MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘America First’

Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney Unite Against Putting America First | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2020

This episode captures why the Washington establishment loathes President Trump. Hint: it has nothing to do with the smears accusing him of racism or Russian sympathies.

Trump is the only president to challenge the internationalist interventionist orthodoxy that’s ruled Washington unquestioned for the last 70 years.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nancy-pelosi-and-liz-cheney-unite-against-america-first-foreign-policy/

Ending wars is the one truly heretical act in Washington.

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 21: U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) speaks during a news conference with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and other Republican members of the House of Representatives at the Capitol on July 21, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

After President Trump stated his desire to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany and South Korea, the bipartisan war party sprang into action.

Veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved a defense appropriations bill that authorizes $740 billion in military spending. Along with all the other dubious and downright awful provisions, the House’s version of the bill has included a measure designed to thwart the president from bringing troops home. House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney (R-WY) on an amendment putting several conditions on the administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, requiring the White House to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn’t jeopardize counterterrorism or national security.

This episode captures why the Washington establishment loathes President Trump. Hint: it has nothing to do with the smears accusing him of racism or Russian sympathies.

Trump is the only president to challenge the internationalist interventionist orthodoxy that’s ruled Washington unquestioned for the last 70 years.

Let’s go back to 1949, to the creation of NATO and the initial deployment of troops to Europe.

Joe Stalin and world communism was on the march, we were told. Russia controlled half of Europe and would take the rest—along with Korea—unless we acted. President Truman demanded American boys be ready to fight Russia in Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Korea, wherever.

But even in that climate of crisis, support for permanent war was not unanimous.

Senator William “Wild Bill” Langer (R-North Dakota), one of the eleven Republicans in opposition (along with just two Democrats) called NATO “a barren military alliance directed to plunge us deeply into the economic, military and political affairs of the other nations of Europe.”

We’re still plunging new depths, ever seeking new frontiers and new missions for the barren alliance.

When President Trump declared before the immobile faces of Mt. Rushmore, “A nation must care for its own citizens first. We must take care of America first,” he was channeling that original America Firster, Joe Kennedy.

The man who would father three senators and a president offered this advice in 1950 (none of his children took it): America needs “to get out of Korea” and “apply the same principle to Europe.” We must “conserve American lives for American ends, not waste them in the freezing hills of Korea or the battle-scarred plains of Western Germany.”

Or in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of the Middle East.

When you hear President Trump ask NATO countries to up their defense spending, compare that to the words of Joe Kennedy: “We cannot sacrifice ourselves to save those who do not wish to save themselves.”

Nancy Pelosi and her ilk call Trump a Russian asset for daring to put the interests of this country before empire.  Nothing new there.  Today’s Russia-baiters are cut from the same cloth as an earlier generation of liberals.

In 1951, The Nation magazine accused “Herbert Hoover and a good portion of the Republican Party” of being captured by Moscow—that portion opposed to NATO, because Hoover doubted the effectiveness of deploying ground troops against the communist nations.

The New Republic seconded the motion: refusing to commit American troops to NATO “may lead Stalin to attack Western Europe” and keep advancing until his minions “would bring out in triumph the first Communist edition of the Chicago Tribune.” Mitt Romney and his fellow impeachment travelers remain convinced we must fight the Russians over there so we don’t have to fight them over here!

Back then, the bipartisan war party insisted the president could send troops abroad without asking Congress. Now when President Trump wants to bring them home, Congress claims it has the authority to stop him. Whatever it takes to keep the war machine properly greased.

Until Trump, George McGovern was the only candidate of a major party to call for drawing down troops in Europe and Korea. The sentiment in McGovern’s 1972 acceptance speech is pure America First: “This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to rebuilding our own nation.”

The establishment has hated McGovern ever since for the same reason they hate President Trump.

The America First program would dismantle the imperial project that brought us NATO and has kept us on permanent war footing until today.

The foreign policy sachems built a “post-war rules based international order” on the premise the United States can and must remake the world. They stationed our troops abroad and launched wars with no end. They merged the American economy with that of the rest of the world, destroying America’s industries, high wage scales and standard of living in the process. They constructed a permanent national security state with unchecked powers to pursue anyone including the president.

