MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

U.N.’s Guterres Warns: ‘New Model for Global Governance’ Is Coming to Redistribute ‘Power and Wealth’

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

It won’t be THEIR wealth that get redistributed.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/21/u-n-s-guterres-warns-new-model-for-global-governance-is-coming-to-redistribute-power-and-wealth/

by Simon Kent

As the world continues to grapple with the deadly consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said only one thing is certain in its wake: “a new model of global governance” is coming and the globalist body is doing all it can to hurry its arrival.

The Portugese socialist made his prediction Saturday as he delivered the Nelson Mandela Lecture and spoke of the need for the U.N. to address “the huge gaps in governance structures and ethical frameworks” the epidemic has exposed. He said:

To close those gaps, and to make the New Social Contract possible, we need a New Global Deal to ensure that power, wealth and opportunities are shared more broadly and fairly at the international level.

A new model for global governance must be based on full, inclusive and equal participation in global institutions.

[…]

A New Global Deal, based on a fair globalization, on the rights and dignity of every human being, on living in balance with nature, on taking account of the rights of future generations, and on success measured in human rather than economic terms, is the best way to change this.

The worldwide consultation process around the 75th anniversary of the United Nations has made clear that people want a global governance system that delivers for them…

Be seeing you

 

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

Why No Deal is Needed with the Taliban | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

Advocates of continuing the war in Afghanistan want to make the issue about whether the Taliban can be trusted. But no trust is necessary; all one needs to see the way forward is a clear understanding of American national security interests and the incentives and goals of the militant organization. From that perspective, the best choice for the United States is a clear commitment to withdrawal, regardless of whether or not we are able to achieve a comprehensive deal before doing so.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-no-deal-is-needed-with-the-taliban/

The U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and tend to its own interests. Let local powers worry about theirs.

As President Trump moves forward with his plan to withdraw the United States from Afghanistan, a new talking point has emerged among those who would like the United States to stay.

According to current and former government officials, the Taliban cannot be trusted. The argument is that the militant group has proven over the years that it will break any agreement it has reached if doing so accords with its ideological or political interests. According to one scholar, “what we judge the Taliban on is whether they honor the deal.”

Unfortunately, this argument avoids clear thinking about what the vital American national security interests are in Afghanistan, and how to best achieve them. Nearly two decades ago, the United States invaded that country in response to the 9/11 attacks. There was no evidence that Mullah Omar and his government approved of Bin Laden’s plans, or were even aware of them. It is likely they were not, as it was clear to the entire world that a terrorist strike against the United States would end the regime.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Taliban expressed a willingness to hand over Bin Laden, but demanded evidence and wanted to negotiate the terms. The Bush administration was in no mood for discussions, and military operations to remove the Taliban began about two weeks later.

The Taliban showed no inclination to attack American territory before 9/11, and it has not done so since. Its goal has always simply been to rule over Afghanistan, a country that means little to American interests. Given that the United States went into the country for the purposes of responding to and fighting terrorism, in principle a deal should have been easy to work out.

As the Afghanistan Papers reveal, however, what began as a counter-terrorism war morphed into nation building. Particularly after the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration began to justify its seemingly pointless wars by framing them as struggles for democracy. President Obama came into office skeptical of an open-ended commitment, but was pressured into adopting the kind of counter-insurgency (COIN) mission favored by top military officials. The increase in funding and American troop commitment to Afghanistan coincided with more violence and the Kabul government losing more territory, discrediting the theory of nation-building underlying COIN.

Just as in fall 2001, today the U.S. has no interest in a long-term occupation of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has no interest in attacking the United States. No deal between the two sides is necessary. President Trump can simply withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, as he has been promising to do for years, and the Taliban’s sense of self-preservation should be enough to prevent it from allowing its country to be used as a base for terrorist attacks. In seeking to come back into political power and while facing rival insurgents, the Taliban will have its plate full at home without picking another fight with the United States.

A more serious concern is that the United States leaving Afghanistan would lead to the Taliban eventually replacing the Kabul government. Indeed, the movement has lasted twenty years under pressure from the most powerful military in the world, taking large swaths of territory from a central government receiving overwhelming military and financial support from abroad. Given the extent to which the Taliban has proved itself as a fighting force over two decades, it looks possible it would be able to take power once the United States withdrew.

Even if this is true, few Americans believe that which government rules Kabul is a vital national security interest of the United States. If, after twenty years, the government we have supported is no closer to complete control over its territory than it has been before, it is time to acknowledge that our experiment in nation building has failed. The current government of Afghanistan rests on the agreement and consent of warlords, the likes of which cut deals with the Taliban before and could do so again.

Many citizens prefer the courts and criminal justice system of the Taliban over the central government, seeing the former as less corrupt, better able to provide security, and more consistent with the people’s conservative religious values. Even by the measure of humanitarian concerns, while the central government is in many ways less brutal than the Taliban was, the U.S. occupation has done little to improve the well-being of the Afghan people.

The U.S. should waste no time in withdrawing all American forces from Afghanistan, acknowledging the Taliban as a legitimate player in the future of that country and establishing open dialogue with the group.

Deluding ourselves into believing the Afghan government can stand on its own simply avoids the much-needed honest assessment of the balance of power on the ground.

Advocates of continuing the war in Afghanistan want to make the issue about whether the Taliban can be trusted. But no trust is necessary; all one needs to see the way forward is a clear understanding of American national security interests and the incentives and goals of the militant organization. From that perspective, the best choice for the United States is a clear commitment to withdrawal, regardless of whether or not we are able to achieve a comprehensive deal before doing so.

 

Richard Hanania is a Research Fellow at Defense Priorities and the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Be seeing you

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

Is Thinking Cancelled? – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

The mayors of New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis, Portland, Atlanta, and Washington DC have all allowed rioting, looting, property destruction, and arson to reign in their streets, and entertained measures to defund and hogtie the police, or abolish them altogether. These are all Democratic Party-controlled cities with Democratic mayors.

