Where Are the Antiwar Protests?

According the The Economist’s headline [July 19, 2026]: The Iran war is America’s least popular since polls began.

I believe that. So where are the antiwar protests in the United States? I remember plenty of antiwar protests during the Iraq War. I attended several of them myself. But I don't see any sizeable antiwar protests today in the U.S. The New York Times headline [June 22, 2026] says it all: Small Protests Against the U.S. Attack in Iran Sprouted Up Over the Weekend.

I can think of two reasons for this:

1. As in the old Soviet Union, Americans have become disheartened and cynical. They've lost faith in the system. They no longer believe that we live in a responsive democracy. They doubt that expressing their opinions can influence anything.

Trump said “America First!” and “No more Mideast wars!” Instead, we got Israel First and the Iran War. As for Democrats, Biden essentially supplied Israel's Gaza genocide, against the wishes of most rank & file Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats have come to realize that their leaders will do as they will, despite promises and pretty words to the party rank & file.

2. The Deep State supports the Iran War, which means no Deep State funding for any antiwar protests.

The Deep State funded the 2020 BLM anti-Trump riots. But after his first term, Trump surrendered to the Deep State, as is evidenced by his Iran War. And so there were no electoral "glitches," and no anti-Trump protests, in November 2024. Trump was allowed to win peacefully.

You can be sure the Deep State supports a policy, or a war, or a candidate, when there are no expensive protests against such.

Those are the two reasons that come to mind when I question why America’s most unpopular war has failed to generate any significant antiwar protests in the U.S. Perhaps you have another theory?

==========================

California Freedom Now Available for Free PDF Download

The Libertarian Party of California used to publish a monthly newspaper called California Freedom, on both paper and PDF. Because of the high cost of printing and postage, the publication went defunct after the September/October 2009 issue.

Past issues from 2004-09 are now available for free PDF download at Libertarian Peacenik. As an added bonus, I've collected several back issues of The Los Angeles Libertarian, Liberty Magazine, Liberty for America and LP News, also available for free download at that webpage.

Enjoy! 

=========

Israel Owns the Deep State

The term “Deep State” has lost much of its meaning. This is because, in conservative circles, the term has become a popular accusation, a widely hated baddie, a label with which to smear any and all enemies.

Thus, all factions within conservatism try to spin opposing factions as the “Deep State.” For instance, I’ve heard Neocons accuse opponents of the Iran War as being the “Deep State.” The Deep State, they claim, hates Israel.

Well, no.

If you define terms correctly, and pay attention, you’ll see that the Deep State – the real Deep State – is fiercely pro-Israel. One might even say that Israel owns the American Deep State.

How to define the Deep State?

As a permanent power elite “deep” (hidden) within our government, its policies blocked from public scrutiny and which cannot by overruled by popular vote.

Harrison Berger’s article in The American Conservative, “Congress Aims to Give Israel Leverage Over America” [July 5, 2026], reports that these criteria are met by Congress's current attempt to pass Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027, “which includes language designed to sustain the yearslong wealth transfer from Americans to Israelis and cement that relationship in ways that would be less transparent and more difficult to challenge through democratic processes.”

Section 219 hides U.S. support for Israel from public scrutiny.

“Section 219 would shift funding for Israeli weaponry from Congress to the Pentagon’s murky procurement system. “This so clearly seems to be an attempt to shield money from cratering public opinion,” Sheline said.”

Section 219 takes future Congressional votes on aid for Israel off the table, as aid will continue automatically -- indeed, mandated by law -- by the “murky” Pentagon bureaucracy.

The Massie amendment to cut off funds for Israeli offensive weaponry “may end up being the last time these sorts of votes are meaningful,” says Sheline. “If we proceed with defense industrial integration (Section 219), congress won’t be able to vote on it again.”

 The Young Turks are also discussing Section 219.

 

=======================================

Trump Does Not Understand the Art of the Deal

I've never read Trump's much bragged about book, The Art of the Deal. I don't know if he wrote it. Maybe it was ghost written. Maybe not. What is clear is that he doesn't understand its topic: How to make a deal. 

If by deal Trump means negotiation, then deal-making is the opposite of war. In a deal, all parties negotiate respectfully and in good faith, seeking a resolution that satisfies all. Even if your opponent is a monster, you feign respect, so as to allow him to save face at home should he agree to your terms.

But Trump bullies everyone, good guys and bad. Consider last year's bullying of Denmark as he tried to steal Greenland. Although both Denmark and Greenland insisted that Greenland was not for sale, Trump kept darkly hinting that he was going to get a "deal" for Greenland whether Greenland liked it or not.

That's not deal-making. That's Don Corleone style thuggery. You don't seek a resolution in which both parties walk away satisfied. You make them an offer they can't refuse. They either agree or you send them a severed horse's head. Or bomb their civilization into extinction.

Trump's crude attitude is understandable. He comes from the world of New York real estate. He knows how to work the system. How to make government connections, tax breaks, lawsuits, and bankruptcy laws work for him. How to promise the moon, and if you fail to deliver, walk away, explain away, declare victory and expect everyone to agree, or at least forget.

It's not that past presidents, Democratic and Republican, haven't engaged in bullying and thuggery. They have. Nor that other nations don't also practice bullying and thuggery. But I've not in my lifetime seen an American president so brazen about it. No fig leafs, no diplomatic niceties, no pretty words, no feigned politeness or respect. 

Trump doesn't only grab at what he wants. He wants to rub his opponent’s face in the dirt for all to see. 

It's like his renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America (which I don't think will stick). A wiser president would politely negotiate with Mexico on trade and immigration. Perhaps just as firmly, but in a manner that would allow Mexico to accede to U.S. demands while saving face. But instead, Trump needlessly humiliates Mexico, making it all the harder for Mexican politicians to agree to his demands.

Sometimes thuggery backfires. Trump not only failed to steal Greenland, but he angered all of our NATO allies. This is likely part of the reason they're reluctant to join Trump's war on Iran.

Trump knows very little about the "art of the deal."

==================

U.S. State Department Admits Israel Requested the Iran War

On April 21, 2026, the U.S. State Department issued a surprising press release that, perhaps inadvertently, admits the U.S. attacked Iran at Israel's request.

 

The press release is credited to Reed D. Rubinstein, Legal Advisor, Office of the Legal Advisor.

 

Its first two paragraphs reads as follows:

"On February 28, the United States Armed Forces launched Operation Epic Fury with a set of clear objectives: to '[d]estroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy [Iran’s] navy and other security infrastructure,” and, finally, ensure that Iran “will never have nuclear weapons.'

"Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran. As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense."

 

 

The press release goes on to claim that this war is also in America's interests, and gives various other justifications for this war. 

 

Still, this is the first time I can recall an official admission that Israel's interests played any role in America's decision to attack Iran.

 

============

The Canard That Welfare for Israel Benefits the U.S. Economy

In a New York Post article, dated April 25, 2026, Joseph Epstein trots out the tired old canard that U.S. welfare for Israel (i.e., foreign aid) is really for America's benefit. He makes the claim (which I've been hearing for decades) that "Most of that $3.8 billion must be spent on American-made military equipment. That’s not charity — it’s a subsidy for our own defense industrial base."

It's a bizarre argument coming from any alleged conservative.

Following Epstein's logic, all domestic welfare (including Food Stamps, DEI and BLM grants, and even money for illegal migrants) really benefits all Americans, because that money "subsidizes" (Epstein's word) American grocery stores, restaurants, retailers, movie theaters, landlords and medical providers.

Following Epstein's logic, we should expand all welfare programs (foreign and domestic), so more money will "subsidize" American businesses.

But every true conservative and libertarian knows this is a bogus argument. If we eliminated all welfare programs (including welfare for Israel), that money would remain with American taxpayers, who would also spend that money in the U.S. But instead of the goods and services going to welfare recipients (foreign and domestic), they would instead benefit the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place.

In either case, American businesses are "subsidized" by consumers. The difference is whether that "subsidy" buys goods and services for welfare recipients (foreign and domestic) or for American taxpayers.

Epstein's argument flows either from his stupidity or his dishonesty. And I doubt that Epstein is stupid.

And that's without raising additional points, such as that Israel is an extremely wealthy nation that could easily afford to pay for its own defense.

=========

A Free Speech Culture Goes Beyond the First Amendment

Libertarians and conservatives often say: "You are free to speak. You are not free of the consequences." This is their way of saying, with approval, that the First Amendment only forbids the government from banning speech. But if you lose your college admissions, business partners, customers, jobs, platforms, or friends and family because of what you say, well then, tough. That's the "free market" at work.

I disagree. While their interpretation of Constitutional law is accurate, the market is not moral, and not all consequences are just or conducive to a free society.

Whereas the First Amendment is a legal doctrine, free speech is a cultural value. And in a free culture, people do not dox or harass, bankrupt or destroy, anyone who expresses opposing opinions. They do not pressure universities, employers, service providers, or social circles to expel thought criminals.

The First Amendment guarantees a politically free society. But a politically free society isn't necessarily culturally free. Private sector actors, apart from government, can oppress freedom just as effectively. 

During our recent COVID hysteria, I felt as if I were living in Communist Romania, a nation I visited during the 1970s (and inspiration for my novel, Vampire Nation). As I crossed into Romania, I felt the atmosphere grow oppressive. The same atmosphere I felt in Los Angeles in 2020, with the masks, and social distancing, and kneeling to George Floyd.

People often wore masks or kneeled not because the law demanded it, but because private individuals and businesses monitored and harassed those who didn't. An intolerant culture was enough to enforce compliance; no laws required. People who refused, or questioned the narrative, risked being harassed by Antifa, BLM, random "Karens," and various private sector busybodies.

You don't need laws to destroy freedom. Civil society can crush freedom without state intervention. Politically free people are not necessarily free.

A free culture values free speech for its own sake. It's a culture whose people proudly cite Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire's statement might be apocryphal, but it's a beautiful sentiment. It conveys a generosity of spirit that celebrates not only the right to speak, but to be respectfully heard. Not to be free of disagreement, but free of harassment or intimidation. One does not express a willingness to die for a "right" that can then be so easily quashed by the private sector.

In the 1970s, public figures, conservative and liberal, often quoted Voltaire with approval. It was a decade when a Jewish ACLU lawyer, Aryeh Neier, defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (the topic of his book, Defending My Enemy).

Having seen Communism first hand, being the son of refugees from Communism, I hate Communism as much as anyone. Yet when, out of morbid curiosity, I visited the New York City offices of the Communist Party, USA in 1977, my disgust was balanced with pride that I lived in a country so free that even the vilest of people could rent an office and appear on the election ballot.

But those were the 1970s. I no longer hear Voltaire quoted today.

On both left and right, there have always been people intolerant of speech. But they seem louder and more numerous than in decades past. They no longer hide their desire to "cancel," but boast of it. While the left tries to unperson "Covidiots" and "racists," the new Neocons (NeoNeocons?) seek to unperson those critical of Israel or the Iran War.

Filmmaker Sacha Baron Cohen has argued that the right to speak does not mean the right to a platform. Some libertarians would agree, citing the "property rights" of Big Tech platform owners. But those "property rights" rest on shaky ground, considering the internet was built on public utilities, or that Big Tech lobbies for regulations that ensure their dominance and block competitors, or is largely funded by government contracts.

Ironically, while a free culture protects more speech than does the First Amendment, the private sector can, and often does, restrict for less speech than is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, as our culture grows intolerant, government increasingly outsources speech restrictions to private sector companies.

Finally, the debate over speech restrictions is not about about "offensive" speech, though it's often presented that way. People don't seek to restrict speech because it offends, but because they fear it doesn't. They fear their neighbor, rather than offended, might enjoy it, and even be convinced by it.

An intolerant culture is a low-trust culture. Free speech is seen not only as offensive, but dangerous. A view that is alien to the high-trust Western cultures of decades past.

I prefer we foster a high-trust culture, tolerating speech far beyond what the First Amendment permits. Not a low-trust culture with outsourced corporate censorship and private sector "Karens." Not merely a politically free society, but one that is culturally free. A society whose people might disagree with what they hear, sometimes vehemently, but always with a Voltairean spirit.

================