Wake Up, America
Unmasking the Truth of Our Involvement in the Ukraine-Russia War
5 Top Stories from Around the World
Pro Defund-The-Police Cori Bush Campaign Funds Husband’s Private Security
Rishi Sunak casts doubt on 2030 petrol and diesel car ban
Australian PM urged to delay 'doomed' Indigenous Voice referendum
Trudeau earns title of 'worst prime minister in 50 years,' says poll
Israel: Reasonableness bill passes, opposition boycotts last vote
Know someone who wants actionable tips to bring freedom back to the West? Recommend The Liberty Signal and get them to sign up - for free!
Russia's war in Ukraine
Russian foreign ministry condemns Ukraine drone strikes and vows retaliation
By Kathleen Magramo, Sana Noor Haq and Aditi Sangal, CNN
The Russian foreign ministry has issued a statement calling on international organizations to condemn the recent Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow and Crimea.
“We regard what happened as another use of terrorist methods by the military-political leadership of Ukraine, intimidation of the civilian population. These attacks had no military meaning,” the foreign ministry said in an official statement published Monday.
“We strongly condemn this yet another crime of the Kyiv regime. We call on international organizations to give it a proper assessment,” it added.
The ministry blamed the West for exacerbating the situation, stating that the actions of Kyiv were influenced by the West's focus on further escalating tensions.
“The Russian side reserves the right to take tough retaliatory measures,” the ministry said, adding that the Investigative Committee of Russia has opened criminal cases in response to these incidents, assuring that all those responsible will be identified and brought to justice.
Who Is Involved?
The key players here include Russia and Ukraine, both engaged in escalating conflict
The Russian foreign ministry and Ukraine's Defense Intelligence, making official statements regarding drone strikes
The Investigative Committee of Russia, tasked with identifying and bringing those responsible to justice; and
The U.S. and its allies, involved indirectly due to providing military support and diplomatic pressure.
Summary of News Story
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have escalated dramatically, with drone strikes on Moscow and Crimea being attributed to Ukraine's Defense Intelligence.
Russia's foreign ministry has condemned these actions, labeling them as terrorist tactics, and vows to take retaliatory measures.
The West has been blamed for escalating the situation. This development has come amidst a broader landscape of conflict, including strikes on Odessa, drone attacks on Ukrainian grain supplies, and the usage of US-made cluster munitions in Ukraine.
Why It Matters – The Liberty Signal Breakdown
The escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine has profound implications for America's foreign policy and the principles of liberty and security for its citizens.
As Russia reserves the right to retaliate, the potential for escalation may put the U.S., a supporter of Ukraine, in a challenging diplomatic position.
The war also has direct consequences for global energy markets, influencing gas and oil prices, which in turn affect everyday American life.
The usage of US-made cluster munitions, although not illegal for the U.S., can lead to controversy due to their highly destructive nature.
Reading Between the Lines
America's steadfast support for Ukraine amidst Russian aggression may be seen as a reaffirmation of its commitment to democratic nations.
However, the utilization of US-made weapons in this conflict, particularly highly destructive cluster munitions, reveals a delicate balancing act between supporting an ally and potentially crossing ethical boundaries.
Moreover, the continuous attacks and Russia's vow for retaliation make the prospect of a peaceful resolution more distant.
Key Takeaways from the News Story
This ongoing conflict reinforces the precariousness of global politics, particularly in Eastern Europe, and its potential ramifications on U.S. foreign policy.
The increasing severity of the situation, underscored by the drone strikes and potential for retaliation, may push the U.S. and its allies into more challenging diplomatic and potentially military decisions.
From the perspective of American liberties, the conflict underscores how international events can impact the U.S. domestically, from fuel prices to heated debates over the limits of military aid.
The Liberty Signal Analysis
by Will Blesch
As a nation, we need to take a long, hard look at our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
It feels as if we've been sucked into a swirling vortex of centuries-old grudges and rivalries, but let's break free from the spinning and set our feet firmly on the ground of facts and reason.
First and foremost, we can't ignore the ties that bind Russia and Ukraine together. Their shared history creates a complex tapestry that's woven together over centuries. By stepping into this conflict, it's as if we're treading on a frozen lake without knowing the thickness of the ice.
We're dangerously close to Russia's front yard, and it feels like we're poking a hibernating bear with a stick. History reminds us that this is a risky game, one that we shouldn't play lightly.
Now, let's turn the mirror on ourselves. Do we genuinely have a vital stake in Ukraine? While we empathize with Ukraine's struggle and admire their thirst for democratic freedoms, our role is not to be the world's big brother.
Our primary job is to ensure the safety, security, and prosperity of American citizens. Our focus should be on our backyard, not someone else's.
We've been bombarded with a wave of voices from the Biden administration, mainstream media, and neo-conservatives in the House and Senate echoing the same tune—that Ukraine is "winning" this war.
While it may be encouraging for some, this rhetoric is painting the conflict in black and white, drowning out the shades of gray that could open doors to diplomatic solutions.
By cornering Russia with this narrative, we're risking an escalation that could dangerously pull us into a larger conflict.
It's high time we debunk the mistaken belief that it's America's duty to impose democracy worldwide "by force." While the idea sounds heroic, it's not only against the principles of liberty, but it's also impractical and a breeding ground for unintended consequences.
Democracy isn't a seed that can be sown on any soil; it needs the right conditions to grow, conditions that can only be cultivated from within.
Lastly, we must acknowledge the expensive alternative we've been paying by supporting Ukraine. Our aid might be wrapped in the flag of humanitarian intentions, but it comes with a hefty price tag.
It's draining our coffers. For example:
It’s stretching our military thin. For instance:
Some U.S. inventories have reached minimum levels that are intended for war plans and training, and
Increasing production to replace depleted inventories could potentially take years. (ibid) – all for a conflict that doesn't truly do a thing for our national security.
We've all felt that chill down our spine when we sense things aren't going the way they should. That cold dread creeping up when we see our hard-earned tax dollars pouring into a conflict that's not ours to fight.
That frustration when we see our government extending its reach into territories that don't directly affect our safety.
So, let's harness these feelings and take a stand. Reach out to your local representatives and let them hear your voice. Let them know that we need to press the brakes on our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Let's refocus our efforts on fortifying our nation, protecting our liberties, and ensuring our policies serve the American people.
Remember, it's our right and our responsibility. Let's stand up for a wiser, more measured foreign policy—one that truly represents our interests and respects our values. Demand an end to America's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war now.
Your voice matters; make it count.
A Recession Could Be Coming: Make Money Or Lose Everything
Featured Commentary: A Third World War Seems a Certainty
July 24, 2023
Putin’s “limited military operation” is turning out to be a disaster for Putin, for Russia, and for the world as it seems to be leading to a major war.
Recently I listed some of the serious consequences for Russia of the limited operation(see here and here).
Another is Putin’s failure to take Odessa and close Ukraine from the Black Sea. As long as Ukraine has Odessa, attacks can be mounted from sea on Crimea, such as the recent attack by 28 drones.
What is the value of a limited military operation that leaves the enemy every opportunity to continue its attacks on Russian territory?
Putin’s failure to quickly knock Ukraine out of the war gives the US and NATO the opportunity to establish Black Sea bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, and possibly Turkey.
In other words, Putin is allowing the possibility of the US and NATO to challenge Russia’s natural dominance of the Black Sea. It is difficult to imagine a more fatal error.
The US 101st Airborne Division is sitting in Romania. Why? Is it to cut off Russian forces in Transnistria and achieve the victory of a Russian surrender, or is it to provide “trip-wire” protection for US/NATO to complete the encirclement of the Russian Navy that has been achieved in the North and Baltic Seas as the result of Putin’s limited operation that sent Sweden and Finland into NATO?
What Putin and his pro-Western Atlanticist Integrationist advisors thought would be a reassuring-to-the- West “limited operation” confined to Donbass in fact gave the anti-Russian West the opportunity to turn the tables against Putin.
He is now in a war for which he hasn’t sufficient conventional forces as he has not committed the necessary funds for a real army.
And he still refuses to abandon his goody two shoes posture that places the lives of Ukrainian civilians and their water, electric power, public transportation and every day convenience, all of which facilitates the fighting ability of Ukraine, above the survival of Russia and her troops in the trenches.
Putin after waiting eight years while Washington built up a Ukrainian Army that was about to slaughter the inhabitants of rebellious Russian provinces in Ukraine, people put into the Ukrainian Republic of the Soviet Union without their consent by Communist officials.
This forced Putin’s reluctant hand, but he remained reluctant and limited his intervention to ineffectiveness that encouraged Washington’s neoconservatives who hate Russia to involve the West against Russia in a conflict that Washington cannot afford to lose.
The two American presidential candidates capable of ending the conflict with Russia–Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., are both under fierce attack from the Democrat Party, the military/security complex, the US media, and fake prosecutorial charges. In my opinion, there is no prospect of either being permitted to become President of the United States.
Putin, the Kremlin, and the Chinese leadership do not understand that the West is no longer the West. 20th century Western principles possibly never existed in practice, but they did in principle.
In Soviet Russia the propaganda of a free West played well. In the minds of the Russian intelligentsia, America became a potential liberator. When the Soviet Union collapsed when hardline Communists arrested Gorbavhev, Russians suffered loss of self-belief because of the economic hardships and political humiliations that followed. America’s shining light became a sign of liberation.
The success of American propaganda in Russia might seal Russia’s doom.
Here is analysis from an Indian.
Notice that it is not from an American or a Russian. India is a key determinant of how the future develops. Is India going to align with Russia and China, stay out of the conflict, or align with the West? India’s decision will have much to do with the stability of the world.
Do Putin and China understand the importance of India? Will we witness another Putin goody two shoes role in which the decision is left to Indian democracy, which means, of course, Washington’s money, or will China and Russia make the accommodations with India to avoid a CIA agent within the Silk Road?
In my view, perhaps mistaken, Russia and China are babes in the woods. Both governments think they are dealing with democracies whose governments are responsible to the people.
Therefore, Russia and China defend themselves against accusations and act to show that they only want peaceful economic engagement.
But this is not what American Hegemony wants. The neoconservatives who have controlled US foreign policy for 30 years want the destruction of Russia and China, because both countries serve as constraints on US unilateralism.
It is extraordinary that neither the Russian nor the Chinese governments can comprehend this.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades.
A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.
Copyright © Paul Craig Roberts
Delicious, Easy-To-Make Smoothies For Rapid Weight Loss, Increased Energy, & Incredible Health!
ENDING SOON! – GET AN INSTANT $10 OFF!
Libertarian Commentary
The Libertarian and Conservative Case for the Abolition of Marriage Laws (Part 4) - by Peter S. Rieth, first published August 3, 2011
Catholicism, Marriage and Civil Marriage
I wish to speak here of one specific example, because it is an example I am familiar with – namely the issue of Catholic Marriage and Civil Marriage laws. I do not mean to suggest here that the Catholic Church is somehow more deserving of attention than other Churches, institutions or individuals, but rather – alongside what I hope is slowly becoming a logical argument in favor of the abolition of marriage laws – I would like to demonstrate my argument by way of a practical example.
I am a practicing Catholic, having been through one year of preparation for Communion and Confirmation within a Jesuit Order (something I am very proud of), and have given much thought to the following conundrum:
Catholics define marriage as a sacred union of a man and a woman before God. Because it is sacred, it is also a sacrament, which in the Catholic religion is perhaps the most intimate relationship imaginable between a man and God. As such, Catholics naturally believe that marriage cannot be dissolved. To suggest that it can would be akin to suggesting that the sun didn't shine yesterday when clearly we saw that it did.
It is, however, possible – to continue the metaphor – that having violated some precepts of our religion (let's say we gluttonously drank too much) – we found ourselves staring into a Police flashlight, thinking that this very shiny thing was actually the sun. For anyone who has ever experienced excessive intoxication, you will understand this metaphor quite well. In such a case, no matter how convinced we might be that what we saw was the sun – no matter. Witnesses will testify otherwise, and it will turn out that we did not, in fact, see the sun – but only a bright flashlight dimly thought to be the sun in our state of mindless intoxication.
In its' wisdom – the Catholic Church recognizes that this unfortunate metaphorical scenario could well be a true event in the case of marriage. That is to say, Cannon law recognizes that it is possible that, under certain very specific circumstances, a Catholic Wedding ceremony – in spite of having nominally been performed – was actually never in fact performed. Thus Catholic Cannon allows for the Church to declare something that once was thought to have been a wedding null and void – as never having actually taken place.
Contrary to what many people might think, the Catholic Church's private court system deals with thousands of such annulment cases on a yearly basis. In the majority of instances, these cases are brought to the attention of the Church by a devote Catholic who was betrayed by their spouce (by "betrayed" I mean in the full sense, not the narrow sense of sexual betrayal – I mean that someone betrayed their wedding vows and left the other person). The Church must then determine whether or not this marriage was ever valid in the first place. In the majority of cases where annulment is granted, it is on the basis of psychological immaturity of one or more of the parties participating in the wedding ceremony.
The Church is very thorough in its' investigations. Unlike civil divorce courts, the Church is interested in truth and justice – and not in the satisfaction of the desires of the participants to the court case. It does not matter what people "want" – all that matters is what they have done, and what it means.
Those who do not agree with this system are, of course, free to simply ignore it. The Catholic Church does not have and does not seek to have any state sanctioned legal powers of coercion towards anyone. Yet Catholic Courts function with a power greater than most government courts precisely because it is the voluntary consent of Catholic parishioners which fuels them. So many Catholics wish to live virtuous lives that they insist on clearing up what has developed into a bad situation rather than remaining outcasts in the eyes of the Church. The Church has thus set up these private courts to deal with the matter.
Now – consider this for a moment: an entire system of private courts, run by a Church, on a purely voluntary basis – all dealing with a problem that the majority of people think cannot be dealt with except by the government. Naturally, all of this costs less than what government divorce courts cost as well. The Catholic Church generally charges the equivalent of the monthly salary of a parishioner who wishes to have his case heard. Thus, if you make 1,000 USD per month – that is what you pay. I f you make 1,000,000 USD per month – that is what you pay. Hence the wealthy pay more and the poor pay less, but both pay what is proportionally just in lieu of their income. In practice of course, this means that the wealthy subsidize the poor (voluntarily), but the poor do not become corrupted by this because they must pay a sum which, proportionally for them, is nevertheless high enough to be felt in their households budgets. It is, from the point of view of ethics, a wonderful situation that promotes virtue. Not surprisingly – at the core of this system is the principle of liberty, or faith – which is in effect the same thing, since it is impossible to have true faith except freely.
Now imagine for a moment if two Catholics wish to be married and protest against civil marriage under the pretext that the civil marriage laws violate their religious convictions. What religious convictions, you ask? The religious conviction that marriage cannot be dissolved. The majority of civil laws in the world allow for divorce, and the path towards divorce is ever easier. Why should I, as a Catholic, be forced to marry someone who might receive legal sanction one day if they wish to leave me? What if I am not satisfied with the notion of possibly signing a prenuptial agreement because a long train of abuses at the hand of government agencies has taught me not to trust them – including not to trust their courts or their capacity to uphold contracts? What if my would-be spouse feels the same way?
If we declared ourselves leaders of a new church – let's call it the "unregistered, informal church of God" – we could go off to the forest, perform our wedding vows, and be done with it. We, however, being Catholics, have made a free choice – to entrust our marriage to the Catholic Church. What now? Why can we not have a Catholic wedding without a Civil Ceremony?
This problem is actually not as abstract as you might think. The Catholic Church is often forced to break the civil law and grant Catholic Weddings without civil ceremonies to people who, due to prior civil divorces, might lose their social security benefits, alimony payments and other hard one legal compensations. Now you might say that they should lose them, because if someone remarries, then they do not "need" them. But this is all predicated on the state's notion of justice, which is to say – injustice.
If a person enters into a contract that stipulates that a) there is a God, and b) we are vowing before this supreme God to be together forever – then you would think that the breaking of this contract by one of the parties ought to carry with it a very hefty punishment. Catholics believe it does – but only in the court of the Final Judge. Here on Earth, civil courts often reward people who turn out to have been irresponsible husbands or wives who have left their loyal spouse. The least that the injured party can expect is to collect compensations and not have to be put in the agonizing situation of choosing between recovering some of their costs or marrying again.
These kinds of situations exist, of course, because the civil law considers marriage a mere "life style choice" – one that can be reversed essentially whenever one party to the wedding wants. If a Catholic argued in civil court that he or she had been cheated, that they entered into a life-long contract, the government court would tell them that the only contract the law recognizes is the civil marriage contract – and that one clearly stipulates that you can divorce whenever you feel like it. Ergo – there is no possibility for a Catholic to gain justice through government divorce courts. In fact, the existence of these courts precludes it – since Catholics do not believe in divorce, and the nature of the marriage contract inherent in the sacrament of Catholic marriage precludes it.
This is one – only one – example of how civil marriage laws violate the individual rights of citizens to practice their religion. It is also an example of how a voluntary religious order (in this case the Catholic church) regulates matters pertaining to marriage with the full consent of parishoners. It is an example which should make conservatives pause whenever they consider advocating for more government control over marriage.
(to be continued…)
Read more at Lewrockwell.com
A Recession Could Be Coming: Make Money Or Lose Everything
Featured Freedom Fighter: Josiah Bartlett
Josiah Bartlett was an American physician and statesman who, as a delegate to the Continental Congress for New Hampshire, signed the Declaration of Independence. He was later Chief Justice of New Hampshire's Supreme Court and Governor of the state.
He was born in on November 21, 1729 to Stephen and Hannah (Webster) Bartlett in Amesbury, Massachusetts. He was their fifth child and fourth son. He attended the common schools, but with uncommon success.
By the age of sixteen, by study, he had also built a foundation in Latin and learned some Greek. In 1745 he began the study of medicine, working in the office of Dr. Ordway of Amesbury.
Before he turned twenty-one, in 1750, he moved to Kingston, New Hampshire in Rockingham County, hung out his shingle and began his practice.
Like many prominent men in small communities, Bartlett became active in the political affairs of Kingston, and in 1765 he was elected to the colonial assembly. In 1767 he became the colonel of his county's militia and Governor John Wentworth appointed him justice of the peace.
As the Revolution neared, his Whig policies brought him into opposition with the Royal Governor, John Wentworth.
In 1774, Bartlett joined the Assembly's Committee of Correspondence and began his work with the revolutionary leaders of the other 12 colonies. Later that year, when Wentorth dismissed, or prorogued, the Assembly, Josiah was elected to its revolutionary (and illegal) successor, the Provincial Assembly.
When the question of declaring independence from Great Britain was officially brought up in 1776, as a representative of the northernmost colony Bartlett was the first to be asked, and answered in the affirmative.
On August 2, 1776 when delegates signed the formal copy of the Declaration of Independence, his position made him the second to sign, just after John Hancock, the president of the Congress.
SAVE THE COUNTRY SECTION
(Actionable Tips Toward a More Free America)
As always, we're super excited to share some awesome tips with you in every issue of The Liberty Signal. Our goal is to give you quick and actionable steps you can start doing right now to make a real difference in your life.
With that in mind:
Activate Your Citizen's Privilege: The voting booth is more than just a checkmark on paper. It's a megaphone, a symbol of your voice ringing through the hallways of democracy.
Demand that your elected officials - those servants of the public entrusted with the responsibility of representing your values - champion policies of non-intervention.
Make your voice heard through well-crafted letters, relentless phone calls, and direct, face-to-face dialogues. Engage them in conversations that matter, that shape the destiny of our nation and the world beyond.
Rally the Troops for Peace: What's more American than the right to peaceful assembly? It's a call to action, a rallying cry that echoes the spirit of our Founding Fathers.
Organize, participate, and lead peaceful demonstrations. Your protest is a beacon of light in the fog of political discourse, a lighthouse guiding us toward our shared values.
When patriots take to the streets, the halls of power can't help but take notice.
Ignite the Beacon of Awareness: Take control of the narrative. Remember that the war of ideas is fought not just in parliaments and senates, but in the town squares of social media and the op-ed sections of your local paper.
Develop campaigns that enlighten and inform, stirring up the tide of public opinion. Mobilize the digital realm, speak in town halls, stir the discourse in your community.
This is your torch, your beacon. Ignite it. Let it light the way for others to follow.
Remember, fellow patriots, the conversation begins and ends with us. We are the shepherds of this democracy.
Engage in meaningful, respectful dialogue, and let's navigate our nation towards the path of understanding and responsible action.
Discover Conservative America’s Number 1 Check: The TRB Black Check
Final Word
Know likeminded people who want to learn, grow, and fight for principles of liberty? Recommend The Liberty Signal to them. They can sign up today — it’s free!
• Have a tip or story idea you want to share? An effective strategy or tactic for spreading the message of Liberty? Email us — I’d love to hear from you! (support@thelibertysignal.com)
• Have thoughts about this issue of The Liberty Signal? Write us and let us know. (support@thelibertysignal.com)
We look forward to seeing you again in the next issue.
Yours in Liberty,
Will Blesch, The Liberty Signal