The precious “rules based international order” is empire by another name. To those who support it—Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, neoconservative, academics, lobbyists and pundits—it is the One True Faith.

Anyone who opposes it is anathema. Even the elected President of the United States.

about the author

Curtis Ellis is Policy Director with America First Policies. He was a senior policy advisor on the 2016 Trump campaign and Presidential Transition Team and served as special advisor to the Secretary of Labor in  the Trump administration.

Be seeing you

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : How Expansive is FBI Spying?

Posted by M. C. on January 21, 2020

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/january/20/how-expansive-is-fbi-spying/

Written by Ron Paul

Cato Institute Research Fellow Patrick Eddington recently filed several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out if the Federal Bureau of Investigation ever conducted surveillance of several organizations dealing with government policy, including my Campaign for Liberty. Based on the FBI’s response, Campaign for Liberty and other organizations, including the Cato institute and the Reason Foundation, may have been subjected to FBI surveillance or other data collection.

I say “may have been” because the FBI gave Mr. Eddington a “Glomar response” to his FOIA requests pertaining to these organizations. A Glomar response is where an agency says it can “neither confirm nor deny” involvement in a particular activity. Glomar was a salvage ship the Central Intelligence Agency used to recover a sunken Soviet submarine in the 1970s. In response to a FOIA request by Rolling Stone magazine, the CIA claimed that just confirming or denying the Glomar’s involvement in the salvage operation would somehow damage national security. A federal court agreed with the agency, giving federal bureaucrats, and even local police departments, a new way to avoid giving direct answers.

The Glomar response means these organizations may have been, and may still be, subjected to federal surveillance. As Mr. Eddington told Reason magazine, “We know for a fact that Glomar invocations have been used to conceal actual, ongoing activities, and we also know that they’re not passing out Glomars like candy.”

Protecting the right of individuals to join together in groups to influence government policy is at the very heart of the First Amendment. Therefore, the FBI subjecting such groups to surveillance can violate the constitutional rights of everyone involved with the groups.

The FBI has a long history of targeting Americans whose political beliefs and activities threaten the FBI’s power or the power of influential politicians. The then-named Bureau of Investigation participated in the crackdown on people suspected of being communists in the post-World War I “Red Scare.” The anti-communist crackdown was headed by a young agent named J. Edgar Hoover who went on to become FBI director, a position he held until his death. Hoover kept and expanded his power by using the FBI to collect blackmail material on people including politicians.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the FBI spied on supporters of the America First movement, including several Congress members. Two of the most famous examples of FBI targeting individuals based on their political activities are the harassment of Martin Luther King Jr. and the COINTELPRO program. COINTELPRO was an organized effort to spy on and actively disrupt “subversive” organizations, including antiwar groups

COINTELPRO officially ended in the 1970s. However, the FBI still targets individuals and organizations it considers “subversive,” including antiwar groups and citizen militias.

Congress must hold hearings to determine if the FBI is currently using unconstitutional methods to “monitor” any organizations based on their beliefs. Congress must then take whatever steps necessary to ensure that no Americans are ever again targeted for surveillance because of their political beliefs and activities.


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
212002_0

 

 

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

Tyler Kent and the Roosevelt Whistle-blow Job – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2019

Americans overwhelmingly did not want war. FDR wasn’t just misleading the voters; he was misleading them in a way that would have genuinely mattered at the ballot box.

https://www.takimag.com/article/tyler-kent-and-the-roosevelt-whistle-blow-job/

David Cole

Remember that time Democrats hated a whistle-blower so much they turned him over to a foreign government to be imprisoned on an island? Think Gilligan’s Island but without the laugh track. There was a millionaire, however…a cuddly cripple with a fondness for war and a penchant for collusion. I speak, of course, of that most “problematic” Democrat icon, Franklin Roosevelt.

Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale…

In April 2016, when then candidate Trump dared to utter the words “America First” during a foreign-policy speech, FDR acolytes clutched their collective pearls. Susan Dunn, a professor of humanities at Williams College, took to CNN to explain why Trump’s new catchphrase was the most Hitlery thing a Hitler could holler. “‘America First’ was the name of the isolationist, defeatist, anti-Semitic national organization that urged the United States to appease Adolf Hitler,” explained the FDR author and historian. According to Dunn, the only thing standing in the way of Roosevelt’s coveted war against European fascism was the backwoods hootin’ of America’s hicks and hillbillies: “There would soon be several hundred America First Committee chapters and almost a million members, two-thirds of whom resided in the Midwest,” fumed Dunn.

Damned Midwesterners! Why can’t they just grow our crops and milk our cows and shut the hell up about matters that are intellectually beyond their ken? According to Dunn, America First was powered by anti-Semites in states like Iowa and Kansas, Neanderthalic nose-pickers whose petty hatreds blinded them to the wisdom of FDR’s crusade.

I wrote Professor Dunn an email, and I’ll confess that I sent it pseudonymously, as I wanted her to think I was one of those ignorant Midwestern lummoxes. In between grunts of “gluurp” and “braaak” and whatever other sounds I assume Kansans make when they’re attempting to cogitate, my uneducated avatar pounded out the following missive:

I once read that during a campaign stop in Boston on October 30, 1940, President Roosevelt, at the time running for reelection, said, “And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Is this a genuine quote, or an urban legend?

Five minutes later, Professor Dunn replied:

Hi! It’s definitely a real quote. He wanted to win the election and was willing to make that promise. In his mind, he thought that if the US is attacked, it’s not a “foreign” war. But he shouldn’t have made that promise.

Naughty Roosevelt, he shouldn’t have lied like that just to win the election! But all is forgiven, because in his mind he thought it’s not a foreign war if we’re attacked (fun fact: Nazi Germany never attacked us).

Of course, my low-IQ Kansan’s first email was just the lure on the line. Time to reel the flounder in with a second one:

One quick follow-up: If FDR felt the need to make that statement in Boston, in other words, if he believed that doing so IN BOSTON would assist his reelection bid, then surely the desire to keep the U.S. out of war in 1940 was not limited to the Midwest. Is that accurate?

And I never heard from Professor Dunn again!

“Kent was Robinson Crusoe’d and a new Great War proceeded unhindered. Yay!”

The above story illustrates the most troublesome aspect of FDR worship, even more problematic than the internment camps and the book-banning: FDR lied his way to reelection in 1940, publicly promising to keep “our boys” out of Europe’s growing conflagration, while privately doing everything he could to override the will of the voters and get us neck-deep in war. No one—not even an FDR fangirl like Susan Dunn—can deny that. And what troubles these folks even more than the president’s actions is the fact that isolationism had widespread support across the U.S. It wasn’t just a mania among cornhuskers and cross-burners. The public’s will was reflected in the three Neutrality Acts passed by Congress between 1935 and 1939.

Americans overwhelmingly did not want war. FDR wasn’t just misleading the voters; he was misleading them in a way that would have genuinely mattered at the ballot box.

Enter the whistle-blower who tried to expose FDR’s secret machinations prior to the election…the guy who witnessed (and not secondhand via hearsay) an American president engaging in dirty dealings with a foreign power, in violation of U.S. policy and in complete contradiction to what he was promising on the campaign trail.

Surprisingly, even as present-day D.C. is in turmoil over a “whistle-blower” who supposedly exposed a president’s mischief with a foreign leader, no one’s mentioning Tyler Kent. Our mainstream media loves invoking historical references, but only when they reinforce a beloved narrative. Emmett Till’s in more newspapers than Marmaduke. But Tyler Kent? Who dat?

Tyler Kent was true-blue-blooded Virginian aristocracy. His daddy was a diplomat, and he shared DNA with presidents and Founding Fathers. Fancy boarding schools, Princeton, the Sorbonne, by age 20 Kent spoke more languages and had shagged more debutantes than you’ve had hot meals. By his late 20s, Kent was working as a cipher clerk at the U.S. embassy in London. All American missions in Europe routed their coded dispatches through the London embassy’s code room, and Kent was one of four code clerks who got to see everything.

And what he saw was collusion, true collusion, low-down and dirty. FDR was secretly conspiring with Churchill to violate U.S. neutrality and accelerate American involvement on behalf of Great Britain. That this coded exchange was going on behind the back of Neville Chamberlain, the head of state (and therefore the man FDR was obligated to deal with), made an already ugly example of collusion even worse. FDR was not only violating the policy of neutrality that had been established by Congress, he was also undermining the democratically elected prime minister of an allied nation. And he did all of this while free-wheeling in his Jazzy Power Chair from one election stop to another promising “again and again and again” to keep the U.S. out of any foreign wars.

What Tyler Kent saw in the code room was top-grade political dynamite. In the words of Boston University historian Peter Rand:

The covert communiqués had started in September 1939, as Churchill assumed the position of First Lord of the Admiralty for the second time, and continued through winter and into spring, when Churchill became prime minister. In their exchanges, Churchill and Roosevelt, assuming they were writing in confidence, mulled how FDR might slip Britain war materiel in bald violation of U.S. law.

As Rand points out, if “word of this got to the press,” the impact on November’s presidential election could have been devastating. And Kent, deciding it was his duty to inform the American public of the president’s violation of the Neutrality Act, resolved to leak the information to isolationists in the State Department and the British Parliament. Sadly, Churchill became prime minister before Kent could act on his plan, and he had the young code clerk imprisoned on the Isle of Wight as (in the words of Professor Rand) “across the Atlantic, the Democrats nominated FDR a third time, and his campaign unfurled without a whisper that the president had trampled the Neutrality Act.”

Kent was Robinson Crusoe’d and a new Great War proceeded unhindered. Yay!

For those of you keeping score, there were technically two instances of collusion at play here. First, there was the FDR/Churchill collusion aimed at secretly violating the Neutrality Act, and second, there was the FDR/Churchill collusion to imprison Kent once it became clear he was going to blow the whistle. On the American side, Kent’s diplomatic immunity was revoked and the Brits were told they could do with him as they pleased. On the British side, Kent’s “trial” was conducted in secrecy in a shuttered room (a SCIF, basically).

I spoke with the Institute for Historical Review’s Mark Weber, my old friend and the author of an essential essay on Kent. Mark stressed that perhaps the most vile aspect of the Kent affair was that FDR’s cronies blatantly admitted that British needs took precedence over U.S. law and the rights of a U.S. diplomat:

In an official statement on the Kent affair, the State Department acknowledged that in this case the US government had put British interests ahead of American interests and US law. The Roosevelt administration, it declared, had sanctioned Kent’s imprisonment because “The interest of Great Britain in such a case, at a time when it was fighting for its existence, was therefore preeminent.”

America last.

In 1945, with the war over and FDR dead (his brain having literally exploded with delight from the knowledge of how many Germans and Japs he’d immolated), Kent was quietly released by the British into a world that no longer gave a damn about the secrets he’d uncovered. He died penniless in a Texas trailer park in 1988, almost assuredly not in the company of a debutante named Muffy.

Though Tyler Kent’s name has been lost to history, when he is invoked, it’s almost always to question his character. He was a “Nazi sympathizer,” or a “KKK racist,” or a “Russian spy” (to the left, the neocons, and deep staters of all stripes, that’s the holy trifecta of slander: Nazi, racist, and Russian bot).

Speculation over Kent’s motives is an effective way to distract from the established facts that require no speculation: FDR was indeed colluding with a foreign power to violate U.S. law, and Tyler Kent wanted people to know about it. Even if Kent had been a goose-stepping Klan-hooded Marxist, it wouldn’t have made FDR’s actions less wrong, or the voters less deserving of the truth.

One can argue that Kent’s spirit lives on today in people like Julian Assange, but at least we as a society have evolved to the point where we no longer put people like that in pris…oh, shit. Right.

Assange, like Kent, is all about transparency. That’s a key difference between the Kent affair and the septic carnival going on right now in D.C. With Kent, we had a true whistle-blower who wanted to empower voters by exposing secret plots and schemes. The current so-called whistle-blower, and the leprous carnies sequestering him behind the freak-show curtain, are all about secret hearings, rumors and hearsay, and a belief that the deep state should have veto power over election results. Tyler Kent, a genuine whistle-blower who relied on primary sources, wanted nothing more than to be heard. The current supposed whistle-blower, who relies on secondhand gossip and speculation, wants so badly to hide from the public eye that he might as well have confined himself to an island.

That’s progress for you; we’ve bred the self-interning whistle-blower, one who assists and enables secret star-chamber hearings instead of fighting against them.

I’m sure that FDR, wherever he may be (most likely giving a significantly hot fireside chat), would appreciate how far we’ve come.

Be seeing you

Robert Stinnett, Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and ...

 

 

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

Imperial Capital But America-First Nation – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 29, 2019

Three are anti-interventionist and anti-war, which may help explain why Democrats are taking a second look at Hillary Clinton.

Mr. B is optimistic. If Trump loses in 2020 the war machine will go full steam ahead.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/patrick-j-buchanan/imperial-capital-but-america-first-nation/

By

“Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand,” said President Donald Trump in an impassioned defense of his decision to cut ties to the Syrian Kurds, withdraw and end these “endless wars.”

Are our troops in Syria, then, on their way home? Well, not exactly.

Those leaving northern Syria went into Iraq. Other U.S. soldiers will stay in Syria to guard oil wells that we and the Kurds captured in the war with ISIS. Another 150 U.S. troops will remain in al-Tanf to guard Syria’s border with Iraq, at the request of Jordan and Israel.

And 2,000 more U.S. troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Iran, which raises a question: Are we coming or going?…

But in this imperial capital, the voice of the interventionist yet prevails. The media, the foreign policy elite, the think tanks, the ethnic lobbies, the Pentagon, the State Department, Capitol Hill, are almost all interventionist, opposed to Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds. Rand Paul may echo Middle America, but Lindsey Graham speaks for the Republican establishment.

Yet the evidence seems compelling that anti-interventionism is where the country is at, and the Congress knows it.

For though the denunciations of Trump’s pullout from Syria have not ceased, one detects no campaign on Capitol Hill to authorize sending U.S. troops back to Syria, in whatever numbers are needed, to enable the Kurds to keep control of their occupied quadrant of that country.

Love of the Kurds, so audible on the Hill, does not go that far…

In 1940-41, the anti-interventionists of “America First” succeeded in keeping us out of the world war (after Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in September of 1939 and Britain and France went to war). Pearl Harbor united the nation, but not until Dec. 7, 1941, two years later — when America First folded its tents and enlisted.

Today, because both sides of our foreign policy quarrel have powerful constituencies, we have paralysis anew, reflected in policy.

We have enough troops in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from overrunning Kabul and the big cities, but not enough to win the war.

In Iraq, which we invaded in 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein and install a democracy, we brought to power the Shia and their Iranian sponsors. Now we battle Iran for political influence in Baghdad.

Across the Middle East, we have enough troops, planes and ships to prevent our expulsion, but not enough to win the wars from Syria to Yemen to Afghanistan…

To the question, “Are we going deeper into the Middle East or coming out?” the answer is almost surely the latter.

Among the candidates who could be president in 2021 — Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders — none is an interventionist of the Lindsey Graham school. Three are anti-interventionist and anti-war, which may help explain why Democrats are taking a second look at Hillary Clinton.

According to polls, Iran is first among the nations that Americans regard as an enemy. Still, there is no stomach for war with Iran. When Trump declined to order a strike on Iran — after an air and cruise missile attack shut down half of Saudi oil production — Americans, by their silent acquiescence, seemed to support our staying out.

Yet if there is no stomach in Middle America for war with Iran and a manifest desire to pull the troops out and come home, there is ferocious establishment resistance to any withdrawal of U.S. forces. This has bedeviled Trump through the three years of his presidency.

Again, it seems a stalemate is in the cards — until there is some new explosion in the Mideast, after which the final withdrawal for America will begin, as it did for the exhausted British and French empires after World War II.

That we are leaving the Middle East seems certain. Only the departure date is as yet undetermined.

Be seeing you

America First Committee

 

 

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

Tulsi Gabbard Rips Trump on Iran Threats: Acting Like ‘Saudi Arabia’s B*tch is Not America First’

Posted by M. C. on September 16, 2019

Why would Iran get itself in trouble when the poorest place on the planet is already pummeling SA with missiles? You remember Saudi Arabia…it financed 9/11.

We have more military bases, satellites and other technology than SA. Why depend on them for an honest evaluation of their sworn enemy’s missile tracking? I suspect the CIA knows the truth about where the missile came from-not that they would tell US.

What else is SA going to say? SA and Israel want US soldiers to die doing their dirty work. Not theirs.

This is way less believable than the Syria -gassing it’s own civilians- false flag.

Tulsi may not be right, but she is correct.

Check out the comments on the link. I thought Breitbart was bad!

Tulsi Gabbard Rips Trump on Iran Threats: Acting Like ‘Saudi Arabia’s B*tch is Not America First’

The latest round of Trump tweets threatening military action in response to attacks on Saudi Arabia prompted a fiery response from a Democratic presidential contender.

Replying directly to Trump on Twitter, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) slammed the president for, in her view, seeking marching orders with regard to a potential strike against Iran following the attack on a Saudi oil plant.

“Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters,” Gabbard wrote. “Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First.’”…

Gabbard’s tweet came in response to Trump saying that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” to respond to the attack against the Saudis…

Be seeing you

Were the Nice Attacks A False Flag Or A Lone Nut?

 

 

 

 

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

Report: Trump Allies Slam DHS Secretary Nielsen as ‘Never Trumper’

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2018

Tom Ridge, former Governor of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and serial vote buyer, was the first head of the Department of Keeping Track of Honest Americans. Currently head of Tom Ridge Global,money maker from government generated terrorism.

Nielsen, keeping terrorism and her job alive. No wonder Ridge likes her.

America la$t.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/13/report-trump-allies-slam-dhs-secretary-nielsen-as-never-trumper/

by JOHN BINDER

According to sources with Politico, Trump’s allies in the administration are not keen on Nielsen’s running of DHS, allegedly calling her a member of the failed “Never Trump” movement.

The Politico report claims that “associates” of Trump make “the case that she’s a closeted ‘never Trumper’ who still doesn’t fully back his agenda.” Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Donald’s Done – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2018

You can read the article but this is it’s essence.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/david-stockman/the-donalds-done-the-deep-state-wins-its-war-on-america-first/

The Donald’s action to ash-can the Iranian nuclear deal marks the War Party’s complete and baleful triumph. There is now nothing much left of America First

Be seeing you

phoca_thumb_l_tcobb34

I am not a number. I am a free man!-Number 6

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

The Folly of Wilsonism

Posted by M. C. on April 26, 2017

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-folly-of-wilsonism/

“What we demand in this war,” he said, “is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in. … All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest.”

This gauzy humanitarianism was dangerous then, and it is dangerous now. When you include all the peoples of the world in your global project, you end up with an unmanageable foreign-policy remit with no end in sight. The world is a brutal place, full of senseless, horrific killing in multiple locations at all times. Despite Tillerson’s tall talk about protecting innocents everywhere, it isn’t possible. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Trump the Disruptor by — Antiwar.com

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2017

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/01/17/trump-the-disruptor/

America first for a change. That means you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

George Will-Ron Paul is an Isolationist…Say What?

Posted by M. C. on December 8, 2011

George really through me for a loop when I read that in today’s Erie Times News.  There are few if any isolationist countries.  No one country is self-sufficient.  The only ones close are Korea and they are propped up by China and Miyanmar (also known as Burma).  By the way I live in Pennsylvania (also known as Penn’s Woods).   Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Empire Building | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »