MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: ‘Why I’m Leaving California’

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2020

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/09/why-im-leaving-california.html

What Ben Shapiro says in this clip is on the minds of many CEOs and high-wage earners in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York City.

The tax base is leaving the cities thanks to the way wacko lefties running these operations.

Taxpayers will take a lot of abuse but when the threat is moved to directly outside the door despite paying high taxes, the tax base moves.

It is difficult to see how these cities don’t turn into third rate hell holes unless the lefties running these cities are replaced pronto.

On a tangential note, it is interesting that Shapiro has chosen Tennesse. The real number crunchers tend to choose this state. The late financial adviser Harry Browne lived there and Arthur Laffer operates out of Tennessee.  Though Browne and Laffer chose Memphis over Nashville.
 
 

–RW

Be seeing you

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

President Trump Labels Generals as Pawns of the Military-Industrial Complex | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2020

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men and women-at-arms.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/president-trump-labels-generals-as-pawns-of-the-military-industrial-complex/

by

Once again, the whispers of phantoms masquerading as administration officials have attempted to put Donald Trump on the defensive only two months before the fall election. And in typical fashion, the roused president has gone on an immediate rhetorical offensive.

Trump has doubled down on his affirmations towards the U.S. military and the American soldier, while simultaneously confronting the class of generals who command them. “I’m not saying the military’s in love with me—the soldiers are,” Trump said at a Labor Day press conference. “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

This is a dramatic shift in perspective from the man who spent the first two years of his presidency surrounding himself with top brass like Michael Flynn, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis (along with almost being beguiled into nominating David Petraeus as Secretary of State). Perhaps Trump learned the hard way that the generals of the forever wars don’t measure up to the twentieth-century soldiers he adulated growing up.

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men and women-at-arms. These men, selected and groomed because of their safe habits, spend years patting themselves on the back for managing wars-not-won, awaiting the day they can cash in. According to an analysis by The Boston Globe, in the mid-1990s nearly 50% of three- and four-star generals went on to work as consultants or executives for the arms industry. In 2006, at the height of the Iraq War, that number swelled to over 80% of retirees.

The examples are as endless as America’s foreign occupations: former Director of Naval Intelligence Jack Dorsett joined the board of Northrop-Grumman; he was later followed by former Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh; meanwhile, former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright went to Raytheon; former Chairs of the Joint Chiefs—the highest ranking position in the military—William J. Crowe, John Shalikashvili,, Richard Myers, and Joseph Dunford went on to work for General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin, respectively.

General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, in between his forced retirement from the Marine Corps and appointment as Secretary of Defense, joined the board of General Dynamics where he was paid over a million dollars in salary and benefits. Returning to public life, Mattis then spent two years cajoling President Trump into keeping the U.S. military engaged in places as disparate as Afghanistan, Syria, and Africa. “Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis told his commander-in-chief. Left unsaid was that a strategic withdrawal would also lead to a precipitous decline in Mattis’ future stock options, which he regained after he rejoined General Dynamics following his December 2018 resignation.

That resignation might have been premature, however. It was only a matter of weeks before Trump’s announced withdrawal from Syria, the impetus for Mattis’ departure, was reversed. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers continue to illegally occupy the north-east of the country. That’s in addition to the thousands of Americans still kicking dust in Iraq and Afghanistan, contrary to the president’s “America First” pledge.

And Trump is as guilty as any of his subordinates when it comes to coddling the military-industrial complex, gushing over billion dollar arms deals and their manufactured jobs numbers. It remains to be seen whether his latest announcement of a partial withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the month will turn out as phony as the others.

Whether meaningful or empty, Donald Trump’s words remain a significant departure from the norm. He is one of the first prominent figures in living memory—and certainly the first president, ever—to connect the controlling influence of the military-industrial complex to the actions and advice of U.S. generals. For this he has been compared to the man who first coined the term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, although even Ike never impugned the motivations of his fellow four-stars.

Trump’s language more closely resembles that of Major General Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated marine in U.S. history. “The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms,” Butler wrote in his 1935 book War is a Racket.

To eliminate this corrupting influence, Butler advocated an egalitarian price control to prevent the arms industry—and their pet generals—from profiting off the blood of American boys. “Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted—to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.”

Today that would be the equivalent of $1,733 a month, the same as a first year private in the army. It’s a far cry from the $96 million the CEOs of the Pentagon’s top five contractors—all listed above—were collectively paid in 2016.

Let’s call it a starting point.

This article was originally featured at The American Conservative

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Israel Demands F-35s As Part Of $8 Billion Military Aid Package | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2020

Israel DEMANDS!

Flooding the ME with weaponry.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/israel-demands-f-35s-as-part-of-8-billion-military-aid-package/

by

With the United States set to use the peace treaty as a chance to sell F-35 warplanes to the United Arab Emirates, Israel has been pushing for a bunch of free U.S. equipment based on pledges for a region-wide qualitative edge. On Wednesday, Israel offered its first list of demands.

The way Israel envisions this going down, they’ll get some $8 billion in equipment, mostly advanced U.S.-made aircraft. This would include an entire squadron of F-35s, the very plane that was supposedly the cause of all this.

While Israel was previously objecting to the sales to the UAE as threatening their military edge, officials are now revising it, based on the reality that they’re not going to get their way on blocking sales.

Now, Israeli officials say that the F-35 sales are expected to start a new region-wide arms race, and it is the arms race for while they need all these new arms. They did not elaborate on this, but also said that they expect leadership changes in some Gulf countries.

Israel offered nothing publicly on why they would expect an arms race, or who would be involved. The reality is that the UAE doesn’t have a lot of military rivals, especially not the sort that would be able to afford an arms race. Though Iran is the catch-all excuse, Iran would never be able to afford a slew of advanced warplanes to counter the F-35s, nor would they be likely to try, given their military doctrine is based on deterrence and retaliatory capabilities.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com .

About Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is the News Editor for Antiwar.com, your best source for antiwar news, viewpoints and activities. He has 10 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times and the Detroit Free Press.

 

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

‘When tyranny becomes the law…’ – RPI Sept. 20th Update

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Speaking of Nazi Germany, in Thursday’s press conference, where Texas Governor Greg Abbott magnanimously announced that he was “allowing” a few more customers to enter a few more select businesses, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick actually suggested that certain people who are “safe to be around” should wear arm bands to signify their “safe” status.

How did that work out last time, eh Dan?

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/maskprotest?e=4e0de347c8

 

Your author’s daughter (right) and son (background) protesting.

‘…rebellion becomes duty’

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

Today my son and one of my daughters joined me to participate in the “Open Brazoria County” weekly protest along the main drag of our current hometown, Lake Jackson, TX. The protests have been continuing for several weeks with the goal being to end the unconstitutional, illegal, and criminally unethical restrictions on the citizens of Brazoria County and Texas in the name of fighting a virus. 

Despite what many may think about the heart of “Ron Paul Country” here on the Texas Gulf Coast, there has been a depressing acceptance of the idea that some minor elected officials can somehow order certain businesses and institutions (like churches and bars) to remain closed while “allowing” others to continue in operation, and that the same officials somehow have the authority to tell us what we must wear on our bodies in the name of fighting a virus.

Suddenly our health – indeed our very physical being – no longer belongs to us, but has been expropriated by the state in the name of some larger gargantuan struggle. If it sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve probably read some of the great dystopian literature of the past 100 or so years. Or perhaps studied Soviet communism or Nazi Germany.

Speaking of Nazi Germany, in Thursday’s press conference, where Texas Governor Greg Abbott magnanimously announced that he was “allowing” a few more customers to enter a few more select businesses, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick actually suggested that certain people who are “safe to be around” should wear arm bands to signify their “safe” status.

How did that work out last time, eh Dan?

So on a rare beautifully mild day in Lake Jackson there were about 30 or so of us standing in the green patch alongside Lake Jackson’s busy main street holding up signs enforcing the idea that we must actively oppose tyranny if we are to remain free.

One man had a parrot on his shoulder.

We of a certain age were leavened by the energy and enthusiasm of so many youngsters happily holding their signs in-between chasing each other, running around madly, and tumbling somersaults.

Those homeschoolers!

Where I had been steadily disheartened by the seemingly universal acceptance here that one must comply with clearly illegal demands that we mask ourselves, I found myself absolutely thrilled by the response to our protest.

It is important to quantify as accurately as possible support versus opposition to one’s cause, and as I stood next to my son watching the cars go by (it was a very busy day!) we were heartened to conclude that support versus opposition to our cause was running literally more than 100 to one.

I had no idea what the actual sentiment regarding masks and other restrictions was because my only experience was in viewing the near-total mask compliance in the local grocery stores.

That is why today was so exhilarating. Car after car, truck after truck, SUV after SUV was honking horns and giving thumbs up, two thumbs up, and cheering us. Even Dr. Paul’s daughter-in-law passed by our protest and leaned all the way out the car with two thumbs in the air! We love you Peggy!

Of the hundreds of thumbs up and enthusiastic honks, there were literally two (maybe three, it’s hard to tell) negative reactions. One of the negative reactions was depressingly hilarious: two older people drove by with their masks tight across their faces in a car alone honking and pointing to their own masks. If anything, their sad protest of our protest demonstrated the absurdity of their cause.

“Why are you masking alone in your car?”
“Because they said to.”

We noticed a few squad cars from Lake Jackson’s finest circling around several times in the course of our protest. While it may seem fashionable in today’s climate to expect the worst from police officers, my son and I actually witnessed one officer passing by smiling and waving to us. My son said, “I am not at all surprised; they have to go around their whole day with those horrible masks on their faces.”

The pro-maskers like to claim the high ground by saying they are “doing it for you,” but the reality is that those of us who refuse to wear a mask under any condition are actually “doing it for you” in the hopes that those who are required to wear these unhealthy and unscientific rags will soon be free from their burden. I hope the police and the grocery store checkers and everyone else will soon be free to choose whether they put a mask on their face or not.

No one should be forced to wear a mask; no one should be prevented from wearing a mask.

They want to divide we who refuse to relinquish our civil liberties to state bureaucrats by constructing a strawman that we are “deniers” who “hate science” and believe the virus was somehow all a grand conspiracy, etc. That is what people do who have no argument. They toss straw. It is entirely logical to understand that disease poses a great risk to certain sectors of our population while strongly opposing state-tyranny over the entire population in the name of fighting said disease.

Last week in Pennsylvania a Federal judge ruled that lockdown orders were unconstitutional. As Dr. Paul always says, we do not need 50 percent plus one out there on the main drag of Lake Jackson or your own home town. If you want to be able to make your own choices about your health. If you are worried about a DARPA-funded chip inserted inside your body to alter your DNA in the name of “fighting a virus,” the time for making your opinion known is now. 

They are not backing off and they are emboldened by our silence. We all have a duty to fight to preserve our liberty. There are many ways to do so. Find you way and go for it!

 
Many of you will recognize my son from our RPI conferences…

Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Be seeing you

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

If the Election Produces No Clear Winner, the Military Is Definitely Not the Answer | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Last month, retired generals John Nagl and Paul Yingling wrote an open letter to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley claiming that the military ought to be ready to intervene to remove Donald Trump from the presidency if he loses.

But there’s a problem here…

It’s not an accident that the authors of the US Constitution went to great pains to ensure that the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms. Federal military personnel were treated accordingly.

https://mises.org/wire/if-election-produces-no-clear-winner-military-definitely-not-answer?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b2059dbdb7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_18_06_41&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b2059dbdb7-228343965

Last month, retired generals John Nagl and Paul Yingling wrote an open letter to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley claiming that the military ought to be ready to intervene to remove Donald Trump from the presidency if he loses.

But there’s a problem here. If Biden is clearly the winner, the odds are close to zero that Donald Trump is going to refuse to leave the White House quietly. Thus, in the scenario imagined by Nagl and Yingling, outside intervention—military or otherwise—is unlikely to be necessary at all. Moreover, in his article “The Generals Won’t Save American Democracy,” Fred Kaplan at Slate states what should be obvious: if Biden is the clear winner, virtually all of the Washington bureaucracy—both civilian and military—will hand over power to Biden.

The real problem arises when the outcome is more murky, and that’s precisely when we definitely don’t want the military involved. This isn’t merely a matter of hypothetical thought experiments, either. America experienced a disputed and unclear outcome for its presidential race in 1876. But in that case, the civilian government was careful to work out a compromise rather than use military power to impose a solution. Would the same thing happen today? That is not at all guaranteed.

What If the Outcome Is Unclear?

Consider a hypothetical situation: election night comes and goes, but it is unclear who the winner is. Several states report fraud, “irregularities,” or other problems that cast doubt on the presidential vote in several states. A multitude of lawsuits ensue.

Conceivably, all the legal decisions may not even be resolved by late January. Or maybe all the courts have ruled but a sizable portion of the public refuses to accept the outcome.

What then?

Shall the military then essentially “pick the winner” by siding with one candidate or the other? This would be a dangerous precedent to say the least, and it would invert the order envisioned by the Constitution itself: military officers would themselves pick their civilian commander-in-chief.

In a crisis situation such as this, it is clear the authors of the Constitution—and the Americans of the nineteenth century as well—wisely preferred a civilian-guided outcome of some kind. Historically, in times when general elections do not produce an obvious winner—as in 1800 and 1824—the House of Representatives would intervene to choose the president.

The Contentious 1876 Election

But in one case the election didn’t follow this script, and American politicians were forced to create an “unwritten deal” as in the case of the “Compromise of 1877.” This compromise was an agreement in which the Democrats pledged to recognize Hayes as the winner in exchange for the end of Reconstruction in the Southern states.

The compromise became necessary because Rutherford B. Hayes likely won the electoral college in a very close election, but Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by a considerably larger margin. There was real fear that many Democrats would refuse to accept Rutherford B. Hayes as a legitimate president. Some suggested forming militias to march on the White House. Indeed, as described by historian Gregory Downs, Samuel Tilden “asserted a state’s right to forcefully resist a usurper’s inauguration.” This was followed by the pro-Tilden governor of New York “promising state resistance to the ‘revolutionary’ overthrow of ‘the time‐consecrated methods of constitutional government.’”

For two months—between the election and the meeting of the group that would create the compromise—an orderly transition of power remained in doubt. Downs continues:

Fear shattered the unitary vision of the nation and produced a series of fantastic but not wholly unrealistic doubled images, visions of dual presidents, dual capitals, and dual armies. One of the most provocative rumors was that Tilden planned to stage a counter‐inauguration in New York City. Backed by a line of Democratic state militias from Connecticut to Virginia, he would seize the federal Treasury Building in New York, fund his government through customs collections in the harbor, and force Hayes from the capital to his own shadow republic in the Midwest.

None of this came to pass because the civilian government reached a compromise that required no troops to restore or impose order. Political disintegration was avoided. And while political separation is theoretically possible without violence, in late nineteenth-century America, it’s just as likely that a national breakup would have been accompanied by localized rioting and intrastate conflict. 

Why Not Use the Military to Resolve the Dispute?

But wouldn’t it have just been easier to have the military intervene? The Republicans were in power, so it would have been fairly simple to use the military to ensure the party retained control of the White House, especially since Hayes appeared to have won the electoral college vote. (Moreover, in those days before civil service reform, the federal bureaucracy would have been dominated by Republican loyalists.)

It’s what comes after that which is the problem. The military can intervene and coerce compliance rather easily in the short term. But once this happens, the legitimacy of the state begins to evaporate rather quickly. This is a recipe for division and violence, and military rule becomes the de facto reality.

Why the Constitution Strictly Limits the Role of the Military

It’s not an accident that the authors of the US Constitution went to great pains to ensure that the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms. Federal military personnel were treated accordingly.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to raise and support Armies” and “to provide and maintain a Navy.” Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States.” The authors of the Constitution were careful to divide up civilian power of the military, and one thing was clear: the military was to have no autonomy in policymaking or in choosing winning candidates.

The people who wrote these words did so in part because they were quite familiar with what to them was the relatively recent history of the English Civil War. This was a period when England came dangerously close to becoming a military dictatorship. During Cromwell’s time as “lord protector,” the line between military rule and civilian rule had become quite blurry. After 1655, the country even came under the de facto rule of eleven “major-generals.” This led to enduring hostility among many Englishmen to military rule. And it likely influenced the thinking of eighteenth-century Americans.

Will that idea endure into 2020?

The US is possibly heading toward the most contentious election since 1876. If it ends up being a “tie” in the manner of 1876, there will indeed be calls for the military to step in and “resolve” the conflict. Yingling and Nagl are simply the first ones to suggest the idea. Expect more to do so.

Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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

A Maverick, Literally – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

In Stow’s case, innocence is no defense. It doesn’t matter that he can prove he’s incapable of getting others sick because he himself isn’t. It doesn’t matter that people who aren’t sick can’t spread sickness.

His “crime” was to question this sickness of being presumed sick – and expected to act accordingly.

His refusal to accept guilt – and punishment – for what he hasn’t got and didn’t do is what landed him in hot water.

What ended up with him in handcuffs, for trying to go to class.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2020/09/18/a-maverick-literally/

By eric
 
 
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

And the children shall lead us – since the adults, apparently, won’t.

One such is 17-year-old Maverick Stow of Long Island, NY. He decided to lead by example – and go back to school. In person rather than virtual – because he’s sick of being treated as if he might be sick by people who are sick in the head.

Stow showed up for class – and was promptly suspended, for a year. He has been excluded from his senior prom as well as graduation. He also was arrested by Suffolk County police, who have stopped arresting criminals and now arrest kids for showing up to school – and  failing to pretend they are sick.

The school says it has a “zero tolerance” policy for “unauthorized people trying to enter our buildings to disrupt the educational process and/or to potentially cause an unsafe environment for our students and staff.”

So many italics added. Where to begin?

 

How about with all these possessives? Our buildings? Aren’t public schools public property, Herr (or is it Frau) Gesundheitsfuhrer? They are certainly paid for by the public, which  includes Stow’s parents – who haven’t got a say as far as whether to not pay for buildings their kids are forbidden to enter by those who control them.

Perhaps the Stow family is due a refund?

And our students? Interesting that the Herr/Frau Gesundheitsfuhrers also regard the humans they control as their property, too.

G-P Middle School – PODS System for Face-to-Face Learning from Gregory-Portland ISD on Vimeo.

Aber, the most loathsome italicized thing is this business of sanctioning kids who are potentially unsafe.  An assertion which cannot be disproved since anyone – kid or adult – is potentially practically anything. It is a sentence of guilt without even the possibility of establishing innocence – which is the glowing radioactive core of this WuFlu hysteria.

Also italicized – to make the point that punishing anyone on the basis of assertions is a pretty solid working definition of “hysteria.”

Stow isn’t sick. No one has even accused him of being sick. His actual health status is immaterial.  It is apparently sufficient to assert that he might be sick to punish him for refusing to pretend he is sick. Consider what this implies – in principle – if it is allowed to be established as the “new normal” for restricting and punishing people.

Wait. It has already been established as the basis for restricting and punishing people. Many examples, but here are a few:

Someone – it doesn’t have to be anyone specific; indeed, the absence of specificity is entirely the point – might use a gun to shoot up a school. People who never shot up anything (well, other than a paper target at a shooting range) are restricted and punished because the potential exists that they might shoot up something other than a paper target.

You go to an airport. You’ve never been to a jihadi training camp. You aren’t wearing a hijab much less a dynamite corset. But because it is asserted that the potential exists that you might be a “trrrist” – something that requires no proof at all – you are treated as such.

 

You are out driving – and forced to stop – not because you broke any law or gave any reason to suspect you might be so inclined. Your presence on the road requires you to prove you are not “drunk” – based on the potential that someone might be.

In the last two cases, at least, one can avoid punishment by proving one’s innocence (as opposed to the former standard of it being the obligation of the accuser to prove guilt before imposing punishment). You pass the “drunk” test – and you’re free to continue driving.

You let them jiggle your junk, you are free to board the airplane.

 

In Stow’s case, innocence is no defense. It doesn’t matter that he can prove he’s incapable of getting others sick because he himself isn’t. It doesn’t matter that people who aren’t sick can’t spread sickness.

His “crime” was to question this sickness of being presumed sick – and expected to act accordingly.

His refusal to accept guilt – and punishment – for what he hasn’t got and didn’t do is what landed him in hot water.

What ended up with him in handcuffs, for trying to go to class.

The Herr/Frau Gesundheitsfuhrer says Stow is “irresponsible and selfish” for not playing Sickness Kabuki.

The gaslighting is overpowering – much stronger than the WuFlu itself, which hasn’t killed 99.6 percent of the healthy/not-elderly population  – including practically no school-age kids, who are at greater risk of being killed by an accident such as falling down the stairs or from a bad hit during football practice than by the WuFlu.

But the hysteria has practically killed the country.

It has killed tens of millions of jobs – and careers. It has killed people’s financial security as well as their peace of mind. It has left old people to die alone in nursing homes – of depression caused by isolation. It is destroying the childhood of millions of kids, who are being isolated and regimented and taught to live in fear of a virus that is far less a threat to them than the fear itself.

One brave young man has said enough – and acted on that sentiment. He has set a worthy example for more adults to emulate.

Be seeing you

 

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

On Roosevelt and Stalin: What Revisionist Historians Want Us to Forget — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program was a major factor in Russia’s salvation. The list of goods that Roosevelt committed to send to the Soviet Union was astounding. It included shipments every month of 400 planes, 500 tanks, 5,000 cars, 10,000 trucks and huge quantities of anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, diesel generators, field telephones, radios, motorcycles, wheat, flour, sugar, 200,000 pairs of boots, 500,000 pairs of surgical gloves and 15,000 amputation saws. By the end of October 1941, ships were carrying 100 bombers, 100 fighter planes, 166 tanks all with spare parts and ammunition, plus 5,500 trucks. (5)

The siege of Moscow lasted from Oct 1941 to Jan 1942, it would claim 926,000 Soviet lives before it ended.

The Soviet Union was receiving supplies from the U.S., but it was taking the full brunt of the Wehrmacht army on their own.

According to WWII historian and authority on Nazi Germany Gerhard Weinberg, the German military’s own figures show that ten thousand Russian prisoners of war were shot or killed by hunger and disease EVERY SINGLE DAY for the first seven months of the war.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/18/on-roosevelt-and-stalin-what-revisionist-historians-want-us-to-forget/

Cynthia Chung

“Madman, thou errest. I say, there is no darkness but ignorance”

– William Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

There is a very real attempt to rewrite history as we speak. A history that is at the root of what organises our world today, for it is understood that who controls the past, will have control over our present and our future.

This attempt to rewrite history is of the most paramount significance because it is what is used today to shape who we regard as a “friend” and who we regard as a “foe.” Thus who controls the “narrative” of history, will also control who we see ourselves “aligned” with.

There is a consequence to this which can only lead to further disunity, to further conflict, to further war. It can only be remedied when the past is finally acknowledged.

There is still time to change this dreadful course.

A Meeting of Minds

The Tehran conference (Nov 28 – Dec 1, 1943) was the first time that Roosevelt and Stalin met in person. It was a historic meeting of the two most important leaders of the Allies that would shape the outcome of WWII.

Roosevelt had been trying to set up a meeting for more than a year, the meeting was of utmost importance because it would allow the two leaders to begin a basis for a solid “trust” to be formed, essential to not only winning the war but for maintaining a stable peace afterwards.

Over four years into WII had passed, and the level of distrust, fear and hatred for the Soviets was still prevalent in the political and military circles within the United States.

This was especially the case within the State Department career officers who were against FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, and thus antagonism to him and his policies were pervasive (1). When Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest advisor on foreign policy during WWII, was sent to Europe to check in on the foreign service, he had found many U.S. embassies and legations still displaying the portrait of Herbert Hoover on their walls instead of FDR.

George Keenan, best known as the author of the Cold War strategy of “containment,” was among many of similar fibre, who opposed FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, stating: “We should have no relationship at all with them…Never- neither then nor at any later date- did I consider the Soviet Union a fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for this country.”

The Foreign Services’ anti-Soviet attitude ran so deep that most were against aid to Russia even after Hitler had invaded, despite the Soviets losing more lives against the Nazis in the first few months than all of Europe combined.

Churchill himself made it no secret that he wanted to make sure Germany would emerge from the war strong enough to counterbalance Russia in Europe (strong… but as he sought to soothingly explain not dangerous).

However, Roosevelt would be the first to recognize that the ever growing barbarism of Hitler was much more dangerous than these foreign intelligence circles were estimating, and that Russia was an imperative ally, in fact the only ally, that could ensure its defeat.

The Tehran conference was a great success in collaborative strategy to win the war, but more importantly, it was a great diplomatic success that would begin one of the most important alliances to have ever occurred in modern history.

The Truth Behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

In 1936, Stalin had predicted how German aggression would break out upon the world:

“History shows that when any state intends to make war against another state…it begins to seek frontiers across which it can reach the frontiers of the state it wants to attack…I do not know precisely what frontiers Germany may adapt to her aims, but I think she will find people willing to ‘lend’ her a frontier.”

These statements were made before the Munich Agreement which was just that, a “lending of a frontier.”

On March 18th 1939 at Stalin’s direction Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed that France, Britain, Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey join together at a conference to draw up a treaty to stop Hitler. Chamberlain was strongly against the idea, writing to a friend: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives.” (2)

On April 14th 1939, Lord Halifax, British Foreign Minister said that Britain would not extend an alliance to Russia in case Germany were to attack. Russia was clearly being told to go at it alone.

On April 16th 1939, Stalin had Litvinov propose to Sir William Seeds the British ambassador, that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked.

Great Britain and France refused.

The Munich Betrayal had already been signed Sept 30th 1938, where Britain had “allowed” Hitler’s annexation of the German speaking territory of Czechoslovakia, as if it were a British colony that it could do with as it wished.

In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.

And lastly, that Prescott Bush on behalf of Union Banking was caught funding Hitler before and during WWII and on Oct 20th, 1942 had its bank assets seized under the “U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act.”

Despite all of this, it is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that has been selected by “historians” to go down in history as a deep stain on the moral character and true “face” of the Soviet Union. Confirmation that the Russians should never be trusted, for they would side with whoever wielded the greatest power, no matter the ideologies held.

This could not be further from the truth, and is in fact a gross disregard of the responsibility that Great Britain and France held in creating such a desperate situation for the Soviet Union. They had left her destitute because they wanted to see her destroyed.

Stalin was under no illusion. He knew that it was an impossibility for the USSR to coexist with a Nazi Germany, specifically because the existence of the Slavic people was considered unacceptable to the latter. Hitler, who described this belief in detail in his Mein Kampf, made no secret that he thought the Slavic people an inferior race and that after his conquest he planned to turn Russia and Poland into slave nations. Hitler would boast “The conflict [in the east] will be different from the conflict in the west.” The people of the west were to be subdued, the people of the east were to be annihilated.

Poland’s foreign minister Josef Beck who controlled foreign policy was strongly pro-German, and was adamant that Germany would never invade Poland. Some say Beck was a Nazi agent. It is curious that his son Anthony would in fact find after his father’s death, among his possessions an entire album filled with photos of Beck posing with Nazi generals and various officials of the Nazi government elite. (3)

Poland’s refusal to strategise a defense put the Soviet Union in an understandably difficult situation, since Poland shared a border with them. If Poland were to be invaded it would be used as a launching pad to attack the USSR, which had happened numerous times in the recent past, including during WWI.

Despite the fact that Poland would have absolutely no ability to defend itself in the case of a German invasion, Lord Halifax used as his excuse for putting off serious negotiations with the USSR that it was due to Josef Beck’s refusal to allow Russian soldiers to enter Poland, even if it were to drive back a Nazi army…who wanted to exterminate the Polish race as Hitler explicitly stated repeatedly. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Will a Military Coup Undo the November Elections, Donald Trump and the Republic Itself? — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/16/will-military-coup-undo-november-elections-trump-and-republic-itself/

Matthew Ehret

On March 20, I published an article called Why Assume There will be a 2020 Election? where I laid out the existential threat of a new Wall Street military Coup which would not only render elections obsolete, but would impose a new fascist hell onto America and the world.

In that article I discussed the importance of General Smedley Butler’s strategic decision to expose the Wall Street plot to overthrow the newly elected president Franklin Roosevelt who was in the midst of waging a war on both Wall Street, the City of London and the chaos these financiers engineered during the great depression. Butler’s congressional testimony put the spotlight on these shadow creatures and gave FDR the breathing space and public supported needed to wage war on America’s deep state while pushing a bold healing of the nation under the New Deal.

That article was followed by a sequel on April 3 entitled Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law which featured the story of John F Kennedy’s battles with the London-directed Deep State and Military Industrial Complex in depth and also how JFK worked closely with the film maker John Frankenheimer to expose these intrigues to the American people by turning the book 7 Days in May into a film (unfortunately released only after other means were found to depose of the president). That article also dealt with the various PNAC-affiliated “planning scenarios” run over a year before September 11, 2001 which established the groundwork for a new type of Coup d’état within America with Cheney’s Continuity of Government protocols, the vast expansion of biowarfare infrastructure under the Bio-Shield Act, regime change wars abroad and police state measures within America itself.

The Trump Factor

After years of ongoing deep state penetration of the USA since JFK’s murder, a surprising nationalist dark horse president found himself in the Oval Office in the form of Donald Trump and just two months away from the 2020 elections, the threat of a new Military Coup organized by international financiers is as high as ever.

In his Labor Day press conference, Trump, who has distinguished himself as the first president since Eisenhower to call out the “military industrial complex” threw down the gauntlet saying:

“Biden … sent our youth off to fight in these crazy endless wars. It’s one of the reasons the military— I’m not saying the military is in love with me; the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars…. And I said, ‘That’s good. Let’s bring our soldiers back home. Some people don’t like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money.’ One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, and that’s what it was.”

This statement should be taken both as a rallying call for patriots to use what is possibly their last chance to save the collapsing republic and avoiding world war three.

On September 5, Colonel Richard Black (Former State Senator and Judge Advocate) delivered a presentation at a Schiller Institute seminar where the colonel warned of the interconnected pattern of statements by former high ranking military officials either openly calling for a military coup (Lt. Colonels Paul Yingling and John Nagl on August 11) or celebrating the anarchist mobs threatening to tear the republic apart. To the latter group, Col. Black named former Defense Secretary James Mattis, Colin Powell, and Col. John Allen who have all questioned the authority of the President and touted their belief that Trump would not leave the White House willingly in January 2021. The actual source for those concerns didn’t come from any actual evidence obtained from reality however, but in fact arose out of “November chaos scenario war games” advanced by Soros/Clinton/Neocon-affiliated think tanks like the Transition Integrity Project which ran Event 201-like “fictional” scenario “war games”.

In one of the June TIP scenarios, Trump wins the popular November vote by a landslide, but due to the slow influx of mail-in ballots, it is soon revealed that Biden is the winner, whereby Trump supposedly locks the doors of the White House refusing to leave. In the TIP “game”, Biden was played by none other than John Podesta. These scenarios were again replayed more recently by a DNC-connected outfit named Hawkfish funded by Michael Bloomberg which was covered on Axios running a more detailed version of this computer model called “Red Mirage”.

Warning of a military coup, Col. Black stated “The coordinated release of scathing remarks by senior officials coupled with publication of a letter advocating a military coup suggests a deep sickness within the Pentagon and within our constitutional structure.”

As RT reported, between 2008-2018, 380 high ranking pentagon officials have been hired by defense contractors including 25 generals, 9 admirals, 43 Lieutenant Generals and 23 Vice Admirals… which provides just one sampling of the potential for treachery prevalent within the sick constitutional structure.

Other Soros-affiliated operations have sprung forth on multiple fronts to ensure maximum instability leading up to the elections. Beyond the obvious anarchy operations within the streets of America itself, a Canadian-based Soros-funded anarchist group called the Adbusters/Blackspot Collective which claims credit for coordinating Occupy Wall Street in 2010 has unleashed a 60-day “Lay Siege to the White House” offensive beginning on September 17. The British-Canadian pedigree of this act represents a long-standing tradition of anti-U.S. operations stretching back to the Aaron Burr plot of “northern secession” with Canada in 1804, the Montreal-directed assassinations of Abraham Lincoln AND John Kennedy to name but a few.

As Whitney Webb pointed out in her excellent assessment of this operation: “other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post), Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).”

As Webb lays out in her article and as I documented in my April 2020 ‘Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law’, the new “Continuity of Government” protocols created in February to deal with the inevitable breakdown of America’s governing mechanisms under COVID pandemonium are very much still in effect. A parallel chain of command under jarhead war hawk General Terrance O’Shaughnessy (head of both NORTHCOM and NORAD) has been established and members of that parallel government await the moment to come forth in bunkers 650 meters under a mountain in Cheyenne, Colorado to “wait out the COVID-19 crisis”.

Traitors tied to the Military Industrial Complex, and other NATO-phile unipolarist ideologues among the military are undoubtedly itching for action, and unless extraordinarily creative and speedy maneuvers can be accomplished by Trump and his trusted allies (who number few and far between) in tandem with his potential allies among the Multipolar Alliance, then all hope for the republic, and global war avoidance more broadly may be lost.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Erasing History and Erasing Truth: Censorship and Destroying Records Is the Cornerstone of Tyrants – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/gary-d-barnett/erasing-history-and-erasing-truth-censorship-and-destroying-records-is-the-cornerstone-of-tyrants/

By

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

~ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty ch. 2 (1859)

Tyranny requires that the truth be silenced, that real history be erased and rewritten, that speech be restricted, and that individual thought be silenced. In this time of constant turmoil, false flags, wars, civil unrest, and now internal bio-terrorism and manufactured pandemics, a major agenda of the state apparatus is to silence all dissent, and mandate conformity. It is imperative considering the state’s plan for total control that it stifle criticism and retain the power to control the mainstream narrative, while aggressively eliminating all other resistance and questioning. This is the state of the world that we live in today. As things continue to deteriorate, nonconformance cannot be allowed if global governance and a global reset are to be successful.

Current censorship has reached levels not seen in the past, and with all the advanced technology available, this nefarious plot to silence the thinkers and hide the truth could affect all forms of speech. It is getting much more difficult to find truthful information, as those like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and many other venues are eliminating content and access to content at a blistering pace. A day rarely goes by without something I am reading or researching on these sites being taken down or hidden. This can only lead to a world consumed by propaganda alone, thus guaranteeing that only the state narrative will be presented in any mainstream or easily accessible format. This is a dangerous situation, especially considering the likelihood that through vaccination or other methods, much of the population could soon become subject to transhuman experimentation where injectable nanoparticles and chips could be used to alter human behavior.

This is not a new phenomenon, as tyrants throughout human history have censored writing and speech in order to protect their power structure. Power is always troubled by any that dare to think, and any that dare to question. In ancient times and not so ancient times, books were burned to keep the populace from having access to any material that was not acceptable by the throne or by the current political authority. In cases of resistance to ‘high’ authority, many were also killed by the state, and in many cases these ‘cleansings’ were targeted to the educated class, because they had the capability to think critically and express their ideas publically. Those that held power by force of arms would never allow criticism and dissent, because that could lead to hostility and insurrection by the people.

In this time of Covid and this fake virus pandemic, things have changed in part, but much is as it has always been throughout history. This is one reason that history is so important, because regardless of progress and innovation, the underlying motives of the ruling class have changed little over time. Money, power, and control have always been the key concerns of the ruling class, it is just that the methods to keep that power and control have changed. Instead of the sword and guillotine, propaganda and fear have become the primary tools used to fool the people into compliance. In order for propaganda to work, elimination of dissent is imperative. Censorship plays a huge role in any effort to gain support of the masses, because without the possibility to reach the bulk of the people, the truth tellers become marginalized, and are shunned and ridiculed as troublemakers and conspiracy theorists.

The biggest censorship push in history is taking place today, which means that the biggest propaganda push is also underway. This false flag event called the coronavirus pandemic is not about one king seeking control over his subjects, but is about the few attempting to take over the entire planet. This is a global effort that is run by the few top claimed elites, with their tentacles of power reaching almost every country on earth through control of the banks, corporations, foundations, and the entire political class system.

Many have fought and died in order to protect free speech, but all speech is now under attack by the forces of evil. If the globalists have their way, free speech will be lost forever. This is the world of the Internet and computerized system saturation. Censorship today takes on a new look meant to accomplish the same goals as in the past. Blacklisting users, blocking content, and algorithmic manipulation allow for the state to control information, and with that control of information, it stands to reason that the general public will then be easier to manipulate and keep in check. The acceptance of tracking and tracing technology, continued isolation, vaccines capable of altering the DNA structure of individuals, chips and dyes mimicking the mark of the beast, and a continued state of fear will lead to an end of normalcy. The result sought is a new order, a “new normal,” that will be totally controlled by ruling ‘experts’ claiming to be able to sustain you, protect you, appease you, meet all your needs, and eliminate your worries. This system is called technocracy, and is dependent on a societal class fully controlled by an upper class. Does this sound familiar? It should, as that is the want of all tyrants, but in this day and age, it will look much different.

All of this relies on a willing public, and in order to achieve that total compliance on a scale this large, the human spirit must be broken, and love, family, emotion, responsibility, open communication, mass gatherings, and debate must be squelched. Once the pathetic masses accept this ruse, and acquiesce to the mandates coming, they will be transformed into a machine-like state through technological manipulation said to make life easier and more convenient. A totally digitized system is necessary in order to retain constant control. This may sound outlandish, and something akin to a dystopian science fiction novel, but that is because that is exactly what it is. The new world is coming, and by eliminating truth, eliminating our historical roots, and hiding all that is real and honest, what is left is a fantasy, but this fantasy will be deadly.

Seek the truth, seek honesty, ask questions, and believe nothing unless it can be personally verified. Do not allow the takeover of your lives by these monsters claiming to be your saviors.

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches”.

~ Ray Bradbury – “Fahrenheit 451: A Novel,” (1953). p. 209, Simon and Schuster

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Progressives inflict progress in California

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring all 430,000 undergraduates in the California State University system to take an “ethnic studies” course, and there may soon be a similar mandate for all high-school students. “Ethnic studies” is an anodyne description for what surely will be, in the hands of woke “educators,” grievance studies.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=02be34d5b

California, our national warning, shows how unchecked progressives inflict progress. They have placed on November ballots Proposition 16 to repeal the state constitution’s provision, enacted by referendum in 1996, forbidding racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Repeal, which would repudiate individual rights in favor of group entitlements, is part of a comprehensive California agenda to make everything about race, ethnicity and gender. Especially education, thereby supplanting education with its opposite.

The 1996 ban on preferences was not intended to, and did not, end all measures to increase the participation of minorities and women in the state’s post-secondary education, or in doing business with the state government. So, Proposition 16 should be seen primarily as an act of ideological aggression, a bold assertion that racial and gender quotas — identity politics translated into a spoils system — should be forthrightly proclaimed and permanently practiced as a positive good.

California already requires that by the end of 2021 some publicly traded companies based in the state must have at least three women on their boards of directors, up from the 2018 requirement of one woman. Last month, the legislature mandated that by the end of 2021 at least one director shall be Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaskan Native, or identify as LGBTQ. And by 2022, boards with nine or more directors must include at least three government favored minorities.

Where will this social sorting end? Proposition 16’s aim is to see that there is no end to the industry of improvising remedial measures to bring “social justice” to a fundamentally unjust state, and nation. The aim is to dilute, to the point of disappearance, inhibitions about government using group entitlements — racial, ethnic and gender — for social engineering. Most important, Proposition 16 greases the state’s slide into the engineering of young souls.

They are to be treated as raw material for public education suffused with the spirit of Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984”: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Progressives have a practical objective in teaching the essential squalor of the nation’s past. The New York Times’s “1619 Project” — it preaches that the nation’s real founding was the arrival of the first slaves; the nation is about racism — is being adopted by schools as a curriculum around the nation. If the past can be presented as radically wrong, radical remedies will seem proportionate.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring all 430,000 undergraduates in the California State University system to take an “ethnic studies” course, and there may soon be a similar mandate for all high-school students. “Ethnic studies” is an anodyne description for what surely will be, in the hands of woke “educators,” grievance studies.

Discussions of the proposed high-school requirement are being conducted in the progressive patois about “collective narratives of transformative resistance” in the “postimperial life” of a nation groaning under the bondage of capitalist, patriarchal and other “systems of power.” Students will be taught to become “positive actors,” with the government’s public-education bureaucracy stipulating what political positions are and are not “positive.”

Coming in the context of such measures, Proposition 16’s proposed repeal of the ban on racial preferences should be understood as repealing all scruples about the government- approved groupthink that Orwell warned against in “1984.” In this enterprise, California progressives have company.

Writing in the British journal Standpoint, Charles Parton, with 22 years of diplomatic experience working in and on China, explains that President Xi Jinping’s hostility to freedom’s prerequisites includes root-and-branch rejection of education, understood as the development of individuals’ abilities to think critically. Xi, who calls teachers “engineers of the soul,” wants education to be, Parton says, “collective, ideological and political.” The Chinese Communist Party says education begins by “grasping the baby,” primary school promotes “loving” the party, socialism and the collective, secondary schools inculcate “the ideology of socialist builders,” and universities must be, in Xi’s words, “CCP strongholds.”

The CCP’s and California’s indoctrinators differ somewhat concerning the particular mentalities they aim to impose. But both groups would extinguish actual education — teaching individuals how, as opposed to what, to think.

The principal difference is that the CCP is more candid than California is about replacing thinking with the regurgitation of governmentstipulated orthodoxies.

In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis celebrated how a single state “may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Or as a warning to it. George Will is a Washington Post columnist. Email him at georgewill@washpost.com.

George Will

Be seeing you

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