Vivek resume is swampy green slimy... went to all the "right" schools and worth 500 million before 30 on pharma racket. Damn good actor though. Right up there with Bogart and Tom Cruise.
I have bad news for you folks. It just gets worse from here. Empires do not reverse gear.
Vivek would be another ineligible VP, of course that practice goes all the way back to Chester A. Arthur, Natural Born Citizenship requirement is moot, I suppose .
I don't believe both of Vivek's parents had obtained American citizenship at the time of his birth. Merely being born on US soil, even if one parent was a citizen, is insufficient to confer Natural Born Citizenship. A statutory citizen by birth is not the same constitutional status, a dual national is not a Natural Born Citizen either, Ted Cruz being one example.
That is not the consistent interpretation, going back to (1844) before the Civil War and relying also on common law precedents. If I were in charge I would want to change the law, but that's the way it is.
Common and statutory law are not applicable to questions of constitutional and natural law. I am unaware of any binding SCOTUS precedent. There were efforts to disqualify future usurper Barry O'Zero by Hillary supporters, as usual 'standing' put a stop to it. Remember the bogus claims that McCain was not qualified because he was born in The Canal Zone? McCain, as the Republican nominee, did have legal standing to challenge his "good friend" and Senate colleague, of course he did nothing. Trump or Pence could have challenged Kamala, again nothing. Kamala is in fact a usurper who could be disqualified via Quo Warranto actions. Why aren't candidates for Pres. & VP required to certify that they are qualified before their names appear on the ballot? Name of candidate, date of birth, place of birth along with names of parents, parents birthplaces and dates of naturalization when applicable, should be public information.
"Common and statutory law are not applicable to questions of constitutional and natural law."
Not true. Here we're considering the meaning of words in the Constitution. Common and statutory law is definitely applicable in coming to an understanding of the meaning of terms used in the Constitution. Just as, also, in 2A interpretation.
I am unaware of any case that deviates significantly from this line of precedent:
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.... I am bound to say that the general understanding ... is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship.... [This 1844 case is cited repeatedly in federal cases on the issue]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens". Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice (6th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 1017, 1019.
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[71] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The court referred to the case of Wong Kim Ark, and provides a compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic.
In a 2012 New York case, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections,[5] the pro se plaintiff challenged Barack Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents" (emphasis added). To this the Court responded, "Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. ... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil". The opinion then listed Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.[5] (Donald Trump may now be added to that list.)
Of course, compelling precedent or not, Vivek's facts would not prevent his political opponents from throwing shade at his candidacy, CF. Barack Obama.
I'm guessing the polling which shows him closest to Trump is not lost on Joe.
Joe's last ditch effort to blob in smoke-filled room: "Let's be clear, man, you know I'm the only guy who can beat Trump. No joke. Are you crazy? I’m not going nuts, I'm right. Look man, let's go Brandon. "
He might well be right. He might be the only candidate with the name recognition, machine, press and base support who with a little help from the election workers in enough swing states could actually pull it off.
Hi Mark! I’ve wondered what the new architecture Crooke refers to might look like in practice. Many have vaguely suggested something completely new, indivisible, and all-encompassing, but as we all know, the US and NATO are governed by ghouls whose very survival requires war, war, and more war so there will be no participation from the west unless it’s forced upon them after some strategic defeat or fundamental reshaping of the power dynamic.
With the world waking up and the West’s every structure crumbling, the amount and intensity of war necessary for western elites to remain in power is now beyond their ability to gin up. Only total war can knock the MIC out of its stupor as corruption and lack of competition has led to total decrepitude (isn’t Biden the perfect metaphor for this?). The west can start conflicts but currently has only the magazine depth (thx William Shryver for this very obvious yet astute observation and for adding that term to the zeitgeist) necessary to defeat a weak and unprepared foe. The entire system is so corrupt, the education system so awful, the population so venal and useless that I believe it may actually be impossible to reindustrialize at the scale necessary to actually fight let alone defeat even Iran let alone Russia (10x Iran’s MD) or China (10x Russia’s MD) So achieving total war looks harder and harder these days. There are fewer little shit countries to throw against a wall and the rest of the world is no longer afraid of this!
