Tad Stoermer points out something I have been talking about for a while.
In the spirit of Mather Byles: I would rather have an official greeter than a tyrant. The loyalists were the real resistance of the Independence period. British North America exists--it's called CANADA.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the bullshit in Iran wasn't stopped before it happened. After all, a deployment that size is hard to hide.
It also doesn't take too much brainpower to see that this was not well thought out to begin with.
But, this confirms it.
People in the US really don't like the costs associated with wars, yet they keep getting into them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the war for independence was basically paying for a previous war started by George Washington: La Conquête (or the French and Indian War).
I think I have mentioned that the War for Independence probably could have been nipped in the bud if the British had said: "No, we won't send troops and supplies until you cough up some money."
But, like Trump's Operation Epic Failure, the wars were started and then the bill shows up.
To be paid for by the average person. Here's Maryam again to explain how the fuel cost will hit the US.
Another nice thing would be if the US became the multiparty democracy with free and fair elections on a secret ballot that it spent the last Century saying it was and pushing it to the rest of the world.
Call it what it is. And don't forget to put Trump's name on the front of it since he like having things named after himself.
And it sort of puts the blame where it belongs.
"Sort of" since only Congress has the power to declare war, which should be clarified to mean any deployment of troops outside of US territory. Especially since this time has been a complete GMFU.
Let's start with something missing from last night's speech: regime change.
Maryam is Iranian and a good source of info and commentary on this fiasco. She confirms that Trump's decapitation has only led to more radical leadership.
Let's face it, this adventure was ill-advised and should have been stopped long before it happened. It is not in anyway a victory since it has totally messed up the world order for the worse.
Now, for that Downfall clip to translate last night's speech by the president.
This is a disaster.
From Rep. Jason Crow. Bio:
And from Col. Douglas Macgregor:
Can't forget Joe Kent:The more I listen to people, the more I think that Trump just charged ahead on this without thinking.
I have to keep saying it:
You need to watch your back if you want to stand with Israel
Which is beginning to be more and more obvious after Trump dragged the US into an ill-prepared war.
But there's a reason for this: Trump sold out to Israel.
The Iranians were willing to make concession when Israel and the United States attacked it without provocation.
So much for "no more forever wars", "making America great again", or even "America First".
Trump sold out the US to Israel.
The upside of this will be that Israel will cease to be.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny.
I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).
The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process.
The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be immediate, actual, and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.
I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.
Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration to international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.
The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it.
It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars.
If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:
There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.
OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.
Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control.
Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.
There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.
And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.
There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.
This is a disaster for the United States.
It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country.
The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.
The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium).
The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.
The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.
There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.
You would think I would be in deep mourning about this, but you are wrong.
There hasn't been any truly public media in the US for a long time. Commercials made their way into the public broadcasting long ago in the form of "underwriting". Money owns the narrative, which is why third parties and renegades such as Bernie Sanders got little coverage. The duopoly happily owns the US media.
And US media has long been consolidated in the hands of a few. You didn't need much of a brain to figure out that there were no real dissenting opinion. That was until the internet set it free. Then Speaker's corner came to your computer instead of having to get a soap box in Hyde Park. Of course, the Internet isn't really moerated so anyone can pretty much say anything.
It's nice to have media that are moderated with varied and informed opinions, but the US doesn't have that.
People say that Trump will bring fascism to the US, but the US has never really been a truly liberal democracy. It's had its propaganda, and the US is the best in the world at doing it: see Paul Weber's Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America.
After all, the US Constitution does start with the words "We the people..." despite it having been mostly written in secret!
American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to.And the US's most obvious propaganda is called ADVERTISING!
Ones that are free of propaganda.
and advertising.
I find it interesting that to hear about Hunter Biden and his laptop one has to dig for that information in the US media. On the other hand, I was saying "WHOA!" when I heard about the Bidens and Ukraine. Lots of other things going on which have me wondering, but the silence is bothersome. Particularly from my co-bloggers.
There are lots of ways to rig an election, one of which is to control the information. It's one thing to call Fox News viewers misinformed. Especially if one doesn't get good information from their news source: and US media is terribly untrustworthy.
My first reaction to Fox News was to want to turn the Television to the window and take a walk the way Poles did during martial law in the 1980s. I feel that way toward US media as a whole now. Fortunately, I don't have to watch it, but I am curious as to how Joe Biden can manage to maintain power given his obvious flaws. There are too many questions, but one is labelled a conspiracy theorist if they mention them.
If I have any influence from the Soviet Bloc, it is to question the party line. Especially if that party line is left unchallenged. Add in that the people who question are persecuted for airing the opinions. It's nice that the internet allows for the publication of opposing viewpoints, but whether those viewpoints are seen is another matter.
The reality is that there may be another sham election where a weak candidate may end winning against a much stronger opposition. Where districts which should be impossible to win are won.
One doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to question that.
I am going to make a disclaimer that I believe in true public broadcasting, but US public broadcasting is commercial. It has commercials in the form of "underwriting" by large corporations, which is pretty much the same thing as being commercial. Yes, the fact that it is not free of big money influence make it a part of the rest of US media. Big business can threaten to take away its money and PBS is SCREWED--BIG TIME!
Which takes us to this clip from PBS News Hour where one of the commentators says "There hasn't been any obvious gaffes, big scandals, or anything like that."
Funny how Hunter's Laptop has been missing from the media (and I never heard back from Burisma about my job application).
It will probably also be missing again this election cycle (PBS shut off comments to this).
I should add that these two clowns are from the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who would be eating 50 cent burritos if the duopoly wasn't in power and was whacked by someone vaguely like Bernie Sanders enforcing US competition laws.
But this gets to where Fox News is wrong: The Democrats are nowhere near left wing. In fact, the Republicans have also strayed from their true populist roots, which makes it even funnier when I read Shot in the Foot's blog: they might want to look up Minnesota Justice Harry Blackmun. Or even better, look up Richard Nixon's comments about firearms ownership.
As I like to say, I was rather shocked when I watched a documentary about Nixon (on PBS) and realised how lefty he seemed in the early 1990s!
Sorry for the digression, but US Politics has moved to the right. The Democratic Party has pretty much extinguished anything vaguely New Deal-Roosevelt, which means that someone like Bernie Sanders has no part in that party. Which is why I distrust anyone who claims to be to the left and is associated with that party. It cannot be fixed from within.
The reason that Biden is president is that he appeals to the big donors, which is why the Tech giants can deny the existance of Hunter's laptop and what it means to Joe Biden. So, that really wasn't that much of a digression.
There isn't much of a "lefty media" in the US other than some things on the internet (E.g.: Real News Network and Democracy Now), but they don't have much of an audience. Which means we are left with Fox News and Sky News Australia who get only part of the story, and are taken about as seriously as Democracy Now.
I feel like someone in occupied Europe trying to get reliable information when I look at the US media because it isn't there.
"All the News fit to Print" is propaganda, or at least explains their editorial policy in that they only feel they need to print what they believe should be printed.
And Hunter's laptop and associated scandal is nowhere to be seen.
And pointing out how much the Democrats have blown it with continuing their witch hunt on Trump while ignoring their own problems, which I'm not going to bother mentioning if you aren't aware of them by now.
This story is only "à la un" on the broadcast media. The print media are like the Private Eye "Heir of Sorrows" series where it listed off headlines from the British dailies. In this case, the French are concerning themselves with issues of French interest.
That is pretty much the strike relating to the change in retirement regulations making people have to wait longer to retire.
And you wonder why I prefer Europe to the US. Especially when the US has become a banana republic having to resort to political prosecutions instead of addressing the issues it needs to. The partisanism is totally disgusting to me.
On the other hand, I am extreme fringe left in the United States being aligned with Bernie Sanders. I find my home in the US with the Green Party and Democratic Socialists. I'm trying to figure out which party comes closest when I start looking at European politics, which gets interesting since some things which are called "Socialist" in the US are taken for granted in European politics. In fact, trying to take them away would make one an incredibly unpopular candidate.
But the US doesn't talk about how overworked it is until someone mentions that Europeans usually start a job with 3 weeks of vacation and work up. They also don't work more than 40 hours a week.
It's things like that that make me question the 2020 election where people were prevented from working, yet a candidate who talked about not living in fear during a period of enforced unemployment lost the election. Things like Universal Basic Income make sense when someone is told they cannot work. Likewise, so does having housing and medical care paid for.
On the other hand, it is easier to play the ad hominem card of "that candidate/party/person is a progressive..." when it's obvious that the term doesn't really apply when one properly looks at the issues.
As I like to say, if the Democratic Party were as socialist or progressive as the right/Fox news likes to claim: wouldn't it have made sense to run Bernie Sanders instead of the candidates who they did run???? Of course, Fox news would be even more embarassed since it seems that Sanders was popular on a town hall they ran.
Anyway, despite this I have to admit that I am blissfully ignorant of US politics, which was made apparent since I had no idea who Ketanji Brown Jackson was or what made up the US Supreme Court. For good reason, the institution is blatantly political. It makes decisions which are not really based in law.
And it fucking well doesn't need to.
I'm not sure if being a US Supreme Court Justice is something worthy of being: especially since it it is a purely political position. The reason I go by Laci is that someone joked that my dog had been in more courtrooms than Harriet Miers, which was probably true.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to pretend reverence for a document most people don't understand and is horrible out of touch with modern society. And they forget can be amended. Even though they say they like certain of the Amendments.
Yes, diversity is a good thing, especially if it is properly applied.
Unfortunately, there isn't too much diversity in the marketplace of US ideas, despite the First Amendment. Which is why it is amusing to me that French Newspapers could be government subsidised.
