- How The US Deep State Accidentally Forged A Multipolar World Order
Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
In every nation there are power conglomerates that determine and influence the domestic and foreign policy choices their nations. In the United States, it is important to highlight the concept known as American exceptionalism that accompanies these power centers, often called the deep state. According to this principle, the United States alone has been chosen by God to lead mankind.
After the World War II, a notion very similar to that of Nazi Aryan racial supremacy was born – that of the chosen people. In this case, however, the chosen people were Americans, who emerged victorious at the end of the Second World War II, ready to face the «existential danger» of the USSR, a society and culture that was different from that of the US. With such mental imprinting, the trend over the following decades was predictable. What followed was war after war, the capitalist economic system sustained by the US war machine widening its sphere all over the globe, reaching Southeast Asia, but then being forced back by the failure of the Vietnam War, signaling the first sign of the end of American omnipotence.
As the Berlin Wall fell and eliminated the Soviet «threat», American expansion had almost reached its existential limit. What has been a constant element during all of these US presidencies, during various wars and economic growth thanks to a rising capitalism, has been the presence of the deep state, a set of neural centers that make up real US power. In order to understand the failure of the deep state to achieve its goals to exercise full-spectrum control over the globe, it is crucial to trace the connections between past and the present presidencies from the fall of the Berlin Wall.
When thinking of the deep state, it is easy to identify the major players – the mainstream media, think-tanks, central and private banks, foreign-state lobbyists, politicians, intelligence agencies, large industrial groups, and the military-industrial complex (MIC). These are the inner circles that hold the true levers of power in the United States. Often, by analyzing past events over a long period of time, it becomes easier to identify motivations and goals behind specific actions, and the manner in which the various members of the deep state have often accompanied, influenced and sometimes sabotaged various administrations – such as is currently the case with the current Trump administration – for the sole purpose of advancing their economic interests.
During the Clinton and Bush administrations, the deep state was able to maintain a united and compact front, counting on the economic and military power of what was still a rising global power. The mainstream media, the intelligence agencies, the military and the financial and political centers supported both presidents in their ambitious plans to expand American hegemony. From intervention in Yugoslavia to the bombing to Afghanistan through to the war in Iraq, the refrain has been conflict and devastation in exchange for financial impositions that were focused on maintaining the dollar as the reserve or exchange currency for such assets as oil. In Yugoslavia, the strategy also aimed at dismantling the last block linked to the former Soviet Union, the last act of the end of the Cold War. Even the control of opium trading routes from Afghanistan has been of great importance, becoming a key element in US expansion and control plans, other than maintaining a foothold in central Asia for further destabilization attempts.
The war in Iraq, engineered by three fundamental elements of the deep state (false intelligence services, journalists with a specific agenda, and the military straining at the leash to bomb a hostile nation), has produced a number of consequences, primarily the disintegration of the country, leaving the door open to Iranian influence. Over the course of 15 years, Tehran's influence has grown to such an extent that it engages Iraq in a Shiite arch that starts from Iran, passes through Iraq, and ends in Syria, reaching the Mediterranean. In terms of the effect intended and the result actually obtained, the Iraq war may be considered the largest strategic failure of the US deep state since Vietnam.
In addition to a loss of American influence with the petro-monarchies, Iraq has highlighted the American inability to conquer and hold a territory when the population is hostile. Facing local and Shiite militias, the United States paid a heavy human toll, shocking the American population during the ten-year war with planes returning home to deliver flag-draped coffins. This is not to mention the creation of the Afghan and Iraq wars of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, all placed on the shoulders of the American taxpayer.
In a sense, Obama owes much of his victory in 2008 to the financial crisis and the American defeat in Iraq. Even today, the debate about the role of the deep state in Obama's election is open. The most plausible explanation is based on Obama's telegenic appeal over Senator McCain, likely a decisive factor for Americans. As many Americans did not admit, Obama's election, after eight years of Bush, was a break with the past, a clear message to the elite, especially after Obama's victory over Clinton during the Democratic primaries.
Obama's victory was immediately accompanied by a strategic recalculation by the deep state, which sensed the new opportunity linked to Obama's nature as well as ongoing changes. There were to be no more explicit wars of the type that involve tank divisions. After the disaster in Iraq, even the deep state understood how American military power was unable to prevail over a hostile local population. For this reason, the neoconservatives have been progressively displaced by the liberal, human-rights brigade. Their new approach has turned the Middle East upside down through the Arab Spring, creating a new balance in the region and causing the situation to degenerate in Egypt, destabilizing neighboring countries, ending up human-rights dystopias in places like Libya and Syria, both victims of direct or indirect military aggression on the grounds of protecting human rights.
In this scenario, the most important components of the deep state are the media that, by disseminating false intelligence information through manipulation and disinformation for the purposes of justifying military aggression, conditions the populations of Europe and the US to attack sovereign countries like Libya. During the Obama administration, the deep state rarely faced a hostile presidency, demonstrated by the bank bailout during the 2008 crisis. A few months after the election, it became apparent how empty Obama’s election promises had been, representing the triumph of marketing over substance. By printing money at zero interest, Obama allowed the Fed to donate almost $800 billion to the banks, saving them from a collapse and postponing the consequences of the next financial crisis, which will likely be irreparable. Obama preferred to follow the dictates of the Fed, a key component of the deep state, instead of reforming the banking sector.
The underlying mistakes of the last months of the Obama administration continue to affect Trump's new presidency. Obama's attempt to placate the deep state by arming terrorists in the Middle East, putting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, bombing Libya, and bailing out the banks has only increased the appetite of the deep state, which has progressed to more explicit demands like an attack on Iran and direct intervention in Syria. From this moment on, after having granted virtually all the wishes of the deep state, Obama pulled the handbrake and activated a couple of countermeasures to rebalance the legacy of his presidency. He opposed a direct intervention in Syria following the false-flag chemical attacks, signing and implementing the nuclear agreement with Iran and he restoring relations with Cuba.
It was at this very moment that the deep state declared war on Obama, relying on the indispensable support of intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and the most conservative wing of the American establishment. Attacks on Obama's presumed weaknesses as president, his inability to defend American interests, and his lack of courage characterized the last two years of his presidency.
It was this perennial state of siege during Obama's presidency that created the conditions for Trump's electoral ascent. The deep state has for years insisted on the need for a strong and determined leader representative of the spirit of American exceptionalism. Initially, the deep state focused on Hillary Clinton, but Trump had the intuition to emphasize the military and industrial aspects of the country, appealing to the yearning of the population for a rebuilding of domestic industry, and opening new opportunities for the deep state. This served to drive a split within the intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and a good deal of the domestic political class, leaving them in open warfare. Russia's affairs and Trump’s alleged connections to Putin are false news, created to sabotage Trump's presidency.
In the 2016 Republican primaries, Americans voted for a leader who promised to improve their livelihoods by boosting the domestic economy and placing the interests of their country first. This promise almost immediately captured the working component of the population and large industrial conglomerates. Trump later gained the support of another fundamental component of the deep state, the military wing, thanks to the proclamation that the United States will be returned to the role they deserve in the world, salvaging the perverse idea of American exceptionalism.
Trump's decision to embrace the MIC is particularly controversial and represents the beginning of a deep-state faction built upon Trump's presidency. The daily din surrounding his presidency, with constant attacks from the opposing faction of the deep state, became intense with fake news alleging Trump’s links with Russia. With the appointment of generals who subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism, it can be debated whether Trump intentionally wanted to give a leadership role to his own generals or whether he had no choice, having to associate with some of these deep-state members in order to defend himself against the assaults of opposing deep-state factions.
Recent Trump-related events are all based on these factors, namely a deep state driven by the neoliberal faction that has never stopped attacking Trump, and a neoconservative deep-state faction that has been tightening the noose around Trump.
The immediate results have been a level of chaos that has been unprecedented in a US administration, with continuous appointments and layoffs, the latest one Steve Bannon, not to mention the impossibility of abolishing Obamacare with all the forces arrayed against Trump’s legislative agenda. Trump has progressively had to concede more power and authority to his generals, acceding to bombing Syria and passing sanctions that worsen relations between Moscow and Washington. A self-destructive spiral began with the granting of a primary role to those nominated to key positions.
The final effect of this ongoing sabotage ever since the Obama presidency is a bankrupt US foreign policy and a continuing fratricidal struggle within the deep state. America’s European allies are in revolt over anti-Russia sanctions, which is their main source of energy. Countries like Russia, China and Iran are beginning to undergo an economic revolution as they progressively abandon the dollar; and as these countries take over a Middle East devastated by years of American wars, Moscow gains significant influence in the region. The crisis engulfing the Gulf Cooperation Council, increasingly beset with fickle fractures between Riyadh and Doha.
One of the consequences of two decades of the US deep state’s brazen foreign policy has been the birth of a multipolar world order, with US superpower status being challenged by competing powers like China and Russia. Indeed, Washington’s historic allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have borne the consequences of the disastrous policies of the US, with Iran rising to be one of the power centers of the region destined to dominate the Middle East militarily and even economically.
The incredible paradox of the failure of deep state is represented by the emergence of two alternative poles to the American one, increasingly allied with each other to counter the chaotic retreat of a unipolar world order. In this scenario, Washington and all its power centers are in an unprecedented situation, where their desire does not match their abilities. A sense of frustration is increasingly evident, from the incredible statements of many American political representatives on Russian influence in US elections, to the threats of aggression against North Korea, or the game of chicken with the nuclear powers of Russia and China.
If the deep state continues to hamstring the presidency, and the military wing succeeds in pressuring Trump, there are likely to be a number of indirectly linked effects. There will be an exponential increase in synergies between nations not aligned with American interests. In economic terms, there are alternative systems to that centered on the dollar; in terms of energy, there are a host of new agreements with European, Turkish or Russian partners; and in political terms, there is a more or less explicit alliance between Russia and China, with a strong contribution from Iran, as will soon become more evident with Tehran's entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
By the end of the 1980s, the United States was the only world power destined for a future of unchallenged global hegemony. The deep state’s greed, as well as the utopian desire to control every decision in every corner of the world, has ended up consuming the ability of the US to influence events, serving only to draw Russia and China closer together with the shared interest of halting America’s heedless advance. It is thanks to the firmly ensconced American deep state that Moscow and Beijing are now coordinating together in order to put to an end the United States’ unipolar moment as soon as possible.
It is not entirely wrong to say that the American unipolar moment is coming to an end, with the deep state’s attacks on the Trump presidency preventing any rapprochement with Moscow.
The stronger the pressure of the deep state on the multipolar powers, the greater the speed with which the advance of the multipolar world will replace the unipolar one. Early effects will appear in the economic sphere, particularly in relation to movement towards de-dollarisation, which may mark the beginning of a long-awaited change.
- Mapping The World's Most Liveable Cities
If you want to move to one of the world's most liveable cities, pack your bags and book flights to Australia or Canada…
You will find more statistics at Statista
As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, The Economist assessed 140 major cities worldwide on stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure, declaring Melbourne the most liveable city in 2017 for the seventh year running. Australia's second most populous city scored 97.5 out of 100. Vienna, the Austrian capital, came second and three Canadian cities rounded off the top five – Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary.
As well as those three Canadian cities, a total of three in Australia made the top-10 list (Adelaide and Perth as well as top-placed Melbourne). Interestingly, U.S. cities are notably absent from the top of The Economist's list with Auckland, Helsinki and Hamburg all boasting high liveability scores.
The Syrian capital of Damascus was at the very bottom of the ranking with a score of 30.2, along with Lagos in Nigeria (36.0) and Tripoli in Libya (36.6).
- Schlichter: "Normal Americans Are Bored By The Fake Drama"
Authored by Kurt Schlichter via Townhall.com,
I took a week off from the milieu of political insanity to go out amongst the normals and chalk up another huge trial victory, and when I got back I was stunned – stunned! – to find that a consensus had formed that Nazis are bad. Beforehand, I had no idea where the establishment stood on Nazis, but now it's crystal clear. They hate Nazis because Nazis are bad. Everyone from CNN to Mitt Romney hates Nazis. I couldn't be prouder of an establishment that takes that kind of tough stand. They're going to hate Nazis, and they don't care whose jack-booted toes they step on!
I also learned that if you hate Nazis for being bad, you're not allowed to hate anybody else who’s also bad, because Nazis are so bad that you have to devote all your hating capacity to hating Nazis such that there's no room left to hate anybody else. Those hammer and sickle flag-carrying Communists? Well, you must love the Nazis if you hate them, because you have got to hate the Nazis with all your mind and all your heart since, as we learned this week, Nazis are bad. I'm so glad that our moral betters have this all figured out.
This new breed of Nazis – for whom breeding doesn't seem to be in the cards – is less menacing that the originals. Instead of schmeissers they pack Tiki torches – for reasons no one seems able to explain. The old Nazis invaded Poland and wouldn't leave; these invade their moms’ basements and will never leave. But apparently these 300 or so misfits and malcontents are a potent peril to our republic. I'm not sure if they themselves are a direct threat to anything besides the bottom line at a Golden Corral all-you-can-eat buffet unlucky enough to have them as patrons. The only thing scarier to its manager would be seeing Lena Dunham waddling in on a cheat day.
They are not utterly harmless; one of these cowardly morons ran over and murdered a woman, which fulfilled the media’s long-standing dream of being able to report on a terrorist who wasn't a radical Muslim, a Black Lives Matter fan, or a Bernie bro. But the fact remains that this scraggly collection of polo-shirted dinguses numbering in the dozens is less of a threat to our society than the gleeful attempt by the establishment and its media puppets to use the looming threat of the Third Helping Reich to crush all opposition to the status quo.
The establishment’s tactic is to paint anyone they dislike as Nazis and any ideas its members oppose as hate speech, all in support of a strategy of slamming shut the Overton Window on any kind of change. The media is running with it, and if you get on Twitter, anyone to the right of Maxine Waters is now a Nazi – especially if you dare observe that the fascist fatties are not the only scumbags out there.
Even after a week, CNN is still quivering and writhing in an earth-shattering Nazigasm. When it finally ends, I expect in the network to be cuddling and sharing a Virginia Slim with the New York Times. And everyone from Hollywood half-wits to the CEO of Starbucks are making clear that they disapprove of Nazis – and no one else.
It's also got the usual suspects of the wuss right activated. That's why you see needy Fredocons like Mitt Romney being retrieved from their well-deserved obscurity and sent out to dance eagerly for the nods and nickels tossed his way by the same media that said he gave people cancer. I don’t know, but assume the guys vying to replace John McCain as the leader of the Blue Falcon wing of the GOP, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse, competed vigorously to see who could ignore violent leftists in order to signal the most solemn rejection of Nazis in a manner that validates the lying liberals’ premise that the Republican Party harbors Nazis. Of course, we saw another pathetic grasp at relevance in the form of finger-wagging by the has-beens at that failing cruise cabin sales organization,The Weekly Standard.
But this cheesy grab for short-term political advantage is much more dangerous than that motley collection of stormdoofuses. The Times is now running op-eds advocating the suppression of speech its coastal elite readership finds unappealing. Yeah, a newspaper advocating censorship seems like a smart long-term strategy. The ACLU has added an asterisk to its acronym that explains that the only civil liberties it's going to be protecting from now on are the ones exercised by people approved by its rich liberal donors. Yeah, abandoning the one thing that earned the ACLU grudging respect across the board, its free-speech absolutism, seems like another smart long-term strategy. Oh, and the tech twerps of Silicon Valley decided to take it upon themselves to decide what discourse may be discoursed. Yeah, that's a smart long-term strategy that couldn't possibly explode in their smug, goateed faces.
But what's the effect on normal people? Taking a break from Twitter and the media for a week to go be with normal people gave me an interesting perspective that I don't get when I'm surrounded by others invested in politics. None of them care. The exact number of times I heard normal people mention Nazis was zero. No one normal was talking about it, except on the occasional big screen I passed in my travels. No one normal was paying attention to the Wolf Blitzers or the Rachel Maddows. Everyone normal was living their lives, and this fake moral meltdown had no part in them. The fact that the whole thing is so ridiculous doesn't help it gain traction. Donald Trump is a lot of things, but a Nazi is not one of them.
And the idea that when there are two sets of idiots facing each other you can't point out that both sets of idiots are idiots just doesn't ring true.
Normal people are blessedly free of the little taboos that the establishment seeks to impose, like the one that forbids pointing out that the alt left is just as scummy and slimy as the alt right. The general feeling among normals is “A pox on both your basements.”
The Great Nazi Panic of 2017 will fade away when its sponsors realize that it's not having the effect on the mass of the normal Americans they hoped for. But that doesn't mean it hasn't caused grave damage. The establishment has, in its desperation to return to unchallenged supremacy, eagerly jettisoned its dedication to the concept of free speech. It might not work out the way they hope once there is a national arbiter of what may and may not be thought or spoken. After all, as we found out last November, the person you think is going to be wielding the power isn't necessarily the person who you thought was going to be wielding the power.
- Owner Of The Plaza Hotel, Once Trump's Crown Jewel, Hires Broker To Pursue A Sale
Here’s some news that might interest the President.
The Indian owners of the Plaza Hotel have hired a broker to tell the New York City landmark, according to the Wall Street Journal. The step is “a sign that a world-wide scramble among investors, celebrities and governments to acquire the property could be nearing an end.”
Perhaps more than any other property (Trump Tower included), the Plaza Hotel is emblematic of Donald Trump’s meteoric rise in the world of New York City real estate. The hotel had for years been an object of fascination for Trump, who reportedly jumped at the opportunity to buy it from Texas billionaire Robert Bass in 1988. According to the New York Times, Trump paid $400 million for the hotel, an unprecedented sum for a hotel at the time.
However, it would also eventually become a symbol of his debt-fueled brush with ruin, as the property was eventually forced into bankruptcy in 1992; in 1995, he bitterly agreed to sell it to a group of Saudi investors.
More than 30 years after Trump was forced to sell it, industry experts believe the hotel could fetch more than $500 million. However, that sum isn’t even close to the highest ever paid for a NYC hotel: Back in 2015, China’s Anbang Insurance Group Co. bought the Waldorf Astoria for $1.95 billion to the highest price ever paid for a U.S. hotel, according to data tracker STR Inc. Now Anbang is being pressured to sell the Waldorf, along with its other foreign assets. Regulators are concerned that a foreign buying spree by Anbang and other Chinese conglomerates has left domestic corporations dangerously overleveraged.
“While it is unclear how much a buyer would pay for a trophy property like the Plaza, hotel investors and brokers suggest it could be one of the most expensive hotel sales on a per-room basis, a popular industry metric. By that method of valuation it could bring in more than $500 million.”
A representative of the company to told WSJ that a buyer has been found, and “a sale is under process and not yet competed.
Per WSJ, the list of potential buyers includes both the Qatari sovereign-wealth fund and Pras Michel, former member of the Fugees.
“Dozens of real estate moguls, foreign government funds and other hotel investors around the globe in recent years have looked into buying the Plaza after Sahara indicated it would listen to offers, according to people familiar with the matter.
A Qatari sovereign-wealth fund, a Shanghai municipal investment fund and Pras Michel, the Grammy-winning co-founder of the hip-hop group Fugees, are among those that have expressed interest, say people who have been close to the process."
Sahara Chairman Subrata Roy reportedly handled some of the negotiations while serving time in a New Delhi jail.
“Sahara founder and Chairman Subrata Roy, who spent two years in a New Delhi jail on contempt charges, even negotiated with potential buyers from the jail’s guesthouse, according to people familiar with the situation.”
According to WSJ, several interest parties walked away from talks early on because they didn’t think Sahara was serious about selling hotel (i.e. Sahara wouldn’t budge from its asking price, whatever it was). However, the hiring of a broker suggests that this time, they intend to close.
"Sean Hennessey, chief executive officer of the hotel consultants Lodging Advisors told WSJ that hiring a broker suggests that Sahara is, in fact, serious about pursuing a sale of its crown-jewel hotel.
“This suggests a commitment to consummate a transaction,” he said, adding that a professional broker handling the process “might draw people back that looked once and walked away.”
Because of its appearance in classic works of American film and cinema, the hotel has a cultural cache that few can match.
“It has been featured in novels like “The Great Gatsby” and numerous films, including Alfred Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest.” Marilyn Monroe and the Beatles stayed there. John F. Kennedy’s sister Patricia Kennedy held the reception after her wedding to Peter Lawford in the Plaza’s ballroom.
Previous owners of the 110-year old property include hotelier Conrad Hilton and Donald Trump, who once compared it to the Mona Lisa.”
Unfortunately for the Plaza’s owners, they’re selling at a difficult time for the Manhattan real-estate market. As we mentioned above, Chinese authorities are cracking down on foreign real-estate transactions to stanch capital outflows that have helped drain the country’s foreign reserves and put pressure on its currency, the yuan. The effects of these new regulations have already begun to manifest: The average Manhattan hotel sales price in the first half of 2017 was about $515,000, down 26% from the recent peak in the first half 2015, according to data company Real Capital Analytics.
According to a team of analysts at Morgan Stanley, the Manhattan real estate market is headed for a valley as purchases of foreign-real estate by Chinese companies are expected to decline by 84% in 2017, and another 18% in 2018. The influx of Chinese buyers in the aftermath of the financial crisis helped drive bull markets in hot urban markets like New York City, London and Hong Kong.
- The Imperial Collapse Clock Ticks Closer To Midnight
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
As I noted in last Friday’s piece, Donald Trump Finally Comes Out of the Closet, the firing of Steve Bannon represents the most significant event to occur during the Trump administration thus far. For the purposes of this piece, it’s important to review some of what I wrote:
Irrespective of what you think of Bannon, him being out means Wall Street and the military-industrial complex is now 100% in control of the Trump administration. Prepare for an escalation of imperial war around the world and an expansion of brutal oligarchy.
The removal of Bannon is the end of even a facade of populism. This is now the Goldman Sachs Presidency with a thin-skinned, unthinking authoritarian as a figurehead. Meanwhile, guess who’s still there in addition to the Goldman executives? Weed obsessed, civil asset forfeiture supporting Jefferson Sessions. The Trump administration just bacame ten times more dangerous than it was before. With the coup successful, Trump no longer needs to be impeached.
Here’s another prediction. Watch the corporate media start to lay off Trump a bit more going forward. Rather than hysterically demonize him for every little thing, corporate media will increasingly give him more of the benefit of the doubt. After all, a Presidency run by Goldman Sachs and generals is exactly what they like. Trump finally came out of the closet as the anti-populist oligarch he is, and the results won’t be pretty.
Of course, his cheerleaders will remain enthusiastically in denial about what’s happened to their hero, but Trump has been totally brought to heel, a fact that’ll become increasingly crystal clear in the months ahead. This is now your standard Wall Street and military-industrial complex run Presidency.
Last night’s announcement of a recommitment to the Afghanistan war is the earliest evidence that Trump has been completely castrated and will now play by status quo rules with little to no friction. This Presidency will very quickly begin to look like the fifth George W. Bush term (Obama was three and four), on every single issue of genuine importance to oligarchs. Wedge cultural issues will continue to be hyped up hysterically by the corporate media since people can’t help themselves from taking the bait. It’s the perfect way to divide and conquer the populace, while pushing through what they really want. Oligarchs could care less about the outcomes of social issues, which is why they intentionally and incessantly hype them up. They’ll do anything to prevent the public from coming together in opposition to war, Wall Street bailouts and elite criminality generally, and the public is very easy to manipulate. The quicker smart Trump voters wise up to what’s happened, the better.
If you haven’t watched Trump’s Afghanistan speech by now you really should. It’s not good enough to read anyone else’s summary, you need to hear it for yourselves. It’s only 25 minutes long.
As I started listening, I sensed myself getting angry. It was the same empty, bullshit propaganda I’ve been hearing from U.S. Presidents my entire life. This broken record of disingenuousness has become simply unbearable, and even worse, I know it’s going to work on millions upon millions of Americans. We refuse to think for ourselves, and we refuse to admit the obvious. There will be hell to pay for this ignorance and denial.
Trump begins by explaining to the American public why he made a flip-flop that would make Barack Obama blush. He claims there are three conclusions he came to as a result of his grand introspection and wisdom. Let’s tackle the absurdity of each of them one by one.
First, he says he doesn’t think the U.S. should pull out because “our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome.” Let’s revisit a few facts. First, at 16 years old, this is already the longest war in American history. It was a war started after the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil, and near the height the U.S. imperial power. Nevertheless, the war’s been a complete and total failure. It was a failure under Bush, it was a failure under Obama and it will be a failure under Trump. To believe that Trump will usher in an “honorable and enduring outcome” in Afghanistan is to say he will succeed where his predecessors failed merely because…he’s Trump. Not gonna happen.
His second conclusion is that he doesn’t want to repeat what he deems to have been the big mistake made in Iraq; namely, that the U.S. left too soon. This is extremely telling. He doesn’t talk about how the war was based on a gigantic lie pushed by neocons and the “liberal” corporate press from The Washington Post to The New York Times. The biggest mistake in Iraq was starting the war in the first place. If we can’t admit such an obvious lesson from Iraq, of course all the solutions we come up will prove to be failures. The American empire is running on empty, fueled by never-ending insanity and a drive to vacuum in billions exporting weapons. There’s no vision, no wisdom and absolutely no exit strategy.
His third point revolves around how Pakistan has become a growing problem due to its harboring terrorists. He demands a change of course and increased cooperation. Guess which country he didn’t mention? The greatest sponsor of Islamic radicalization the world has ever seen: Saudi Arabia. This once again proves that Trump represents the same old tired thinking that’s been running the U.S. economy and society into the ground for decades. This is now a 100% establishment Presidency, which will be completely defined by establishment thinking. In other words, imperial collapse is coming.
Then towards the end of the speech, Trump says the following:
In every generation we have faced down evil, and we have always prevailed. We prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.
Unfortunately, here’s the cold hard truth: We have no idea who we are, and we have no idea what we are fighting for. We’ve become the very evil he claims to be fighting against as the nation morphed into a pernicious, destructive, and immoral empire. This is the heart of the problem — we are constantly lying to ourselves. Of course, we’ll never set things on the right track if we can’t diagnose the disease in the first place.
We’ve torched our national treasure and goodwill by running around the world trying to push everybody around, and simultaneously institutionalized a corrupt and predatory neo-feudal society at home. We’ve ignored our own people in a foolish and self-destructive quest to maintain and grow empire and the results will not be pretty.
Finally, let’s end with a little something to contemplate.
Guess who's winning the war on terror. pic.twitter.com/QbGEMJIBcS
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) August 22, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
- Justin Trudeau To Refugees: There's "No Advantage" To Entering Canada Illegally
Eight months.
That’s how long it took for Canadian Prime Minister and liberal hero Justin Trudeau to realize his promise to welcome all immigrants and refugees to Canada may have been a little short-sighted. After the prime minister proudly proclaimed on Twitter back in January that Canada would welcome all those fleeing “persecution and war,” the prime minister changed his tone this week when he warned refugees crossing into Canada from the US that sneaking into the country illegally wouldn't fast-track the process of granting asylum.
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In the months that have passed since Trudeau made his famous promise, the number of refugees streaming over the border into the Canadian province of Quebec surged dramatically, straining local resources available to process their claims of asylum and provide necessities like food and shelter. The asylum seekers are primarily Haitians who fear that the Trump administration might revoke a special protected status implemented after the 2010 earthquake.
Here’s Trudeau, who was speaking at – of all places – a news conference before Montreal’s Pride parade:
"If I could directly speak to people seeking asylum, I'd like to remind them there's no advantage," Trudeau said at a news conference Sunday in Montreal.
"Our rules, our principles and our laws apply to everyone."
Trudeau also stressed that anyone seeking refugee status will have to go through Canada's "rigorous" screening process.
The surge of migrants has overwhelmed both the Canadian legal system and the capabilities of local agencies tasked with aiding refugees. We reported earlier this month that Canada sent soldiers to a popular crossing site in upstate New York to help build a small encampment for newly arriving refugees. But beads have quickly filled up. According to CBC News, more than 3,800 people walked over the border into the province during the first two weeks of August, compared to the 2,996 who crossed throughout all of July.
As CBC notes, Unlike in the United States, Haitians have no special status in Canada, and about half of Haitians seeking refugee status in Canada have already been denied during the past couple of years.
Trudeau critic Michelle Rempel said the Canadian government too willingly ignored the brewing refugee crisis on its doorstep, and continues to play down the need to deal with the problem.
“Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said Trudeau is downplaying the urgent need to deal with the surge in people crossing the border.
"They knew it was going to be a problem this summer. And their response has been building tent cities on the U.S./Canada border," she said in an interview with CBC News."
Too help alleviate the problem, Rempel says the federal government should increase funding for the IRB, the board that evaluates all asylum claims. Even before the surge at the border, the IRB was hopelessly backlogged, ensuring that claimants could remain in the country in a legal limbo while they waited for their hearing.
Allowing the department to process claims more quickly would remove this incentive for asylum seekers to cross illegally.
Still, given his professed love for immigration and multiculturalism, we wonder just how far Trudeau will go to stanch the tide of refugees. Will there be more soldiers and more camps? Or will Trudeau hire an army of claims processers to start kicking people out of the country – or at least ensure that those allowed to remain deserve to do so?
One thing's for sure: He's going to need to do something.
- Freedom For The Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins & Outs Of The Right To Protest
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
– Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.
What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”
Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.
As a result, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.
Instead of encouraging people to debate issues and air their views, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”
This attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.
As always, knowledge is key.
The following Constitutional Q&A, available in more detail at The Rutherford Institute (www.rutherford.org), is a good starting point.
Q: PROTEST?
A: The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Protesting is an exercise of these constitutional rights because it involves speaking out, by individual people or those assembled in groups, about matters of public interest and concern.
Q: WHERE AM I ALLOWED TO PROTEST?
A: The right to protest generally extends to public places that are owned and controlled by the government, although not all government-owned property is available for exercising speech and assembly rights. Places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, are traditional public forums and the government’s power to limit speech and assembly in those places is very limited. However, expression and assembly in traditional public forums may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Examples of reasonable regulations include restrictions on the volume of sound produced by the activity or a prohibition on impeding vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Q: CAN MY FREE SPEECH BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL?
A: No, the First Amendment protects speech even if most people would find it offensive, hurtful or hateful. Speech generally cannot be banned based upon its content or viewpoint because it is not up to the government to determine what can and cannot be said. A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Also, protest speech also cannot be banned because of a fear that others may react violently to the speech. Demonstrators cannot be punished or forbidden from speaking because they might offend a hostile mob. The Supreme Court has held that a “heckler’s veto” has no place in First Amendment law.
Q: DO I NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROTEST?
A: As a general rule, no. The government cannot require that individuals or small groups obtain a permit in order to speak or protest in a public forum. However, if persons or organizations want to hold larger rallies and demonstrations, they may be required by local laws to obtain a permit.
Q: WHAT CAN'T I DO IN EXERCISING MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST?
A: The First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct a gathering at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic on public streets or other immediate threat to public safety.
Q: AM I ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON OR FIREARM AT DEMONSTRATION OR PROTEST?
A: Your right to have a weapon at a protest largely depends state law and is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment. Not all conduct can be considered “speech” protected by the First Amendment even if the person engaging in the conduct intends to express an idea. Most courts have held that the act of openly carrying a weapon or firearm is not expression protected by the First Amendment. That said, even if possession of weapons is allowed, their presence at demonstrations and rallies can be intimidating and provocative and does not help in achieving a civil and peaceful discourse on issues of public interest and concern.
Q: WHAT CAN’T THE POLICE DO IN RESPONDING TO PROTESTERS?
A: In recent history, challenges to the right to protest have come in many forms. In some cases, police have cracked down on demonstrations by declaring them “unlawful assemblies” or through mass arrests, illegal use of force or curfews. Elsewhere, expression is limited by corralling protesters into so-called “free-speech zones.” New surveillance technologies are increasingly turned on innocent people, collecting information on their activities by virtue of their association with or proximity to a given protest. Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, police-inspired intimidation and fear can chill expressive activity and result in self-censorship. All of these things violate the First Amendment and are things the police cannot do to censor free speech. Unless the assembly is violent or violence is clearly imminent, the police have limited authority under the law to shut down protesters.
Clearly, as evidenced by the recent tensions in Charlottesville, Va., we’re at a crossroads concerning the constitutional right to free speech.
Yet as Benjamin Franklin warned, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, ensuring freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society.
If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.
- McConnell Doubts "Trump Can Save Presidency" As Relationship "Disintegrates"
According to a new bombshell report from the NYT, the relationship between President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has “disintegrated” in recent week “to the point that they have not spoken to each other in weeks”, prompting the Kentucky senator to express doubts if Trump can succeed in office and “salvage the presidency” after a summer of controversies and crises.
The relationship between President Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has disintegrated to the point that they have not spoken to each other in weeks, and Mr. McConnell has privately expressed uncertainty that Mr. Trump will be able to salvage his administration after a series of summer crises.
What was once an uneasy governing alliance has curdled into a feud of mutual resentment and sometimes outright hostility, complicated by the position of Mr. McConnell’s wife, Elaine L. Chao, in Mr. Trump’s cabinet, according to more than a dozen people briefed on their imperiled partnership. Angry phone calls and private badmouthing have devolved into open conflict, with the president threatening to oppose Republican senators who cross him, and Mr. McConnell mobilizing to their defense.
In a phone call on Aug. 9, Trump blamed McConnell for the Senate’s troubled efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The Times said the call descended into shouting and profanity.
During the call, which Mr. Trump initiated on Aug. 9 from his New Jersey golf club, the president accused Mr. McConnell of bungling the health care issue. He was even more animated about what he intimated was the Senate leader’s refusal to protect him from investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to Republicans briefed on the conversation. Mr. McConnell has fumed over Mr. Trump’s regular threats against fellow Republicans and criticism of Senate rules, and questioned Mr. Trump’s understanding of the presidency in a public speech. Mr. McConnell has made sharper comments in private, describing Mr. Trump as entirely unwilling to learn the basics of governing.
While McConnell was reportedly troubled by Trump’s remarks that placed equal blame on hate groups and counterprotesters, that was just the tip of the iceberg of the pent up animosity between the two. The Senator also signaled his unease with Trump’s comments to business leaders who quit their posts on presidential advisory councils in recent days, the NYT reports. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was last month’s failure by the Republican controlled Senate to pass Obamacare repeal, a humiliating defeat for Trump’s main campaign promise.
McConnell said in a speech earlier this month that Trump had “excessive expectations” about moving his legislative agenda through Congress. That led Trump to repeatedly lash out at McConnell on Twitter, questioning why McConnell has not been able to accomplish longtime GOP campaign promises. Trump went so far as to suggest to reporters at his Bedminster, N.J. golf club that, if McConnell is unable to pass healthcare reform, tax reform and an infrastructure bill through the Senate, he should consider stepping aside from his leadership role.
for the two GOP heavyweights walking into a month of serious major political maelstroms with the debt ceiling, spending bill, tax reform, and a retry at healthcare looming–among other fights. Both Trump and McConnell themselves refused comment for the Times story, but McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the president and majority leader had “shared goals” including “tax reform, infrastructure, funding the government, not defaulting on the debt, passing the defense authorization bill.”
But while the bad blood between the two is hardly news, the question is how will the allegedly tamer, and Bannon-free Trump react to the previously unreported news that McConnell has wondered whether Trump’s presidency will survive:
In offhand remarks, Mr. McConnell has expressed a sense of bewilderment about where Mr. Trump’s presidency may be headed, and has mused about whether Mr. Trump will be in a position to lead the Republican Party into next year’s elections and beyond, according to people who have spoken to him directly. While maintaining a pose of public reserve, Mr. McConnell expressed horror to advisers last week after Mr. Trump’s comments equating white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., with protesters who rallied against them. Mr. Trump’s most explosive remarks came at a news conference in Manhattan, where he stood beside Ms. Chao.
As the NYT adds, McConnell will no longer be silent should Trump use the bully pulpit for future attacks. Instead, McConnell is now fully committed to firing back at Trump, and protecting his GOP senators.
In a show of solidarity, albeit one planned well before Mr. Trump took aim at Mr. Flake, Mr. McConnell will host a $1,000-per-person dinner on Friday in Kentucky for the Arizona senator, as well as for Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, who is also facing a Trump-inspired primary race next year, and Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska. Mr. Flake is expected to attend the event.
It’s not just the Senate majority leader: McConnell allies like former Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and former Republican National Committee finance chair Al Hoffman are quoted as well, making ominous predictions about Trump.
“Failure to do things like keeping the government open and passing a tax bill is the functional equivalent of playing Russian roulette with all the chambers loaded,” Gregg said of Trump, blaming him for in the Times’ words “undermining” congressional leaders, adding that if Trump “can’t participate constructively” the House and Senate would take matters into their own hands.
“Ultimately, it’s been Mitch’s responsibility, and I don’t think he’s done much,” Hoffman said, slightly critical of McConnell before adding that he believes McConnell will outlast Trump in this stalemate. “I think he’s going to blow up, self-implode,” Hoffman said of the president, per the Times. “I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnell pulls back his support of Trump and tries to go it alone.”
Whatever Trump’s kneejerk reaction following the conclusion of tonight’s Phoenix rally, the biggest loser may be the market which today surged on a Politico report that Trump’s tax reform suddenly looks like it has a chance of passing. If the NYT report confirms one thing, it is that when it comes to Trump’s legislative agenda, any chance of success in the through the Senate is virtually nil.
- Mnuchin's "Trophy Wife" Apologizes After Instagram Fiasco
As was always likely, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s wife Louise Linton has been forced to apologize for her Marie Antionette moment… A short and to the point statement read…
“I apologize for my post on social media yesterday as well as my response. It was inappropriate and highly insensitive.”
We are sure that will satiate the twitter hordes that just got confirmation of everything they believed about ‘the elites’.
* * *
As we detailed earlier, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s 36-year-old (he’s 52 btw) trophy wife Louise Linton has landed herself in a bit of hot water this morning after an epic social media rant against a taxpayer who took issue with one of her Instagram posts.
Apparently @jennimiller29 didn’t appreciate Linton hastagging her entire expensive wardrobe (including #rolandmouret, #tomford, #hermesscarf, and #valnetinorockstudheels) while traveling on a taxpayer funded private plane, during her husband’s trip to “check” if the gold at Fort Knox is still there, which prompted the following snarky comment:
“Glad we could pay for your little getaway.”
Let them eat cake: 2017 in your face editionhttps://t.co/jcTc4UqkK3 pic.twitter.com/KbkcF47bnJ
— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) August 22, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And while most folks have learned to simply ignore the social media trolls, Linton apparently has not…which is great news for everyone else because it prompted the following epic rant in reply:
“Cute! Aw!!! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable! Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country? I’m pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day ‘trip’ than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you’d be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. You’re adorably out of touch. Thanks for the passive aggressive nasty comment. Your kids look very cute. Your life looks cute. I know you’re mad but deep down you’re really nice and so am I. Sending me passive aggressive Instagram comments isn’t going to make life feel better. Maybe a nice message [sic], one filled with wisdom and hunanity [sic] would get more traction. Have a pleasant evening. Go chill out and watch the new game of thrones. It’s fab!”
Louise Linton, wife of US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, just turned her Instagram private after posting this (h/t @skenigsberg) pic.twitter.com/beakVnAhhu
— Margarita Noriega (@margarita) August 22, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Others quickly chimed in: “Quite the populist hashtags on Louise Linton’s Instagram (Mnuchin’s wife), following her taxpayer-funded day trip to Kentucky,” joked Matt McDermott, a pollster and Associate Director at Whitman Insight Strategies.
“Curiously this Instagram post is no longer available. F–king hedge funders,” wrote one Twitter user. “Louise Linton is a hideous person, growing fat off of our tax dollars,” another said.
At one point during the evening, someone even went so far as to change Linton’s Wikipedia page to reflect her IG comment. “Never forget she posted this on Instagram,” the page read as of 10:30 p.m.
Alas, in the end, it seems that only the President is permitted to post outlandish social media rants as Linton’s post has since been deleted and her account turned private.
Finally, since we know this is the only reason you clicked on this post anyway…here you go:
Link for Linton’s Maxim photoshoot
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...