MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The man who invented ‘climate change’ – Ice Age Now

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

https://www.iceagenow.info/the-man-who-invented-climate-change/

“It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
– Don Brown

Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:

“In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”

Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

Thanks to Don Brown for this link

Be seeing you

Al Gore’s Global Warming and Climate Change Game ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Peace Expert George W Bush Says ‘Isolationism’ Is Dangerous To Peace – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

For those who don’t speak fluent neoconservative, “isolationist” here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth,…

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/10/18/peace-expert-george-w-bush-says-isolationism-is-dangerous-to-peace/

Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.

“I don’t think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest,” said the former president according to The Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin, whose brief Twitter thread on the subject appears to be the only record of Bush’s speech anywhere online.

“An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world,” Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was a shot at the sitting president. “We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”

For those who don’t speak fluent neoconservative, “isolationist” here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and “We are becoming isolationist” here means “We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world.”

It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But here we are.

From a certain point of view it’s hard to say which is stranger: (A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his “isolationism”, or (B) the claim that Trump is “isolationist” at all. As we’ve discussed previously, Trump’s so-called isolationism has thus far consisted of killing tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions in an attempt to effect regime change in the most oil-rich nation on earth, advancing a regime change operation in Iran via starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops, and reckless military escalations, continuing to facilitate the Saudi-led slaughter in Yemen and to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, inflating the already insanely bloated US military budget to enable more worldwide military expansionism, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians in airstrikes for which he has reduced military accountability, and of course advancing many, many new cold war escalations against the nuclear superpower Russia.

But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In his farewell address to the nation, Bush said the following:

“In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.”

As we discussed recently, use of the pro-war buzzword “isolationism” has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which are two wildly different things. Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the “isolationist” pejorative are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an “isolationist” makes as much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing from the world.

Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of “war” is no longer “peace”, but “isolationism”. By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.

It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal. Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it’s fun to share a sporting arena suite or a piece of hard candy or to hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been growing more and more popular with Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don’t start consulting this man on matters of peace.

____________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the NYT’s Fulsome Praise for Felons? – Ray McGovern

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

https://raymcgovern.com/2019/10/13/why-the-nyts-fulsome-praise-for-felons/

Ray McGovern

“James Comey Would Like to Help [get rid of Trump]”.  This may not seem newsworthy, yet it is the title atop an instructive article today by Matt Flegenheimer of the NY Times.  His article makes it clear that, for its part, the Times remains determined to support former FBI Director James Comey and sustain the discredited Russia-gate narrative they share — to the point of helping Comey and his partners-in-crime avoid prison. (See:  https://nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/james-comey-trump.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_191013?campaign_id=2&instance_id=12939&segment_id=17841&user_id=e69a6cb2bbba5cd47ffe27ec9fb45fbe&regi_id=695407011013  .)

In late August, the Department of Justice decided to let Comey off with a slap on the wrist for leaking to the NY Times, through an intermediary, highly sensitive information from his talks with President Donald Trump. At that juncture, it was already a no-brainer to warn that the victory lap Comey chose to run was clearly premature. (See, for example: https://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-higher-virtue-11567121926?shareToken=st5be6bf7326284ff38bf74cdc8a6e9c13&reflink=article_email_share .)

Consequential leaks to the media by a former FBI director are serious enough.  Now, however, we are talking about felonies.  And this time Comey is standing in such deep kimchi that he may drown, despite how tall he is, and despite NYT preemptive puff pieces protesting purity of the caliber of Caesar’s wife.  This time, even with the Establishment media and Comey’s accomplices offering fulsome praise for him, there is some serious doubt as to whether or not he will be able to wangle a Stay-Out-Of-Jail Card.  Why are they running scared?

In Horror of Horowitz

Over the last year and a half, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been investigating how Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, and three Deputy Attorneys General (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, and Dana Boente) thought they could get away with signing applications for surveillance of former Trump associate Carter Page without disclosing that, as McCabe later testified, the application was based largely on a the shabby, unverified “Steele dossier” paid for by the Democrats.  Providing incomplete, misleading information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a felony.

No problem, these top law enforcement officials thought at the time.  Who would find out about their misconduct after Mrs. Clinton — the odds-on favorite — became president?  There would be encomia and promotions for help rendered, not indictments.

Oops.  Now all of the above are squirming, and there is a paper trail.  Only one of the FISA application signers is still in a key position to help from the inside — Dana Boente.  No, he was not demoted to working in the file room.  He is the FBI General Counsel.

Is It About to Hit the Proverbial Fan?

According to Inspector General Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr has had his draft IG report for over a month.  Horowitz has said that his team “reviewed over one million records and conducted over 100 interviews, including several of witnesses who only recently agreed to be interviewed.” The team is “finalizing” the report prior to releasing it publicly. ( See: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-submits-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-to-attorney-general .)

Some pundits are now suggesting that the DOJ IG report may be published as early as next Friday.

Hold onto your hats.

Be seeing you

Lies

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Influence and Origins of FDR | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

Roosevelt stands for the national government as we know it today: a vast, unfathomable bureaucratic apparatus that recognizes no limits whatsoever to its power, either at home or abroad. Internationally, it gives every evidence of intending to run the whole world, of extending its hegemony — now that the Soviet Union is no more — to every corner of the globe.

https://mises.org/library/influence-and-origins-fdr

Ralph Raico

In the two centuries or so of our history, it has happened that a few of our leaders — a very few — became symbols of some powerful idea, one that left a permanent imprint on the life of our country. Thomas Jefferson is one such symbol. With Jefferson, it is the idea of a free, self-governing people, dedicated to the enjoyment of their God-given natural rights, in their work, their communities, and the bosom of their families. Abraham Lincoln symbolizes a rather different idea — of America as a great, centralized nation-state, supposedly dedicated to individual freedom, but founded on the unquestioned authority and power of the national government in Washington.

And now Franklin Roosevelt, too, has come to represent a certain conception of America, one that is worlds apart from Jefferson’s vision, and different from anything that even Lincoln could have imagined. Roosevelt stands for the national government as we know it today: a vast, unfathomable bureaucratic apparatus that recognizes no limits whatsoever to its power, either at home or abroad. Internationally, it gives every evidence of intending to run the whole world, of extending its hegemony — now that the Soviet Union is no more — to every corner of the globe.

Domestically, it undertakes, through an annual budget of close to $2 trillion, to assuage every real or invented social ill and thus enters into every aspect of the people’s lives. In particular, it is engaged in what even a couple of decades ago would have seemed fantastic — a campaign to annihilate freedom of association, subjecting the American people to a program of radical social engineering, in order to transform their voluntarily held traditional beliefs and values and way of life.

More than anyone else, Franklin Roosevelt is responsible for creating the Leviathan state that confronts us today.

In his own time, FDR had many influential enemies in business, politics, and the press, men and women who recognized what he was doing to the republic they loved and who fought him tenaciously. They were proud to be known as “Roosevelt haters.” Today, however, practically the whole of the political class in the United States has been converted into idolaters of Franklin Roosevelt.

This state of affairs was epitomized last May, when the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial was dedicated in Washington, DC. Situated on a 7.5-acre site by the Tidal Basin, it includes an 800-foot wall, six waterfalls, outdoor galleries, and nine sculptures. Congress voted $42.5 million to fund the memorial, Republicans (those wild revolutionaries) joining Democrats with equal enthusiasm. No one breathed a word about Roosevelt’s failure to end the Depression, his lying us into war, his warm friendship with Joseph Stalin, and similar milestones in his long career — the major controversy was over whether or not he should be shown with his signature jaunty cigarette-holder. (In deference to the forces of political correctness, he wasn’t.)

Most revealing was that self-styled conservative organs such as the National Review and the American Spectator joined in the hosannas. It is a sign of how far things have moved that abject adulation of Franklin Roosevelt is now the order of the day even at the Wall Street Journal. The Journal has long been supposed to be the voice of American business, a quality paper that stood for the market economy and limited government, and so was the counterpart to the New York Times in the American press. On the occasion of the dedication of the FDR memorial, the Journal expressed its opinion through an article by one of its editors, a certain Dorothy Rabinowitz (who used to review movies). Rabinowitz was outraged that Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, had dared to refer to her hero as “a lousy president.” No, she insisted, Roosevelt was a great one.

Why? Well, because of “the depth of his hold on minds and hearts,” because in the midst of the Depression he gave the people hope, because he stood firm against Hitler, because when he died even Radio Tokyo called him a “great man.” Roosevelt’s many enemies, in his time and even now, never had any good reason to condemn this man who changed America so radically; they were merely “maddened by hatred of him.” In all of Rabinowitz’s effusion there were no hard facts, no analysis, no argument (and certainly no mention of FDR’s great friend Joseph Stalin). It was all sentimental gush. And so the Wall Street Journal enters the age of Oprah Winfrey journalism.

Such productions by FDR’s devotees are by no means mere exercises in historical myth-making. They perform a vital political function for the antifreedom forces in contemporary America. Simply put: the glorification of Franklin Roosevelt means the validation of the Leviathan state. Thus it is of great importance to those on the side of freedom to understand who this man really was, what he really stood for, and what, as a matter of historical truth, he inflicted on the American republic.

Franklin Roosevelt was born in 1882, in the family mansion overlooking the Hudson River, on the 1,300-acre estate that came to be known as Hyde Park. On his father, James’s, side, Franklin could trace his ancestry back to the middle of the 17th century, when a forebear immigrated from Holland to what was then New Amsterdam. Part of the family settled in Oyster Bay, Long Island, eventually producing Franklin’s distant cousin, Theodore.

