![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/ron-paul-lecture-thin-600-fade_orig.png)
![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/909268956_orig.gif)
US Patriot Missiles To Ukraine: Game-Changer Or Nuclear War?
Click on the headline to read the full story from
![]() ![]() US Patriot Missiles To Ukraine: Game-Changer Or Nuclear War? Click on the headline to read the full story from
0 Comments
![]() ![]() Was Sam Bankman-Fried Arrested...To Shut Him Up? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Given Ukraine’s surprisingly effective counteroffensive against Russian forces in the autumn of 2022, there has been an increasing focus among Western officials and their media allies about Russia’s probable response to an overall Ukrainian triumph in the war. There has been far less discussion about how the United States and its European partners will respond if military fortunes change and NATO’s proxy faces definitive defeat. However, such a discussion is essential to avoid making a serious policy blunder. Western foreign policy experts are split about the Kremlin’s probable response if its military venture in Ukraine implodes. Realists are concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin might drastically escalate the scope of Russia’s efforts. Such concern is warranted. Indeed, escalation already is taking place, with the partial national mobilization that Putin ordered in September 2022, and the intensified missile strikes on Ukraine’s electrical grid and other infrastructure. Some worried analysts have warned that if Russia faces a definitive defeat in Ukraine, a cornered Putin might even use tactical nuclear weapons to avert a humiliating debacle. Even President Biden has noted the existence of that danger. More hawkish types, though, insist that Putin is bluffing, and they celebrate Kyiv’s counteroffensive as merely the prelude to a glorious overall triumph. Their implicit assumption is that NATO’s military clout will deter the Kremlin from escalating the stakes. Instead, they apparently believe that the Russian bear will crawl away with its stubby tail between its legs, accepting a diplomatic settlement that returns all occupied Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) to Kyiv’s control. Hawks such as Anne Applebaum have insisted from the outset that a settlement with those characteristics is the only acceptable outcome. The foreign policy blob’s rosy scenario about the likely consequences of a Russian defeat in Ukraine is worrisome. However, the excessive optimism about Kyiv’s prospective fortunes is equally so. The reality is that while Putin clearly underestimated the tenacity of Ukrainian forces (as well as the extent and effectiveness of NATO’s military aid to Kyiv), Russia still is slowly achieving its territorial objectives while devastating Ukraine’s infrastructure. One key measure that should be extremely worrisome to Ukraine and its Western patrons is the extent of military casualties. An assessment by Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in early November 2022 concluded that Russian forces had suffered more than 100,000 dead and wounded since the war began. US news media outlets highlighted that number in headlines about Milley’s report. What received far less attention was his admission that Ukrainian forces also had suffered more than 100,000 casualties. That point was significant because Russia’s military is much larger than Ukraine’s, and Russia’s overall population is more than 3 times larger than Ukraine’s. In other words, Russia can absorb such gruesome losses easier and longer than Ukraine can. As the war drags on and turns into a human meat grinder, Ukraine’s fortunes fade, not brighten. The Biden administration may be cynical about such consequences, since the template for Washington’s use of Ukraine as a military proxy against Moscow was using the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s to bleed the Soviet Union’s occupation forces. That policy ultimately succeeded, albeit at great cost in multiple respects to the Afghan people. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Ukraine is a much more vital interest to Moscow than Afghanistan ever was. Hence, the Kremlin’s willingness to accept a humiliating withdrawal from Ukraine is extremely unlikely. Moreover, although administration officials may be cynically pragmatic about using Ukraine as a proxy only as long as the strategy proves effective, Kyiv has legions of genuine admirers in the foreign policy blob and the news media. The pervasive, bogus portrayal of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a noble figure akin to Winston Churchill, and Ukraine as plucky liberal democracy resisting an invasion by a vicious aggressor, makes it difficult for Washington to abandon its proxy – even if Kyiv’s fortunes turn bleak. Having argued that Ukraine is on the front lines of a global, existential fight between democracy and autocracy, which the administration and its allies in the blob have done repeatedly, it will be difficult to retreat from that stance. A very real risk exists that if Russia’s impending winter offensive – or some later offensive – routs Ukrainian forces, there will be tremendous pressure on the Biden administration to intensify rather than reduce US support for Kyiv. Indeed, there would almost certainly be calls for direct NATO military involvement in the war. Escalation could take the form of imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine or even deploying US combat forces in that country. The risks associated with such dramatic moves should be obvious and horrifying, but those influential figures who have embraced the war as a holy crusade against Russian aggression and the alleged global menace of autocracy may not be deterred by such considerations. Members of the US foreign policy establishment do not have a good track record about being willing to abandon failed enterprises. They persisted in the Vietnam War for years after it was apparent that Washington’s clients in Saigon could not win. More recently, they stubbornly refused to recognize the bankruptcy of US policy in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. It is hard to imagine that people with the same mentality will abandon Ukraine after exerting every effort to portray that country as a vibrant democracy and a crucial ally. Indeed, the tsunami of hostility from such quarters to the tepid call (quickly retracted) from the House Progressive Caucus for a greater emphasis on diplomacy to end the war indicates the extent of fanatical support for Ukraine. Calls for escalating Washington’s commitment are likely to be embraced by the blob, despite the excessive risks to the American people. Americans who want to prevent their country from becoming even more entangled in the Ukraine conflict must be prepared to rebuff such efforts. Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com. How Will the Blob React if Ukraine Faces Defeat? Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() ![]() I have previously written of my pride as an alumnus of The University of Chicago in how the school has led the fight for free speech in higher education. It is also ranked as the number one free speech school in the country. The “Chicago statement” has become the rallying point for schools resisting the anti-free speech movement sweeping over our university and college campuses. Now both the University of Oklahoma and entire University of Texas system have joined almost 100 schools in signing on to the statement. It remains a minority of schools but the ranks are growing (though often due more to boards than votes of the faculty). Unfortunately, George Washington University (which has been ranked low on free speech rights) has not agreed to this basic statement of free speech protection. UChicago shocked many in 2016 when it sent a letter to incoming students that promised an unfettered and uncensored education without the protection from disturbing or offensive ideas. While most schools are actively curtailing free speech, its letter warned the students that they will not be protected against ideas or given “safe spaces.” The origins of the letter is found in a policy produced at the University of Chicago in 2014-2015. The Chicago Statement’s key provision declares that a university’s... ...fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.The Chicago Statement also states unequivocally that students cannot “obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views.” That latter statement stands in contrast with many academics who believe that stopping others from speaking is free speech. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. I do not understand why many academics have supported or stayed silent as our faculties have become intellectual echo chambers. However, it is depriving our students of the type of diverse and vibrant intellectual environment that many of us enjoyed as undergraduates. When I attended the University of Chicago in the 1980s, I found myself in the midst of an intellectually vibrant community with a cacophony of voices, from Trotskyites to black nationalists to radical feminists to creationists. Then-President Hanna Gray told us that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable; it is meant to make them think.” And it did. Students thought a lot about where they fit in this world of ideas. The University of Oklahoma Board of Regents voted to adopt the “Chicago Statement” last week. That followed the adoption by the entire University of Texas system. The board announced that the board “guarantees all members of the UT System the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” It also declared that “debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most individual members of the UT System community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” UChicago has forced schools and faculty to take sides in this existential fight over free speech. While faculty members rationalize reasons not to support the statement, there is increasingly a sharp and clear divide among schools. The Chicago statement has become the battle line for not just free speech but the future of higher education. While many choose to ignore the rising orthodoxy on our campuses and lack of intellectual diversity on our faculties, this trend will ultimately destroy the essential element of free inquiry and expression needed for higher education. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. Oklahoma, Texas, and Other Schools Join UChicago Alliance on Free Speech Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() ![]() On October 27, 2022, Elon Musk fired Vijaya Gadde from her job at Twitter where she was general counsel and the head of legal, policy, and trust. It became quickly obvious to him and others on his team that it was she who drove the censorship policy within the company, including that which blocked all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election and otherwise shut down critics of government Covid policy. Her termination from Twitter did not leave her unemployed and homeless. A year earlier, she had already been tapped as an advisor to CISA, which is the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency headed by Jen Easterly, who was chosen to head the new agency (created in 2018) out of her tenure at the National Security Agency. As Freddy Gray puts it in the UK Spectator, “That seems fishy, to put it mildly.” ![]() (Bigger) Easterly was called to give a deposition in the case brought by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana but the government rejected the idea. Fauci and others could be called but not the head of CISA. According to Epoch Times, the judge “ruled that three of the individuals—Murthy, Easterly, and Flaherty—will no longer be required to appear for a deposition after a federal appeals court blocked the move last month, stating that the judge had failed to consider whether alternative and less ‘intrusive’ means could be used to obtain the information being sought.” Don’t want to be intrusive, right? That would be inhumane. Can’t make such a demand of the head of CISA. And yet, it was CISA itself that gave the whole of the initial advisory in 2020 for all the stay-at-home orders that were imposed around the country. The agency is also the one primarily responsible for the division of the whole of the American workforce into sharp lines between essential and nonessential. It was a clear sign that something had gone very wrong, even to the point of feeling like martial law. I’ve puzzled about where this all came from for almost three years. Thanks to research done by many Brownstone writers, we now know. It was CISA from the very beginning. Indeed the webpage laying it all out still survives, including a video. You can look at it all here. The initial edict was issued March 19, 2020, three days following the catastrophic press conference that announced the need for universal social distancing and issued what is surely one of the most totalitarian edicts in the history of public policy: “indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.” CISA explained the exception. It includes this helpful graphic of those who were entitled or even required to work while everyone else stays home. ![]() (Bigger) Note the inclusion of communications, which of course, means all media, and of course information technology, which means all Big Tech. As for “commercial facilities” that ended up meaning big-box chain stores while small businesses were brutally shut. Reinforcing the Trump administration’s fatwa against “bars, restaurants, and gyms,” they were closed immediately following the release of CISA’s order. But of course, and consistent with all this machinery, CISA was careful to note that “This guidance was provided to clarify the potential scope of critical infrastructure to help inform decisions by state and local jurisdictions, but does not compel any prescriptive action.” Further: “This guidance is not binding and is primarily a decision support construct to assist state and local officials. It should not be confused as official executive action by the United States Government.” This way, like Fauci, CISA can claim that it didn’t force the shutdown of anything. It only made recommendations and state-level agencies took it from there. And yet here is a FAQ to give you a sense of the military footing that the whole country entered up on in the course of only a few days. How is this different than traditional disasters or emergencies impacting critical infrastructure?In retrospect, the whole thing seems truly hard to believe, all for a respiratory virus with an infection fatality rate that compares with the flu except with a huge risk gradient by age. A military-style cooperation was unleashed on the entire country even as basic therapeutics were completely neglected and concern for collateral damage to health, culture, education, and enterprise were tossed out the window. The initial lockdowns were followed by quarantine rules, travel restrictions, violations of religious freedom, forced masking and eventually forced medicalization of quickly approved shots that most of the population never needed and vast numbers now regret. As CISA said, this crisis was “different than any emergency the Nation has faced.” Instead of keeping business going, the response this time was massive destruction of everything except “critical infrastructure.” Indeed, the whole country fell into complete shambles and trauma for the better part of 2020, leading up to the November elections that gutted Republican control of Congress and flipped the White House. We are now finding out with piles of evidence that this was the ambition of many employees at Twitter, including the general counsel who ended up as a consultant to the very agency that issued the stay-home advisory. CISA is part of the Department of Homeland Security, created only in 