So where does this leave the rest of the world in their quest for indivisible security? I’m beginning to think it looks something like this:
1. Radical Islam and the US logistics lines supporting it must/will be systematically destroyed. We see this developing with the moves to eject the US and its vassals from Africa and the rapprochement between Syria and Türkiye. The US toehold in Afghanistan is gone so the ability to support jihadis in the stans is diminished. This will be a fairly long process but it’s required in order to starve the MIC and deep state of its war oxygen.
2. BRICS and SCO will merge and form a comprehensive alliance. All countries of the world will be welcome on the condition that they give up armed conflict against other signatories immediately and forever, upon consequence of permanent policing or subjugation by the rest. A powerful multinational police force will be created to finish off Jihadis and stamp out any other ethnic violence. Arms stashes will be rooted out and destroyed. Networks will be infiltrated. Freedoms will disappear. Deprive the warmongers of the west their most powerful vector - instability and fratricide.
3. Sanctions. Once the pact is implemented and the world (minus the soon-to-be fucked golden billion) is united, the judo pivot will begin. The rest of the world will be given a simple choice: join on these terms or go it alone. A full export ban outside the bloc on raw materials will go into effect. The dollar will be banned. If the west wants to buy finished goods it may but only through physical bullion or raw materials.
Through this process a comprehensive indivisible peace will be achieved. The sanctions are the key. Only by separating the world into rogue and nonrogue states will it be possible to defeat the forces of darkness that set brother upon brother.
The casualties of this process will be those deprived of their war oxygen and the freedoms of all citizens. The ghouls will blame the rest for this loss of freedom but it’s their doing. They created a machine so hideous that only a fundamental transformation like this can defeat it.
Think of the mechanisms that could support radical jihad and other dirty tricks the west is known for. Private messaging. Financial secrecy. Open payment systems. Basically anything that could facilitate material or intellectual support of violence must be curtailed in service of peace. Weapons too.
Western leadership thinls that milk comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from the light awitch. Indug into WEF documents about clean energy to see where it would come from, and that was the conclusion.
Putin, on the other hand, has told the West (a couple of years ago) that we need to buy his energy or he will.fons other markets for it. Markets, that is, with multi-decade contracts. The West, especially Europe, does not understand the implications of what they are doing. They can not thrive without that energy.
100%. That’s where I think the coup de grace will come - sanctions on the west that will show just how weak we actually are. Shit, we can’t even sanction Huawei because our military can’t function outside their halo! Imagine if the rest of the world withheld titanium, rare earths, etc! Just the energy is going to be painful enough, especially is the climate cult net zero madness continues.
Exactly. Economics is a derivative of energy. Such a tight 1 to 1 correlation you might as well ask how much energy do you consume rather than what's GDP to measure a societies economic health. Russia has it, EU not so much (save Norway which I'm not sure is even in EU) EU needs Russia a hell of a lot more than Russia needs EU
Think about the self own sanctions. EU literally picked and choosed, wrote the rules of the game as Russia has imposed no sanctions - and still lost the sanctions game. EU Lost a game they wrote the rules for because Russia can go anywhere for finished goods China Vietnam to Russian Mafia who can get you anything. EU can't so much for energy...unless they wish to pay 400% more for compressed LNG from USA or Middle East.
100% agree with what you’re saying. And for the record I am not advocating for this as a solution, nor do I, as an American, want to exist under such control. I haven’t actually spent much time developing this idea so bear with me but as I was laying out the process it occurred to me that indivisible security in multicultural societies with many historical or present grievances will require a level of governability, at least at first, that doesn’t currently exist and may be impossible to achieve in free societies. From a practical perspective the tools of individual freedom, when used to sow chaos, are too powerful to be effectively countered by the opposing force of societal cohesion or love for your neighbor in general. The elites of the west have already realized this hence the erosion of freedom, albeit in service of the opposite result. The problem is that greed and hate are simply too powerful. The agents of chaos, greed, and war are too ruthless, desperate, and entrenched for freedom as it’s currently conceived to survive the coming cleansing. All of these tools are agnostic, they will serve whatever master they have, and they represent a threat to any order currently in power. So I’m thinking that they will be curtailed and may never surface in the same way again.
Perhaps the alternative is a hyper violent purge to create a more ideologically homogenous society but that’s probably not the preferred way to create the kind of world they’re talking about.
I’d love to be wrong about all this, and in all honesty there’s a selfish part of me that wants the good ol US of A to pull through this and somehow maintain our standard of living and freedoms but that seems unlikely. The multipolar world must and will strike at all vectors that currently enable the empire of lies to sow hate and chaos.
Morning BHA -- I'm still digesting your concern that we will necessarily lose our freedoms in the effort to defeat the globalists (fascists?). Who in the event are all about destroying our freedoms...in the name of 'democracy'...or whatever.
I will readily concede that constricting freedom of speech, for example, can result in improved 'governability', which might be desireable in times of chaos when improved governability seems to be an important goal. Such as times of increasing street violence.
But I'm not there yet. I am such a knee jerk believer in freedom of speech as a bedrock principle of human freedom that I am inclined to support it even in times where it is being manipulated to cause harm.
I was very impressed by Glenn Greenwald's impassioned defense of freedom of speech in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson. Here's a link:
I’m a huge fan of Glenn. I first found him around 2002 when he wrote for Salon. He really shaped a lot of what I’ve come to believe and I’m absolutely committed to the freedoms we nominally hold. I truly hope that there is a way for the states, blocs, ethnic groups, and religions of world to be at peace with each other without exception, AND for everyone to be free to speak their mind, associate with whomever they want, and generally live a life free of involuntary (dystopian) technological interventions!
There is a balance in the world/universe/whatever you personally believe between the light and dark, good and evil, etc. I feel like I’m repeating myself at this point and I’m not doing so to push the point at all, just to try to work it out myself - this balance means that anything has potential to serve the light or serve the darkness. The question for me is - how can the dark side of freedom be neutralized long enough to achieve peace? Maybe it’s through authoritarianism in the name of the light. That sounds super dangerous and it’s exactly that message they’re sending us right now but their intent is quite transparently evil. Maybe it’s through a society- or worldwide genuine grassroots revulsion to violence and greed. I’m rooting for the latter but that will necessarily take longer!
<< All of these tools are agnostic, they will serve whatever master they have, and they represent a threat to any order currently in power. So I’m thinking that they will be curtailed and may never surface in the same way again.>>
...and all in the noble cause of keeping us safe from cruel attacks on members of identity-gangs. Post a meme mildly satirising Pride Month and expect to be ostracised, at the very least. The likes of Trudeau and incoming UK PM Starmer are the appointed guardians of "fairness"... as long as it involves 0% tampering with the well-deserved wealth of our betters /sarc
So...as the Hegemon falls, and/or to precipitate or encourage its fall, the tools (such as private messaging and global currency transfers and payment systems) which the Hegemon has used to support such things as radical jihad and global violence will have to be curtailed. Is that basically your concern?
I wonder. I'll have to think about that.
My thinking has been that BRICS and SCO and perhaps (hopefully?) OPEC/OPEC+ will coalesce into another global alliance and/or economic/security organization which (unlike the US/EU/NATO and allies) will better recognize national sovereignties and independence and rely less on militarism to advance its goals. I think this is what I hear Putin and Xi saying...
I have been hoping (naively perhaps) that the result, a loss of US hegemonic power, will result in a repudiation of US neoconservatism and militarism and even result in a reflowering of enforcement of our freedoms, such as freedom of speech, recognition of privacy rights, due process, and equality under the law.
Danny Davis Mentioned that US commanders are not relieved for cause anymore, only sexual misconduct. And that Petraes actually messed up big time in his role in charge of the Iraqi police, but it was spun as a success. He hinted same issue with Mattis.
Thanks Mark! My world view just got changed again by your blog.
Well, recall Petraeus' dalliance with a hot subordinate after which he parted ways with his not-so-hot wife who began married life as a ramp and ended up as a speed bump. So, not relieved for sexual misconduct as there is no longer any such thing as sexual misconduct, only nonconsensual activities.
That was a terrific conversation, following on Macgregor's most recent with Judge Nap. You can see why DD and Mac keep saying that the US military is not in any condition to get in a war. The policies that got us in this position were put in place by amateurs like the Kagan clan.
"It’s where the Neocon scheming go us:"
got-cha! 😉
Vivek resume is swampy green slimy... went to all the "right" schools and worth 500 million before 30 on pharma racket. Damn good actor though. Right up there with Bogart and Tom Cruise.
I have bad news for you folks. It just gets worse from here. Empires do not reverse gear.
Vivek would be another ineligible VP, of course that practice goes all the way back to Chester A. Arthur, Natural Born Citizenship requirement is moot, I suppose .
Not sure what you mean. Born in Cincinnati.
I don't believe both of Vivek's parents had obtained American citizenship at the time of his birth. Merely being born on US soil, even if one parent was a citizen, is insufficient to confer Natural Born Citizenship. A statutory citizen by birth is not the same constitutional status, a dual national is not a Natural Born Citizen either, Ted Cruz being one example.
That is not the consistent interpretation, going back to (1844) before the Civil War and relying also on common law precedents. If I were in charge I would want to change the law, but that's the way it is.
Common and statutory law are not applicable to questions of constitutional and natural law. I am unaware of any binding SCOTUS precedent. There were efforts to disqualify future usurper Barry O'Zero by Hillary supporters, as usual 'standing' put a stop to it. Remember the bogus claims that McCain was not qualified because he was born in The Canal Zone? McCain, as the Republican nominee, did have legal standing to challenge his "good friend" and Senate colleague, of course he did nothing. Trump or Pence could have challenged Kamala, again nothing. Kamala is in fact a usurper who could be disqualified via Quo Warranto actions. Why aren't candidates for Pres. & VP required to certify that they are qualified before their names appear on the ballot? Name of candidate, date of birth, place of birth along with names of parents, parents birthplaces and dates of naturalization when applicable, should be public information.
https://www.jayweller.com/natural-born-citizen-defined/
The Law of Nations by Vattel, Ch. XIX pp 217-228:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2246/Vattel_1519_LFeBk.pdf
"Common and statutory law are not applicable to questions of constitutional and natural law."
Not true. Here we're considering the meaning of words in the Constitution. Common and statutory law is definitely applicable in coming to an understanding of the meaning of terms used in the Constitution. Just as, also, in 2A interpretation.
I am unaware of any case that deviates significantly from this line of precedent:
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.... I am bound to say that the general understanding ... is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship.... [This 1844 case is cited repeatedly in federal cases on the issue]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
In a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens". Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice (6th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 1017, 1019.
In 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor,[71] the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens", regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The court referred to the case of Wong Kim Ark, and provides a compilation of the arguments pertaining to this topic.
In a 2012 New York case, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections,[5] the pro se plaintiff challenged Barack Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents" (emphasis added). To this the Court responded, "Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. ... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil". The opinion then listed Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.[5] (Donald Trump may now be added to that list.)
Of course, compelling precedent or not, Vivek's facts would not prevent his political opponents from throwing shade at his candidacy, CF. Barack Obama.
I'm guessing the polling which shows him closest to Trump is not lost on Joe.
Joe's last ditch effort to blob in smoke-filled room: "Let's be clear, man, you know I'm the only guy who can beat Trump. No joke. Are you crazy? I’m not going nuts, I'm right. Look man, let's go Brandon. "
He might well be right. He might be the only candidate with the name recognition, machine, press and base support who with a little help from the election workers in enough swing states could actually pull it off.
What's a donor to do?
Hi Mark! I’ve wondered what the new architecture Crooke refers to might look like in practice. Many have vaguely suggested something completely new, indivisible, and all-encompassing, but as we all know, the US and NATO are governed by ghouls whose very survival requires war, war, and more war so there will be no participation from the west unless it’s forced upon them after some strategic defeat or fundamental reshaping of the power dynamic.
With the world waking up and the West’s every structure crumbling, the amount and intensity of war necessary for western elites to remain in power is now beyond their ability to gin up. Only total war can knock the MIC out of its stupor as corruption and lack of competition has led to total decrepitude (isn’t Biden the perfect metaphor for this?). The west can start conflicts but currently has only the magazine depth (thx William Shryver for this very obvious yet astute observation and for adding that term to the zeitgeist) necessary to defeat a weak and unprepared foe. The entire system is so corrupt, the education system so awful, the population so venal and useless that I believe it may actually be impossible to reindustrialize at the scale necessary to actually fight let alone defeat even Iran let alone Russia (10x Iran’s MD) or China (10x Russia’s MD) So achieving total war looks harder and harder these days. There are fewer little shit countries to throw against a wall and the rest of the world is no longer afraid of this!
So where does this leave the rest of the world in their quest for indivisible security? I’m beginning to think it looks something like this:
1. Radical Islam and the US logistics lines supporting it must/will be systematically destroyed. We see this developing with the moves to eject the US and its vassals from Africa and the rapprochement between Syria and Türkiye. The US toehold in Afghanistan is gone so the ability to support jihadis in the stans is diminished. This will be a fairly long process but it’s required in order to starve the MIC and deep state of its war oxygen.
2. BRICS and SCO will merge and form a comprehensive alliance. All countries of the world will be welcome on the condition that they give up armed conflict against other signatories immediately and forever, upon consequence of permanent policing or subjugation by the rest. A powerful multinational police force will be created to finish off Jihadis and stamp out any other ethnic violence. Arms stashes will be rooted out and destroyed. Networks will be infiltrated. Freedoms will disappear. Deprive the warmongers of the west their most powerful vector - instability and fratricide.
3. Sanctions. Once the pact is implemented and the world (minus the soon-to-be fucked golden billion) is united, the judo pivot will begin. The rest of the world will be given a simple choice: join on these terms or go it alone. A full export ban outside the bloc on raw materials will go into effect. The dollar will be banned. If the west wants to buy finished goods it may but only through physical bullion or raw materials.
Through this process a comprehensive indivisible peace will be achieved. The sanctions are the key. Only by separating the world into rogue and nonrogue states will it be possible to defeat the forces of darkness that set brother upon brother.
The casualties of this process will be those deprived of their war oxygen and the freedoms of all citizens. The ghouls will blame the rest for this loss of freedom but it’s their doing. They created a machine so hideous that only a fundamental transformation like this can defeat it.
@BHA
Interesting...but what 'freedoms' will be lost in this process? Pls explain.
Think of the mechanisms that could support radical jihad and other dirty tricks the west is known for. Private messaging. Financial secrecy. Open payment systems. Basically anything that could facilitate material or intellectual support of violence must be curtailed in service of peace. Weapons too.
Western leadership thinls that milk comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from the light awitch. Indug into WEF documents about clean energy to see where it would come from, and that was the conclusion.
Putin, on the other hand, has told the West (a couple of years ago) that we need to buy his energy or he will.fons other markets for it. Markets, that is, with multi-decade contracts. The West, especially Europe, does not understand the implications of what they are doing. They can not thrive without that energy.
100%. That’s where I think the coup de grace will come - sanctions on the west that will show just how weak we actually are. Shit, we can’t even sanction Huawei because our military can’t function outside their halo! Imagine if the rest of the world withheld titanium, rare earths, etc! Just the energy is going to be painful enough, especially is the climate cult net zero madness continues.
Exactly. Economics is a derivative of energy. Such a tight 1 to 1 correlation you might as well ask how much energy do you consume rather than what's GDP to measure a societies economic health. Russia has it, EU not so much (save Norway which I'm not sure is even in EU) EU needs Russia a hell of a lot more than Russia needs EU
Think about the self own sanctions. EU literally picked and choosed, wrote the rules of the game as Russia has imposed no sanctions - and still lost the sanctions game. EU Lost a game they wrote the rules for because Russia can go anywhere for finished goods China Vietnam to Russian Mafia who can get you anything. EU can't so much for energy...unless they wish to pay 400% more for compressed LNG from USA or Middle East.
LOL! But why am I laughing?
Western leadership thinks that milk comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from the light switch.
100% agree with what you’re saying. And for the record I am not advocating for this as a solution, nor do I, as an American, want to exist under such control. I haven’t actually spent much time developing this idea so bear with me but as I was laying out the process it occurred to me that indivisible security in multicultural societies with many historical or present grievances will require a level of governability, at least at first, that doesn’t currently exist and may be impossible to achieve in free societies. From a practical perspective the tools of individual freedom, when used to sow chaos, are too powerful to be effectively countered by the opposing force of societal cohesion or love for your neighbor in general. The elites of the west have already realized this hence the erosion of freedom, albeit in service of the opposite result. The problem is that greed and hate are simply too powerful. The agents of chaos, greed, and war are too ruthless, desperate, and entrenched for freedom as it’s currently conceived to survive the coming cleansing. All of these tools are agnostic, they will serve whatever master they have, and they represent a threat to any order currently in power. So I’m thinking that they will be curtailed and may never surface in the same way again.
Perhaps the alternative is a hyper violent purge to create a more ideologically homogenous society but that’s probably not the preferred way to create the kind of world they’re talking about.
I’d love to be wrong about all this, and in all honesty there’s a selfish part of me that wants the good ol US of A to pull through this and somehow maintain our standard of living and freedoms but that seems unlikely. The multipolar world must and will strike at all vectors that currently enable the empire of lies to sow hate and chaos.
Morning BHA -- I'm still digesting your concern that we will necessarily lose our freedoms in the effort to defeat the globalists (fascists?). Who in the event are all about destroying our freedoms...in the name of 'democracy'...or whatever.
I will readily concede that constricting freedom of speech, for example, can result in improved 'governability', which might be desireable in times of chaos when improved governability seems to be an important goal. Such as times of increasing street violence.
But I'm not there yet. I am such a knee jerk believer in freedom of speech as a bedrock principle of human freedom that I am inclined to support it even in times where it is being manipulated to cause harm.
I was very impressed by Glenn Greenwald's impassioned defense of freedom of speech in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson. Here's a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kEK02_V4
See what you think.
I’m a huge fan of Glenn. I first found him around 2002 when he wrote for Salon. He really shaped a lot of what I’ve come to believe and I’m absolutely committed to the freedoms we nominally hold. I truly hope that there is a way for the states, blocs, ethnic groups, and religions of world to be at peace with each other without exception, AND for everyone to be free to speak their mind, associate with whomever they want, and generally live a life free of involuntary (dystopian) technological interventions!
There is a balance in the world/universe/whatever you personally believe between the light and dark, good and evil, etc. I feel like I’m repeating myself at this point and I’m not doing so to push the point at all, just to try to work it out myself - this balance means that anything has potential to serve the light or serve the darkness. The question for me is - how can the dark side of freedom be neutralized long enough to achieve peace? Maybe it’s through authoritarianism in the name of the light. That sounds super dangerous and it’s exactly that message they’re sending us right now but their intent is quite transparently evil. Maybe it’s through a society- or worldwide genuine grassroots revulsion to violence and greed. I’m rooting for the latter but that will necessarily take longer!
<< All of these tools are agnostic, they will serve whatever master they have, and they represent a threat to any order currently in power. So I’m thinking that they will be curtailed and may never surface in the same way again.>>
...and all in the noble cause of keeping us safe from cruel attacks on members of identity-gangs. Post a meme mildly satirising Pride Month and expect to be ostracised, at the very least. The likes of Trudeau and incoming UK PM Starmer are the appointed guardians of "fairness"... as long as it involves 0% tampering with the well-deserved wealth of our betters /sarc
Thanks BHA. I *think* I'm seeing...
So...as the Hegemon falls, and/or to precipitate or encourage its fall, the tools (such as private messaging and global currency transfers and payment systems) which the Hegemon has used to support such things as radical jihad and global violence will have to be curtailed. Is that basically your concern?
I wonder. I'll have to think about that.
My thinking has been that BRICS and SCO and perhaps (hopefully?) OPEC/OPEC+ will coalesce into another global alliance and/or economic/security organization which (unlike the US/EU/NATO and allies) will better recognize national sovereignties and independence and rely less on militarism to advance its goals. I think this is what I hear Putin and Xi saying...
I have been hoping (naively perhaps) that the result, a loss of US hegemonic power, will result in a repudiation of US neoconservatism and militarism and even result in a reflowering of enforcement of our freedoms, such as freedom of speech, recognition of privacy rights, due process, and equality under the law.
Maybe I am not cynical enough.
One can hardly be too cynical in light of current affairs, foreign and domestic alike.
Sounds like what they're talking about.
Danny Davis Mentioned that US commanders are not relieved for cause anymore, only sexual misconduct. And that Petraes actually messed up big time in his role in charge of the Iraqi police, but it was spun as a success. He hinted same issue with Mattis.
Thanks Mark! My world view just got changed again by your blog.
Well, recall Petraeus' dalliance with a hot subordinate after which he parted ways with his not-so-hot wife who began married life as a ramp and ended up as a speed bump. So, not relieved for sexual misconduct as there is no longer any such thing as sexual misconduct, only nonconsensual activities.
That was a terrific conversation, following on Macgregor's most recent with Judge Nap. You can see why DD and Mac keep saying that the US military is not in any condition to get in a war. The policies that got us in this position were put in place by amateurs like the Kagan clan.