The Hudson Valley Roosevelts tended to marry well, mainly into affluent families of English descent — by the time Franklin came on the scene he was, despite his name, of nearly purely English heritage. His mother, Sara, was from an equally prominent family, the Delanos. Franklin was his doting parents’ only child. While by no means fabulously rich, the family was of the sort that mingled freely with the Astors and the Vanderbilts and the rest of the high society of nearby New York City.

Until the age of 14, Franklin was tutored at home. Not at all a bookish boy, he loved nature and, above all, boating on the Hudson and at the family summer home in Campobello, Maine. He developed a passion for stamp collecting, which he pursued all his life. His admirers later claimed that this hobby gave him great insight into the geography, resources, and character of all the world’s nations — more pro-Roosevelt blather. He often visited New York and toured Europe every year with his parents. The inevitable word to describe the Roosevelts and their lifestyle is patrician.

Franklin’s prep school was Groton, near New London, Massachusetts, as close to an English “public” (i. e., private) school as one could get on this side of the Atlantic. The whole ethos of the place was “Old English,” an attempt to copy the educational experience of schools such as Eton and Harrow, whose job it was to shape the future ruling class of the great world empire. At Groton, Franklin lived and studied among the progeny of his own class, those who felt themselves to be the fated future leaders of American business, education, religion, and, above all, politics. Ironically, a fellow Grotonian in Franklin’s day was the young Robert McCormick, whose father owned the Chicago Tribune — ironically, because Colonel McCormick, as he was known in later life (after his service in the First World War), went on to become the greatest and best-known “Roosevelt hater” of them all.

Franklin was a mediocre student at Groton in every respect. His top grades were no better than B; he did not stand out in debating or sports, nor was he particularly popular with the other boys. In 1900, he went on to Harvard, where he showed as little interest in studies or ideas as he had at prep school. Franklin coasted through college with the traditional “gentleman’s C” average that was perfectly acceptable in the sons of the elite at that time.

His social life, however, improved dramatically. Franklin was already beginning to display the affability and charm that so bedazzled politicians and the press in the years ahead. Of course, his popularity was helped along by his family name. Cousin Theodore had been elected vice president, and then, in 1901, through the assassination of William McKinley, had become president of the United States.

It was only natural that Franklin, already toying with the idea of a career in politics, should pay close attention to the doings of his presidential relation. Theodore was the first president in the distinctively modern mold: he had a sense of drama and timing and a natural grasp of how to exploit the press to create a persona for himself in the eyes of the people. Beyond that, TR, as he was commonly known, had a rare ability to make personal use of popular causes and resentments. It was the age of “progressivism,” a vague term, but one that connoted a new readiness to use the power of government for all sorts of grand things. H.L. Mencken, the great libertarian journalist and close observer and critic of presidents, compared him to the German kaiser, Wilhelm II, and shrewdly summed him up: “The America that [Theodore] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within.”

Particularly fascinating to Franklin must have been the way TR was able to turn his patrician background to his advantage. After all, in the past, the Americans had shown themselves wary of upper-class leaders, who were suspected of being insufficiently “democratic” and not in tune with the people. What TR did brilliantly was to introduce caesarism into American politics. This term refers to the political strategy adopted by Julius Caesar to gain power. Although himself from a wealthy and high-born family, Caesar castigated his fellow patricians and appealed instead to the lower classes for support. They, in turn, loved the favors they received from on high, and, perhaps even more, the sight of Caesar trouncing and humbling his fellow blue bloods.

Julius Caesar was thus one of history’s great demagogues; and ever since his time the tactic of a politician from society’s elite pandering to the “have-nots” against the upper classes has been known by his name. In fabricating his persona as the great “trustbuster,” Theodore Roosevelt’s form of American caesarism proved wildly successful.

 

Be seeing you

New Deal Quotes. QuotesGram

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the State Can’t Claim Our “Implied Consent” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/why-state-cant-claim-our-implied-consent?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=5d572b24a1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-5d572b24a1-228343965

One of the ways states are said to gain the rightful authority to rule is through implied consent. There are no explicit contracts signed with the government which grant it all of the power it exercises. Thus, it is claimed that in some way or another, the citizenry implicitly agrees to follow laws. Do we implicitly consent to be ruled? Is there some action we take that could reasonably be construed as voluntarily agreeing to follow any and all laws which are put forth by the state? How accurate is it to say that “consent of the governed” is upheld?

A Newborn’s Consent

Presumably, laws, regulations, and state authority in general applies to people of all ages.Granted, children are typically treated somewhat differently than adults before the law, but the state still exercises sovereignty. What action could a child possibly perform that would signify consent? If state authority applies to all humans, then birth would be the declaratory act of consent. But of course, birth is not even a choice. One wonders how a non-voluntary act could conceivably be taken as any form of consent.

Furthermore, we have the issue of informed consent. In no other context would we say a child, let alone a baby, could provide informed consent to enter into any complex agreement or transaction. Given the far-reaching effects of an agreement with the state to perpetually follow every rule it lays down, it may very well require the most informed consent of any interaction possible. If a child could agree to this serious of a commitment, he or she would also be capable of agreeing to any other contract. Unless supporters of the implied consent doctrine also want to endorse the idea that children are capable of consenting to things like prostitution or taking hard drugs, I would suggest they stay far away from applying it to children.

Consent by Use

To simplify things, let’s focus on adults. Some will claim that deciding to use government services is implicitly agreeing to pay for them and/or to follow their rules. Prima facie, this makes at least a little bit of sense. After all, such an arrangement resembles other interactions we regularly engage in on the market. And if driving on a road only implied agreeing to pay for a share of that road and abide by some driving rules, this wouldn’t be a terrible concept. The question that arises though, is how things like drug prohibition, foreign intervention, or myriad other government actions are justified because we use state-provided services. It’s difficult to see why driving on a public road, would represent implicitly consenting to a no-knock raid on your home as police search for drugs. Nor is it clear why utilizing a public library is an endorsement for intelligence agencies and the military to use your resources to intervene in nations around the world.

If a state was limited to only charging for specific services rendered, and only set rules for the use of those services, then the sovereign authority of that state is no longer in question. If that is all a “state” does, it is no longer a state. It’s merely another private entity engaged in the production of services.

Consent by The Vote

Does the act of voting or any other form of participation in the political apparatus mean we agree to follow the rules laid down by that political body? First of all, not everyone votes. Yet, states maintain their authority over everyone regardless of their participation. If we are subjected to laws whether we supposedly opt-in via the vote or not, then clearly a vote represents nothing of the sort!

It is often claimed politicians are our representatives. But “representative” used in this context is an abuse of the term. If a politician truly represented you, you could call him up and instruct him on how to act in your place. Then if he failed to live up to your expectations, you could fire him on the spot. What actually happens is politicians claim to represent hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people. Besides the impracticability of accurately representing the interests of so many people, there remains the objection that these people were not individually asked if they could be represented. And since a politician will assume power over everyone regardless if some citizens explicitly voted against her or didn’t vote at all, a vote for the winner does not signify consent to be ruled any more than voting any other way. Unless a non-vote equals non-consent, a vote cannot equal consent.

Benefits

One last implicit consent argument is that since we benefit from government services or actions, we are obligated to pay. But how do we calculate net benefit? For many people, the sum result of all government actions is probably a severely negative effect for everyone outside of the very well politically connected. This would be a difficult assertion to prove one way or the other, however. So I will address this argument under the best assumptions.

Even if we grant that citizens benefit immensely from the policies of their wise overlords, that would not incur obligations on the beneficiaries. This is otherwise known as the positive externalities argument. A positive externality is when a third party benefits indirectly from the interactions of others. Imagine if every time a person experienced some sort of benefit, they could be forced to pay for it. Randomly washing a stranger’s car would obligate the owner to pay up. Planting a beautiful garden in your yard could authorize you to demand payment from your neighbors for the improved view. When taken to its logical conclusion, we can see the problem with this theory is that it does not actually rely on the consent of the beneficiary, and leads to impractical results. Which is why in every other case we require an explicit contract for services.

The fundamental problem with the above arguments is they require carving out a large exception for the state. In no other contexts do these rationalizations make sense. In short, a theory of implied consent for state authority requires already accepting the state has authority which no other person or entity has.

Be seeing you

Popular Sovereignty

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a ‘Russian asset’ groomed to ensure Trump reelection

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

Well you never know. Maybe so.

In reality Gabbard is a violence abhorring Hindu asset. No wonder Hillary and the media don’t like her.

Tulsi is a fairly standard progressive with her main negative being extremely anti-war and anti-interventionist.

Let us hope HRC remains sequestered in her Chappaqua server room instead of a White House safe room.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election

by Tim Pearce

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection.

The former secretary of state pushed the theory on the Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states.

“They are also going to do third party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

“She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.

“They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it’s going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

In Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Gabbard accused the New York Times of calling her a “Russian asset.”…

Be seeing you

Tulsi Gabbard weds Abraham Williams in Hindu ceremony

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

President Trump Is Right on Syria

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

https://www.unz.com/article/president-trump-is-right-on-syria/

Let’s Hope He Follows Through this Time

The unified foreign policy establishment in Washington, the Deep State politicos—from Lindsey Graham and Lynne Cheney in Congress, to the inveterate Never Trumpers like Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal, [“he’s (Trump) all impulse, blithely operating out of his depth”], to the near totality of the progressivist Left (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others), have come together (as they always do) to protect their sacred commitment to globalism and, this time, in opposition to President Trump’s decision to finally withdraw American support troops from northeastern Syria.

