“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
- James Madison

A speech before the US House of Representatives on July 1, 2010

In January 1991, we went to war in the Middle East against Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator who was our ally during the Iran-Iraq war. A border dispute between Kuwait and Iraq broke out after our State Department gave a green light for Hussein’s invasion.

After Iraq’s successful invasion of Kuwait we reacted with gusto and have been militarily involved in the entire region, six thousand miles from our shores, ever since. This has included Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. After twenty years of killing and a couple trillion dollars wasted, not only does the fighting continue with no end in sight, but our leaders threaten to spread our bombs of benevolence on Iran.

For most Americans, we are at war — at war against a tactic called terrorism, not a country.

This allows our military to go any place in the world without limits as to time or place.

But how can we be at war? Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution.

That is true, but our presidents have and Congress and the people have not objected. Congress obediently provides all the money requested for the “war.”

People are dying, bombs are dropped, our soldiers are shot at and killed.

Our soldiers wear uniforms; our enemies do not. They are not part of any government. They have no planes, no tanks, no ships, no missiles, and no modern technology.

What kind of a war is this anyway? If it really is one. If it was a real war we would have won it by now.

Our stated goal since 9/11 has been to destroy al Qaeda. Was al Qaeda in Iraq? Not under Saddam Hussein. Our leaders lied us into invading Iraq and deceived us into occupying Afghanistan.

There’s still really no al Qaeda in Iraq and only a hundred or so in Afghanistan, yet there is no end in sight to the “war.” Could there have been other reasons for this war that is not a war?

Military victory in Afghanistan is illusive. Does anyone really know whom we are fighting and why?

Why has the war not ended? Nine years and it continues to spread. Some claim it is to keep America safe, that our soldiers are fighting and dying for our freedom, defending our Constitution. Are we being lied to in order to keep us in this spreading war, just as we were lied to in the 1960′s to keep us in Vietnam?

We own the Iraq government as we do Afghanistan’s. In Afghanistan we are fighting the Taliban-those dangerous people with guns, defending their homeland.

Once they were called the Mujahideen, our old allies, along with Osama bin Laden, in the fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980′s.

In that effort our CIA funded radical jihad against those nasty foreign occupiers-the Russians.

What gratitude? Those same people now resent our benevolent occupation-with a little violence thrown in.

The resistance to our presence grows as our perseverance wanes.

Our people are waking up but our officials refuse to recognize the longer we stay the greater is the support for those dedicated to the principle that Afghanistan is for Afghans, who resent all foreign occupation.

The harder we fight a war that is not a war, the weaker we get and the stronger becomes our enemy.

When an enemy without weapons can resist an army of great strength, the most powerful of all history, one should ask, who has the moral high ground?

Military failure in Afghanistan is to be our destiny. Changing generals without changing our policies or our policy makers perpetuates our agony and delays the inevitable.

This is not a war that our generals have been trained for. Nation building, police work, social engineering is never a job for foreign occupiers and never an appropriate job for soldiers trained to win wars.

A military victory is no longer even a stated goal of our military leaders or our politicians, as they know that type of victory is impossible.

The sad story is:

This war is against ourselves, our values, our Constitution, our financial well being and common sense, and at the rate we are going, it is going to end badly. What we need are honest leaders with character and a new foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

On September 10, 2002  I asked 35 questions regarding war with Iraq. The war resolution passed on October 16, 2002.  Now today, as some of my colleagues try to reestablish credentials regarding spending restraint, I want to call attention to my 18th question from six years ago:

“Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy?  How about an estimated 30 year occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?”

Many scoffed at my “radical” predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole.  Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong.  My “radical” predictions were in fact, not “radical” enough.

I warned of a draining 30-year occupation.  Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal.  On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week.  Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month.  It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don’t stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy!  Bridges in this country are crumbling along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks.  Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.

Yes, I was wrong about Iraq.  I knew it would be bad.  I didn’t know it would be this bad.

The American people deserve better.  Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting.  Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neo-Conservatives from before the war are not coming true.  Far from it!  With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion.  Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK.  Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost.  Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people.  Rather, big corporate interests are benefitting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.

No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started.  But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST offbase will only lead to more foreign policy disasters.  We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba and other countries.  Keep in mind – the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago, sound like a cakewalk today.  While what leaders in the administration had predicted, reads like a fairytale.  Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy “experts” explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?

Passing HR 2605 to sunset authorization for the use of force in Iraq is the first step to stopping this bloody war, and the consequent bleeding of our treasuries.  Serious fiscal conservatives will support it, as will those who have been paying attention to foreign policy predictions and reality.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

Many who agree with me on a lot of other issues, do not understand my enthusiasm for gold and sound money or why I spend so much time studying and talking about monetary policy.  It’s true that I talk about money differently than most, but the fact is sound money offers many benefits.