Do you suppose that voters have had a good look at these scenes and concluded that the Democratic Party is perhaps uninterested in civil order? And for what purpose, exactly? Does it reflect badly on President Trump…

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/is-thinking-cancelled/

James Howard Kunstler

Everything’s in play now. Consensual reality is on the run — the old certainties of US history and the receding promises of the future sink into a fiery sludge of the corona virus present. Things happen without apparent consequence. Authority is on the lam. Coercion stalks the land rooting out thought-crime. Fantasies and delusions rush into the space that reason has vacated in fear of its life. Maybe better not think at all. But you can’t help it, can you? To be human is to be dogged by your own thoughts.

One thought I can’t help thinking is that the failure to resolve the dishonest operations of RussiaGate is a big part of what drove authority and responsibility, those two sentinels of sanity, AWOL. The crimes of officers in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and other agencies go unadjudicated while clear evidence of their seditious misdeeds has been publicly documented and widely published. It seems as if this great matter of attempting to overthrow the president has come down to the sheer will of William Barr and John Durham daring to ignite the engines of consequence, and you wonder if they have any idea how their stalling damages the national psyche.

General Flynn, the American Dreyfus, remains twisting slowly in the wind despite the DOJ dropping charges against him. Judge Emmet Sullivan is busy destroying the credibility and authority of the federal bench with bad faith procedural shenanigans underwritten by Ben Wittes’s Lawfare claque of Beltway shysters maneuvering in the background to protect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Is it not past time for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to force Judge Sullivan to end the case, or admonish and remove him?

Beyond all the legalese bullshit, an innocent man’s life is stuck unfairly and unjustly in limbo after three years of a malicious prosecution. Why has the attorney general not preferred charges against Gen. Flynn’s chief prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack — or, for that matter, against Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the whole Special Counsel staff — for withholding evidence and plenty of other obvious prosecutorial mischief? Mr. Barr has stated plainly more than once that the agency he took charge over in 2019 “us[ed] the criminal justice process as a political weapon.” Is that against the law or not? Does it injure this society to leave that question unanswered, month after month?

In a better society, the newspapers would have rushed to Gen. Flynn’s defense. Except our leading newspapers are so vested in years of their own untruth that they don’t dare to cover the story. Where is the consequence for Dean Baquet, editor of The New York Times, since Times staffer Bari Weiss disclosed his failure to control the ideological bullying, coercion, and hostility to fair play in his newsroom?  Mr. Baquet has not just wrecked an institution; he’s made the whole business of covering reality look like a hustle. Does The New York Times’s board of directors not care about its reputation? Maybe the message is: why should anyone care about his or her reputation? And what kind of culture grows out of that code?

The mayors of New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis, Portland, Atlanta, and Washington DC have all allowed rioting, looting, property destruction, and arson to reign in their streets, and entertained measures to defund and hogtie the police, or abolish them altogether. These are all Democratic Party-controlled cities with Democratic mayors.

Do you suppose that voters have had a good look at these scenes and concluded that the Democratic Party is perhaps uninterested in civil order? And for what purpose, exactly? Does it reflect badly on President Trump that the murder rate under Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot is suddenly off-the-charts while they are busy undermining police authority and its ability to protect the public? What do you make of St. Louis Chief Prosecutor (effectively DA) Kim Gardner moving to prosecute Mark and Patricia McCloskey for defending their house against a mob that threatened to burn it down? Missouri governor Mike Parson declared over the weekend that he’ll pardon the couple in short order if they are charged — at last, an unequivocal and decisive action on behalf of sanity.

There will be a whole lot more in the way of real-life problems to make the American people crazy in the months ahead. We have not even cleared up the affronts to decency and reason that happened before the corona virus landed and began destroying millions of lives and livelihoods. The siren call from anarchy is already blaring. Is there anything about this republic that you think is worth defending? Is thinking cancelled?

Be seeing you

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

Yes, Mother – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/laurence-m-vance/yes-mother/

By

Those of us who had a good mother growing up were generally given some good and practical advice:

Don’t swim right after you eat.
Don’t bite your fingernails.
Don’t suck your thumb.
Eat your vegetables.
Don’t be late for school.
Don’t stay out too late.
Don’t stay up too late.
Do your homework.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Don’t sleep in too long.
Don’t skip breakfast.
Put on your coat before you go outside in the cold.
Brush your teeth.
Look both ways before you cross the street.
Don’t take candy from a stranger
Take your vitamins.
Don’t get into a strange car.

Then the government started to give us what it thought was motherly advice:

Don’t eat eggs.
Don’t eat butter.
Don’t smoke.
Don’t consume trans fat.
Don’t breathe in second-hand smoke.
Don’t eat too much red meat.
Don’t drink sugar-laden soft drinks.
Don’t use chewing tobacco.
Don’t use drugs.
Don’t abuse alcohol.
Exercise.
Don’t inhale fumes.
Wear your seat belt.
Wear a bicycle helmet.
Wear a motorcycle helmet.
Don’t drink and drive.
Don’t text and drive.
Sneeze or cough into your elbow instead of your hand.
If you see something, say something.

But now the government actually thinks that it is our mother:

Don’t forget to wash your hands for at least twenty seconds all throughout the day.
Don’t shake hands with anyone for any reason.
Don’t hug anyone for any reason.
Don’t visit anyone in the hospital.
Wear a face mask whenever you leave the house.
Don’t visit anyone in a nursing home.
Don’t go to a bar.
Don’t go to the beach.
Don’t go to an amusement park.
Don’t go to a sporting event.
Don’t take your kids to a playground.
Use hand sanitizer all throughout the day.
Don’t take your kids to a park.
Don’t go to a museum.
Maintain social distancing of at least six feet.
Don’t get a haircut.
Don’t go to the movie theatre.
Keep your interactions brief.
Don’t go to the nail salon.
Don’t go to unessential businesses.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
Don’t sing in church.
Don’t take communion in church.
Don’t go to church at all.
Don’t take a cruise.
Refrain from gathering with family and friends.
Don’t go bowling.
Don’t sit on a park bench.
Don’t play basketball at a park.
Don’t fly on a plane.
Stay home if you feel even the slightest bit ill.
Get tested for Covid-19 even if you have no symptoms and don’t feel sick.
Minimize the travel of your employees.
Don’t go on a date with a stranger.
Install Plexiglas shields at your place of business.
Avoid close contact with anyone who is even the slightest bit sick with any illness.
Stay home as much as possible.
Regularly disinfect everything in your home or business and then do it again.
Listen to the government experts about the dangers of the coronavirus.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Don’t exhale without wearing a mask—you might kill someone.

Hey government, you are a mother all right, but you are not our mother. If we want to voluntarily do any of the above things, that is our business. But we don’t need you to tell us what to do.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

 

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

Courtroom Drama – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

This caught me by surprise.

https://www.takimag.com/article/courtroom-drama/

Taki

GSTAAD—Are any of you tired of reading about Ghislaine Maxwell and her sleazy life? Bored with old news repeated ad nauseam by people who never had—and still don’t have—a clue? Well, your intrepid high-life correspondent does have a clue, so here goes.

But before I go on about la Maxwell, a few thoughts about the drama taking place in Court 13 on the Strand, where I had the leading role in an 1986 drama—also starring Charles Moore and some lesser characters—that almost broke the poor little Greek boy and also impoverished our ex–great proprietor Algy Cluff. As readers of this column surely know, I loathe Hollywood types, those preening egomaniacal popinjays adored and worshipped by brain-dead zombies known as fans, featured as superheroes by tabloid and TV slime merchants posing as journalists. There are exceptions, of course, and among the exceptions is a man I’ve never met, but people that I respect speak highly of: Johnny Depp. Yes, I know, it looks bad for him right now, and worse is yet to come when the Amber Heard woman gives testimony, but from what I hear Depp is a total innocent, a very nice person who got hooked by a schemer par excellence, a man trusting enough of lawyers to sue a major British tabloid, not knowing what this involves.

“Once you’re inside the court, a lawyer can suggest anything about you, as I have, to my regret, discovered.”

Well, I’ll tell you in a jiffy: Once you’re inside the court, a lawyer can suggest anything about you, as I have, to my regret, discovered. (I’ve never sued but have been sued many times.) It’s all privileged, Wild West stuff, and there’s nothing one can do about it. (I suggest to you, sir, that before you murdered your mother you raped her…) Depp had no idea what he was getting into when he was obviously outraged at what his ex-wife was telling the tabloids, and was encouraged by know-nothings to sue. He gives me the impression of being a Huckleberry-Puck kind of good fellow, naughty but innocent, the perfect fall guy. Many years ago I was approached by David Tang on behalf of Johnny Depp—it was at Jemima Goldsmith’s housewarming party, I believe—asking about large old sailing boats. I was brief and to the point: A gaff-rigged 150-footer will need a minimum of twelve crew plus captain, and will cost 3 million per annum. “Tell him to charter, no actor can afford that,” said the Greek voice of experience. Johnny didn’t listen and bought a large gaff-rigged schooner, which nearly bankrupted him.

He’s being portrayed as a monster by that slick silk, but people in the know insist to the contrary. Having gone to school with boys from Kentucky, Depp’s yes-sir-no-ma’am is no act. Any picture taken of an after-party can look pretty grim. Believe me, I should know. And as far as his friendship with Keith Richards is concerned, I only met the Stone’s daughter Theodora when I lent my boat to her and her boyfriend for a weekend some ten years ago, and received a thank-you note from her that should be a template for the kind. Who would have guessed a wild man’s daughter could write so gracefully? Not all of them are what the press makes them out to be.

And now back to Ms. Maxwell. Her crooked old man was still around when we met, and she was friendly, if a bit imperious, but not too much. Smart and well-dressed, she didn’t throw her weight around. She had a good figure and was flirty, although I thought she was bi, for no good reason except my instinct. After the crook drowned, I saw her in New York, much friendlier and far less sure of herself. “Eager to please” would be an apt description. In Saint-Tropez one day she invited me to a party, but I declined. I didn’t like the people she was hanging around with. Press reports have it that she was a society power player—she was nothing of the kind. The Epsteins, Dershowitzes, Dubins, and Russian oligarchs of this world were her friends, but 30 years ago were still NOCD. The big fish was Prince Andrew, and he has never been accused of being very shifty upstairs and picking well.

Andrew is the person ambitious New York prosecutors want to land, and she’s the one who can bring him to them. A close friend of mine whose opinion I respect swears by her, and he knows her well. The fact is that after Epstein was convicted the first time, Ghislaine stayed away. The prince unfortunately did not and has paid the price. Personally I think she pimped for Epstein in a mild way at the start, most likely had threesomes, got wise after a while, and distanced herself. Let’s not forget that she had had a shock when the old crook died leaving her in the lurch, and the pedophile stepped in as protector. His victims smell lots of moola and are willing to say anything. I’m not a fan of Ghislaine Maxwell, but presumption of innocence has to come first. She will not sell anyone down the river, especially Prince Andrew; time will tell if I’m right.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

USA: The slippery slope of egalitarian racism, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

The 35 Pilgrim Fathers set out from Leiden, stopped in England, and then crossed the ocean on the Mayflower. They arrived in North America in 1620 to practice their religion freely.

Freedom of religion as long as it was THEIR religion.

In the 2016 election campaign, I asked the question, “Will the United States reform or tear itself apart? » [5] In my view, only Donald Trump could allow the USA to continue as a nation, while Hillary Clinton would provoke a civil war and probably the dissolution of the country on the model of the end of the USSR. What has happened since the death of George Flyod shows that I was not mistaken.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210521.html

by Thierry Meyssan

The reactions to the murder of black George Flyod by a white policeman do not refer to the history of slavery in the United States, but – like the systemic opposition to President Trump- to a profound problem in Anglo-Saxon culture: Puritan fanaticism. The domestic violence that rocked this country during the two civil wars of Independence and Secession must be remembered in order to understand current events and prevent their resurgence. Beware: in the United States, the political class now preaches egalitarian racism. All equal, but separate.

The Anglo-Saxon Puritans

About four hundred members of the Church of England fled their country where they were considered fanatics. They took refuge in Leiden, Holland, where they were able to live according to the Calvinist tradition, or more precisely the Puritan interpretation of Christianity. Probably at the request of King James I, they sent two groups to the Americas to fight against the Spanish Empire. The first founded what was to become the United States, the second was lost in Central America.

Later, the Puritans took power in England with Lord Cromwell. They beheaded the Papist King Charles I, established an egalitarian Commonwealth and colonized Ireland, massacring Catholics en masse. This bloodthirsty experiment was short-lived and discredited for a long time the idea of a General Interest (Res Publica) in the eyes of the English.

The 35 Pilgrim Fathers set out from Leiden, stopped in England, and then crossed the ocean on the Mayflower. They arrived in North America in 1620 to practice their religion freely. During their voyage, they signed a Covenant in which they vowed to establish a model society (strict observance of the Calvinist faith and cult, intense community life, and unfailing social and moral discipline). By creating the Colony of Plymouth, they hoped to build the “New Jerusalem” after fleeing from the “Pharaoh” (James I) and crossing the “Red Sea” (the Atlantic). After a year, they thanked God for their epic, which is commemorated each year as Thanksgiving. [1] They established their capital city 60 kilometers north, in Boston. Their community veiled its women, practiced public confessions and corporal punishment.

JPEG - 34 kb
The logo of the very powerful Pilgrim’s Society: the Pilgrim Father is depicted alongside the British lion and the American eagle.

These events are not only myths that every American should know, they shape the political system of the USA. Eight out of 45 presidents (including the Bushes) are direct descendants of the 35 “Pilgrim Fathers”. Despite the arrival of tens of millions of immigrants and institutional appearances, their ideology remained in power for four centuries, until the election of Donald Trump. A very closed club, Pilgrim’s Sociey, brought together, under the authority of the English monarch, very high British and American personalities. It set up the “Special Relationship” between London and Washington and, among other things, provided many secretaries and advisers to President Obama.

Many ceremonies planned this year for the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower have been cancelled due to the fight against the coronavirus epidemic, in particular the conference that the former British National Security Advisor was to give at Pilgrim’s Society. Bad tongues assure that the epidemic will end the day after the US presidential election, if Donald Trump loses it, and that the festivities can then take place.

There are two cultures that have always been opposed in the United States among Christians: Calvinists or Puritans on the one hand, and Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans on the other. While some “denominations” among the eight hundred US churches resolutely line up on one side, most are crossed by both because Puritanism has no defined theological corpus. It is rather a way of thinking.

The War of Independence began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party. Its first actor was John Adams, another direct descendant of one of the 35 “Pilgrim Fathers” and second president of the United States. While the call for independence was made by the political journalist Thomas Paine based on religious arguments although he himself did not believe in anything.

In a way, the War of Independence was a continuation in the Americas of Lord Cromwell’s British Civil War (the “Great Rebellion”). This conflict would resurface a third time with the Civil War, which, it should be remembered, had nothing to do with slavery (both sides practised it at the beginning of the war and both sides repealed it during the war to hire former slaves into their armies).

The Puritans lost in England with Cromwell’s Republic, but won the next two times in the United States. Historian Kevin Phillips, who was Republican electoral adviser to Republican Richard Nixon (descendant of a brother of one of the 35 “Pilgrim Fathers”), has studied this conflict at length over the centuries. [2] It is on the basis of this data that he imagined the strategy of “Law and Order” in the face of the segregationist Democrat George Wallace in the 1968 presidential election; a strategy that Donald Trump has taken up again for the 2020 election.

All this to say that appearances are deceiving. The dividing lines are not where the rest of the world thinks they are.

- The Puritans have always supported absolute equality, but only among Christians. They long forbade Jews from entering the civil service and massacred the Indians they claimed to love. During the American Civil War, they extended their egalitarianism to blacks (unlike the Puritans in southern Africa, who defended apartheid to the end), giving rise to the false myth of a war against slavery. Today, they defend the idea that humanity is divided between equal and, if possible, separate races. They are still reluctant to call them interracial marriages.
- The Puritans place lying at the bottom of their scale of values. It cannot be for them a ruse, but always the worst of crimes, far more serious than robbery and murder. In the seventeenth century, they punished with the whip for lying to a pastor for any reason. They established laws that still punish lying to a federal official for any reason.

US Evangelism

With time, and particularly in the 19th century, another current of thought arose within American Christianity: evangelism. These are Christians of all denominations who try to get closer to the original Christianity of which they know little. So they rely on the sacred texts. Like the Puritans, the Evangelicals are fundamentalists, i.e. they give the Scriptures the role of a divine word and interpret them while refusing any contextualization of the texts. But they are much more pragmatic. On everything, they have a position of principle, but when faced with a problem, they act in conscience and not according to the rules of their community.

It is very easy to make fun of the grotesque convictions of the Evangelicals against the theory of evolution, but this is of little importance and they abandon it when necessary. It is much more significant, but unfortunately rarer, to denounce the puritanical vision of a humanity divided into distinct, equal, but separate races. Yet this has serious consequences on a daily basis.

The Puritans remained the masters of U.S. politics until 1997, when Libertine President Bill Clinton issued an executive order banning all expressions of religious faith in federal institutions. The result was a shift in religion from the Administration to the private sector. All major corporations accepted prayer groups in their workplaces. This shift favored the public emergence of Evangelicals at the expense of Puritans.

JPEG - 29.7 kb
During the riots outside the White House, President Trump went to St. John’s Episcopal Church to present himself, Bible in hand, as the defender of the religious beliefs of all Christians in the face of Puritan fanaticism.

The Return of Puritan Fanaticism

The conflict between the Puritans and the rest of society is today taking a radical and religious turn. It opposes two mentalities, one idealist, egalitarian within their community and fanatical, the other sometimes even more extravagant, agreeing on inequalities, but realistic.

Puritan Hillary Clinton hesitated to become a Methodist pastor after her failure in the presidential election [3]. She sinned a lot (her affair with Vince Foster), was punished by God (her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky) repented (within the Pentagon Family [4]) and was saved. She is sure that she was chosen by God and takes pride in her violence against non-Christian peoples. She supports all wars against the “enemies of America” and hopes to see the return of Christ.

On the contrary, Donald Trump shows no interest in theology, has only an approximate knowledge of the Bible and a summary faith. He has sinned as much as anyone else, but boasts of what he has achieved rather than repenting of his sins in public. He doubts himself and compensates for his feeling of inferiority with excessive egotism. He loves to compete with his enemies, but does not want to destroy them. In any case, he embodies the will to restore the greatness of their country (“Make America Great Again!”) rather than to pursue wars always and everywhere, which makes him the champion of the Evangelicals against the Puritans. He offers the opportunity for Christians to reform themselves rather than convert the world.

In the 2016 election campaign, I asked the question, “Will the United States reform or tear itself apart? » [5] In my view, only Donald Trump could allow the USA to continue as a nation, while Hillary Clinton would provoke a civil war and probably the dissolution of the country on the model of the end of the USSR. What has happened since the death of George Flyod shows that I was not mistaken.

JPEG - 46.3 kb
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election campaign.

Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party supporters are imposing their ideology. They fight against lies and destroy statues like their Puritan ancestors burned the Salem witches. They develop an absurd reading of their own society, denying social conflicts and interpreting inequalities only in terms of so-called distinct human races. They disarm the local police and force “white” personalities to apologize in public for enjoying an invisible privilege.

In the Russian case, the discontinuation of the prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the presidential pardon granted to Donald Trump’s former advisor, Roger Stone, sparked angry protests from Puritans. Neither man harmed anyone, but they dared to lie to the FBI to keep him out of the White House.

The mayor of Minneapolis (the town of George Flyod) was publicly humiliated for refusing to disband the “racist” city police. While Seattle City Council has just cut its city police budget in half. This does not bother the upper social classes living in private residences, but deprives those who cannot afford private security guards.

The Associated Press, then the New Yok Times, the Los Angeles Times and soon almost all US media, decided to write Black with a capital letter when referring to “race” [6], but not White in the same way. Indeed, the fact of writing White with a capital letter is a distinctive sign of the white supremacists [7].

The Pentagon considered renaming its military bases with the names of southern personalities accused of being “racist” and sent an e-mail to all civilian and military personnel of the US Army denouncing as “extreme right” the claim that there is only one human race. Although these initiatives have provoked a strong reaction from the trumped-up GIs and have failed, they mark a very dangerous escalation [8].

All these decisions demonstrate a loss of collective rationality.

Translation
Roger Lagassé
Be seeing you

 

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

On Opportunity Missed; or, the One That Got Away – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

It then dawned on me that dwindling ammo supply was a rising barometer reading of anticipated social unrest.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/george-m-hollenback/on-opportunity-missed-or-the-one-that-got-away/

By

Procrastination has always been my chief vice, and it finally caught up with me on June 24 of this year at about 3:30 in the afternoon. But let’s back up a bit. A friend had sent an email recommending a certain brand of knife for self-defense carry, and I thanked him for the reminder that I needed to do the same. I eventually decided on a Spyderco folding knife and ordered one through the mail. For those not familiar with the brand, the base of the closed blade sticks out of the handle like a hump and has a big hole through it. The tip of the thumb is inserted into the hole for purchase, allowing the knife to be thumbed opened with just one hand.

After my Spyderco arrived, I set it on my desk and would practice thumbing it open during breaks from the computer screen. Being right handed and carrying my keys in my right pocket, I knew that I would have to start carrying my keys in my left pocket and my blade in my right pocket for quick, one-handed deployment. But, being a procrastinator, I just hadn’t gotten around to actually doing that yet. Besides, who thinks he’s going to be targeted for robbery in the laundromat of his own gated apartment complex?

I had just put my clothes in the dryer when I heard a voice say, “Give me your wallet!” I turned and saw a black male, early twenties, six-two, athletic build, gray ensemble consisting of do-rag, muscle shirt, and shorts, no face mask. He had a revolver in his right hand that was pointed straight at me. Naturally this was somewhat disconcerting, and my mind took a moment to take it all in. I didn’t want to just hand over my wallet with all my credit cards and identification in it, knowing he might shoot me anyway so as to leave no witnesses. The old Jack Benny line—your money or your life / I’m thinking about it—flashed through my mind. My hesitation apparently vexed my assailant, and he stepped forward, swinging the revolver at me and striking me on the cheek bone on the left side of my face. He then stepped back, keeping the revolver trained on me.

But in that short time I had hatched a plan, and I immediately implemented it. I pulled out my wallet, took out the cash—it wasn’t that much—and put my wallet back in my hip pocket. I then waved the cash in front of him before throwing it up in the air in his direction as if I were throwing a handful of bills up onto the stage during a “make it rain” strip club performance. Then I moved in and engaged, going for the revolver. I managed to get both hands on it. Now for an old guy—I’m 67—I’ve still got a pretty good grip. In my younger days, deadlifting was a regular part of my weight workout regimen. I used to do all kinds of grip exercises, including squeezing a ball of wax just like Charles Bronson did in The Mechanic. And I had also done a little recreational judo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, sports where getting a good grip on the fabric of your opponent’s outfit was an important part of the game.

In a surreal moment, like something right out of action cinema, I dropped down on one knee, pulling him off balance, and wrenched his wrist around so the gun was pointing at him. His index finger had come out of the trigger guard, so I inserted my index finger and squeezed the trigger, hoping for a loud bang! followed by a groan. Nothing happened. WTF! The next thing I knew, he let go of the gun, hurriedly scooped up the bills, and fled. I looked down at what appeared to be an antiquated .38 in my hands. I rotated the cylinder; every chamber was empty.

Had I had my Spyderco in my right pocket, I could have gotten it out after I had thrown the bills in the air, thumbed it open, and charged him, going for center body mass with the blade. Providence had delivered a perfect specimen of thug into my hands that I could have legally dispatched, but my own procrastination had kept me from achieving that beneficial end. A lot of good the Spyderco did me sitting on the desk in my apartment.

I walked back to my apartment with my trophy and phoned 911. While I waited, I took a look at myself in the mirror. Blood from a jagged laceration ran down the left side of my face and all over the front of my shirt. My very own Heidelberg dueling scar, Houston style! Soon a couple of Houston’s finest arrived, a young woman and an older man whose name patch suggested that he was a Nigerian immigrant or the son of immigrants. The first thing I did was turn the gun over to them. They were both very professional and sympathetic as they took the report, informing me that EMTs would be arriving to check me out. The female officer took a photo of my injury.

When the trio of male EMTs arrived, they asked me questions like “What city is this?” and “What’s your apartment number?” I knew what they were doing, and I gave appropriate responses.

Then it was my turn. “What year did Constantinople fall to the Ottoman Turks?”

“Uh, 1500?” ventured one of the EMTs.

“You’re close. It was 1453.”

One EMT asked me if I wanted to go to the hospital, but I said only if it was absolutely necessary, like if I needed to get stitches. He said stitches weren’t required, and that I just needed to keep the wound clean and covered and to use Neosporin on it. They had already cleaned and disinfected the area. I thanked them all just before they left.

I then showed the officers to the scene of the crime. Little red dime-sized dots spattered the floor tiles of the area of the laundromat where it all took place. I took my clothes out of the dryer, and the officers escorted me back to my apartment, after which I thanked them for everything. The female officer had even offered to help me carry my laundry back. God bless the Houston Police Department. And may every idiot who wants to defund them be pistol whipped across the face by some thug to knock some sense into them.

All in all, I felt that I had acquitted myself fairly well, this being the first time something like this had ever happened to me. I’ve heard that things like this can really mess up some people’s minds, even to the extent of their coming down with PTSD and being fearful of venturing out to go about their daily business. Not me; I was just mad at myself that I hadn’t been able to kill the bastard. Knifing a thug surged to the top of my bucket list. And the next time around I would be prepared, and being prepared would give me even greater sangfroid and steady nerve.

Another matter about which I had been procrastinating was getting my license to carry a handgun. I’ve since sent in my application, and I’ve ordered a well recommended brand of pocket pistol for easy concealment. When I went out to buy ammunition to have on hand for when my pistol finally arrives, I was shocked to find that all the gun stores had run out. How the hell can a city as big as Houston run out of something as common as .380 ACP ammo? It then dawned on me that dwindling ammo supply was a rising barometer reading of anticipated social unrest. In desperation, I searched online and found a supplier that offered bulk quantities only, and I ordered their package deal that included seven boxes of 50 rounds each along with a tactical sling pack to carry the ammo in. When I checked their website not too long after placing my order, they had already run out of the .380 ACP bulk packages; my order was evidently one of the last few they had on hand.

Now even if a person does have a bona fide license to carry, entities can still bar the carrying of firearms on their own premises. No problem. I’ll just take my pistol out of my right pocket, stow it in my vehicle, and slide the Spyderco into my right pocket. Having a blade isn’t quite as good as having a gun, but it’s a whole lot better than being completely unarmed, that’s for sure. All I can do is be as legally prepared as I possibly can under the circumstances and not fail in my objective should Providence see fit to send another thug my way.

George M. Hollenback [send him mail]is a writer who makes his home in Houston.

Be seeing you

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

Three Reasons Representative Democracy Doesn’t Work | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

https://mises.org/wire/three-reasons-representative-democracy-doesnt-work?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=fea1b160e6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-fea1b160e6-228343965

In representative democracies, voters ostensibly control the state through the politicians they vote for. However, most representative democracies fall far short of this goal. Three of the reasons for the trouble are the problems of scale, bundling, and omission. I will explore these three problems below and argue that privatization and decentralization can ameliorate them.

Scale

The viability of meaningful political representation withers as the ratio of representatives to voters decreases. There are 435 members in the House of Representatives in a country of 328 million people. This means that each member “represents” an average of 755,000 people. How exactly does one person represent the federal legislative preferences of 755,000 diverse people? How do two senators embody the will of 600,000 Wyomingites, let alone all the Californians and Texans? Scale alone renders American democracy to a great extent meaningless, and yet this is almost never talked about.

Bundling

The second problem with representative democracy is the issue known as “bundling.” Suppose candidate Smith is running against candidate Jones. Smith has his policies, and Jones has his. But what if you, the voter, like some of Smith’s policies and some of Jones’s? There is no picking and choosing Smith’s position on issue X and Jones’s position on issue Y as there is at a buffet or at the supermarket (market institutions). We’re left with rigid, take-it-or-leave-it, package deals.  Walter Block contrasts the flexibility of the market with ham-fisted democracy:

The dollar vote occurs every day, the ballot box vote only every two or four years. The former may be applied narrowly, to a single product (e.g., the Edsel) while the latter is a “package deal,” an all or none proposition for one candidate or the other. That is, there was no way to register approval of Bush’s policies in areas 1, 3, 5 and 7, and for Clinton in 2, 4, 6, and 8. People were limited to choosing one or the other in the last presidential election.

In society outside the state (the market), no one can force you to pay for something you don’t want, or to go without something you’re willing to pay for. And the free rider problem has been addressed here.

Omission

The third problem can be called “omission.” Presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional elections typically revolve around only a handful of issues. But the state intervenes in nearly every aspect of our lives. If candidate Smith and candidate Jones spend their campaigns battling it out over, say, the income tax rate, environmental regulation, and school vouchers, who will “represent” the voters who care about the central bank, the welfare state, foreign policy, the debt, etc.?

Whenever the candidates agree on or simply ignore issues, as is necessarily the case for the vast majority of issues at stake in any given election, voting is largely useless in affecting these issues. At best, the citizen can vote for the candidate they hope will better address the ignored topic (in the event that it is addressed at all).

The problem of omission doesn’t just apply to controversial policies shunned by the bipartisan establishment. It applies to topics simply not interesting enough to be prominent on the campaign trail: volumes of arcane regulation, obscure federal agencies, military bases people don’t know exist in countries they’ve never heard of, etc.

What Is to Be Done? Privatization.

Notice how none of the above critiques mention lobbying, fraud, or corruption. Even if representative democracy were squeaky clean, it would be a mess. Then, what is to be done?

The first solution is privatization. Functions, resources, and perceived moral authority currently held by the state can instead be distributed among its competing institutions: the nuclear family, the extended family, the church, businesses, fraternal organizations, private schools and universities, clubs, charities, etc.

The critical difference is that adults only participate in these institutions voluntarily and to the extent that they choose to, in contrast to their interactions with the state (i.e., taxation, conscription). This freedom of association encourages detailed responsiveness on the part of these organizations toward the people who finance and sustain them.

Decentralization

Additionally, decentralization can ameliorate the unresponsiveness of the state by increasing accountability. The smaller (both in terms of geographic area and population) and more numerous the political units, the greater extent to which the rulers and the ruled are in the same boat.

If the political and bureaucratic decisions of Springfield are made by people living in DC, the decision-makers don’t need to live with the consequences of their own decisions to the same extent. But if all of Springfield’s political decisions are made in Springfield, the politicians and bureaucrats will have to lie in whatever bed they make. To a greater extent, if the rulers want to live well, their subjects have to live well.

Decentralization doesn’t just increase accountability. When a political unit is geographically smaller and less populous, the people within it are more likely to have similar worldviews, cultures, religions, languages, etc.

Where there are mosaics of many tiny states, each state can be closely tailored to the particular preferences of each locality without forcing distant and different peoples to live under the same rule. In contrast, enormous political units, by their sheer expansiveness, are more likely to encompass various bitterly opposed camps who will vie for zero-sum control of the same state apparatus.

Privatization and decentralization offer liberty, accountability, and harmony where the state offers phony representation and compulsion.

Author:

Gor Mkrtchian

Gor Mkrtchian is a research assistant at the Free Market Institute and a PhD student in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. He received a BA in political science and theater studies from Yale University.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Three Reasons Representative Democracy Doesn’t Work | Mises Wire

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Big Holes in the Covid ‘Spike’ Narrative

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

Washington state last week revised its Covid death numbers downward when it was revealed that anyone who passed away for any reason whatsoever who also had coronavirus was listed as a “Covid-19 death” even if the cause of death had nothing to do with Covid-19.

In South Carolina, the state health agency admitted that the “spike” in Covid deaths was only the result of delayed reporting of suspected Covid deaths.

An analysis of reported daily Covid deaths last week compared to actual day-of-death in Houston revealed that the recent “spike” consisted largely of deaths that occurred in April through June. Why delay reporting until now?

We do know that based on this “spike” the Democrat mayor of Houston cancelled the convention of the Texas Republican Party. Mission accomplished?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/july/20/big-holes-in-the-covid-spike-narrative/?mc_cid=1322e6fc02&mc_eid=4e0de347c8

Written by Ron Paul

Motorcycle accidents ruled Covid deaths? In the rush to paint Florida as the epicenter of the “second wave” of the coronavirus outbreak, government officials and their allies in the mainstream media have stooped to ridiculous depths to maximize the death count. A television station this weekend looked into two highly unusual Covid deaths among victims in their 20s, and when they asked about co-morbidities they were told one victim had none, because his Covid death came in the form of a fatal motorcycle accident.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In fact the “spike” that has dominated the mainstream for the last couple of weeks is full of examples of such trickery.

Washington state last week revised its Covid death numbers downward when it was revealed that anyone who passed away for any reason whatsoever who also had coronavirus was listed as a “Covid-19 death” even if the cause of death had nothing to do with Covid-19.

In South Carolina, the state health agency admitted that the “spike” in Covid deaths was only the result of delayed reporting of suspected Covid deaths.

An analysis of reported daily Covid deaths last week compared to actual day-of-death in Houston revealed that the recent “spike” consisted largely of deaths that occurred in April through June. Why delay reporting until now?

We do know that based on this “spike” the Democrat mayor of Houston cancelled the convention of the Texas Republican Party. Mission accomplished?

Doesn’t it seem suspicious that so many states have experienced “delayed” reporting of deaths until Fauci and his gang of “experts” announced that we are in a new nightmare scenario?

Last week in Florida – which is perhaps not coincidentally the location of the Republican Party’s national convention – another scandal emerged when hundreds of Covid test centers reported 100 percent positive results. Obviously this would paint a far grimmer picture of the resurgence of the virus. Orlando Health, for example, reported a positivity rate of 98 percent – a shocking level – but a further investigation revealed a true positivity rate of only 9.4 percent. Those “anomalies” were repeated throughout the state.

“Cases” once meant individuals who displayed sufficient symptoms to be treated in medical facilities. But when the scaremongers needed a “second wave” they began reporting any positive test result as a “Covid case.” No wonder we have a “spike.”

Politics demands that politicians be seen doing “something” rather than nothing, even if that something is more harmful than doing nothing at all. That is why Washington is so addicted to sanctions.

The same has been true especially in Republican-controlled states in the US in response to the coronavirus. Faced with a virus that has killed about one-third as many people as the normal, seasonal flu virus in 2018, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has endorsed a partial shutdown of the economy resulting in millions tossed into the despair of unemployment. Then he arbitrarily shut down bars because massively increased testing showed more people have been exposed to the virus. And he mandated that people wear face masks. Neither shutting down bars (instead of restaurants or Walmarts) nor forcing people to wear masks will have any effect on the progression of the virus through society. But at least he looks like he’s doing “something.”

We are facing the greatest assault on our civil liberties in our lifetimes. The virus is real, but the government reaction is political and totalitarian. As it falls apart, will more Americans start fighting for their liberty?


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Be seeing you

 

 

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

The Washington Post and Its Cold War Drums – CounterPunch.org

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2020

It is customary for the political rhetoric to get heated during a presidential campaign, which will find Donald Trump and Joe Biden vying for honors in the field of national security and militancy, but there should be some balance and context from the mainstream media.  The increasingly hard line of the Washington Post on the competition with China, Russia, and Iran suggests that the political contenders will be goaded—and not ameliorated—by the nation’s key newspapers.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/the-washington-post-and-its-cold-war-drums/#gsc.tab=0

The Washington Post has taken its Cold War campaign against China, Russia, and Iran to a new level.  In the Sunday edition of its Outlook section, the Post gave front-page coverage to long articles by former ambassador Michael McFaul and former New York Times’ writer Tim Weiner to trumpet Russia’s “constant aggression” and its “brutal Cold War rules.”  There was no hint whatsoever of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to improve Russian-American relations over the past two decades, and no suggestion that the actions of the United States over the past 25 years have significantly contributed to the poor state of relations between Moscow and Washington.

The companion pieces have supportive titles, which suggests an editorial decision to express an authoritative point of view.  McFaul’s article is titled “Trump always finds a way to let Putin win….”, and Weiner’s screed follows with “….even when Russia plays by brutal Cold War rules.”  Their joint thesis is a simple one: Donald Trump’s complacency has enabled President Putin’s “litany of belligerent acts.”  Neither writer notes U.S. actions over the past quarter-century that have worsened the international environment and helped to create a  revival of the Cold War.  Indeed, they absolve the last four American presidents of any responsibility for the current state of affairs, ignoring their actions that have been consistent with Cold War policymaking.  Is anyone going to address the importance of restoring a Russian-American dialogue revolving around arms control and disarmament as well as Third World conflict resolution?

McFaul’s article is particularly interesting in view of his role as the architect of President Barack Obama’s “reset” policy toward Russia, his standing as one of the leading scholars on post-communist Russia, and his appointment as the first non-career diplomat to be U.S. ambassador to the Kremlin.  His two-year tour was hardly a success as McFaul, only several days after his arrival in Moscow, chose to invite a number of organizers and prominent participants in the anti-Putin protest movement to the U.S. embassy.  McFaul immediately became an Internet celebrity in the tight-knit world of Russian opposition, which demonstrated a lack of awareness of Russian political sensitivities, particularly if the Obama administration was genuinely trying to “reset” relations.

McFaul’s article is totally one-sided.  He argues that “Trump has received nothing” from Moscow despite his concessions to the Russian president, citing “no new arms-control treaty, no help in deal with worsening relations with Iran.”  But it was Trump who backed away from arms control and disarmament with Russia, abrogating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and walking away from the Outer Space Treaty.  Conversely, it is Putin who is trying to get back to arms control negotiations, particularly to extend the New START Treaty, which expires in January 2021.  Moreover, it is Putin who supports the Iran nuclear accord, and nowhere does McFaul explain what Russian leaders could possibly do to reverse the damage that the Trump administration has done to relations with Iran as well as to political stability in the Persian Gulf.

Weiner is welcome to his opinion that the CIA’s covert action in Afghanistan was the “last great battle of the Cold War,” but the Russians have dealt with genuine facts for the past 25 years that point to U.S. responsibility for the current disarray in Russian-American relations.  In the 1990s, it was the United States and President Bill Clinton who decided to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, bringing former Soviet republics into NATO, a betrayal of commitments that President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker gave to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze not to “leap frog” over Germany in order to go into East Europe.

President George W. Bush went one terrible step further by bringing former Soviet republics into NATO; it took German Chancellor Angela Merkel to get him to stop flirting with membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Merkel convinced Bush that introducing Ukraine and Georgia to NATO would violate Putin’s red line regarding NATO membership.  Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland used her cell phone to discuss specific individuals who would be in the government or out.  When the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine told Nuland that the European Union would have problems with her intervention, she replied “Fuck the EU.”  The Kremlin intercepted the call and had a field day spreading the news.  The Russian actions toward Ukraine and Georgia that McFaul and Weiner cite were, in fact, a response to U.S. manipulation of the politics and policies of both nations, which followed Putin’s red-line warnings to the United States.

One of the most severe moves reminiscent of the Cold War was President George W. Bush’s abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.  It was noteworthy that John Bolton served in influential administration positions in 2002 and 2019, when the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty, respectively, were abrogated.  Bush followed up the abrogation with another offensive maneuver, the deployment of a regional missile defense in Poland and Romania, claiming the defense was designed to counter a possible attack from Iran.  This made no sense at the time, and even less sense during the Obama administration when the Iran nuclear accord was completed.  Not only has Donald Trump demonstrated no interest in the importuning from Putin regarding the need to return to disarmament negotiations, he has created a Cold War-like Space Force and suggested that U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Germany might end up in Poland.  McFaul needs to reconcile the fact that additional U.S. forces will be sent to Poland with his notion that “Trump always finds a way to let Putin win.”

It is customary for the political rhetoric to get heated during a presidential campaign, which will find Donald Trump and Joe Biden vying for honors in the field of national security and militancy, but there should be some balance and context from the mainstream media.  The increasingly hard line of the Washington Post on the competition with China, Russia, and Iran suggests that the political contenders will be goaded—and not ameliorated—by the nation’s key newspapers.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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