MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Dangerous Anti-Science Conspiracy Theorists To Continue Wearing Masks Outside

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

“We have no idea what is going through these people’s minds,” said FBI spokesman Arnold Briggs. “They were so eager to get injected with something, and yet they insist on masks like they don’t think the vaccination did anything.

https://babylonbee.com/news/people-still-wearing-masks-to-be-locked-away-for-being-dangerous-lunatics

U.S.—The pandemic has come with big changes for everyone, and in some, it’s caused downright insane behavior. Perhaps the most insane are those who were eager to get the vaccine and yet insist on wearing a mask like they have no idea what a vaccine is. Law enforcement is finally going to do something, as they’ve announced they will now apprehend and lock up these lunatics for the protection of themselves and others.

“We have no idea what is going through these people’s minds,” said FBI spokesman Arnold Briggs. “They were so eager to get injected with something, and yet they insist on masks like they don’t think the vaccination did anything. Some even try to put masks on children. These are crazy, crazy people, and they need to be isolated from society — but not because of COVID-19, from which they are no longer at risk.”

The FBI is telling everyone not to approach any vaccinated person wearing a mask but to instead call authorities. They will then apprehend the individual and try to reason with the person, explaining what a vaccine is and why people wear masks so that maybe the person will understand why they should take it off. If that doesn’t work, the individual will be locked in an insane asylum, where hopefully a series of electroshocks will jump-start the brain into working again.

Most people are happy about this new policy, but dangerous lunatics oppose it. “Mask! Gotta wear a mask!” said one deranged vaccinated person who was wearing a mask outside. “Maaaaaask!” he yelled as he was carted away.

Bee seeing you

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

Inflation: Cost-push or Demand-pull?

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

The effects of unprecedented government spending (of money it does not have) and unprecedented Federal Reserve counterfeiting of U.S. dollars are showing up in the economy with rapidly rising prices. You’re expected to focus only on the symptoms, and then blame everything except The Fed. The Ron Paul Liberty Report focuses on the root of the problem, along with the solution.

Be seeing you

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

Watch “Talking About Stoicism 122 Let Me Be Honest” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

“Let Me Be Honest”…As opposed to…

https://youtu.be/bcc-GIRL3WI

Be seeing you

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

MIT Researchers Admit Anti-Maskers Are More Scientifically Rigorous | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations  in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/mit-researchers-admit-anti-maskers-are-more-scientifically-rigorous/

By Annie Holmquist

Upon recounting my bout with COVID to an acquaintance, I was asked if I knew where I might have picked up the virus. When I mentioned my hunch about the source, my acquaintance gasped, then inferred that I and those I caught it from must not have been wearing masks since the virus had spread.

“No,” I responded, much to her surprise, “we were wearing masks.”

Such a comment demonstrates the great confidence which many have placed in measures such as lockdowns and mask mandates in recent months. “Science confirms that these measures work!” many exclaim, arguing that those who question masks or other allegedly helpful restrictions are anti-science.

Yet new research from several MIT academics casts some doubt on the anti-science nature of COVID skeptics. In their paper, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” the academics show some curious cognitive dissonance, making anti-mask proponents out to be clever propagandists who create easily understandable charts and graphs to sway the public away from the authoritative opinions of experts.

At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations  in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”

The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”

People can bicker all day long about which side is right on this issue, but in this instance, these straightforward, honest comments from the MIT researchers should give us pause. They are clearly opposed to the ideas of the anti-maskers, yet they can’t help but begrudgingly respect the scientific methods of their opponents.

So how do we cut through the obvious politics of this issue and discern between science and propaganda? American philosopher James Burnham offered some insight into this question in his 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution, writing:

The aim of propaganda is to persuade people to accept certain ideas or feelings or attitudes. The aim of science is to discover the truth about the world. The propagandistic aim is usually best served by being thoroughly one-sided, by presenting only what is favorable to your case and suppressing all that might weaken it and bolster your opponent.

One could say that both the anti-maskers and the MIT researchers are engaging in propaganda, anxious to present only evidence favorable to their side. But in another sense, one could argue that they are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically.

Burnham expands upon this thought by noting, “In the case of any hypothesis which is under consideration, science, in contrast to propaganda, is always anxious to present all the evidence, for and against. The scientific aim is just as well served by proving a hypothesis false as by proving it true.” [Emphasis added.]

Given these facts, why is it that nearly every media source, politician, and even the average Joe is so eager to squelch “unorthodox” opinions like those explored in this MIT paper? If they refuse to allow their hypotheses to be tested, then they are the ones who are truly anti-science.

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout. When not writing or editing, she enjoys reading, gardening, and time with family and friends.

Be seeing you

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

Circling the Wagons | Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

By a previous subpoena, the state Senate took possession of 2.1 million ballots and nearly 400 Dominion election machines and turned them over to the company, Cyber Ninjas, hired to do the audit. Problem was, the county didn’t hand over the passwords to the Dominion machines. Officials claim they never had the passwords, which suggests that the County Board of Elections never had control over their own elections, for which they are legally responsible. A curious situation, because the county says it conducted a previous examination of its voting machines weeks after the election. How’d they do that without the Dominion passwords?

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/circling-the-wagons/

James Howard Kunstler

Perhaps Arizona can adopt California’s new minority-friendly math curriculum before the election audit ordered by the Arizona State Senate is completed in a month or two. Under that new system of math, or maff, two plus two doesn’t equal four, it equals more, five plus five equals a lot more, and 1,672,143 minus X equals don’t-bother-me-with-your-racist-numbers.

It’ll take some kind of math or maff to unravel the mystery of Arizona’s 2020 election results, and the people who run Maricopa County — that is, Phoenix and its suburban asteroid belt, or about 60 percent of the AZ population — don’t want that mystery solved. So, they are not responding to a court-ordered subpoena to produce the evidence, namely, the vote tabulation files from their Dominion Systems voting machines, the county’s server routers, or the chain-of-custody records of the precinct batches of paper ballots. The county’s servers indicate that the folder containing the database of election results was deleted sometime after the election, so the county has no record of the vote. Hmmmm….

By a previous subpoena, the state Senate took possession of 2.1 million ballots and nearly 400 Dominion election machines and turned them over to the company, Cyber Ninjas, hired to do the audit. Problem was, the county didn’t hand over the passwords to the Dominion machines. Officials claim they never had the passwords, which suggests that the County Board of Elections never had control over their own elections, for which they are legally responsible. A curious situation, because the county says it conducted a previous examination of its voting machines weeks after the election. How’d they do that without the Dominion passwords?

Maybe the data was not stored on the Dominion machines but booted onto external hard drives, which would be against the rules. Or maybe the Dominion machines were connected to the Internet and information was booted into the Dominion machines from somewhere else on Planet Earth. That would be very very against the rules. If that was so, the log files on the machines would show time-stamps and where the outside information originated. Would that be enough for the State Senate to de-certify the Arizona election results? Or prompt audits in other states where the outcome is still contested: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

An awful lot of interested parties don’t want a complete examination of the 2020 Arizona vote to go forward, including now the US Department of Justice, which sent a letter from its Civil Rights Division to state Senate President Karen Fann threatening legal action against canvassers directed to ascertain whether voters actually lived at the addresses recorded on their mail-in ballots.  The DOJ asserts that this would be threatening and coercive to voters — if they could even be found at these addresses. That was a week ago. So far, the auditors have not sent canvassers out and the DOJ hasn’t moved.

However, the DOJ is beefing up its home office defenses by appointing one Susan Hennessey to its National Security Division and one Lisa Monaco as Deputy Attorney General, assigned to run the little twerp in the corner office, Merrick Garland. Do they sense something coming at them… some possibly lethal threat that must be met with a rabid counterattack? Hennessey was general counsel of the Lawfare Institute, the gang of attorneys who coordinated with the DOJ, FBI, and The New York Times in the RussiaGate campaign, the subsequent Mueller investigation, and the shenanigans surrounding “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella and IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson in the first Trump impeachment. Lisa Monaco was special counsel to Robert Mueller when he was FBI Director and previously head of the DOJ national Security Division. Earlier, she was on the DOJ task force that was cited for prosecutorial misconduct in the Enron case. She’s the kind of lawyer Shakespeare was talking about in Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV.

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr is reportedly ramping up an indictment of Donald Trump on financial fraud charges. He’s been dicking around on this for years. Do you wonder why he picked this moment to move? Pinning a felony conviction charge on the former president would be just the ticket for negating any undesirable outcome of the Maricopa County election audit, and any other formal inquiries in other states over the 2020 election. They don’t call it lawfare for nothing. The problem with that is ultimately you may be using the law to disable and defeat itself. You could say that these smoothies have just about succeeded in doing that. We are a country so far down the path to self-destruction, that the truth has been declared an enemy of the people.

Be seeing you

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

These European Countries Beat Poverty and Increased Wealth with Low Taxes and Low Regulation | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2021

By American standards, Ireland is still a relatively poor country. However, since economic liberalization, Ireland has made tremendous progress in reducing poverty and raising incomes through economic growth.

https://mises.org/wire/these-european-countries-beat-poverty-and-increased-wealth-low-taxes-and-low-regulation

Eben Macdonald

Democratic socialists frequently laud the Nordic countries as examples of the success of progressive taxation, generous welfare states, and powerful labor unions. Free marketers have responded by pointing out that not only did these countries get rich long before these policies were implemented, but they also have as much regulatory flexibility as the United States, according to World Bank data. However, we should also point to countries that embraced so-called neoliberalism as a means to getting richer and reducing poverty. It turns out that this strategy has been proven to work and these areas of Europe have living standards that are just as high, if not higher, than that of the Nordics. Here, we’ll look at three examples.

Luxembourg

The World Economic Forum is famous for its belief in “resetting“ capitalism to accomplish the aim of ”[s]teering the market towards fairer outcomes, bearing in mind environmental and social risks and opportunities and not just focusing on short term financial profits.” However, annually, they present the Global Competitiveness Index. It aims to discover the most economically developed and productive countries on Earth, in terms of infrastructure, education, and public health. This composite index has twelve main pillars: the two most relevant ones for our purposes are the first and seventh pillars, “institutions” and “labor market efficiency.” Within each pillar, there are smaller subcomponents. Under institutions, are included factors such as “property rights,” “burden of government regulation,” and “wastefulness of government spending,” while labor market efficiency includes ”effect of taxation on incentives to work.”

One can easily use the WEF’s data to demonstrate that the world’s most prosperous countries are market oriented and proenterprise. Here, our example is Luxembourg. According to the Pew Research Center, somebody on a low income in Luxembourg is richer than a lower-income person in any other Western country (the Nordics included), and moreover, the country can boast about having the second-strongest middle class in the world and the highest median household income in the world. Unfortunately, Pew Research Center does not define the income percentile boundaries of each category. However, for more perspective, information from Eurostat shows that as of 2019 the bottom 10 percent in Luxembourg is the fourth-richest in Europe.

What explains this? Does the Luxembourgish government spend vast amounts on welfare? While social spending is slightly above the Organisation for Economoic Co-operation and Development average at 21.6 percent of GDP, Luxembourg remains below many of its neighbors. In fact, tax take is 33.8 percent of the Luxembourgish economy, much below the average—many even consider Luxembourg to be a tax haven. Due to favorable property, corporate, and capital tax rates, they rank fifth on the Tax Competitiveness Index.

Here’s where the WEF’s data become relevant. Admittedly, Luxembourg ranks low in terms of the ease of starting up a business; however, in the burden of government regulation on business (referring to how free an enterprise is from red tape), they rank ninth; on property rights, they rank fifth; on “intellectual property protection,” they rank third; on “effects of taxation on incentives to work,” they rank tenth; on “effects of taxation on incentives to invest,” they rank eighth; and on “total taxes as percentage of profits,” they rank twelfth. By these metrics, Luxembourg is a definite free market economy. Luxembourg has a long history of embracing economic freedom. Between 1970 and 2001, they consistently occupied the top ten places on the Fraser Institute’s Index of Economic Freedom.

Ludwig von Mises taught us that marginal labor productivity, and hence wages, are determined by the ease with which businesses can invest in and accumulate capital—free of red tape, taxation, bureaucracy, government debt, and inflation. Luxembourg’s business-friendly environment explains why it has the most productive workers in the world. Hence, the poor in Luxembourg have, by international standards, a very high standard of living.

Switzerland

Switzerland sits with Luxembourg at the top of the WEF’s market-oriented categories.

See the rest here

Author:

Eben Macdonald

Eben Macdonald is a 16-year-old student, a keen free-marketeer, and he wants a society which is predicated on liberty.

Be seeing you

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

The Dystopian Future in Which Almost No One Owns a Car | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

It is not difficult to see how this could go very wrong. Can you imagine how much worse government lockdowns would have been at their height last year if the state merely needed to apply pressure to Uber-like ride services to cease general operation to stop people from moving?

Customers have complained about having features of their Tesla being removed without their notice or authorization, prompting one reporter to remark that “if someone buys a used car with cruise control, there isn’t an expectation that the manufacturer will then arrive and ask to remove it,” yet something similar has already happened. Similarly, Tesla collects vast amounts of data from its cars…

Tesla or any self-driving car that would naturally require some level of internet connection can be remotely shut down. As cool as Tesla may seem, the odds are very slim that it would defy a state order to render its fleet inoperable in the name of “public safety” or any other excuse the government may come up with.

https://mises.org/wire/dystopian-future-which-almost-no-one-owns-car

Zachary Yost

By this point readers are more than familiar with the previously unthinkable infringements on our traditional rights and liberties due to “health and safety” lockdowns that the state has inflicted upon us over the last year. While thankfully more and more restrictions are being lifted, it is important not to forget the period of veritable universal house arrest that was enacted in many states, in which even the freedom to go for a drive was denied to us. It unfortunately seems inevitable that we will face such scenarios again when a convenient excuse comes along, though I fear that the next time will be even worse thanks to the advent of self-driving cars.

Self-driving cars seem like a truly amazing advancement in human technology. As someone who is not particularly fond of driving, I once followed their development with great interest and hopeful anticipation. However, the advent of lockdowns as an acceptable government policy has shown just a taste of the kind of dangers that would come with their widespread adoption. While they would liberate us from many of the dangers of the road and free up time in which to work or enjoy ourselves on a ride, the price of this liberation is actually an unprecedented level of government control.

Some advocates of self-driving cars argue that their adoption would mean that very few people would actually own a vehicle anymore, and that instead everyone would basically Uber everywhere. Oftentimes such predictions are espoused by people who lament how evil American prosperity is and cringe at the thought of our car culture’s carbon footprint.

It is not difficult to see how this could go very wrong. Can you imagine how much worse government lockdowns would have been at their height last year if the state merely needed to apply pressure to Uber-like ride services to cease general operation to stop people from moving? Ride services would almost certainly be forced to require government-issued documents in order to book a ride in such a scenario, leaving the vast majority of the population completely stranded and unable to go anywhere.

Fortunately, there are many reasons to believe that without massive government intervention America is not likely to willingly let go of its deeply ingrained car culture in favor of ubiquitous Ubering.

However, even if people do own their self-driving cars, the danger remains.

Tesla is a case in point. Unlike a “traditional” car that drives off the lot and disappears into the traffic, Tesla cars are perpetually connected to the internet and Tesla itself. As the pioneer in self-driving cars, it seems likely that other manufacturers will also build around Tesla’s concept, which is itself similar to numerous other “smart appliance” trends in everything from house lighting to fridges, ovens, and washing machines. While this connectivity has great uses, such as allowing repairs to be completed remotely, the danger is obvious.

Customers have complained about having features of their Tesla being removed without their notice or authorization, prompting one reporter to remark that “if someone buys a used car with cruise control, there isn’t an expectation that the manufacturer will then arrive and ask to remove it,” yet something similar has already happened. Similarly, Tesla collects vast amounts of data from its cars, which is no doubt useful and needed for continuing to improve the system and work out kinks, but it is dangerously naïve to believe that such data would remain outside the reach of the government if it wanted it.

Finally, the same danger with universal Ubering still remains. Tesla or any self-driving car that would naturally require some level of internet connection can be remotely shut down. As cool as Tesla may seem, the odds are very slim that it would defy a state order to render its fleet inoperable in the name of “public safety” or any other excuse the government may come up with.

Think back to the hysteria of last spring. You are kidding yourself if you believe that people like Governor Whitmer of Michigan wouldn’t have ordered all cars rendered inoperable until “essential workers” were granted permission to drive if such a thing had been within her power.

The picture becomes even more bleak if one thinks of the nefarious uses such control could be used for beyond “public health” lockdowns. What if our current cancel culture craziness were to continue into a death spiral that resulted in something akin to the Chinese social credit system? Such a thing seems unthinkable—“this is America,” after all. But if in 2019 we had been visited by a time traveler who told us that in a year Americans would be forbidden from leaving their homes or going to church and that businesses would be forced to close en masse, we likely would have thought such a person was crazy. Yet here we are.

It is easy to see all the benefits that would come with self-driving cars, but at the end of the day the potential for dramatically increased government control and abuse is horrifying to contemplate. Author:

Zachary Yost

Zachary Yost is a freelance writer and Mises U alum. You can subscribe to his newsletter here.

Be seeing you

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

Four (not forty) acres and a Mule From Governor Wolf today

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

For some reason this song won’t stop playing in my head.

Be seeing you

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

Liz Cheney Lied About Her Role in Spreading the Discredited CIA “Russian Bounty” Story – Glenn Greenwald

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

As part of her ideological war to reclaim the GOP for neocons, the now-deposed House leader falsely denied her role in a tale designed to block withdrawal from Afghanistan.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-role-in?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozMTczNjk0NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MzY0MTE0OTYsIl8iOiJvVC9qbyIsImlhdCI6MTYyMTAxNjA3NCwiZXhwIjoxNjIxMDE5Njc0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.5wsC3guou1Z_R8D5oesQpaTP5pMr_svtosbIdTEoJrA

Glenn Greenwald

In an interview on Tuesday with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) denied that she spread the discredited CIA “Russian bounty” story. That CIA tale, claiming Russia was paying Taliban fighters to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan, was cooked up by the CIA and then published by The New York Times on June 27 of last year, right as former President Trump announced his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. The Times story, citing anonymous intelligence officials, was then continually invoked by pro-war Republicans and Democrats — led by Cheney — to justify their blocking of that troop withdrawal. The story was discredited when the U.S. intelligence community admitted last month that it had only “low to moderate confidence” that any of this even happened.

When Baier asked Cheney about her role in spreading this debunked CIA story, Cheney blatantly lied to him, claiming “if you go back and look at what I said — every single thing I said: I said if those stories are true, we need to know why the President and Vice President were not briefed on them.” After Baier pressed her on the fact that she vested this story with credibility, Cheney insisted a second time that she never endorsed the claim but merely spoke conditionally, always using the “if these reports are true” formulation. Watch Cheney deny her role in spreading that story.https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Fd6u_p0K9aE?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Liz Cheney, as she so often does, blatantly lied. That she merely spoke of the Russian bounty story in the conditional — “every single thing I said: I said if those stories are true” — is completely and demonstrably false. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), there are few if any members of Congress who did more to spread this Russian bounty story as proven truth, all in order to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In so doing, she borrowed from a pro-war playbook pioneered by her dad, to whom she owes her career: the former Vice President would leak CIA claims to The New York Times to justify war, then go on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, as he did on September 8, 2002, and cite those New York Times reports as though they were independent confirmation of his views coming from that paper rather than from him:

MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has [Saddam] obtained that you believe would enhance his nuclear development program? …..

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. And what we’ve seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs.

MR. RUSSERT: Aluminum tubes.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in The New York Times this morning this is — I don’t — and I want to attribute The Times. I don’t want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam] has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.

So having CIA stories leak to the press that fuel the pro-war case, then having pro-war politicians cite those to justify their pro-war position, is a Cheney Family speciality.

On July 1, the House Armed Services Committee, of which Rep. Cheney is a member, debated amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that authorized $740.5 billion in military spending. One of Cheney’s top priorities was to align with the Committee’s pro-war Democrats, funded by weapons manufacturers, to block Trump’s plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2020 and to withdraw roughly 1/3 of the 34,000 U.S. troops in Germany.

To justify her opposition, Cheney — contrary to what she repeatedly insisted to Baier — cited the CIA’s Russian bounty story without skepticism. In a joint statement with Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, that Cheney published on her website on June 27 — the same day that The New York Times published its first story about the CIA tale — Cheney pronounced herself “concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces.” There was nothing conditional about the statement: they were preparing to block troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and cited this story as proof that “Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan.”

After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan. We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces. Congress has no more important obligation than providing for the security of our nation and ensuring our forces have the resources they need. 

An even more definitive use of this Russia bounty story came when Cheney held a press conference to explain her opposition to Trump’s plans to withdraw troops. In this statement, she proclaimed that she “remains concerned about Russian activities in Afghanistan.” She then explicitly threatened Russia over the CIA’s “bounty” story, warning them that “any targeting of U.S. forces by Russians, by anyone else, will face a very swift and deadly response.” She then gloated about the U.S. bombing of Russia-linked troops in Syria in 2018 using what she called “overwhelming and lethal force,”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

Bodily integrity

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2021

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.

Be seeing you

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