The US Military Machine Is Unsustainable
For nearly two centuries the United States has been an expansionist power. Though it was the War of 1812 when the U.S. solidified its dominion over the Americas, it was at the twilight of the Spanish-American War when the American Empire finally came of age. The first two decades of the 20th century marked America’s transition — for better or worse — into a global superpower.
By the end of the First World War, the United States had solidified itself as an emerging global power until finally asserting itself as the world’s dominant ascendancy in the aftermath of World War II. From 1945 and over the course of the next fifty years, the U.S.’s sphere of influence would continue to expand its global network of military installations in order to curtail Soviet influence. Now, nearly three decades following the USSR’s collapse, there are still 800 formal U.S. bases across eighty countries worldwide. Not only is this unacceptable, but it is also needlessly wasteful. Since 2001, close to $6 trillion has been spent on wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. The utility of the empire’s foreign military infrastructure is simply not worth the cost required to sustain it; therefore, the number of bases worldwide should be strategically reduced to only those installations that are essential to defending the homeland and protecting international commerce.
Though the USSR no longer threatens liberal hegemony, U.S. foreign policy is still rooted in a Cold War mindset. While an official plan for base realignment and closure was presented in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, only a select few installations were shut down; most were simply repurposed and assigned to deter other perceived threats to U.S. primacy. However, very few of these installations actually do much to help secure the homeland. In fact, this was not even their original intended purpose! They were designed to defend liberal hegemony, which is no longer the centralized bloc it once was. While American primacy may have made logical sense in the post-war era, in order to halt the spread of communism (although that too has been subject to debate), there is no longer any practical need for the extent of its power to be so expansive.
Today, the single largest concentration of U.S. foreign bases is located within the eurozone, where there exist roughly 300 military installations. Since 1942 the U.S. has maintained a permanent presence in Europe and, after the Second World War, played a significant role in stabilizing the continent, which would go on to serve as the key focal point for NATO. Since then, the EU has become incredibly self-sufficient; the combined European armed forces and nuclear arsenals are more than capable of deterring potential threats without the need for U.S. assistance. Every major European nation is wealthy enough to afford its own defense. It is therefore strategically useless for the U.S. to maintain such a gargantuan military presence in the EU, whose members are already among America’s closest allies.
Having more military bases does not automatically create more deterrence. The U.S. currently has several dozen forward operating bases in the Middle East, hundreds of smaller outposts, and a combined garrison of over 30,000 military personnel. If deterrence were a certainty, then a force of that magnitude would be able to ensure stability in the region. Having more soldiers does not equate to more stability; more likely is that there is a maximum threshold of marginal utility. Depending on how one chooses to define a “military installation,” the U.S. currently has somewhere between four and nine bases in Iraq. In a country that size, having, say, seven bases and nine thousand soldiers is no more effective than having only three bases and three thousand soldiers. The U.S. armed forces possess a far greater technological advantage over other militaries as well. This means that fewer soldiers are thus required for an occupation to be successful. Regarding defense of the homeland, a high-tech defense system would be enough to deter potential aggressors; bases and outposts on islands throughout the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans would be the only foreign installations needed in order to supplement that.
While the purpose of military occupation is to produce deterrence, such endeavors often have the exact opposite effect in contrast to the intended result. It often makes a population more wary and resentful toward the occupying force. Attempts to exhort hegemony have undermined the sovereignty of some countries, resulting in the rise of reactionary elements that oppose Western influence. The rise of ISIS, for example, was something that happened largely in response to the invasion of Iraq. Additionally, Russia expanded into Georgia and Ukraine partially in retaliation to NATO expansion.
As of 2024, the national debt sits at nearly $35 trillion. The military budget accounts for close to 15% of all U.S. federal spending, and since 2016, over $600 billion has been spent every year on “national defense” alone, making it the largest of all discretionary budgets at nearly 50%. Up to $120 billion of this is spent on the upkeep of foreign bases, and an additional $70 billion on contingency operations. Even if just half of all nonessential U.S. bases were closed, the United States would save billions of dollars — money that would better be allocated toward paying off the national debt, a third of which is owned by foreign entities such as China. If America cannot afford to sustain its own military, then there is no reason for her military to be that large. Unrestrained militarism and high levels of deficit spending have contributed to the demise of countless great powers throughout history. Having a military is important, but it is also important that the U.S. only finance what it can afford; this requires relegating spending to focus on funding only the essentials. The simplest way to start would be by closing foreign bases that are of no importance to national defense.
A common concern among interventionists is that base closure will create power vacuums in unstable regions; this, they argue, leads to more violence and war, especially in the Middle East. A popular belief is that the military does not just deter U.S. adversaries but its allies as well. Without America to keep them in check, it has been argued, nothing would stop even Western-aligned authoritarians from violating human rights or invading other countries. While closing bases in Europe would be an effective means of cutting spending, some argue against doing so, as these bases provide the U.S. military with quick and easy access to Eurasia in case there were ever need for intervention.
Geopolitical primacy is not necessarily a byproduct of military supremacy; in order to remain an influential superpower, all America has to do if she is to remain a powerful world power is to place a primary focus on the defense of its immediate sphere of influence and securing economic interests.
The extent of America’s presence in the Middle East (if anything) would pragmatically best be relegated to only a handful of installations. Finally, the United States European Command’s area of responsibility should be reduced to encompass only a fraction of its current size, both in relation to the number of U.S. bases there are and the percentage of military personnel that are currently stationed in the eurozone. If the U.S. is to maintain a presence at all, there should not be any more soldiers stationed than are needed to sustain a pragmatically formidable presence. Other than that, there is little need to maintain such a vast network of military installations around the world; not only are many of these bases relics of a bygone era, but they are also a serious drain on resources and taxpayer dollars.
The current trajectory of American imperialism is, ironically, counterproductive to the perpetuation of the empire itself. Military supremacy is inherently unsustainable and is an inadequate premise upon which to assert international hegemony. American internationalists would do best to recognize that it can only survive if it is restrained. If America hopes to remain a superpower, it can no longer afford to cannibalize its economy in the name of wanton imperialism.
Economist Warns Warren Buffett Deliberately Triggered Stock Market Crash— Major Collapse Imminent
Tim Walz’s Wife Gushes Over 2020 BLM Riots: ‘I Could Smell the Burning Tires, I Kept the Windows Open as Long as I Could’
The wife of Kamala Harris’s VP pick Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) once gushed over the violent Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 following the death of crackhead criminal George Floyd.
Minnesota First Lady Gwen Walz in an interview said she relished in the caustic smells of burning tires emanating from the destructive BLM riots.
“Those first days when there were riots…I could smell the burning tires, and that was a very real thing. I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,” she said on “Nightcast.”
This clip of Minnesota First Lady Gwen Walz is making the rounds.
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) August 6, 2024
Her reflection on the 2020 riots:
“I could smell the burning tires…I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening.”
pic.twitter.com/YcxgFIi5QN
Her remarks circulating on social media drew criticism from conservatives.
“Everything you need to know about leftist elites can be found in this short clip. Tim Walz’s wife sat by the window enjoying the smell of poor neighborhoods burning during the Floyd riots. She did everything but pull out a fiddle,” noted The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh.
Everything you need to know about leftist elites can be found in this short clip. Tim Walz’s wife sat by the window enjoying the smell of poor neighborhoods burning during the Floyd riots. She did everything but pull out a fiddle.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) August 6, 2024
pic.twitter.com/IVJYORX4vu
While Gwen was doing that, his daughter was telling rioters that the National Guard wasn’t going to be deployed and that they were free to keep burning buildings. pic.twitter.com/6Gvw8q0fYb
— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) August 6, 2024
When Americans speak derisively about political elitists, this is exactly who they’re referring to.
— Mike J. Shea (@Shea1Mike) August 6, 2024
This horrible woman, her husband and their limousine liberal comrades are the bane of the USA.
“I could smell the burning” is the most cheese-and-wine-liberal thing I’ve ever heard
— Tim (@TimTheWitness) August 6, 2024
She wanted to smell the burning businesses so they could be her touchstone of what was happening? Fuck communism is evil.
— SamanthaJBryant (@SamanthaJBryan1) August 6, 2024
Tim Walz’s radical history, particularly his support for the widespread BLM riots in 2020, has come into sharp focus after Kamala Harris tapped him as her 2024 running mate on Tuesday.
In 2020, Tim Walz allowed for BLM and ANTIFA to riot all across Minneapolis. Kamala Harris used her X account to help bail the Minneapolis rioters out of jail. Ironically, Tim and Kamala will call President Trump a “threat to democracy.”
— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) August 6, 2024
pic.twitter.com/y6AM09VXK1
This was Minnesota under Gov Tim Walz: pic.twitter.com/6CCbhyOPca
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 6, 2024
Harris picking Walz as her VP candidate appeared to be such a political miscalculation that even former President Donald Trump issued a statement thanking Harris for choosing him as her running mate.
The nationwide looting and vandalism from the George Floyd Riots resulted in an unprecedented $2 billion in damage, costing the insurance industry more than any other violent demonstrations in recent history, and left at least 19 people dead.
The Democrat Ticket To Woke Hell
Current Democrat Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris in all of her lunacy has chosen the most radical VP candidate imaginable, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
Aside from Walz’s clear socialist leanings is his equally atrocious track record.
Walz oversaw the destruction of Minnesota during the George Floyd riots, claiming that the carnage that did billions in damage to small Minnesota businesses was peaceful.
Walz has also overseen the influx of a non-assimilated Somalian refugee population that has cheated elections, bribed jurors, and alarmed the quiet Minnesota community with their own rioting.
And in a cowardly measure, Walz changed the age old Minnesota Flag to one representing the Somali Flag.
“I Wish I Was Black”: Actor Ben Stiller Pledges $150K to Kamala Harris Over Her Ethnicity
Actor Ben Stiller declared he’s donating over $100,000 to Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, mentioning her gender and racial identity as reasons he’s voting for her.
Appearing in a “Comics for Kamala” Zoom interview, the Zoolander star declared he actually likes Kamala’s nervous cackles, saying the bizarre bursts of laughter at inappropriate times show she’s genuine.
“It’s beautiful when she laughs because she’s a real person,” Stiller said at one point during the fundraising call.
“She’s also a historic candidate,” he continued, diving into her racial background. “It’s going to be the first woman president and that’s incredibly exciting. She’s Indian, she’s black, she’s everything. You can be more than one thing, it’s incredible.”
Ben Stiller announces he is donating $150K to Kamala Harris and then says:
“I wish I was black—every white Jewish guy wishes he was black.” pic.twitter.com/PPnsUObC5M— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 6, 2024
The Tropic Thunder actor went on to say as a “white Jewish guy,” he’s always wanted to be black.
“You know, I’m Jewish and Irish. I wish I was black. Every white Jewish guy wishes he was black. You know, get out there and vote and donate and take advantage.”
The Meet the Parents actor previously wore blackface during a scene in the 2001 film Zoolander.
Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures.
Stiller’s comments drew criticism, with many pointing out he was playing into identity politics and cares nothing about Kamala’s actual policies.
Damn what about intelligence? What about policy? Ben stiller is a moron.
— Sassafrass84 (@Sassafrass_84) August 6, 2024
“She’s a woman, she’s Indian, she’s black”
— David Santa Carla ? (@TheOnlyDSC) August 6, 2024
Didn’t name one political achievement.
DEI
All these clowns see is identity politics.
— Based Electrician⚡️?? (@RyanHugeBrain) August 6, 2024
These people are idiots but unfortunately they have lots of money.
— Philip Anderson (@VoteHarrisOut) August 6, 2024
We need to start raising big money for Trump.
Stiller was one of several actors who attended the “Comics for Kamala” fundraising event, including Jane Fonda, Nick Offerman, Kathy Griffin, John Stamos, Tiffany Haddish, Mark Hamill and Rosie O’Donnell.
Watch a longer clip of Stiller’s appearance on the fundraising call.
Ben Stiller announces he is donating $150K to Kamala Harris because “I wish I was black—every white Jewish guy wishes he was black.”pic.twitter.com/hNl7FEMjaQ
— Douglass Mackey (@DougMackeyCase) August 6, 2024
The Rule of Law And Property Rights
Respect for the rule of law cannot simply mean a moral obligation to obey legislation. History is replete with too many examples of tyrannical legislation for that notion to pass muster. But if the rule of law does not mean obeying whatever legislators enact, what does it mean?
Murray Rothbard argued that this question must be answered by reference to ethical guidelines, which he constructed around the concepts of self-ownership and property rights. Rothbard conceptualized property rights as inalienable and absolute natural rights. Seen in that light, eminent domain legislation is unethical and unjust. The example of New York illustrates the significance of this point, as explained by the Institute for Justice:
“In New York, eminent domain gives the government the power to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell. But under the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain must be for a ‘public use,’ which traditionally meant projects like roads or bridges. Meanwhile, the government must pay the owners ‘just compensation’ for their property.
“Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted federal protection against unconstitutional eminent domain when it handed down its decision in Kelo v. New London in 2005. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the definition of ‘public use’ to include private economic development. In other words, local governments can condemn homes and businesses and transfer them to new owners if government officials think that the new owners will produce more taxes or jobs with the land.
“As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her dissent: ‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.’”
South Africa has gone even further with its expropriation laws, by providing in its constitution that “public purpose” can include anti-racism, equity and protection of “vulnerable groups.”
“In terms of section 25(4)(a) of the Constitution ‘public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources.’ Section 25 (8) further states that the state may take ‘legislative steps and other measures … in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination.’”
Under proposed amendments for expropriation without compensation, just compensation would include nil compensation, meaning that nil compensation would be explicitly permitted under the constitutional provisions requiring payment of compensation. After all, the constitution does not specify any amount of payment but states simply that the amount paid must be just and equitable. The argument is that an amount of nil would in some cases be just and equitable and that “expropriation without compensation” is therefore already implicitly permitted:
“The Committee, reporting in November, concluded in favour of amendment ‘to make explicit that which is implicit’, namely that EWC is permissible (CRC, 2018: 34). EWC, it affirmed, is a justifiable objective, which is already provided for, but amendment should nonetheless be pursued.”
Any legal system which purports to protect property rights but empowers the state to extinguish property rights in the “public interest” cannot purport to uphold the rule of law, unless the rule of law is to become a meaningless idea which means “do whatever the state commands.”
In its traditional sense, the concept of the rule of law did not mean simply “obey the government.” It also reflected the ideal of individual liberty and the idea that the law should grant all individuals equal protection for their rights to liberty and property. As David Gordon has observed, “The rule of law is an ideal commanding wide respect, by no means confined to those of classical-liberal or libertarian inclinations.” It commands wide respect precisely because it transcends political and ideological divisions, reflecting the ideal that all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law against the violation of their rights. If the rule of law requires the equal protection of citizens’ property rights, then any laws which extinguish property rights instead of protecting them is not “the rule of law” but its very antithesis.
In “The Constitution of Liberty” Friedrich Hayek draws a distinction between what is legal, in the sense that it is permitted by the law, and the rule of law as a constitutional principle which limits the powers of the state, including its power to enact legislation that undermines liberty and justice:
“[The rule of law] is a doctrine concerning what the law ought to be, concerning the general attributes that particular laws should possess. This is important because today the conception of the rule of law is sometimes confused with the requirement of mere legality in all government action. The rule of law, of course, presupposes complete legality, but this is not enough: if a law gave the government unlimited power to act as it pleased, all its actions would be legal, but it would certainly not be under the rule of law. The rule of law, therefore, is also more than constitutionalism: it requires that all laws conform to certain principles.”
Many terrible things can therefore be legal — slavery was legal for many centuries, and racial segregation was legal in many jurisdictions. Abortion and euthanasia, which many people also hold to be abhorrent, are also legal in many jurisdictions. Current race-based laws, described as “equity,” are also legal in that they are permitted by various equality, human rights and civil rights laws. But as Hayek observed, the fact that what the state permits is completely legal does not mean it conforms to the rule of law. Hayek saw the rule of law as “a rule concerning what the law ought to be, a meta-legal doctrine or a political ideal … a common ideal shared and unquestioningly accepted by the majority.”
Statutory interventions that undermine property rights reveal a painful truth — Hayek’s notion of a “political ideal” shared by the majority is breaking down. Many in the West no longer uphold the sanctity of property rights reflected in the English or early American common law. Instead, they embrace utilitarian precepts that accord significant weight to egalitarian ideals. In a cost-benefit analysis of seizing people’s homes to house immigrants, they would give significant weight to diversity, inclusion and equity as a benefit of such expropriation. Yet even in the face of these pressures — indeed, especially when faced with these challenges — it is important to uphold the rule of law in its traditional sense of an ideal requiring the protection of life, liberty and property.
Economist Warns Warren Buffett Deliberately Triggered Stock Market Crash— Major Collapse Imminent
Chinese Nationals Who Illegally Entered U.S. Found With $250,000 in Gold Bars
Two Chinese nationals were arrested in East Texas after police found them with $250,000 worth in gold bars during a traffic stop Thursday.
Weijian Chen, 25, and Wenqiang Lin, 46, were arrested for money laundering between $150,000 and $300,000, according to court records.
“A Wills Point detective pulled over the vehicle that Chen and Lin were riding in after he noticed the car was following another vehicle too closely. The detective asked Chen, who was the driver, to speak with him at the patrol vehicle using a translation app. The officer said he believed there was criminal activity ‘afoot,’” KYTX-TV reported.
Adding to the detective’s suspicions, Chen told him they were flying from Los Angeles to Atlanta for a day to “play.”
And when asked about three bags in their rental vehicle, Chen denied the detective’s request to search them.
At that point, the detective deployed a K-9 unit which found $250,000 of gold bars in one of the bags.
The detective’s K-9 conducted a sniff search of the vehicle. The detective found a boarding pass for a flight from Los Angeles on July 30 that landed in Atlanta on July 31. The search then led to the detective finding a bag behind the driver’s seat with multiple pieces of gold bars inside. The value of that gold totals about $250,000, according to the affidavit.
The affidavit said both Lin and Chen claimed they did not know who the bag or the gold belonged to. Both men were then placed under arrest.
It turned out the two Chinese nationals entered the U.S. illegally in late 2023 from Mexico after taking an elaborately long journey from China, and were then allegedly asked to transport the gold bars to Dallas.
After contacting an agent with Homeland Security, the Wills Point detective learned Lin entered the United States illegally and was encountered by U.S. Border Patrol on Sept. 15, 2023, in California. He was given a notice to appear in court and released without having to post bail. Chen came into the United States on Dec. 17, 2023, in California and also given a notice to appear in court and released without having to post bail as well, the document read.
In an interview with police at the Van Zandt County Jail, Chen said he received the gold bars by someone asking him to take the gold to Dallas. He didn’t give any more information. Lin said he left China, went to Hong Kong, then flew to Turkey and flew to Mexico from there. Lin said he then traveled through Mexico with others from China to attempt entry into the U.S., the affidavit stated.
Van Zandt County District Attorney Tonda Curry said the two men’s travel history suggested they were involved in cartel activity.
“I’m sure there are good people who are leaving horrible circumstances, but among those good are people who help organizations that prey on U.S. citizens,” Curry said, adding she doesn’t know if the two men came into the U.S. as refugees.
“They were arrested for money laundering. No formal charges have been filed yet,” Curry said.
As we’ve reported, hordes of military-age Chinese males have been crossing the U.S. southern border with the help of shady NGOs and the Border Patrol under Joe Biden.
INSIDE THE DANGERS OF CHINESE MIGRANTS ENTERING INTO AMERICA:
— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) August 1, 2024
Chinese migrants are coming into America in record numbers and nobody knows where they go after they cross the border. I spoke with a lady whose property is the border line and she says the Chinese migrants tell her… pic.twitter.com/0ZDX72254m
In fact, illegal crossing by Chinese nationals have skyrocketed by 14,000% since 2021, with over 30,000 Chinese nationals illegally entering through the San Diego sector alone since October 2023.
Watch DA Curry’s news conference on the arrests: