Almost ever libertarian I had seen blogging and preaching libertarian philosophy online up to the time I heard this, all seemed to be anti-war (against engaging in war) and total pacifists, carrying this same belief. It also seemed like any libertarian who supported war at all (like Gary Johnson) was somehow considered not “really libertarian” by other libertarians. Being so new and seeing that my own personal beliefs on this issue were turning out to be so very different than the people who prreach this philosophy , I thought it best that I stop publicly documenting my walk here and what I was learning and how I’d apply the principles, until I got a better handle of where I’ stood on what seems to be such a mainstay regarding foreign policy.[Other than two post back in March I haven't documented anything here in over 5 months -thats how strongly I felt about no longer identifying as libertarian]. After months of pondering and study and knowing how frimly I believe in all the other libertarian principle’s , I am now back, and ready to start posting weekly again about my personal journey and ideas as a new libertarian and an avid believer of the concept of non-intervention. I just now have a very different perspective of it than most and its taken me all of these last 5 months to develop where I stand on the issue.

I see it this way: Non-intervention, in my personal opinion (for whatever its worth) is a universal law of nature meaning … lets see … when I say universal law I mean … a concept which which must be upheld, and whether its understood or not, honored or dishonored, it almost always initiates some consequence in a persons life, be it a negative or positive. Whenever or wherever the law of non-intervention is dishonored or violated the intervenor violating it almost always gives an account or will find themselves with continued unsolicited intervention. It’ not a written law. It is a universal law of nature though, just like “cause and effect” and “sowing and reaping” and almost always brings about some consequence when violated and applies to every man, woman, boy, girl, old or young. Where the law of non-intervention is not upheld it almost always breeds unsolicited intervention. So to benefit from this law, it must be honored and one truly honoring it will hold intervenor’s accountable, as, where intervenor’s are not held accountable, unsolicited intervention is always invited, whether consciously seen or not. Its a universal law in nature.

The biggest believer in this concept of non-intervention is God himself according to scripture. You see it very early in th Genesis where he did not intervene in bad choices to be made by Adam and Eve. He did not intervene in Cains “plan” to murder Abel , BUT when Cain actually intervened in Abel’s life and ended it, God intervened in Cains life and held him accountable. God is a big believer in the laws a non-intervention . He would not have ever intervened in Cains life had Cain not violated the laws of intervention and INTERVENED in the life of Abel … and for that … Cain had to give an account. You see God upholding the laws non-intervention all throughout scripture. He ONLY intervened where the law of intervention had been violated and in Ephesians 5 :1… it says we are to “be imitators of God “. I believe that means we are to honor the laws of non-intervention in the same ways that God does himself and our honoring this law will ALWAYS work to protect our individual freedoms AS LONG AS as intervenor’s are held accountable. Its the “holding intervenor’s accountable” in honor of non-intervention, that so many folks can’t get with. However, how can value be given to a policy of non-intervention if intervener’s are never held accountable and allowed to continually intervene.[This is the only kind of non-interventions policy that I myself will personally ever support ...one which will esteem the value of non-intervention and see that intervenor's are held accountable for intervening ]

I am not an expert in any way or fashion AT ALL regarding any of the wars we are in, are contemplating or have been involved in but as a laymen, new libertarian and now strong believer in the concept of non-intervention, I have formed some surface opinions about some of them.

War in Afghanistan: Regardless of the many different opinions there are regarding who or what triggered that war, on September 11, 2001 there , we were not warring nor had anytime “recently” been at war with Al Qeada terrorist when they came in and broke the law of non-intervention killing hundreds and hundreds of individuals here in our country. As result of their disrespecting the law of non-intervention and being able to hide out in Afghanistan it was inevitable that they had to give an account for that and had they not been allowed to hide out there, the war wouldn’t have been there. So in order to wipe out them out … that war there WAS very necessary. The Talliban or no one else there surrendered them them accountable. We did. The question is … since they have now so long ago been wiped out, and we’ve killed its leaders, why are our troops still fighting there … years later?

War in Iraq: SAME.We were not warring with them at the time this last war began and yes it was communicated that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there which brought along paranoia. Truth is though …. even if we had found their “weapons of mass destruction” we were not warring with them and they had not been interfering with us AT THE TIME, so there was no need for our country to violate the law of non-intervention and make anyone there give an account. So then since we’ve also now killed their leader too who we thought was the threat at the time, and have realized that we were wrong about the WMD , WHY did we stay on?

Comtemplated War in Africa: Joseph Koney Head of the Lord Resistance Army over in Africa has, and is infringing on the individual freedoms of thousands of defenseless women and children there continually raping and killing them for years now and no one over there or anywhere is making him or his army of thousands give an account for their actions. Many say its not our affair but I say it should be an affair for all who honor Non-Intervention as if that army is not made to give an account, it will become empowered and found continually in unsolicited intervention situations that I believe, if continually is gone unchecked, will spread throughout all Africa and other parts of the world. This army is boldly violating what I believe is the universal law of non-intervention and it should be brought down.

Libertarianism to me is all about protecting the freedoms of all individuals and those who value that freedom will stand against those who violate the laws of non-intervention and will work to make them to give an account. No, we are not the worlds police but as libertarians we all should be fighters for individual freedom.

Well …this is a first for me … I have the rest of my life to see if this is a theory I can stand by.

The thoughts of a NEW libertarian on non-intervention.

17 Year Old Trayvon Martin

This past month of March has been filled with many social issues. These issues have impacted the African- American culture more than others. My only problem is as a nation we decide what to follow.

On February 26, 2012, 17 year- old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch man George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. Martin was  on his way home from the store with a bag of Skittles and Iced Tea in hand wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. According to ABC NEWS (http://abcnews.go.com/US/treyvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-shooting-911-tapes-send/story?id=15937881#.T29aUnGmE-Y), Zimmerman has yet to be arrested on any charges and claims he killed Martin because of self defense. Multiple communities nationwide began to protest for the arrest of Zimmerman and justice. From celebrities to regular African American citizens, people are showing support by wearing back hooded sweatshirts in honor of Trayvon.

This severe incident has proved that stereotypes can go too far. For those of you who are not  aware of what stereotype means, the proper definition is the following: Stereotype-  a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. Like it or not, we all stereotype. Middle Eastern descents are all terrorists. Caucasians are rich and racist. Asians are smart. Hispanics are loud and low class. African Americans are ghetto and uneducated. The latest one, African Americans who wear black hooded sweatshirts are thugs. Fair Enough ???Offensive ??? Is that what society has made us humans to be ??? If stereotypes are wrong then why do we continue to do it ??? THINK ABOUT IT.

The awareness about Trayvon all over social media has lead me to another question. Do people lead or follow? Last week everyone was trending and watching Joseph Koney videos and the terrible things he has done to children in Africa and now this week, where are those statuses? Trayvon was killed 1 month ago and its just this week we are making it an issue?

My point is so many social issues occur each and every day and people are unaware of them. Next week, everyone will take off the black hoody and Trayvon  will be considered old news. The followers will continue to follow the new story and not lead the old ones. If you are going to be a social advocate, don’t just do it part time. My heart goes out to the Martin family and I hope justice is served. We must stop stereotyping and judging others. Making stereotypes of any kind just adds on to the problem and creates no solution. UNTIL  NEXT TIME.

First let me tell you a story: last week I returned to the private school where I worked as a High School teacher for two years in Quito, Ecuador. The topic of my guest lectures was technology and how the medium of the internet and the ubiquity of connectivity is changing our lives in ways we aren’t quite aware of at a societal level. I started my classes by asking, “how many of you know who Joseph Kony is?”. In each case about 3/4s of the class raised there hand. Then I asked, “How many of you knew who he was last month?”. Of the roughly 40 students I addressed only one (a model United Nations type) had ever heard of him. After I asked students to explain who he was (now all the students knew about him) we traced the origin from Invisible Children to YouTube to Twitter to Facebook to them. Remember: these are students in Quito. Ecuador. South America. discussing Joseph Kony and Uganada/DRC. Not only did they know who he was the knew about the controversy surrounding Invisible Children and thus the nuances of the debate surrounding the video.

Before I move forward with my argument, allow me to digress for a minute to talk about the Joseph Kony story. In my opinion most people miss the point about the the significance of the Joseph Kony story: the first is that the power of virality is growing exponentially. Joseph Kony is, for many people, old news, yet the actions of one NGO made him a topic of discussion all of the world and thus extremely relevant. Second with the critiques of the video and the NGO came a form of self-regulation never before seen. An entire community of individuals spoke up to hold the documentary’s film makers accountable, thus allowing for a more nuanced and intelligent discussion. Seeing virality and accountability work together in such a way proves the true potential of the internet to make us smarter.

Back to my point, though, what struck me about my conversation with the students was the empathy they  held for the Ugandans. Empathy, as Santiago points out, is one of the by-products of connected communities. Allow me to put this into context: the students I was addressing see poverty and misery every day in their home city. They are highly aware of what wealth gaps look like and the difference between the haves and the have-nots. Nevertheless they were able to be moved by what they saw because of the medium through which the message was delivered. The idea of an Ecuadorian contemplating the existence and suffering of a Ugandan would have seemed far-fetched back in the unconnected dark-ages of the 1990s. Today such an opportunity presents itself in their everyday Facebook stream, right after the latest news about Justin Bieber and The Hunger Games. 

The ability to evoke empathy isn’t, of course, limited to the off-line world. I remember once seeing an interview with an Al-Jazeera producer who addressed a question about the radicalization of his audience by answering that, while CNN shows missiles take off, Al-Jazeera shows what happens when they land. Anyone constantly exposed to the true human cost of war is going to be far less likely to support wars undertaken in the name of abstract concepts.

With social media slowly gaining influence in our media consumption patterns we know longer depend as much on traditional media to select who we should care about and what words and images define a story. Instead virality brings those words and images to the surface: if they are manipulative the community will through the same viral means begin the process of self-regulation.

If we become more empathetic and allow ourselves to see and understand the perspective of the other we will necessarily become better people. Our notion of community will expand, our ability to discriminate will lessen (after all, what is discrimination if not beliefs based on a lack of information?) and our tolerance for suffering will weigh heavily on our willingness to support war and violence. I’m not saying that we’ll all become Quakers (remember Qaddafi), but we will become less vulnerable to those who promote violent agendas.

I don’t know about you, but this is the world I want to live in. Now our challenge is to prevent governments that feel threatened by this power from stifling our ability to communicate. Preventing our digital revolution from being drowned by the ink and saliva of legislators is paramount. I’ll write about that next.

Editor’s Note: Geffken first wrote about Kony 2012 on Wednesday. He wrote this as a follow-up in response to reader’s comments.

Daryl Geffken

It has been interesting to see three waves of iteration on this campaign/viral/whatever hit over the last 24 hours.

Wave 1: Emotionally charged excitement and the desire to do something. Getting on board.  It is interesting to note that the video went viral during about a six-hour window a few days after its release.

Wave 2: Kickback from those challenging the movement in some way or another. This has taken the form of Internet updates linking to a few blogs/posts/articles that criticize Invisible Children (IC) as a non-government organization (NGO) fighting the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Points include: IC’s lack of transparency, lack of support from the Better Business Bureau, poor management of funds — specifically that roughly 39 percent of its budget ends up in “Africa” (more on that later).  The more poignant form of challenge comes from those who argue the methodology employed by Invisible Children. Specifically, supporting official (and corrupt) authority in Uganda and supporting a violent resolution to the issue by “stopping Kony.” I greatly appreciate those who have articulated this. In my opinion, as a person that has worked with and in proximity to Invisible Children for a while, a high percentage of the counterpunch blogs I have researched lack substantive content, providing a form of insight that is misleading. Ironic, in a way, because that is the very thing IC is accused of doing. Perhaps more importantly to me, many of the people utilizing these links are justifying their stance on one or two pieces of documentation found by an Internet search — eerily similar to the very phenomenon they are critiquing as an emotionally based response that relies on a single manipulative source.

Wave 3: Counter response. This has taken the form of reminding people from either extreme that many people will pursue information and assess their activity, seeking out the legitimacy of critique, or mere frustration. I can understand the third, but can only support the first two.  For me, it is important to see what Invisible Children has done in response to the critique. They have provided an explanation for many of the topics of critique issued against them. This is commendable and verifiable. This satisfies me regarding many of the issues.  It may not satisfy you.

I see the challenge that some are issuing regarding the methodology of Invisible Children. Perhaps the three strongest arguments are the suggestion that this is a form of “white savior complex,” the need to challenge the use of violent tactics to remove Joseph Kony, and the complexity of bringing transformation to a region where opposing combatants are literally family members (How do you sort through the issues of stopping an army composed of your own sons?). These are deeper issues that form the true complexity of how to bring peace to this region as well as establish a more egalitarian global community.

That being said, IC is about as close to the situation as anyone else (even though academics have studied it with a niche expertise). I think that its proximity and its ability to bring up the issue can force others to weigh in and bring nuanced complexity and wisdom to the issue — others, such as academics who would have had very little voice otherwise. Working on a college campus, I have a hard time criticizing a movement that effectually started this many conversations, real conversations about what to do next. Some peripheral mudslinging is going on, yes. And there are some real idiots voicing up. But sincere effort is being made to advance the conversation. In the previous 24 hours, I have had deep conversations with people from nine different campuses in the northwest. Half of them I met for the first time today. That would not have happened at this rate without IC. So challenge the cause and its methodology, but don’t dismiss it or justify a lack of activity.

What do you think?

The forces will deploy beginning with a small group and grow over the next month to 100. They will ultimately go to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of those countries.

Three women who brought us the new long war in Libya earlier describes the R2P plan. “R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians. For those unfamiliar, take a stroll over to the earlier post. Now apparently, things are heating up to start us moving more men and armaments to the Sudan. Obama and his blood lust- sends troops to kill in Sudan. Has anyone heard anything about the soldiers and munitions sent to Africa?

Obama Sends U.S. Combat Troops To Uganda To Help Kill Rebel Leader, and only the beginning. He really is starting to get a taste for this apparently. Another war- Kinetic action, more dead. Our earlier post: Obama waives prohibition on child soldiers: While Michelle is worried about our kids and their exercise and caloric intake, her husband dearest signs an  Executive Order   for Africa to send their kids to war. Typical Progressive logic.

 ”I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA”. So children, it’s off to war you go.  Executive Order :

Now on to the twittering yesterday-

Activists launch viral video on Africa atrocities

The group’s new 29-minute video is gaining even more attention, thanks to social media. The work released Monday is part of an effort called KONY 2012 that targets the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader, Joseph Kony, a bush fighter wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity

Ben Keesey, Invisible Children’s 28-year-old chief executive officer, said the viral success shows their message resonates and that viewers feel empowered to force change. It was released on the website, http://www.kony2012.com. From  WNTP

The President Ok’s continued recruiting of Child Soldiers

This took us totally by surprise and was a complete shock to everyone working in the field - Jesse Eaves policy advisor at World Vision

In order for the Sudan to continue to receive funding from the US there were stipulations. They needed to stop recruiting child soldiers for the Southern Ugandan Army. However, because so much of their forces are made up of the innocent they were not able to comply on time. But no worries, instead of cutting their funding or putting pressure on the southern army, the President has taken it upon himself to waive the sanctions against countries using child soldiers. The Child Soldier Protection Act was originally passed in 2008 under the leadership of the guy that Kanye West said “didn’t care” about black people.(More on this and official State Dept Report Here) For now, the document is available on the White House website here.  

“The core message is just to show that there are few times where problems are black and white. There’s lots of complicated stuff in the world, but Joseph Kony and what he’s doing is black and white,” Keesey said Wednesday.

Last night I promised a post giving background information on Joseph Kony after I explained my doubts regarding the “Stop Kony” campaign. I have to say that I feel entirely vindicated. I am always amazed by people who seem to spend their whole lives not caring about suffering in the world at all suddenly go up in arms because of a 27 minute piece of propaganda, donate a lot of money to a very dubious cause and then go back to sleep. As I suspected, there is much more to the situation than the video let on.

1. The video was bullshit

The best critique of the video itself came from Michael Wilkerson, guest posting on Joshua Keating’s Foreign Policy blog:

Guest post: Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things) | FP Passport.

Unfortunately, it looks like meddlesome details like where Kony actually is aren’t important enough for Invisible Children to make sure its audience understands. The video, narrated by Invisible Children co-founder Jason Russell, says its purpose is to intensify pressure on the U.S. government to make sure Kony is brought to justice this year, and as the message broadcast throughout says, what is important is simple: Stop Kony.

Among other emotive shots, the video features Russell’s attempt to explain the LRA to his toddler son, enthusiastic (and mostly white) volunteers putting up posters and wearing Kony 2012 bracelets, and some heart-wrenching footage of children who walked for miles to sleep in a safe place at the height of the LRA’s power in Northern Uganda. The latter comprised much of Invisible Children’s namesake first film and brought the organization to prominence.

But in the new film, Invisible Children has made virtually no effort to inform. Only once, at 15:01 in the movie, over an image of a red blob on a map leaving Northern Uganda and heading West, is the fact that the LRA is no longer in Uganda mentioned, and only in passing.

2. Kony is a useful scapegoat for Ugandan crimes

The video mentioned failed peace talks and blamed Kony for his duplicity in using the talks as cover while he rearmed. This may be true, but there is more to the talks than that. Max Fisher had this to say:

The Bizarre and Horrifying Story of the Lord’s Resistance Army – Max Fisher – International – The Atlantic.

Since the late 1980s, the Ugandan government has tried several times to defeat the LRA or at least compel it to disarm. It even created a senior position dedicated to this cause; the Minister of State for Pacification of Northern Uganda. The first person to hold this office, Betty Bigombe, negotiated directly with Kony, deep-jungle meetings that many of her staffers refused to attend for fear that they would be maimed or killed. But President Museveni squashed Bigombe’s hopeful 1994 peace talks, and others since then. Museveni has good reason to want fighting to continue. He is still unpopular in the north, and the LRA gives him good reason to fill that once rebellious region with his troops. They’ve also given him an opportunity forcibly relocate a number of “vulnerable” northern Ugandans into displacement camps, where he said they might be more easily protected. The LRA’s bloody attacks also provide a rallying point for once-fractured Uganda, a common enemy that keeps everyone in line. Whatever Museveni’s brutalities, the LRA will always be worse.

More on this later.

3. Kony has already been stopped

Has he been captured and brought to justice? No. What the video forgot to mention, however, is that the 30-year long war in Northern Uganda is over and Kony lost. As Wilkerson was getting at, the “moved into other countries” that the video mentioned in passing would be more accurately described as “fled into other countries, with a coalition of African armies hot on his tail”. Kate Collins last October:

The Water’s Edge » Guest Post: Did Obama Make the Right Call on Kony?.

The U.S. troop deployment can make a decisive difference. Kony’s forces have been weakened in the past few years, in good part because of the $4.4 million in aid Kampala has received from the Obama administration. Kony now commands fewer than 300 fighters. Putting U.S. boots on the ground will likely lead to the complete collapse of the last remnants of his army.

4. What are you trying to achieve exactly?

Mark Kersten points out that, while military solutions have failed, raising awareness of Kony in the West would not achieve much and the people in his region are already well aware of who he is.

Taking ‘Kony 2012′ Down A Notch | Justice in Conflict.

Kony 2012 is about making Joseph Kony, the leader of the notorious LRA, famous because, the line of reasoning goes, if everyone knew him, no one would be able to stand idly by as he waged his brutal campaign of terror against the people of East Africa.

I am actually stupefied that any analysis of the ‘LRA question’ results in the identification of the problem being that “Kony isn’t popular enough”. The reality is that few don’t know who Joseph Kony is in East Africa and the Great Lakes Region, making it all-too-apparent that this isn’t about them, their views or their experiences. But even more puzzling is that Joseph Kony is one of the best known alleged war criminals in the world – including in the United States. This is the case in large part because of the advocacy of Western NGOs, including Invisible Children and the Enough Project as well as the ICC arrest warrants issued against Kony and his senior command.

… In this context, it is worthwhile remembering that massive regional military solutions (Operations Iron Fist and Lightning Thunder most recently), with support from the US, have thus far failed to dismantle or “stop” the LRA. These failures have created serious and legitimate doubts that the ‘LRA question’ is one that can be resolved by military means.

Why have the military solutions failed? Well, according to Max Fisher, finding Kony is not actually all that easy:

Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord’s Resistance Army? – Max Fisher – International – The Atlantic.

Kony may be barking mad — he performs bizarre rituals and claims to fight for “the Ten Commandments” — but he has survived for two decades, outnumbered and outmatched by every metric, on little more than his ideology and his wits. “Kony is a brilliant tactician & knows the terrain better than anybody. He surrounds himself with scouts who have what amounts to an early warning system, which is how he’s eluded capture for so long,” Morehouse College assistant professor and Central Africa expert Laura Seay warned on twitter. “Kony also operates in some of the least-governed areas of the world’s weakest states. Many of these places have no roads, infrastructure. All of this adds up for a potential mess for US troops, who don’t know the terrain & can’t count on host government troops to be helpful or even to fight. This will not be easy for only 100 US forces to carry out, especially given language barriers.” Seay also points out that Kony uses children as human shield — and as much of his fighting force — making any direct action ethically and morally difficult.

5. Who is really threatening Ugandan children?

So Kony’s days were numbered before you even heard of him and any campaign to assuage your “white man’s burden” guilt by making a lot of noise about him would not change much. That said, there are far worse things happening to Ugandan children every day than living under the (largely abated) threat of the LRA. The people in northern Uganda are largely Acholi, who fought against Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in the Ugandan civil war and who, therefore, Museveni has a strong interest in controlling.

It took some digging to find, but here is what their own government was doing to the Acholi under the auspice of “protecting” them from Koni. Note: this article was from 2006.

The Secret Genocide – By Olara A. Otunnu | Foreign Policy.

The truth is that reports of indisputable atrocities of the LRA are being employed to mask more serious crimes by the government itself. To keep the eyes of the world averted, the government has carefully scripted a narrative in which the catastrophe in northern Uganda begins with the LRA and will only end with its demise. But, under the cover of the war against these outlaws, an entire society, the Acholi people, has been moved to concentration camps and is being systematically destroyed — physically, culturally, and economically. “Everything Acholi is dying,” declared Father Carlos Rodriguez, a Catholic missionary priest in the region. After his own visit, Ugandan journalist Elias Biryabarema wrote, “Not a single explanation on [E]arth can justify the sickening human catastrophe [of] the degradation, desolation, and the horrors killing off generation after generation.”

… The situation in northern Uganda rivals Darfur in terms of its duration, magnitude, and consequences. For more than a decade, government forces have kept a population of almost 2 million (from the Acholi, Lango, and Teso regions) in some 200 concentration camps, where they face squalor, disease, starvation, and death. Imagine 4,000 people sharing a latrine, women waiting in line for 12 hours to fill a jerrycan at a well, and up to 10 people packing themselves sardine-like into tiny huts.

Ninety-five percent of the Acholi population now resides in these camps. In January 2006, World Vision Uganda reported that 1,000 children are dying each week in the region, one of the worst mortality rates in the world. More recent estimates indicate that number may have climbed to 1,500 deaths a week. In March, a survey by a consortium of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that the death rates in the concentration camps are three times those of Darfur.

Angelo Izama had some thoughts on this as well:

Acholi Street. Stop #Kony2012. Invisible Children’s campaign of infamy « Angelo Opi-aiya Izama.

To call the campaign a misrepresentation is an understatement. While it draws attention to the fact that Kony, indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in 2005, is still on the loose, it’s portrayal of his alleged crimes in Northern Uganda are from a bygone era. At the height of the war between especially 1999 and 2004, large hordes of children took refuge on the streets of Gulu town to escape the horrors of abduction and brutal conscription to the ranks of the LRA. Today most of these children are semi-adults. Many are still on the streets unemployed. Gulu has the highest numbers of child prostitutes in Uganda. It also has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis.

The crux of it

For those of you that are still with me after about 17,000 words: Joseph Kony’s army, the LRA, is the product of ethnic tensions that still remain following the Ugandan civil war in the early 1980s. It was bolstered by support from the genocidal regime in Sudan, whose president is also wanted for war crimes.

The conflict has been perpetuated partly because Kony is a wiley and effective commander and partly because it suits the Ugandan president to keep the war going in the north as it gives him an excuse to crack down on the Acholi people, who pose a potential threat to his otherwise unchallenged rule.

That said, the height of Koney’s power was between 1994 and 2004. Since then, his army has been crushed and he has been forced to flee Uganda. As of today, he has only a few hundred soldiers left to his name and he is being chased around the Congo rainforest by a force of 4,000 troops from a coalition of African countries, which is supported by US intelligence and special forces instructors.

In short: Kony is no longer a problem. BUT Uganda has huge problems with poverty, AIDS, a government that wants to punish homosexuality by death and a president who has been in power for 28 years with no sign of giving this up any time soon. If you want to help Ugandans, forget Koney and do something about that!

_____

Like what you see? FOLLOW MK ON TWITTER or LIKE MK ON FACEBOOK.

I just heard about this today and was so compelled to share it with you after watching it myself, like this clip has shown, sometimes the smallest things you do make a difference and just like it takes  minutes to post something about fashion, it took even less time to post this and share it with you. Amazing !!

Here is an exclusive interview I found of Joseph Koney from 2006:

Lets work together to make Joseph Kony Famous!!!!!!!!

Joseph Kony

SEE ALSO:

Are Black People Hung Up On Their Mixed Roots?

Are Public Schools Safe For Black Children

Obama Steals Some Super Tuesday Shine

‘LIKE’ NewsOne’s FB Page To Stay Up On Black News From Around The World

For more than 26 years, Kony has wreaked havoc across Uganda. He has forced tens of thousands of children into sex slavery and his child army. The LRA has internally displaced more then 2 million people since his rebellion against the Ugandan government began in 1986. He has been able to evade capture through pure fear. Some of his tactics have included cutting off the lips of those who dare to speak out against him.

A new viral campaign to raise awareness about Kony’s atrocities against children and people in Uganda and neighboring countries is being lead with a YouTube documentary called “Invisible Children.” The Twitter hashtag is (#kony2012). Celebrities Rihanna, Stephen Fry, and The Onion‘s Baratunde Thurston have all tweeted about the film, according to Fast Company.

Let us get the word out about what is going on with our brothers and sisters in Uganda and help the international community capture this terrorist. Check out the documentary about Joseph Kony below.

[ione_embed width="100" height="100" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y4MnpzG5Sqc?version=3&feature=player_embedded"]

Curious to know what #KONY2012 was, especially since it was coming from Rihanna, (you never know what she’s getting into) I clicked on the video link expecting some kind of announcement of an annual gala event or party of some sort. What I found was actually quite stirring. Now, usually when I watch a YouTube video that some one posts I give it about 30 seconds before I close it and just as I was about to move on to “something more interesting” the details of #KONY2012 and the Invisible Children began pouring out.

In the spring of 2003, three young filmmakers from California went to Africa in for a story. Well they found that and so much more. “They discovered a tragedy that disgusted and inspired them, a tragedy where children are both the weapons and the victims.” The young men returned to America and created the documentary “Invisible Children: Rough Cut,” a film that exposes the brutality of northern Uganda’s night commuters and child soldiers. Of course the question I asked  myself throughout the entire video was how can I help? To answer this question, the non-profit Invisible Children, Inc. was created, giving other people asking themselves that very question an effective way to respond to the situation.

Invisible Children, a non profit organization formed by the three filmmakers, uses film, and other creative outlets to rally for the arrest of  Joseph Kony, end the use of child soldiers in rebel war, and restore LRA-affected communities in Central Africa to peace and prosperity. Although part of Invisible Children’s strategy is to get the “who’s who” of America to talk about the issue, it is US who they’re trying to inform and rally together. This video opened my eyes to a movement that will touch the lives of people who were once invisible to me, and in sharing the knowledge that I have just been exposed to #KONY2012 will be a successful mission.

Iran Links US-funded Terrorists to Saudi-DEA Bomb Plot

CDC: Antidepressant Use Up 400% in Past Decade

——————————————————————————–

“Subliminal Messages Exposed”

Infowars Nightly News
October 22, 2011

Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen reports on subliminal messaging in commercial and political television broadcasts.

———————————————————————————

Virginia Supreme Court: The Spitball Case

Virginia Supreme Court hears

Oral Arguments to Appeal Spotsy Circuit Court Decision

RICHMOND, Va.- Rita Dunaway, a staff attorney with The Rutherford Institute, presented an oral argument before the Supreme Court of Virginia, asking the court to reverse the long-term suspension of freshman Andrew Mikel II, who in December 2010 was expelled from Spotsylvania High School for the remainder of the school year under a charge that a “spit-wad” incident constituted “violent criminal conduct” and possession of a weapon.

School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Although no one was harmed, the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court upheld the disciplinary action in May 2011, denying a claim pressed by Institute attorneys that the action of the Spotsylvania County School Board was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

In appealing the Circuit Court decision, Institute attorneys asked the Virginia Supreme Court to find that Andrew’s conduct did not constitute “violent criminal conduct” and that the school’s actions were excessively punitive and violate the constitutional guarantee to due process of law.

“It’s absurd that Andrew Mikel was not only suspended for the school year but characterized as a criminal,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “I hope the Virginia Supreme Court will bring justice to bear for Andrew Mikel.”

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=977#.Tp7mow6mDmA.facebook

Watch WTVR Channel 6 Story

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/TRINEWS_release.asp?article_id=364

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2011/10/18/spit-wad-case-reaches-high-court/

———————————————————————————–

Union President Testifies: ICE HQ Ordered Agents Not to Arrest Illegals–Including Fugitives

Edwin Mora
CNS News
October 21, 2011

Chris Crane, president of a union that represents Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, testified in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration last week that ICE agents have been told by ICE headquarters not to arrest illegal aliens who do not have a prior criminal conviction even if they are fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge or are individuals who have illegally re-entered the United States after being deported and thus have perpetrated a felony.

“Aliens who could not be arrested included but were not limited to ICE fugitives that had been ordered deported by a federal immigration judge as well as aliens who had illegally re-entered the United States after deportation, a federal felony,” Crane, who is also an active-duty ICE agent, told the committee on Oct. 12.

“ICE officers and agents also alleged that they were not permitted to arrest or even speak to confirmed or suspected illegal aliens encountered in the field during operations and were prohibited from running standard criminal record checks for wants and warrants,” Crane testified.

Crane had previously testified about the matter in the subcommittee in late July.

Full article here

———————————————————————————-

Written by Daniel Sayani   -   New American

Friday, 21 October 2011 14:31

American troops are once again becoming embroiled in another international conflict, this time in the beleaguered East African nation Uganda. In response to the ongoing conflict there between the Ugandan government and rebels associated with the Lord’s Resistance Army, President Barack Obama announced earlier this week that 100 soldiers would support the years-long fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army, which is accused of horrific atrocities. The Obama administration said the troops will advise, not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves.In a letter to Congress, President Barack Obama said that the troops will assist local forces in a long-running battle against the Lord’s Resistance Army, considered one of Africa’s most ruthless rebel groups, and help to hunt down its notorious leader, Joseph Kony. The first of the troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday, the White House said, and others will be sent to South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite Obama’s claims of “limited intervention,” this latest American meddling in the affairs of another nation represents yet another example of the administration’s unconstitutional, internationalist adherence to the principles of “humanitarian intervention,” also known as the doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” (RTP), the same theoretical basis for Obama’s intervention in Libya and former President Bill Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. A Brief History of the Ugandan Conflict When Uganda was declared an independent nation in 1962, as with other postcolonial nations, historical interethnic hostilities were not taken into account by Britain; the northern Acholi tribe was assimilated into Uganda — the country’s name coming from the southern Ganda tribe — laying the roots for future conflict, as with the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The Lord’s Resistance Army began life in the early 1980s as the Holy Spirit Movement, led by a woman called Alice Lakwena who claimed the Holy Spirit had ordered her to overthrow the Ugandan government, which was accused of treating the Acholi people of the North unfairly. As resentment towards the Ugandan government intensified, supporters flocked to Lakwena and the Holy Spirit movement gathered momentum, until a battle won by the government led to Lakwena’s exile. In 1986, President Tito Okello, an Acholi, was removed by the National Resistance Army (NRA), and fearing a full-blown assault and the loss of their traditional military hegemony, the Acholi launched an insurgency against the NRA. In January 1987, Joseph Kony, the current head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), claimed to receive divine revelations and emerged as the head of an armed, guerrilla movement against the NRA. Kony initially stated that the LRA’s mission was to overthrow the government and rule Uganda based on the 10 Commandments (although it must be noted that the LRA is not a Christian movement; it espouses a theology that combines Pentecostalism with traditional Acholi animism and other African pagan vernacular practices, and is engaged in human rights atrocities that defy biblical ethics). In 1991, the Ugandan government began efforts to extirpate the guerrillas, known as Operation North, including by recruiting Acholi to fight the LRA, resulting in Kony becoming distrustful of his own people. After Operation North failed (the LRA had modern weaponry at its disposal, while the government forces only had bows and arrows), Kony had asked for amnesty for his troops, and began negotiating with the Sudanese government for support. Various meetings with the government and periods of amnesty for the LRA failed over a three-year period, and by 1994, the conflict had assumed an international identity. After the LRA was given an ultimatum to disband in February 1994, it began establishing a military presence in Southern Sudan. Kony became convinced that the Acholi were open collaborators with the Ugandan government, resulting in the LRA launching a campaign of brutality against civilians. Mutilations are common, including cutting off lips, noses, and limbs; and mass abductions of youth and children are common. Boys are kidnapped and used as child soldiers (human-rights activists call this the “Invisible Children” phenomenon), and most LRA soldiers today are abducted children (similar to the terrorist group Hamas‘ use of child suicide bombers), a tactic which deters the government from cracking down on the LRA (a military offensive against the LRA is perceived by the Acholi as an attack against innocent children, resulting in a moral ambiguity, as children are both victims and perpetrators). The LRA pillages villages, rape is common, and those who resist kidnapping are killed on the spot. To be fair, both sides are said to commit atrocities, and Acholi who have been forcefully moved to camps by the government have died with great frequency from malnutrition and disease. Thousands of civilians have been displaced by the conflict, and even within government-protected camps, LRA attacks have been rampant. In March 2002, the Uganda People’s Defense Force began an offensive against the LRA (“Operation Iron Fist”), and in response, LRA troops began crossing the border into the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for the first time, resulting in a diplomatic row between the governments of the DRC and Uganda, with both militaries making a show of force along their border, while the Congolese ambassador to the United Nations sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General demanding that an economic embargo be placed on Uganda in retaliation. Numerous attempts to reach a peace agreement were made between the LRA and the Ugandan government, but Kony withdrew each time. The Ugandan People’s Defense Force (UPDF) — i.e. the Ugandan army — continues its pursuit of the rebels and claims that they have substantially weakened the LRA, but the ongoing attacks suggest otherwise. The Folly of American Intervention Obama’s efforts to intervene in the conflict (in which there are absolutely no American interests at stake) date back to 2009, when Congress passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act. This made it U.S. policy to kill or capture Kony and end the rebellion, and the bill called for funding for humanitarian efforts to block the LRA in Uganda and promote Ugandan economic and infrastructure development. This is clearly unconstitutional, and represents the influence of the international human rights lobby in the Obama administration, which advocates humanitarian intervention, otherwise known as Responsibility to Protect (RTP), a doctrine advocated by czar Samantha Power. In June, the Pentagon moved to send nearly $45 million in military equipment to Uganda and Burundi. The aid included four small drones, body armor, and night-vision and communications gear; and is being used in the fight against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda-linked group that U.S. officials see as an increasing threat and that African peace-keeping troops in Somalia have been battling to suppress. As with American intervention in Libya, the “humanitarian” intervention in Uganda has the backing of the secretive International Crisis Group, which instigated anti-Gadhafi efforts in Libya and counts leading anti-Mubarak Egyptian politician Mohammed ElBaradei and George Soros among its members. The Uganda deployment represents a continued effort by Obama to use military force for humanitarian protection in areas where atrocities are occurring and a continuation of the Libya policy, which represents the meddling in foreign affairs that the Founding Fathers warned us against. There is nothing humanitarian about “humanitarian intervention,” and if history is the best predictor for the future, then it can be expected that American troops will be engaged in a fifth war with no quick end in sight. American and Ugandan blood will be unnecessarily shed, our defense capabilities will be compromised, and as the deficit spirals out of control, the defense budget will continue to swell at an unsustainable rate. ————————————————————————————

“In order for the Sudan to continue to receive funding from the US there were stipulations. They needed to stop recruiting child soldiers for the Southern Ugandan Army. However, because so much of their forces are made up of the innocent they were not able to comply on time. But no worries, instead of cutting their funding or putting pressure on the southern army, the President has taken it upon himself to waive the sanctions against countries using child soldiers”.

 ”I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA”. So children, it’s off to war you go.

LRA leader, Joseph Kony– fellow, you are on Obama’s hit list, and he indeed has one. Let me see if I have this straight. Obama now picks and chooses who he kills on his own. I think I am catching on now. Every0ne happy now with the drone kills? Pick and choose. 

 ABC News:

Two days ago President Obama authorized the deployment to Uganda of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” – meaning capture or kill – Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and senior leaders of the LRA.

The forces will deploy beginning with a small group and grow over the next month to 100. They will ultimately go to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of those countries. Not Kenya? That’s right. we have your Marxist cousin Odinga set up there. Who is killing Christians.

The president made this announcement in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Friday afternoon, saying that “deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”

He said that “although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.”

The president said that for more than two decades the LRA has been responsible for having “murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and continues to “commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

H/T:Weasel Zippers

In November 2010 President Obama released his administration’s strategy to end the atrocities and disarm the LRA. The Enough Project recently released its report card on the Obama administration’s effort to follow up its strategy. You can read the report card here.

In brief it gives the Obama administration a nearly failing grade for expanding US involvement in disarmament, mediocre grades for protection of civilians and pursuing top LRA commanders and good grades for helping civilians escape the LRA.

Its important to note that the Enough Project clearly states that these grades are only for the initial roll out of the strategy and believe the administration has much room for improvement.

Why does this matter to our run? Because the violence perpetrated against the women of Eastern Congo is fueled by the very instability the LRA breeds. Without any clear political or even economic agenda, the LRA simply spreads violence, escalates the clamor for conflict minerals by other militias eager to fund their own regional violence. The most likely to suffer from the presence of the LRA in Eastern Congo will always be women and children.

Kristi and Jon are close to half way to our goal. If you like what you see at the Women for Women International program website, consider joining us in sponsoring a woman in Eastern Congo.

The Mason Jar: The Reader’s Benefit

A conversation with James Russell Lingerfelt

why the book was written, major themes, and what readers will take away

©William & Keats Publishing/ November 2011

http://www.williamandkeats.com

Major components: 1. Reconciliation; 2. Enjoying life amidst frustration, loneliness, disappointment and loss; 3. Unconditional love among people; 4. Importance of older, same sex mentors; 5. Prioritizing our love for God, others, and our call to be stewards of the earth

W&K: Why did you write The Mason Jar? What inspired it?

JRL: My thesis was, when life (our goals, dreams, visions, expectations) don’t unfold like we wish, we can still find happiness and joy through loving the people we have in our lives. This is manifested in a number of ways. Though I chose a specific route for Clayton Fincannon, the underlying themes apply to everyone. When the world is heavy, whether it’s because of a relationship or life circumstance, when we want to quit life, we don’t hide in a corner and dwell on fear and brokenness. Instead, we protagonize the world through love. We can even ask, “What is my passion? And how can I take what I’m passionate about and help the world?” The next step is developing a plan and brainstorming ideas on how to implement our visions.

W&K: Let’s talk about some of the major themes in the book. Can you begin with the theme of Reconciliation?

JRL: What I’ve found with people, is that what we wish for isn’t always to be reunited with people from our pasts where there has been hurt, but our desire is to be at peace- to find closure. I’ve wanted to write a love story ever since I was a little boy. I don’t mean romance novels. I mean love stories. There’s a difference. Guys, according to most other guys, aren’t supposed to like love stories. But we do enjoy love stories, they’re just in a different context. Band of Brothers, Field of Dreams, A River Runs Through It, Legends of the Fall, all the John Wayne movies. Love between brothers.  Men may use the words Loyalty and Honor. But the soldiers were loyal to each other because they loved each other. John Wayne saving the town from the bandits because he loves his people. Or he stands up for the weak and the underdogs. He might not win the girl in the end, but she always thanks him, praises him for saving her parents, for saving her weak, young, inexperienced, naïve husband. Thanks him for saving her family or her town. He is willing to sacrifice his life for the people. Love, love, love. It’s there in all the manly films and stories. You just have to see it.

Watch this: A man leaves home to conquer evil or to complete a quest. He journeys and battles alongside other men to finish the task, complete the goal, they’re working together. He asks questions, receives answers, and consults many wise men along the way. He faces barriers and challenges that make you wonder how in the world he will overcome that feat, but he does. And at the end of the story, he ends up saving the world, whether that world is a state, country, or town. He wins or he finds the answers he sought years for. Then the people praise him for his courage and he earns the respect of all. Fame is not what matters to him. It’s the respect. Notice that. Respect. It’s the affirmation that, “Yes, I have what it takes despite what people said to me along the way.” Look at every man’s favorite story. The storyline isn’t far from that model. Experience has taught me that at the end of the day, what a man really wants is to be respected. And what women want is to be loved.

W&K: The Mason Jar is a story within a story. Why did you write it this way?

JRL: I wanted closure for Clayton and Savannah. I wanted it to be real. Seven years have passed. They’re different people. Different lives have been lived, different dreams have been pursued. Some of those dreams came to fruition, others didn’t. Yet here they are, seven years later, still alive and healthy- but different. Savannah has read Clayton’s book, and they have a conversation. Why? Because deep down, they still care about each other, even if it’s not romantically. Most people aren’t allowed that. How many hundreds, thousands of relationships are there throughout time where there never is closure, never reconciliation? So I wanted that for them.

Will they fall in love again? It doesn’t matter. Life is not about romantic love, but simply love. That’s the message of the book.

I can’t tell you how many of my editors wanted the ending to be different. I have a friend who’s involved in film in San Diego. He wanted Savannah to go after Clayton at the end of the story. He wanted her to pine for him, and then for Clayton to turn her down. And really, the only way to make that kind of ending explosive is to have Clayton be a bit mean to Savannah. You know, have Savannah repeat over and over, “Say something, please!” Clayton replies, “I don’t love you anymore,” and walks away. Then Savannah bursts into tears.

But Clayton wouldn’t have done that, and I believe it would have ruined the story.

Another editor wanted the ending to be more open. “There’s still a chance that they will fall in love!” she wrote to me. “Can we not have them get back together?” she asked. My answer: No. Reuniting as lovers is the ending to most fiction. It’s not reality. Love can still exist, but not always as romantic partners. (Lingerfelt leans back in his chair and then shoots back to its edge, pointing his finger toward me.) Life may not unfold as we had hoped, but life can still be beautiful.

Don’t get me wrong. Those endings they suggested would have made great Hollywood endings. But I didn’t want a Hollywood ending. I wanted something real, something that would give people hope. “Yes, there is still time. I can still connect with this person and apologize. Or I can let them know they’re forgiven. I can reach out to them and see if they wouldn’t mind talking over the phone or meeting for coffee.”

I wanted Clayton and Savannah to see the value in friendship, in loyalty as humans living this life together, working together to make the earth better. Be contributors to society, not takers. And the way to do this is to underscore that no matter what happens to us in life, we still have a choice in how to respond. We are on the same team here as humans living on the planet. So let’s be there for each other and help each other out through this journey. Isn’t life tough enough already? Why do we have to make it tougher for each other? We would act more loving if we saw each other as members of the same team.

W&K: Let’s talk about your theme of choosing God and love over ambition. Can you unravel that a bit?

JRL: Our ambitions change over time. Our desires change. What we’re passionate about today isn’t what we’re passionate about five years from now. But what we can always exercise, no matter where our passions lay at the time, is love toward God, humanity, and being good stewards of the earth. That’s really the call in the New Testament. Be Christ’s representative on the earth. Be different. Do things right and do the right things. We often miss that.

When I was writing the Africa piece, I needed a pinnacle. Something where Clayton experiences an intense, inner conflict that will set the stage for his reason to abandon his ambitions and return to Africa.

One of my editors wished that I didn’t take such an omniscient approach to Clayton’s life in Africa. She wanted me to maintain the same style of Story through Dialogue. “Too many facts and not enough dialogue,” she said. But I couldn’t. The book would have been three times its size if I followed her advice. Because Clayton spends five years there. Dialogue throughout the entire Africa story so you can get to know the Africans he encounters? Not if I wanted to keep Africa as a subplot. I couldn’t linger there long. I had to explain what Clayton did in Africa, why those experiences meant so much to him, and help the reader understand Clayton’s future decision about Savannah.

The point of the Africa story is not Africa or Savannah. The point was realizing that there are other things larger in life than romantic love. The reason people have a difficult time digesting that in this story is because most books and films and all of our childhood stories are about the guy who rescues the damsel in distress. Or about the guy whose love never dies for the woman he has pledged himself to. So when I write a love story with its conclusion centered around platonic and unconditional love, rather than eros or romantic love, a lot of my editor’s were frustrated. We’re more programmed than we like to believe, I guess.

(See December 5, 2011 for Part 2 of this interview)