If it is one thing that brings the “Swamp” together in solidarity it is a serious threat to their hegemony in administering America’s foreign policy. From the pseudo-conservative “right” to the loony Left, the one issue that unites these agents of the Managerial Administrative State is the absolute imperative for the United States “to be involved” practically everywhere in the world, the zealous pursuit of “democratization” and the imposition of “egalitarian” values—most significantly in our export of “educational” programs and the various strings attached to our voluminous aid packages. Such programs always follow in the wake of any boots on the ground. They are part and parcel of the Deep State’s attempt to re-fashion the world along the lines and with globalist postulates that are, in fact, inimical to the traditions and heritage of the American founding.

Such initiatives mirror in numerous ways the goals of international financiers and subversive globalist instigators such as George Soros, whose multiple “Europe without Borders” (“Europe sans frontiers”) initiatives involve the virtual destruction of that historic continent by dissolving national borders and via an open door policy towards immigration, most especially from “Third World” countries. Soros and his apparatchiks have run into fierce opposition from Hungary and its valiant Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and, to some degree, from Poland and now from Italy, under its more rightist populist government. Yet, for Soros such opposition is a mere hindrance. He and those internationalists like him continue feverishly their scheming towards a global “nation” founded on ruins of an older, Christian civilization.

Just as with the massive “re-education” of Europe following German defeat in 1945, the results are not always what we are informed they will be. In the case of post-war Germany, it was not only the tearing out, root-and-branch, of any supposed trace of Naziism and antisemitism, but the real and practical disauthorization of ANY actual, traditional conservative presence (including traditional, non-Nazi conservatives), to the point that German history was so completely re-written and sanitized as to make any defense of even pre-1918 Germany—of Prussian history—any defense of a “national German spirit,” the equivalent of “the recrudescence of antisemitism and Hitlerism.” Germans were taught and continue to be taught to despise and reject their past, not just the twelve year interregnum under Adolf Hitler, but in fact its near entirety. The German nation has become, in a real sense, one immense bog of continuous apologies and imposed, never ending penance.

The ignominious demise of Soviet Communism, a threat to us and our existence prior to 1991, in no way lessened the beating war drums and the dreams of international “democratization” or the desire for imposing “egalitarian values” emitted from the American foreign policy establishment. Nor its implicit, if not always seamless, tacit collaboration with the aims of uber-globalists like Soros. The specter of the George W. Bush years, of a John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and of Neocon “thought leaders” like Bill Kristol and James Kirchick demanding that the full panoply of “gay and lesbian rights” be implemented in Russia, that “democratic values” be imposed in Iraq, and that America intervene in Syria, are stark reminders that those policies continue full blast in the Swamp.

And thus when Donald Trump uttered the unutterable and ordered the withdrawal of American troops, he enraged not just the fanatics over on the progressivist Left, but the unelected managerial bureaucrats and Republican and “conservative” denizens of that same Swamp (who hold themselves condescendingly above all those rubes and deplorables out in the American hinterland). How dare the Trumpster question the “national consensus”! How dare he challenge the irrepressible advance towards world democracy and equality for everyone, everywhere! How dare he be so petty and insular as to reject “progress”!

Thus the howls of disapproval and anger directed at the president for his announcement last week that he is doing exactly what he declared he would do, both during his presidential campaign and back in December: withdraw American “advisers” from the Turkish border in extreme northeastern Syria.

Unlike the jeremiads one hears from nearly all the media, including Fox News and pundits like Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade, this decision was not unexpected, but had been in the planning stage and in the offing since this past December (when General Mattis resigned because he disagreed). The president just finally decided to follow through on his promise.

Perhaps the most pointed—and poignant—argument used by those who oppose the president is that we are leaving “our Kurdish allies in the lurch, we are deserting them,” placing them at the mercy of the Turks just across the border who have already begun to attack them. Those who make this argument appear to forget that the Marxist Kurdish resistance in that region has been and continues to be, in many respects, an anti-Turkish terror group hoping to carve out of Turkey a large area to be part of an independent Kurdish nation. Over the years they have engaged in various barbaric acts of terrorism and mayhem directed not only against the Turkish military but also against civilians. Our alliance with them, such as it was, was one of convenience: that we would offer them some temporary aerial cover, a kind of shield against their hereditary enemies, and in return they would assist us in that small area of northeastern Syria that continued to be subject of ISIS attacks.

This they did.

But too often we Americans suffer from both strategic and historical myopia...

And, given our very dubious record (at best) in the Middle East, our efforts at “democratization” and “peace-keeping” should have taught us a lesson or two. Unfortunately, the foreign policy Swamp and the globalists continue to believe that they can reconstruct human nature, with enough American advisers, enough American aid, enough secularized education and population re-programming and re-educating…and maybe a few body bags thrown in for good measure.

In so doing, they actually bring on the eventual demise of the America Empire.

Be seeing you

Photo: High Myopia R- 18,5 L -20,0 4 | -glasses album ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Britain’s Secret Saudi Military Support Program – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

The Pentagram’s strings are long.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/10/08/britains-secret-saudi-military-support-program/

By Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis
Daily Maverick

The U.K.’s Ministry of Defence has mistakenly admitted for the first time the budget size of a multibillion-pound program it manages for the Saudi Arabian royal family’s de facto protection force, which is also active in the devastating war in Yemen.

It can also be revealed that this program, which is embedded in the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) but paid for by the Saudi regime, employs 10 times more people than the British government publicly admits, raising questions about ministers misleading the parliament in Westminster.

The Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project (known as Sangcom) has operated since 1978, when the British government signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the authorities in Riyadh. The project provides military communications equipment to the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) but the MOU, which is itself secret, stipulates complete secrecy on the budget.

In July this year, however, the MOD advertised for the position of a Sangcom project manager based in Riyadh. The job was open only to male applicants and the advert stated: “The UK MOD SANGCOM Project Team is responsible for the delivery of a £2bn programme to modernise the Saudi Arabian National Guard’s communications network.”

This is the MOD’s first public acknowledgement of the size of Sangcom’s budget in its 40-year history and such a casual mistake is likely to infuriate its Saudi counterparts. As recently as March 2019, Labour MP Catherine West asked a parliamentary question about the program’s budget and was told that it is “confidential to the two governments.”

It is understood that this £2-billion budget runs for 10 years and was agreed in February 2010. This new phase of the Sangcom project is 15 times larger than the previous agreement, worth £124-million and signed in 2004.

The MOD spends £1.4-billion per year on its own internet-technology and telecommunications systems.

An MOD spokesperson told us: “Information in this job advert was uploaded in error and it was subsequently taken down,” adding, “the budget is confidential to the two governments.”

But, in a further sign of unusually lax information management, the job posting, while being taken down on some sites after the MOD was alerted, is still available on the internet. In addition, Sangcom’s financial controller states on the social network LinkedIn that he is “responsible for a budget of circa £1.6B.”

The White Army

Also known as the White Army, the Saudi Arabian National Guard comprises about 130,000 troops and acts as an internal security force separate from the regular Saudi army. Drawn from tribes loyal to the ruling Saud clan, the SANG’s essential task is to protect the royal family from a coup.

The Sangcom project, alongside Britain’s long-standing military training of the SANG, clearly implicates the U.K. in the defense of the House of Saud, along with the U.S., which is also training and arming it.

The Saudi Arabian National Guard has also been involved in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has created the world’s largest humanitarian disaster, with 24 million people — nearly 80 percent of the population — needing assistance and protection.

In April 2015, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman ordered the SANG to join the Yemen campaign, which until then had been the preserve of the Saudi air force and the regular army. In 2018, a classified French intelligence report noted that two SANG brigades — about 25,000 men — were deployed along the border with Yemen. Major General Frank Muth of the U.S. military also revealed that a SANG brigade, returning from fighting at the border with Yemen, had 19 of its light armored vehicles “shot up pretty badly.”

Earlier this year, another U.S. military official, Colonel Kevin Lambert, manager of the U.S.’s own SANG modernization program, confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflict.”

U.K. support for the SANG is another aspect of its involvement in the Yemen war, which continues even after the government lost a court case concluding that weapons sales to Saudi Arabia were unlawful.

Secret Program

Shrouded in secrecy, almost no information on Sangcom is available to the public or the British parliament. In response to another parliamentary question, in 2014, the government said only: “The function of the Sangcom Project is to support the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by acquiring and supporting modern communications capabilities for the Saudi Arabian National Guard.”…

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey ABC News Fakeout

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

There was just one small problem: the film footage shown by ABC News was faked, it was not of Turks massacring helpless Kurds. It was, instead, film footage of a nighttime arms demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky.

“Interventionists will do anything to prevent US troops from ever coming home, and their favorite tactic is promoting ‘mission creep.’ – Ron Paul

https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

by Boyd Cathey

Friends,

There it was for all to see Sunday night, October 13…right there on ABC Nightly News (and then re-shown on “Good Morning America”): grotesque and horrible film footage of Turkish army units shelling and massacring our defenseless Kurdish allies and their families in northeastern Syria. You could hear Lindsey Graham wailing at top voice: “Stop the atrocities! Stop the genocide!”

There was just one small problem: the film footage shown by ABC News was faked, it was not of Turks massacring helpless Kurds. It was, instead, film footage of a nighttime arms demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky. ABC News’ announcer, David Muir, intoned that the situation in Syria “is rapidly spiraling out of control.”

ABC’s Tom Llamas, earlier on Sunday, breathlessly reported: “This video right here appear[s] to show Turkey’s military bombing Kurd civilians in a Syrian border town. The Kurds, who fought alongside the U.S. against ISIS. Now, horrific reports of atrocities committed by Turkish-backed fighters on those very allies.”

“This video, obtained by ABC News, appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack on the border town of Tal Abyad,” senior foreign correspondent Ian Pannell, who is in Syria, said Monday on Good Morning America.

When finally confronted by the fake video, a spokesman for ABC replied defensively:

“We’ve taken down video that aired on ‘World News Tonight Sunday’ and ‘Good Morning America’ this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy,” a spokesman told the Washington Examiner. “ABC News regrets the error….”

But did you see any corrections on air?

Which raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions: how did ABC get the footage? Did they not know its provenance? What was the reason for screening it?

I think we know the answers to those queries. But in answering them, another even deeper consideration arises: here we have a mouthpiece of the Deep State Swamp and a leading minion of the Mainstream Media, agents of the Washington Establishment once again attempting to manipulate public opinion to defend the “national consensus” in favor of globalism, and to persuade viewers that what is black is actually white…and that Donald Trump is, well, abetting war crimes and criminality.

Fascinatingly, Fox avoided mentioning it or commenting on it—this from the so-called “conservative network”—until Lou Dobbs mentioned the fake video on October 16 on his program “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” Dobbs, of course, is one of the very few commentators still on Fox who actually favors the American withdrawal from the never-ending conflict in Syria.

And the reason, again, is obvious. Fox News by and large (with a couple of notable exceptions) is zealously pro-intervention and resolutely opposed to the pull-back of American “advisers.” Thus, the virtual black out. Who says the Neoconservatives don’t engage in their own censorship?

And so do the lemmings in Congress. They voted in the House of Representatives 354 to 60 to condemn the president’s withdrawal order, and that number included 129 Republicans congressmen, despite that fact that support for reducing American presence is well over 57% among the Republican base.

It seems to make no difference to the Republican and conservative Inside-the-Beltway elites. Always, it seems, they join with their friends on the further Left to defend the continuing efforts to impose egalitarianism, democracy, and the triumph of a globalist “new order” all around the world, paid for by American taxpayers and with returning American body bags.

The news from northeastern Syria is actually hopeful, although you will not hear that from Fox News or from most members of Congress. Because of the American pull-back, the Syrian Kurds have turned to the legitimate government of Syria for cooperation and protection: to the government of Bashar al-Assad which, with substantial Russian support, has done most of the fighting against ISIS and cleared most of the country of those terrorists.

Here, succinctly, is how Ron Paul correctly described it:

“Interventionists will do anything to prevent US troops from ever coming home, and their favorite tactic is promoting ‘mission creep.’ As President Trump Tweeted, we were told in 2014 by President Obama that the US military would go into Syria for just 30 days to save the Yazidi minority that they claimed were threatened. Then that mission crept into ‘we must fight ISIS’ and so the US military continued to illegally occupy and bomb Syria for five more years.

 

“Even though it was the Syrian army with its Russian and Iranian allies that did the bulk of the fighting against al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, President Trump took credit and called for the troops to come home. But when the military comes home, the military-industrial-Congressional-media complex loses its cash cow, so a new rationale had to be invented.

“The latest ‘mission creep’ was that we had to stay in Syria to save our ‘allies’ the Kurds. All of a sudden our military presence in Syria was not about fighting terrorism but rather about putting US troops between our NATO ally Turkey and our proxy fighting force, the Kurds. Do they really want us to believe that it is ‘pro-American’ for our troops to fight and die refereeing a long-standing dispute between the Turks and [Marxist] Kurds?

“It was a colossally dumb idea to train and arm the Kurds in Syria in the first place, but after spending billions backing what turned out to be al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria to overthrow the Assad government, Washington found that the Kurds were the only willing boots remaining on the ground. While their interest in fighting ISIS was limited, they were happy to use Washington’s muscle in pursuit of their long-term goal of carving out a part of Syria (and eventually Turkey) for themselves.

“We can never leave because there will be a slaughter, Washington claimed (and the media faithfully repeated). But once again, the politicians, the mainstream media, and the Beltway ‘experts’ have been proven wrong. They never understand that sending US troops into another country without the proper authority is not a stabilizing factor, but a de-stabilizing factor. I have argued that were the US to leave Syria (and the rest of the Middle East) the countries of the region would find a way to solve their own problems.

“Now that the US is pulling back from northern Syria, that is just what is happening.

“On Sunday the Kurds and the Syrian government signed an agreement, brokered by the Russians, to put aside their differences and join together to defend against Turkey’s incursion into Syrian territory.

“Now ‘our Kurdish allies’ are fighting alongside the army of Syrian President Assad – who we are still told by US officials ‘must go.’ Washington doesn’t understand that our intervention only makes matters worse. The best way to help the Kurds and everyone else in the region is to just come home.”

That says it all too well.

*****

Here then are two columns that add to this: the first is a superb summary by Pat Buchanan; then, I remit a slightly edited column I first authored on October 13, “President Trump is Right on Syria.” It was picked up and published by The Unz Review”:

See here and here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Of Two Minds – Economic Decay Leads to Social and Political Decay

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

In other words, either go big and change the power structure or go home and stop promoting your own virtue.

https://oftwominds.cloudhostedresources.com/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oftwominds.com%2Fblogoct19%2Fdecay10-19.html

Charles Hugh Smith

If we want to make real progress, we have to properly diagnose the structural sources of the rot that is spreading quickly into every nook and cranny of the society and culture.

It seems my rant yesterday (Let Me Know When It’s Over) upset a lot of people, many of whom felt I trivialized the differences between the parties and all the reforms that people believe will right wrongs and reduce suffering.

OK, I get it, there are differences, but if the “reform” doesn’t change the source of the suffering and injustice, it’s just window-dressing that makes the supporter feel virtuous. Want an example? Let’s take the the “cruel and unusual punishment” for drug-law offenders, many of whom are African-American males whose lives are effectively hobbled by felony convictions and long sentences in America’s Drug War Gulag.

You want a “reform” that actually gets to the root and solves the source of the injustice? It’s simple: decriminalize all drugs and recognize drug use as a medical and social issue rather than a criminal-justice / Gulag issue. But that won’t happen because too many people are making too much money off the Gulag, which is now a public and private-prison Gulag.

(Other advanced nations have had success with this structural change. Maybe we could learn something from their examples?)

If you’re not ready to demand the full decriminalization of all drugs, then you’re not really interested in solving the problem; you’re just seeking virtue-signaling “reforms” that don’t upset the power structure. And since any real solution necessarily disrupts the power structure benefiting from the status quo, all the painless “reforms” are ineffective.

In other words, either go big and change the power structure or go home and stop promoting your own virtue. This is why the economy is floundering despite all the warm and fuzzy headlines about stocks rising due to the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates: we collectively refuse to consider structural changes in the way “money” is created in our perverse system–perverse because the way “money” is created guarantees soaring inequality.

If you don’t change the way “money” is created and distributed, you change nothing. Did the thousands of pages of financial regulations passed after the 2008-09 debacle reverse wealth and income inequality? The answer is no, wealth inequality is rising even faster after all the feel-good “reforms.” The net result of the “reforms” is the costs of compliance for banks went up substantially, and that regulatory moat simply pushed risky lending outside the banking system.

In other words, the sources of systemic instability and wealth inequality weren’t even touched by the “reforms.” If the financial system were actually stable, why was the Federal Reserve only able to “normalize” interest rates and its bloated balance sheet for a few months after a decade of “growth”? Why is the Fed reverting to “emergency measures” again after a few brief months of “normalizing”?

If all these “reforms” were worth more than a bucket of spit, why isn’t wealth inequality reversing?

Here’s the way our “money” system works: banks borrow trillions of dollars into existence and loan it to debt serfs at high rates of interest. Central banks create “money” out of thin air and distribute it to the very top of the wealth-power pyramid: banks, financiers and corporations.

The only way to change this corrupt, exploitive system that generates inequality as its only possible output is to eliminate central banks and fractional reserve banking, and ban the aggregation of “too big to fail” entities: a system of 1,000 small banks is structurally far less vulnerable than five mega-banks that are tightly bound to virtually every risk-on asset in the entire system.

if you don’t change the way “money” is created and distributed, you change nothing.

Since we’re incapable of changing the sources of financial instability, fragility and inequality (because it would destabilize those benefiting from the status quo), we’re doomed to watch our social and political systems decay and implode.

If we’re honest–an increasingly rare and hazardous condition–we’d admit that the purchasing power of wages has fallen sharply for the bottom 95% in the past 19 years, while the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top .01% has skyrocketed, leaving the bottom 80% with few if any meaningful assets and only the top 5% reaping the gains in our “winner take most” economy.

This systemic decay in social mobility, positive social roles and financial security has eroded the social fabric as the implicit social contract between the powerful and the disenfranchized has unraveled: all the phony “reforms” of the past 19 years simply locked in insiders’ “legal” pillaging.

The failure of the political system to recognize and rectify the broad-based decline of America’s economy as experienced by the bottom 80% has eroded trust in politics as a “solution.” Instead, people see the same powerful corporations buying influence with both parties, and tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington DC writing the legislation passed by both parties (recall Nancy Pelosi’s brief flash of honesty: “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.”). Anyone who believes this manifests the ideals of democracy is delusional.

To those I offended: please pardon my frustration with all the phony “reforms” that change nothing and thus serve to tighten the grip of the self-serving power structure on the throat of the nation.

Here’s the unpalatable reality: The financial rot spread to the “real” economy two decades ago, and now the economic rot is decaying the social and political orders.

If we want to make real progress, we have to properly diagnose the structural sources of the rot that is spreading quickly into every nook and cranny of the society and culture. If we’re not willing to disrupt those reaping the outsized benefits from the existing structures of wealth and power, we’re deluding ourselves if we believe we’re solving any problems at the source.

If you’re still pissed off at me, please read the first pages of my new book (the first section is free); maybe you’ll be less pissed off once you see where I’m coming from: Will You Be Richer or Poorer? Profit, Power and A.I. in a Traumatized World.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »