The Excuse We Needed: War with Iran Draws Near

From Truth and Culture-Dr. Brian Phillips

American-Iranian relations have been strained for some time, as the U.S. has raised continual concerns that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Iran has denied all such charges, claiming that they have only been using nuclear materials for energy development – a practice allowed by international law.

Many Americans defend the idea of military action against Iran because the assumption is that they are guilty of developing a nuclear arsenal, even though there is no proof of those assertions.  After all, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist group (only designated as such by George W. Bush’s executive order)!  How dangerous the world would be, the thinking goes, if Iran had a nuclear weapon! Wouldn’t they attack Israel?

Well, one could simply ask Egypt and Syria what happens to a nation that attacks Israel.  They were both embarrassingly defeated, though they attacked Israel together.  Additionally, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  Do Americans really have to worry about their well-being?  It would seem that if America is deeply concerned about Israel’s safety, the simplest move would be to get out of the way.

Perhaps there are other motives for picking a fight with Iran?

David Broder of The Washington Post, one of the more well-respected journalists in recent history and 400 time guest on Meet the Press, argued that starting a war with Iran would be the surest way for Barack Obama to garner conservative support, help the economy, and save his presidency.

Spend 2011-2012 attacking Iran, Broder advised the President, and enjoy your reelection.  Apparently the time has come…

The story broke today that U.S. authorities foiled a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.  Two men - Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri – have been charged in the plot and each of them is claimed to have strong ties to the Iranian government.

In fact, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder minced no words on the connection between the alleged assassins and Iran.  He said, “High-up (Iranian) officials…were responsible for this plot.  I think one has to be concerned about the chilling nature of what the Iranian government attempted to do here.”

The Iranian government quickly disavowed any involvement in the plot and released this statement on their English television network – “The Islamic Republic of Iranhas rejected U.S. accusations of the country plotting to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington as a prefabricated scenario.”  The denial was repeated by the Iranian spokesman to the United Nations.

Such denials, however, did not stop Holder from calling this a “flagrant violation of U.S. and international law” and promising that the U.S. will hold Iran accountable.

It would seem an open and shut case.  The two men were apprehended and, though both are said to have confessed everything to law enforcement.  Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was read his Miranda rights and given a public defender (as opposed to the “droning” he would have received on foreign soil).

Arbabsiar reportedly approached a Mexican drug cartel for help in the plot, but his contact turned out to be an agent of the D.E.A.

Yes, indeed, an open and shut case.  And even though Iran denies the allegations of their involvement, all Americans know they are liars, right?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told The Associated Press that, “the idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?”

Wait…was she asking or telling?

It remains to be seen what “hold accountable” means, but it seems the war hawks are circling again.  After all, it is election season.

Article also appeared on Antiwar.com – October 12, 2011

I Am a History Teacher & I Lie to My Students

Taken from "Truth & Culture" by Dr. Brian Phillips

On September 30, 2011, I woke up and began my daily routine, preparing for another day of teaching history to high school students.  In the course of an average school year, I literally teach the history of the world – ancient history, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modernity.  My eleventh grade students take U.S. History, a required course for any student who plans to graduate.

In that class, we spent a great amount of time going, nearly line by line, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I tell them that nothing else in U.S. History matters as much as their understanding of these documents.  The Constitution is what protects us, guides us, and rules us as a people.  The Bill of Rights, I say, guarantees that government does not overstep the bounds laid out for it by the Founding Fathers.  Those amendments help protect our dignity, our liberty, and our lives.

I am lying to them…

What I tell them about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is true, but I fear that, for them and their children (and for my own children) these wonderful documents will rank with the other insignificant dates and dead people of history.  The Founding Fathers will simply be dead guys who had a pretty good idea a few centuries ago.

The proof of this depressing claim is legion – from unconstitutional government programs and departments, to the tyrannical taxes levied against us, to the undeclared wars and “selective service” that will likely take some of the young men in my classes to die in foreign nations (even before they are allowed to drink beer).  Yes, all of these things show it quite clearly.

Our government has trampled what my students memorize, and the rights of the people continue to diminish in shameful ways.  But, surely none can be more shocking than what I witnessed on that morning of September 30^th.  As I drank coffee and ate breakfast, I took a moment to catch up on the morning news.  Fox News led the nation in rejoicing with a “Breaking News” segment that celebrated the death of terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone attack in Yemen and, as the Associated Press later reported, he was the intended target of the attack.  Another man, Samir Khan, was also killed in the bombing.  Both were U.S. citizens.

According to the same article, Al-Awlaki was the suspected mastermind of several terrorist plots, including “the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing of a U.S.-bound aircraft. The official said that al-Awlaki specifically directed the men accused of trying to bomb the Detroit-bound plane to detonate an explosive device over U.S. airspace to maximize casualties.”

Born in New Mexico, al-Awlaki was never charged with any crime, never received a trial, and though the military could pinpoint his exact location, there was no actual attempt to arrest him.

I reflect over the lies I have told: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (5^thAmendment).

Samir Khan, from my own state of North Carolina, was not an intended target, but he did produce a magazine that gave instructions on how to use bombs and weapons and, the Associated Press assures us, it was read by lots of people.  He happened to be in the same caravan of vehicles as al-Awlaki, so he too was killed.  Guilt by association, I guess.

More lies: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” (6^th Amendment).

“But,” the bloggers and commentators bellow out, “these men were terrorists!  They relinquished their rights of citizenship when they turned against us!”  The government can take one’s citizenship when they break the law?

There can be little doubt that these men committed treason, so I breathe a momentary sigh of relief.  Perhaps I haven’t completely been dishonest with my students?  “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” (Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution).  If only the framers had stopped there.

The next sentence makes me face another round of lies: “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The attack has been heralded as “the latest in a run of high-profile kills for Washington under President Barack Obama.”  Kills for Washington?  What will my students think?

There can be little doubt that were Khan and al-Awlaki apprehended and tried, they would have either been found guilty or confessed in open court.  But they were not tried.  They were not charged.  They weren’t even apprehended and water-boarded.  They were killed by an armed drone.  Killed for Washington.

Citizens and political leaders throughout the nation are and will continue to rejoice over this fresh kill and the deaths of these men will be used for political capital.  It is election season, after all.  Yes, the same ones who swear to uphold the Constitution will make a name for themselves by assassinating American citizens.  Does my dishonesty know no bounds?

Any right given to the government is one less right retained by the citizens.  I can hear the room of 17-year-olds reciting the 10^th Amendment.  What will become of them when their government defines “bad men” a bit differently?

I climb into my car and make the short drive to school where I must live another day with the realization that I am a history teacher…and I lie to my students.  Perhaps.  But, maybe, just maybe, they will be the ones to lift the veil.  Perhaps they will, by remembering what all others seem to have forgotten, they can reclaim what generations before are seeking to rob.

Only Tarheels and Queers… Come From North Carolina

Dave Durand - Contributor

This May, North Carolinians will have the opportunity to vote for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. While it is currently illegal for gays to marry in NC, this measure would be a hefty road block for any future legislature to repeal the current law. It is also a safeguard against any overzealous judge that may feel the need to legislate from the bench.

There are several reasons often given to justify a general ban on gay marriage, but I’ve yet to hear one that convinces me of the need to restrict the personal liberty of my fellow citizens. Here are my thoughts on the main two. 

Homosexuality is a sin, and therefore gay marriage should be illegal.

As a Christian, I completely agree with the first half of this statement. The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin. But to those who feel that sins should be outlawed, allow me to let you in on a little secret…

… there is a difference between a crime and a sin. (Gasps of Horror!!!)

A sin is an act of disobedience against God. A crime is an act of force against man. These two ideas do not necessarily overlap. For instance: It is sin to get drunk, but it is not illegal. It is a sin to cheat on your spouse, but it is not illegal. It is a sin to covet, but it is not illegal. It is sin to be selfish, but not illegal.

I am not sure why Christians don’t just use the force of government and eradicate sin all together. Why not simply make it illegal to be a homosexual. After all, it is the underlying sin that drives all this gay marriage hoop-la. Why not take it a step further and make a law mandating that everyone in America must convert to some brand of Christianity. In fact, let’s get real here and makes it illegal to not accept Christ as you personal savior. Problem solved right?

Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage.

I argue heterosexuals have done a pretty good number on the sanctity of marriage all on their own. Something like 40% of all first marriages ends in divorce, and nearly 50% of all subsequent marriages end in divorce. I am pretty sure the sanctity argument was thrown out long ago by straight couples.

Also, I just don’t get how the deeply personal relationship between you and your spouse can be somehow threatened by the existence of another relationship. Did you or did you not promise before God, your family, and your friends to uphold your marriage vows? Was there an exclusion clause in the fine print that gives you an out if two dudes tie the knot down the street? Let me ask you this. Are you any less married if gay couples are allowed to marry? Are you really worse off in any tangible way? If so, how?

So how will I vote?

Well I have to say that in the interest of liberty I will vote against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I can see no threat to my life, liberty, or property posed by gay marriage, and therefore I will not support government standing in the way of personal choice. All things being equal, I would vote to get the state out of marriage entirely, but since we are forced to ask for the government’s permission to get married, I can only support a decrease in Raleigh’s control over us.

May God help this straight, married, liberty-minded Christian.


Dave Durand is a weekly contributor to Letters to the front, and has his own mind on matters of liberty.

Federal Reserve newest bailout? Europe....AGAIN!

"To the list of mega-corporations bailed out by the United States government, we now must add — Europe. In an announcement that rocked financial markets worldwide, the European Central Bank announced today a concerted effort in combination with four other major central banks — the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Switzerland, and yes, the United States Federal Reserve — to use dollars rather than euros in an attempt to paper over the European Union’s economic woes.

Starting in October, the Federal Reserve and other major central banks will begin auctioning allotments of dollars to the European Central Bank, which will then use the new money to shore up shaky European megabanks"....Full story HERE.


"We've seen this before somewhere, ah yes, Grayson grilling Bernanke in 2009 about dollar loans to foreign banks.  Inspired by a liquidity crunch, a silent run on European banks, with no access to market capital and few dollars to spare, from the sidelines enters the Federal Reserve, with Bernanke as Peyton Manning (before the neck fusion), and The European Central Bank, the Bank of England, Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank as wideouts.  A trillion dollar Hail Mary that will postpone the inevitable for another 3 months... Full story HERE.

The Right To Fast Food

Dave Durand - Contributor

While visiting my corner convenience store, I noticed an interesting advertisement plastered on the wall outside. It read “SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) now accepted here”. It got me thinking as to why newly polished Food Stamps are now accepted at a convenience store. My assumption was Food Stamps were only accepted at grocery stores.

Turns out I was wrong. Unbeknownst to me, food stamps are accepted at a wide variety of establishments from state to state. Even as far back as the 1970s, the federal government has given out waivers which allow certain businesses to accept Food Stamps.

A little more background to set the mood…

Since 2005 the cost of the Food Stamp program ballooned from $28 Billion to $64 Billion annually. There are now 39 million people that receive some kind of food purchasing assistance. That is 1 out 7 Americans. Let that sink in for a minute. Literally 1 out of every 7 people you meet is a parasite that feeds off its taxpaying host. How can we survive as a nation when 15% of the population can’t even muster the drive to freaking feed themselves?

This is both sad and maddening, but wait, it actually gets worse. Now several states may be granted waivers that would allow fast food chains to accept Food Stamps. Currently 4 states allow for some kind of prepared meals to be purchased with Food Stamps. So it should be no surprise that YUM Brands is lobbying hard to get a piece of this very big pie. If they succeed, you’ll be seeing “SNAP” advertisements at the local KFC, Taco Bell, Long John Silver, or Pizza Hut.

Can you imagine that? We are now at the point in this country when going out to dinner is some kind of “right”. Even if you argue that food is a “right” – you absolutely cannot argue that by the way – there is no way in Hell that you can argue for the right to a Supreme Stuffed Crust Pizza or a Beefy 5 Layer Burrito.

The sickening part is that I now realize that I am an absolute chump… a sucker… a pushover…. a doormat.

Here I am living month to month on a self-imposed budget. Here I am paying my bills, and paying down debt. Here I am working hard and not asking for anything from anyone. Here I am consciously deciding to NOT EAT AT RESTAURANTS because I have my damn priorities straight.

All the while there are those who absolutely refuse to grow up. Those who refuse to take the hard road or play the hand they are dealt. Those who refuse to provide for themselves the basic necessities of life. Those who would apparently allow their children to starve to death unless they are given a voucher for a bucket of the Colonel’s original recipe, 6 biscuits, mashed potatoes, and gravy.

I’m about ready to quit my life and plug myself back into the Matrix.  

Dave Durand is a weekly contributor to the Letters to the Front blog, an amazing beer snob, and all around good guy to be around when watching a sporting event.

Subscribe to get updates from the first ever LPAC out of Reno NV this week!

The Politics of Disaster. If you declare it, relief will come

Dave Durand-Contributor

This country is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions. What do I mean by "Biblical"? What I mean is Old Testament, Mr. Reader. Real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice… dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

No, I am not just referencing Ghostbusters here. I am quoting verbatim the disaster declarations from states directly in the path of Hurricane Irene… ok maybe not “verbatim”.

I’d like to ask you to undergo a short intellectual exercise with me regarding federal disaster relief funds. But first, please read what James Madison had to say on the issue. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Right on Jimbo! There is no doubt that Madison is correct in saying there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to provide disaster relief. My objection goes a little deeper than that. I tend to take a more philosophical stance against government sponsored charity whether it is on the federal, state, or local level.

Let’s assume for a minute that you have a home, and it is burns to the ground from a lightning strike. What would you do under the circumstance? I think there are three logical and just ways to deal with this problem.

I would suspect that the vast majority of you would call your insurance agent and have the home rebuilt. Now if you are a fool and you don’t have insurance, I would think you would then have to rebuild, purchase, or rent another home. If you did not have the money for a new home or a rental, I would think you could ask your family, a friend, or a private charity to take you in during your time of need. It seems to me which ever path you take, it is logical and just.

What if instead of the three solutions presented, you broke into 1000 homes and stole $100 from each family. You then used the money to purchase a new home for $100,000? Would that be logical and just? I argue no. What if you had the ability to break into 10,000 homes and steal just $10, or 100,000 homes and steal just $1, or 1,000,000 homes and steal just $0.10? Would that then be logical and just? I say no! What if instead of mass larceny, you employ your elected representatives to tax your neighbors, give their money to you, but call it “disaster relief”. Would that then be logical and just? I still say no!

If you agree with me, then how can you support government sponsored charity such as FEMA or other disaster relief programs? How can you support government programs that will help rebuild areas affected by Hurricane Irene?  If you disagree with me, let me say it plain. What you support is the taking of property from one individual via taxation, and giving it to another for altruistic reasons. This is not charity. It is theft.

Am I responsible for my neighbor’s misfortune? Is my life and property any less my own once my neighbor’s house is reduced to a pile of ashes or is washed away in a storm surge? At what point, can my neighbor legally claim possession of my money in order to rebuild his shattered life, even if his life is shattered through no fault of his own? I’ll leave it to the reader to answer these questions.

This is not a rant against charity, altruism, hand outs, or the ideals of a community that helps those who are less fortunate. If these actions are voluntary, then they are the epitome of love, kindness, and selflessness that only a free and prosperous people can truly demonstrate. What’s more, I think that America has shown itself to be exactly the kind of nation I just described.

What I object to, is forced participation in a cause no matter how worthy, widely accepted, or useful. In the final analysis government is force, and force should only be used to repel illegitimate force. This is why we grant government the power to maintain a military, police forces, and a court system. This is why we establish laws that make it illegal for one person to initiate force on another. Once government forces you to participate in charity, then you have flipped the proper role of government on its head. Your property rights, along with you freedom, are then a thing of the past.

The Federal Gas Tax Needs to Go! Defending The Logical.

Dave Durand - Contributor

Last week, I refuted three of the commonly given (yet still asinine) reasons to KEEP the federal gas tax, which is set to expire on September 30^th. Some may say it’s easier to argue against an established position rather than come up with a convincing argument to support a position of your own. Indulge me, if you will, as I take this opportunity to put my money where my mouth is and give you my three reasons why the federal gas tax should EXPIRE.                 

#1 – The transportation needs of one state will no longer be subsidized by taxes of another.

Remember that the federal gas tax is collected at the state level, sent to Washington D.C., and then sent back to the states for spending on transportation projects.

Not surprisingly, once Washington D.C. gets its hands on your money, there is a tendency to dole out special favors to politically connected constituencies. Transportation projects are no exception, and many states actually get back more money than they collected from the gas tax. Others, then, receive back less than they collected.

For example, in 2008, North Carolina only received back 0.877% of every dollar collected from the federal gas tax. Conversely, Arkansas received back 1.110% of every dollar collected from the federal gas tax. Good for Arkansas, bad for the North Carolina. You can check the data HERE.

However, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) will argue that every state receives back MORE than they contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. 

Wait… what? 

Can the federal government turn 7 loaves and a few fish into a meal for thousands with baskets of food to spare? 

Something doesn’t add up.

What the GAO meant to say is that the Highway Trust Fund spends more than it takes in. It can do this because the Department of Transportation is allowed to raid the general tax funds when it wants to spend irresponsibly. Good thing the entire federal government doesn’t spend more than it takes in or we would be in quite a pickle.

#2 – Washington DC will no longer dictate behavior through extortion.

Like a good control freak, the central planners will only portion out certain Highway Trust Fund money if the states behave in an appropriate manner. Typically, a federal law is passed, and the states are given three years to roll over… sorry … I mean“comply”. If they don’t obey, they don’t get their money back. After all, you can’t actually expect your state and local representatives to spend your tax dollars wisely. It takes a federal bureaucrat to guide us. Want a few examples?

In 1984, 26 states set their drinking age at 18. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to mandate the minimum drinking age of 21. Just 3 years later, all 50 states had a minimum drinking age of 21, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

In 1995, 26 states did not have a zero alcohol tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to mandate a zero alcohol tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21. Just 3 years later, all 50 states had a zero tolerance law for drivers under the age of 21, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

In 2000, 31 states set the legal blood alcohol level above .08%. The same year, Congress “found” the constitutional authority to set the maximum legal blood alcohol level at .08%. In just 5 years, every state had set their maximum legal blood alcohol level at .08%, and they were rewarded by getting their own money back.

Some of these laws may very well be the smart thing to do, but just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean states should give their autonomy over the Washington D.C. Some states do stick to their guns against federal attempts to mandate helmet, primary seatbelt, and texting laws, but most are more than happy to bend over and

… well whatever.

This tendency for states to acquiesce is leading to even more problems. There is now a push in Washington D.C. to mandate Highway Trust Fund money to be diverted solely to public transportation projects. States will be required to use up to 25% of the returned funds to establish or maintain Mass Transit programs, or even worse, High Speed Rail (HSR) projects. Like all mass transit, HSR boondoggles cost billions up front, cost millions more in operating subsidies, and are used very little by the general public. Hence extortion is the name of the game.

#3 – Keep the power in your hands and your money in your pocket.

In almost every circumstance, reducing the scope and influence of government is a good thing. If taxes are indeed necessary, you should demand expanded access to those voting to deprive you of your hard earned money. Keeping the federal government out of transportation is one good step.

Besides, if your state is responsible with its resources (excuse me… your money), they may choose to maintain the current state gas tax and continue to provide the same level of transportation “services”. Some states, I suspect, will go ahead and raise their gas tax to up to the federal level so they can continue to squander your money on projects that favor certain constituents. The beauty in either case is that your state/county representative is a lot closer to you that your Senator or Congressman. You and your neighbors have much more control over state and local government than you will ever have over the federal behemoth.

So I say let the federal gas tax die and see if anyone notices! Are you worried?