laden and his followers into Saudi Arabia to protect the kingdom and the Holy Land from Saddam Hussein would have been the first step in his overthrow, King  Abdullah coaxed President George H.W. Bush to place American troops in Saudi Arabia to defend the monarchy from both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The blowback that resulted was aimed at the United States and not Saudi Arabia, so what did King Abdullah care? It was not like any planes were flown by terrorists into any of his palaces.

King Abdullah again feels threatened, so it is American troops who must die in protecting him. It is American taxpayers who must foot the bill. It is the United States that must suffer blowback.

It is equally obvious that King Abdullah’s histrionic warning is dubious at best. There is no reason to believe that the Islamic State is any threat to Europe or to the United States. Not in the next two months. Not ever. The Islamic State is a different beast than is Al Qaeda. Despite its cruel and bloody actions, the Islamic State is not truly a terrorist organization. It is an insurgency. Baghdadi is not content to hide in a dump in Pakistan. He wishes to be a Caliph and live in opulence as does King Abdullah. The Islamic State seeks to kill Shiites in Iraq, Syria, and beyond. It seeks to form a caliphate in that region. Baghdadi is far too occupied fighting the Syrian army, the Iraqi army, and Shiite militias to even contemplate attacking the West. The Islamic State may kidnap Americans in the Middle East to use to raise financing through ransom or to use as recruiting tools as was done with James Foley. However, there is no chance that the Islamic State will be marching in with its black masks and rifles and threatening London, Paris, Berlin, or New York. They may one day be marching into Riyadh, but that is King Abdullah’s problem. It is not like the oil-rich tyrant is hard up for money. He clearly has the means to raise an army to defeat the Islamic State. Only he does not wish to spend the money or risk blowback. King Abdullah is the one who should act quickly and boldly against the Jihadists. But do not hold your breath.

The Slippery Slope of Humanitarian Military Intervention

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

By and large Americans are good-hearted. They do not like to see others suffer. They loathe cruelty and oppression. Therefore, it is only natural that many Americans favor military intervention for humanitarian reasons. When there were stories of Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti babies in incubators during the Iraqi invasion in 1990, many Americans wanted the United States military to intervene. While these stories turned out to be false, one can understand the desire to help. When Qaddafi was allegedly murdering civilians and giving his soldiers Viagra so they could rape innocent women, one could understand the desire to intervene. Of course, it turned out that these stories were untrue and that it was the Libyan rebels who were seeking to commit genocide against black Libyans who had been loyal to Qaddafi, but that is neither here nor there. When the Islamic State was allegedly set to massacre Yazidis, many Americans again wanted President Obama to risk American blood and treasure for humanitarian purposes.

Among the important questions that arise concerning humanitarian military intervention is where one draws the line. Consider the following.

1. The Egyptian military junta led by President el-Sisi has been oppressing members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Should the United States intervene militarily against Egypt on the behalf of these Islamists?

2. In Syria, both the despotic regime of Assad and the bloodthirsty Jihadist rebels have been committing atrocities. Should the United States intervene and attack both sides in this civil war?

3. Sunnis in Iraq have been massacring Shiites and Kurds. However, Shiites have also been oppressing Sunnis. Both Sunnis and Shiites have been oppressing Christians. Kurds have also oppressed Christians in Iraq. Should President Obama send American troops back into Iraq and simply kill everyone on all sides to make all this oppression stop?

4. Members of Hamas in Gaza have been killing Israeli soldiers and civilians. However, Israeli soldiers have been killing scores of civilians in Gaza. Should the United States intervene and go to war against both Palestine and ally Israel?

5. Many American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, and Kuwait are oppressive totalitarian regimes. Should the United States go to war against these nations?

6. China has long oppressed the Tibetans, members of Falun Gong, Chinese Muslims, etc. Should the United States intervene on humanitarian grounds and go to war with China despite the fact that this would set off a nuclear conflict?

7. Russia has long oppressed Chechens. Should the United States heroically defend the Chechens even though it would set off World War III and a certain Apocalypse?

Where do we draw the line? Are some human beings more equal than others? Do some have more of a right to life? Are the lives of Christians somehow worth more than the lives of non-Christians? Are the lives of Africans somehow worth less than the lives of others? Is killing large numbers of a group of people likely to make them more tolerant of others? Or is it more likely that many innocents will be killed and create unforeseen blowback? Perhaps the nation is best following the advice of John Quincy Adams:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

Military intervention nearly anywhere at any time can be justified on humanitarian grounds. If one follows this Wilsonian strategy, then it will lead to Orwellian continuous war. Ultimately, far more innocents will wind up suffering than being saved.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My … Enemy?

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

There is an old proverb that is based upon a claim made by 4th century B.C. Sanskrit writer Kautilya: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Such pragmatic thinking has not been good in terms of American foreign policy. During the Cold War this kind of thinking led to the United States embracing the likes of Ngo Dinh Diem, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Mujahideen, Colonel Husni Zaim, etc. While a noninterventionist policy like that of the Founders would be most sane, the current American policy is completely insane. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis, Iran became an enemy of the United States. The Reagan administration embraced Iran’s enemy Iraq for a short time. At least long enough to aid Saddam Hussein in committing war crimes by using chemical weapons provided by the United States against Iran. Eventually, the United States also became the enemy of its enemy Iran’s enemy Iraq by waging not one but two unnecessary wars against the nation—the second one a preemptive war of aggression. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement regarding the Iranian nuclear program, Iran remains an American enemy. Iran’s enemy the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS or ISIL) is now also an enemy of the United States. At least when the Jihadist organization is fighting against the corrupt Iraqi regime. When the Islamic State is fighting against the Syrian regime, then it is a different matter. Which makes the policy even more incoherent.

Again, the United States is the enemy of Iran. However, the United States is also the enemy of Iran’s enemy Al Qaeda for obvious reasons. Of course, the United States was formerly friends with elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the late 1970s and early 1980s. But now the United States appears to be enemies of both Russia and the former Mujahideen. Even Big Brother in Oceania was sane enough to be allied with Eurasia and/or Eastasia while warring against the other.

The United States was the enemy of Libya when that North African nation was ruled by the dictator Qaddafi. President Reagan seemed to fire missiles at Libya willy-nilly any time that he got up on the wrong side of the bed. While the United States and NATO bombed Libya and aided the rebels in winning the civil war, the United States is enemies with the Jihadist elements of the winning side in the Libyan Civil War.

What is to be gained by this new brand of American foreign policy? It simply doubles the chances for blowback. Instead of creating enemies on both sides of conflicts, the United States should simply stay out of these wars. Instead of creating new enemies with foolish and aggressive policies, the United States should be attempting to use diplomacy to turn enemies into friendly acquaintances and trading partners. The neo-progressives want war for humanitarian reasons, and the neoconservatives want war to preserve American hegemony. Both want war. Creating so many enemies on both sides of deadly conflicts pretty much ensures that the American people will get plenty of wars which will cost them blood and treasure.

Police Brutality and Blowback

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

On June 7, 2014 in Las Vegas, Jerad and Amanda Miller murdered two police officers in a pizza restaurant and killed a bystander in a Walmart before Jerad Miller was killed by police and Amanda Miller shot herself in the head. As usual, the zombie collectivist mainstream media looked to blame entire groups of innocents for the actions of two murderers. Progressive anti-constitutionalists blamed the NRA and sought to use these horrific crimes as yet another excuse to violate the natural right of Americans to bear arms. Others blamed the supposedly fringe political beliefs that the Millers held. The collectivist logic of such progressive totalitarians is that if one person who holds Tea Party beliefs, reveres the Constitution, listens to Alex Jones, believes in so called “conspiracy theories,” and mistrusts the federal government, then all who do so are equally guilty. Guilt by association. If one gun owner commits a murder, then all gun owners are murderers. If one person who espouses the views of the Patriot Movement commits a murder, then all Patriots do.

Of course, to be consistent, this would have to go both ways. Under this collectivist approach, if one person of any kind commits a murder, then every token of that type is guilty of murder. All Muslims are guilty of the 9/11 attacks. All Christians are guilty of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. All Jews are guilty of the King David Hotel bombing. All blacks are guilty of the crimes of the Zebra Killers. All Germans are guilty of the crimes of Hitler. All Russians are guilty of the crimes of Stalin. All Italians are guilty of the crimes of Mussolini. All Chinese are guilty of the crimes of Mao. All Japanese are guilty of the crimes of Tojo. All Cubans are guilty of the crimes of Castro. In the end, everyone should be seen as guilty. Perhaps everyone should be rounded up by the DHS under the NDAA and thrown in Gitmo. Or perhaps we should just focus on the individuals who commit crimes and hold them accountable instead.

One angle that has not received much attention is the fact that the Millers were inspired to commit their crimes because they saw their victims as oppressors. This merits attention. It is not to say that Officer Igor Soldo or Officer Alyn Beck were oppressors. By all accounts they were honest and hard-working officers. However, there is no doubt that there are constantly countless high profile examples of stories of law enforcement officers in all levels of American government who are oppressive. Whether it is Albuquerque police killing a homeless man, a Pittsburgh police officer punching a woman at a parade, or a Memphis police office stealing a Make-A-Wish Foundation gift from a terminally ill three-year-old child, there is no shortage of corrupt and oppressive law enforcement officers. Each and every time that some rogue cop commits a crime or abuses his or her power, it creates the potential for blowback that could cause honest police officers such as Officer Igor Soldo or Officer Alyn Beck or innocent civilian bystanders such as Joseph Wilcox to be put in harm’s way.

While the responsibility for crimes lies with those who perpetrate them, corrupt cops are guilty of exacerbating the risk of crimes against law enforcement. There are many disgruntled and unstable people like Jerad and Amanda Miller who may be like tinderboxes. Incidents of police corruption and police brutality create blowback that makes it much more likely that such individuals will act out in violent ways. This line of thinking differs greatly from scapegoating movies, songs, books, video games, or any other form of free speech. While human beings have a natural right to produce a violent movie, a song with provocative lyrics, a book with revolutionary ideas, a violent first person shooter video game, etc., there is no natural right for a police officer to commit crimes or abuse his or her authority.

Timothy McVeigh was set off by abuses of federal law enforcement authority at Waco and Ruby Ridge. While McVeigh and Nichols were responsible for their own actions, the federal officers involved in those incidents provided important causal links. Perhaps if Waco and Ruby Ridge were handled better and casualties were avoided, the atrocity in Oklahoma City would never have taken place. Unfortunately, in the eyes of statists, the government can never possibly be a causal factor in any negative consequences. Only private sector entities that they do not like could possibly be.

Does Ted Cruz Consider President Obama’s Military Action in Libya Unlawful?

by Gerard Emershaw

Republican Texas Senator and likely presidential hopeful Ted Cruz recently released a report in which he details 76 alleged abuses of  power by President Barack Obama. Many of the items on Cruz’s list are undeniable abuses of executive power such as the extrajudicial killing of Americans overseas by drones without due process, the continuation of aid to Egypt despite it being against American law to give aid to military juntas involved in coups, and treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

What is most shocking is not what appears on Senator Cruz’s list but what does not appear anywhere on it. Despite mentioning President Obama’s reference to the Fort Hood shooting as workplace violence rather than as an act of terrorism, Senator fails to mention President Obama’s unconstitutional military action in Libya. If the biggest issue with the President was a matter of semantics, things would sure be peaceful. However, President Obama egregiously violated the Constitution which mandates that only Congress may declare war. President Obama launched his so called kinetic military action in Libya without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973—which is itself likely unconstitutional—gave the President the limited power to introduce American military force overseas “in the absence of a declaration of war”:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Qaddafi and the Libyan government had not declared war against the United States. Congress did not give specific statutory authorization for President Obama’s kinetic military action against Libya. And there was no national emergency or anything even resembling an imminent attack planned by Libya against the United States. Therefore, President Obama’s military intervention in Libya—which was the catalyst which caused the blowback that led to the tragic murder of four Americans in Benghazi—was unconstitutional. In fact, if any actions performed in office by President Obama have been deserving of impeachment, his actions against Libya have.

Why is it that Senator Cruz does not believe that President Obama’s Libyan actions were unlawful abuses of power? With Senator Cruz shaping up to be a serious future contender for the Republican presidential nomination, this is an important question. It suggests that Senator Cruz believes that the president has the constitutional authority to wage war without the approval of Congress. If so, that means that he may be no different in his outlook on foreign policy and the Constitution than President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.

It seems unlikely that this was a mere omission on Senator Cruz’s part. After all, if his list includes the complaint that members of President Obama’s staff owe back taxes, then it is clear that he has pretty much cleared the decks and mentioned every complaint that he had with the Commander-in-Chief. This makes it appear likely that Senator Cruz may be a neoconservative posing as a Tea Partier. While Senator Cruz rightly opposed using the American military directly in support of Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels, he did propose that the United States military should invade Syria in order to secure and destroy its chemical weapons.

Unconstitutional interventionist foreign policy has been one of the most problematic parts of President Obama’s disastrous presidency. If Senator Cruz is ultimately an interventionist who believes in the unconstitutional neocon idea of the Imperial President, then he should admit it. If not, he should add President Obama’s Libyan misadventure as the 77th item on his list.   

The Lesson of Fallujah

by Gerard Emershaw

Al Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has seized the Iraqi city of Fallujah. What lesson can be drawn from this? Neoconservatives are likely to claim that this proves that the United States military should never have withdrawn from Iraq. They will likely blame President Obama for not encouraging—or forcing—the Iraqi government to allow American troops to remain in Iraq following the official withdrawal at the end of 2011. President Obama had every desire to maintain troops in Iraq as part of the continuous Orwellian war that he inherited, embraced, and enhanced, but the Iraqi government refused to sign a new status of forces agreement because it did not wish to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to American soldiers.

Would the sectarian violence that killed 7,818 Iraqi civilians in 2013 have occurred had American troops remained in Iraq? There is no reason to believe that it would not have. The only difference would be that there would have been thousands of American troops that could have been targeted. Would ISIS have taken over Fallujah had the United States remained in Iraq? Perhaps it would not have been Fallujah, but ISIS would have taken over a city somewhere. The United States never sent enough troops into Iraq to fully control that broken nation, so there is no reason to believe that fewer troops would have been able to do the impossible. A situation like Fallujah could easily have reignited the war and led to a new full scale American occupation of Iraq. Had Americans been in the middle of this new wave of sectarian violence, the new death toll would have dwarfed the current one of 4,486.

The true lesson of Fallujah is simple. The United States needs to return to its peaceful and noninterventionist roots. The nation needs to return to following the wisdom of the Founders. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator. There is no doubt about this. However, he did not attack the United States and was not planning to do so. He was not connected with Al Qaeda. As ugly as it is to believe, the United States would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. ISIS would not be influential in Iraq, and Iraq would still be providing a good power balance to Iran. Instead of actively supporting Iraq—as the federal government did during the Iran–Iraq War—or attacking Iraq—as the United States fruitlessly did twice—the United States should just have stayed out of situation entirely. Intervention in the Middle East has proven to be nothing but a powder keg of blowback. The lesson of Fallujah should be that the United States needs to stay out of the mess in Syria and avoid creating a new mess in Iran or anywhere else.

Iran, War, and the Health of the State

by Gerard Emershaw

Randolph Bourne famously said: “War is the health of the state.” This has proven to be a truism. War is sometimes necessary. The Revolutionary War was necessary to free the American Colonies from the oppressive yoke of British rule. However, most wars can and should be avoided. War against external enemies inevitably leads to a war against the American people. War leads to the erosion of civil liberties. From the Alien and Sedition Acts from Adams’ Quasi War to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 to Roosevelt’s internment camps to the Patriot Act to the NSA surveillance program, war against an external enemy always involves a parallel war against the Constitution. War leads to bigger government, which leads higher spending and borrowing, which leads to a greater national deficit.

That war leads to greater deficits and less freedom is so well known by now that anyone who is hawkish on war must essentially be in favor of sacrificing economic health and freedom on the altar of militarism. Based on recent events in the Senate, it seems that there are plenty of bellicose neoconservatives and neo-progressives more than willing to make this sacrifice. A cadre of over two dozen Senators—evenly split among Democrats and Republicans—are pushing a bill called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. The bill threatens new sanctions against Iran at a time when the Obama administration is attempting to diffuse tensions with that nation through diplomacy. Such sanctions never work. They punish the people while having little or no effect on a nation’s leadership. They are acts of war which court blowback and harden hearts and minds around the globe against the United States.

It is unclear why so many misguided members of the Senate are so intent on a war with Iran, but it is clear that they have been for some time. These neoconservative RINOs and Wilsonian progressives do not care that keeping the nation on a war footing is expensive and will lead to an increased deficit and, perhaps ultimately, to even higher taxes. They do not care that more hostility toward the Islamic world can lead to blowback and yet more terrorism. They do not care that an Orwellian continuous war with nations in the Middle East will only grow the NSA and the rest of the Big Brother Surveillance State. They do not care that further destabilizing the Middle East in general and Iran in particular can have a disastrous impact on the global petroleum market.

A broken clock is right twice a day, and President Obama is right about attempting diplomacy with Iran. These senators are wrong. Dead wrong. President George W. Bush infamously said regarding the fight against terrorism: “You are either with us or against us.” Well, perhaps the same thing applies here. You are either with economic and social freedom or you are against it. If you are in favor of ginning up a war against Iran, then you are most certainly against freedom. The following sponsors of this wrongheaded bill are against freedom: Menendez, Kirk, Schumer, Graham, Cardin, McCain, Casey, Rubio, Coons, Cornyn, Blumenthal, Ayotte, Begich, Corker, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Moran, Gillibrand, Roberts, Warner, Johanns, Hagan, Cruz, Donnelly, and Blunt.