For example – peace.

Can sound money really bring about peace?  Actually, it plays a big part in peaceful international relationships.  Money based on commodities, rather than paper, is not subject to government manipulation, and is a key component to free and honest trade.

History shows that if countries engage in trade with each other, their governments tend to find ways to get along for the same reason you do not kill your customers at your place of business, even if they occasionally annoy you.  If someone outright cheats you, however, you may engage in “war” by taking them to court, for example, and the relationship will sour.  Governments and central banks with unfettered power to manipulate currency also have the ability to cheat their creditors.

One way they do this is to simply create enough currency to pay off debts.  This devalues the currency and “cheats” the recipient out of what they are owed.  It would not be fair if you watered down your product the way our government waters down its currency, so it is not hard to understand, in these simplified terms, why loose monetary policy contributes so much to ill will and war around the world.

Sound money, on the other hand, simply is what it is.  Removing governmental power to manipulate money, removes the temptation for government to spend, print and cheat.  Sound money ensures that our government’s spending priorities would be brought into sharp focus and reduced to only what we can afford.

Sound money also limits the ability to wage wars of aggression.  Imagine how much more careful Washington would have to be about starting a war if they did not have this financial sleight of hand at their disposal!

Fiat currency allows government do expensive things they should not be doing while paying the bills with cheap money.  The Federal Reserve has lately been auctioning off large amounts of treasury bills as a way to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our crushing entitlement burden.

The resulting devaluation of the dollar is quickly eroding our image as a good trading partner in the world.  As a consequence, there is therefore more talk of economic isolation and war.

This vicious cycle of spending, fighting and inflating is not what Americans want.  It is what the government wants, and it has had to deceive the citizens into allowing and supporting it.

Sound money curbs the government’s ability to engage in these shenanigans and reduces the wars we fight to only truly defensive ones, for which Americans are more than willing to stand and fight.  So in these ways, sound money is very conducive to peace.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq?   The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question.  Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.

Voters were promised, passionately and vehemently, that the new Congress would bring our troops home.  Many were explicitly elected in 2006 under that banner.  But our troops are still overseas, funding has been increased even beyond the administration’s wish list, and troop withdrawal has been negotiated away.

When things are going badly in Iraq, they say we must stay until the situation improves.  When things improve, they tell us we must stay because our gains cannot be jeopardized.

We are told that we must establish a functioning democracy there, and train Iraqi armed forces so they can keep order in our absence.  Iraq now has a Constitution, an elected parliament, and hundreds of thousands of security forces.  The problem now is that their troops are supposedly not trained quite well enough, and that could take many more years.  Defining an adequate training level for Iraqi troops is highly nebulous and its anyone’s guess when or how that criteria could be satisfied.

The latest outrage came last week.  For years we heard the administration claim over and over that the Iraqi government wants us there, and is begging us to stay.  On the other hand, all they had to do was ask and we would respect their wishes and leave.  That also has now happened.  Al-Maliki perhaps took his cue from his challenger, al-Sadr, who has been clamouring for us to leave for years.  Popular opinion in Iraq now mirrors that in the United States, with about 70percent of Iraqis wishing us to leave.

At the end of the year, our Status of Forces Agreement expires.  Without a new agreement and understanding with the Iraqi government regarding our presence there, we officially become occupiers.

Eventually our troops will leave Iraq.  The overwhelming will of the people, in both countries, can’t seem to get them out.  Things going well can’t get them out.  Things going badly can’t get them out.  Iraqis telling us to leave can’t get them out.  Perhaps not even the UN can get them out.  My hope is that it does not take the complete collapse of our financial system, but if we don’t leave under any other circumstances, economic chaos is inevitable, and will make it impossible to fund the war, even through debt and inflation.

We have been financing this war through inflation, and attempting to paper over reality with misleading economic indicators.  The government has changed the methodology of calculating things like CPI and GDP to hide the bad news.  They won’t even publish M3, the total money supply statistic anymore.  But reality is hitting the American people at gas pumps and grocery stores, sending more Americans into foreclosure and unemployment lines.  More are hurting while Washington keeps forgetting its promises.  Eventually, this will all come to a head.

Perhaps an even greater fear is that even if our financial trouble doesn’t get our troops out of Iraq, moving them over to fight a new war in Iran, will.  Washington should be crystal clear on this very important point – just getting the troops out of Iraq means nothing.  Bringing them HOME means everything, and that is what the people in both countries demand.

The framers of the Constitution attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war.

Presidential candidate, Bob Barr has taken a strong stand in support of the Constitution in a recent post on his website:

“Former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher have proposed a new statute to encourage the president and Congress to cooperate in going to war. But the Constitution already sets forth a clear rule: Congress, and only Congress, is tasked with declaring war,” explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. “Absent exigent circumstances, like defending against a surprise attack, only Congress has the authority to take America into a conflict.”

When crafting the Constitution, the founders weighed the individual will of the Executive against the deliberative function of the Legislature, whose constituents would bear the full costs of any war.

Thus, the framers deliberately separated the powers of declaring and waging war; they confined these powers in such a way so as to thwart the tyranny of kings.

Despite being known as one of the greatest champions of centralized power of the times, even Alexander Hamilton felt that the President must generally bow to Congressional directions in times of peace and also in times of war. He stated this clearly in Federalist #69:

“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

Our nation’s founders were far from perfect, and at times, inconsistent and unjust; but, on the powers of war, they were unwavering, and their principles were sound.

Barr again shines in his recognition of the separation of war-declaring vs war-making powers:

“presidents must acknowledge that being military commander-in-chief does not entitle them to take the nation into war. Rather, they are to fight only conflicts authorized by Congress,” Barr observes. “At the same time, Congresses must be willing to confront tough issues, rather than leave them for the president. Legislators have no higher responsibility under the Constitution and to the voters than to decide when Americans must fight abroad.”

One obvious reason for dividing the war powers was to prevent such massive powers from being placed in the hands of one person, the President.

The framers understood that, throughout history, rulers of nations worldwide had begun wars strictly on the basis of international politics or personal desires.

They clearly understood that rulers would often get the urge to remove foreign public officials, or dictate the policies of foreign nations, and that such urges are dangerous to liberty, no matter what the reason.

The reason for entrusting the Legislature with the power to declare war was to ensure that the People would be involved in the decision as much as was physically possible.

What the Framers did not imagine was a weak and ineffectual Congress that failed to claim its rightful authority in deciding when the nation would go to war, or a power-hungry President that wouldn’t refuse an extra-constitutional transfer of such power from Congress.

By rejecting the advice and the rules laid down by the founders and early Presidents, our recent leaders have gone so far astray from warnings against entangling alliances, that the founders would hardly recognize the government they created.

Policing the world and “spreading democracy” is not our calling. Additionally, no such action is permitted by the Constitution.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2008 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

What is the importance of the war in Iraq  relative to other current issues?  This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy.   The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations.

War is an all-encompassing governmental activity.  The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ‘s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government.

The cost of this particular war is enormous, and therefore its of great importance.  There is no single issue that is more important at this particular time.   The war has, of course, made us less safe as a nation and damaged our credibility with allies and hostile nations alike.  Moreover, years of growing deficits have been spurred on by the high price tag of war, and the decision to pay that price primarily by supplemental spending rather than traditional “on-budget” accounting.

War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities.  It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation.  I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States.

All war, but most particularly war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways.  Obviously, many of the young people who are in the military literally give their blood, and sometimes their lives, fighting in wars of this type.  Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations.

Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on.  No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.

As people are continually asked to choose whether our nation’s teetering economy or the failed foreign policy of the past several decades is most important as we look forward, it is well for those of us who understand that these two issues are closely linked, to continue to explain this fact to our fellow citizens.

To fix the problem requires a proper diagnosis.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.

Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq  will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.

For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!

Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid – all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.

Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week.

However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

You can ask anybody what the first amendment prevents infringement upon. They might know about one thing, freedom of speech, but incorrectly, tell you we are granted freedom of speech. Even then, most miss the other four inalienable rights the Constitution limits the federal government from violating.

Most are equally unaware of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and even of their status as militia under U.S. code. Most also don’t know that the third amendment prevents forced slumber parties with soldiers, and further assume that one’s right to be secure in his papers, person and effects can be waived by law – without a rebellion or invasion. They also believe that the seizure of life, liberty or property is okay without a warrant, just compensation or due process is legal.

What about the ninth amendment, the one that restricts powers granted to the federal government from being construed to deny rights retained by the states of the people?

That, too, was forgotten.

What should concern us the most is the tenth amendment. It denies the federal government from assuming any additional powers not granted to it by the Constitution. There are many historical reasons.

I didn’t catch the right of the government to pay farmers not to grow food in Article 1, Section 8. But FDR thought that raising the price of food when most of us were eating ketchup sandwiches was a great plan.

Our founders certainly didn’t write things like Social Security or Medicare into the Constitution. That’s not because they hated the disadvantaged.

It was because they foresaw that such programs would be abused, their trust funds raided and their recipients deprived. Some estimates have concluded Social Security recipients to be deprived of as much as 43% of their benefits. According to GAO comptroller David Walker, there is no “lock box”.

Our founders also didn’t authorize a central bank of issue that would loan us our own money in Article 1, Section 8. That’s because such organizations habitually ruin a currency. In fact, the dollar we have them in 1913 is worth less than four cents.

After the Bank of England virtually destroyed their economy, which was the real impetus of the revolt, we learned a little more. After our failed experiment with the Continental Dollar, we figured it out.

What is truly disturbing is that the Federal Reserve is not a government entity, as ruled in Lewis v United States 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982).

Calling it “federal” did not make it federal. Federal Express is not federal, and Federal Pizza is not federal because it has pepperoni.

Congress then had the audacity to tell us that Article 1, Section 8 gave them authority delegate their power to a private entity, and they don’t need to oversee monetary policy. Given its absolute failure to safeguard the value of the dollar, we have again learned why the tenth amendment prohibited this.

I personally wonder how bad the economy has to get before people figure it out. Since the Federal Reserve is now fighting inflation with inflation, my suspicion is that people will get the bailouts they’re asking for – and they will get it hard.

Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 includes education. There is also, again, nothing in there about healthcare. We were number one in healthcare and education, but federal involvement took care of that.

Go ask a college graduate what the tenth amendment says. Then, ask that same graduate if he or she would object to the healthcare industry writing its own laws. The irony is that people seek to break up monopolies through government, when in fact, monopolies are only possible through government.

What should frighten us the most is that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. We’ve had a never ending series of wars since World War Two – but no declaration of war.

If the president is declaring war, and the tenth amendment bars any part of the government from assuming powers it does not have, when will it end? If you want to delegate that power, amend the Constitution, Congress. Don’t tell us you can write a law outside the parameters of your authority without extending them.

Will the Supreme Court eventually declare war? In a sad way, I’d prefer it. There’d be a chance for a dissenting opinion.

Contempt for the tenth amendment is truly limitless, and, not surprisingly, we’re broke. Instead of sending us checks as a bail out from monetary and fiscal mismanagement, which will come from raiding Social Security, Medicare or more inflation, Congress should go figure it out. I can’t think of a higher insult to the poorest, who suffer first and foremost from this, than to steal their wages while debasing their purchasing power and offshoring jobs.

As the reader may infer, this discussion could go on all day. I’ll just leave you with a brief list of things I’d like Congress to show me in Article 1, Section 8, or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. Show me –

• Drug war
• Tax credit for producing coal dipped in latex
• Paying Americans to run sweatshops overseas
• Registering churches with the IRS
• Study on sex life of mosquitoes
• Gun control
• Executive negotiation of treaties without Senate input
• The WTO telling us how to run our trade policy
• Using our armed forces on behalf of the UN

Dan Reale is a Libertarian Party candidate for Congress in Connecticut.  Visit his website at http://realedealforcongress.angelfire.com

The amendment states: “The United State should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”

Looks like this “non-binding” resolution is a wide-open door for war. Think the administration is going to pass up a chance to name part of the Iranian military as a terrorist group? Think again. I can’t imagine it not happening.

So what happens after that? It seems pretty obvious in the age of the “war on terror” doesn’t it? I, like many others, can’t help but expect this to end up in yet another, undeclared, unconstitutional war. (see overviews of war powers and the constitution here, here and here)

The Democratic Senate, although claiming to be the opposition, is working hand in hand with those insane neo-cons who are telling us that a military strike on Iran (and thus, the killing of countless innocents) will “improve” the political situation in the Middle East.

But, as usual, all the debate in D.C about Iran has been a distraction. They talk about weapons and troops and nukes and everything else, but they never focus on what’s important.

No one seems to have answered – or even asked – the obvious questions. Here’s a few:

• Why is it that the US military is allowed to have a presence in Iraq, and Iran cannot?
• Why is it that the US can ship hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Iraq, and Iran cannot?
• Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but that Iran can’t have even a single nuclear bomb?

Well, that’s the goal of this government – to avoid the real issues.

As reported by the AP (vis CBS News):

Spending to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year will total nearly $200 billion, according to a budget request the White House will take to Congress next week, making 2008 the most expensive year of those conflicts to date.

The news was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, which cited unnamed Pentagon officials.

The Bush administration has earlier this year said it would need $147.5 billion for fiscal 2008, but the estimates have been raised by another $47 billion. This request is in addition to the Pentagon’s nearly half-trillion annual budget, which omits war spending but covers routine costs, including training, payrolls and weapons procurement.

To keep it simple – that’s over $16 Billion – every single month.  $16 billion that’s taken from you by force and given to the merchants of death – the weapons makers, the contractors, and the like.

A war that can continually be funded through the coercive method of taxation is one that’s not easy to end.

Yet another reason why the income tax needs to go.