2018 with an act signed by President Trump. As is clear from the text of the law, the whole point was to protect the nation against cyber attacks and develop a response. Nowhere in the text could one discern a broad edict to divide the whole workforce, crush civil liberties, smash businesses, and trample on the Bill of Rights, much less shepherd into being a vast machinery of censorship that would effectively nationalize all major tech platforms on behalf of regime priorities. On the weekend of March 14-15, 2020, Trump surrounded himself with a handful of advisors including Fauci, Birx, Pence, Kushner, along with a few outside consultants from pharma and tech, and agreed to “15 days to flatten the curve.” It seems highly unlikely he knew that he was approving a complete takeover of the country by the national security arm of the government, much less empowering this one agency with the task of crushing the whole economy except that which government called essential. We are finding out ever more about what went on behind the scenes, especially thanks to the exceptional research of Debbie Lerman, who has fleshed out the underlying shift that occurred in these days. We went from being a normal nation with all the usual struggles to a country under quasi-martial law, ruled by administrative bureaucrats drawn from the national security arm of government. CISA was an agency that led the charge. Did Trump have any idea what he had approved? I would say it is highly doubtful. I’ve been unable to find out anything about the agency’s budget or payroll but we do know that it is hiring: “CISA is always searching for diverse, talented, and highly motivated professionals to continue its mission of securing the nation’s critical infrastructure. CISA is more than a great place to work; our workforce tackles the risks and threats that matter most to the nation, our families, and communities. With more than 50 career fields available CISA offers multiple opportunities as well as multiple tracks for employment.” A perfect home for many thousands of fired Twitter employees, no doubt. Reprinted with permission from Brownstone Institute. What Is CISA and Why Does It Matter? Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() Did The Pentagon Really 'Green Light' Ukraine Strikes Inside Russia? Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() ![]() The biggest story of the past decade is not the covid pandemic, the January 6th protests, the war in Ukraine, the BLM riots, or even the stagflationary crisis in the US. Behind these major events is another story, one that connects them all together in a disturbing way. Even more important than the effects of geopolitical and economic chaos is the effect of mass censorship; without the free exchange of information and debate the public remains ignorant. And if the public remains ignorant, crisis events have an increasing potential to explode. Public perception of national and international affairs is a key determinant of the outcome of disasters and conflicts. This is why governments and elitists from around the world often seek to manipulate the ways in which people digest information. The idea is rather simple – They believe that 'we the people' cannot be allowed to come to our own conclusions. They think we cannot be trusted to develop the “proper” viewpoints and we are not smart enough to understand the implications of governmental decisions. In other words, they believe the exact opposite of what is outlined in the US Constitution. The establishment will give numerous reasons why they need to censor, suppress, spin and misrepresent the facts of any given situation, but in the end the real rationale is that they have a vision for society that is contrary to our foundations. They have appointed themselves the arbiters of reality to see that vision done. As Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” once stated in his book 'Propaganda': The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.This is pure authoritarianism. It's the stuff of nightmares and revolutions. But for many years now a large subsection of the world has denied such a dynamic exists. It's “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hattery” to claim that a small number of elites work together in secret to control public perception and govern our society from the shadows. After all, where is the proof? Of course, this kind of argument is a coping mechanism for the mentally deficient. Proof of such secretive governance and control is everywhere these days, but some people prefer willful denial. Take for example the ongoing data drops for what is now being called “The Twitter Files.” The mainstream media is barely responding to the information dump initiated by Elon Musk. They seem to be far more interested in Donald Trump's tax records. When they are forced to acknowledge the story, they are hostile, calling the information “boring” or unimpressive. It's a classic psychological tactic of typical narcissists and criminals – When they get caught, they act indifferent, as if neither the evidence nor their crimes really matter. If getting caught doesn't matter to them, then their crimes must not be all that bad, right? The content of these files is astonishing, but at the same time it is true that the conclusions are not surprising. The files simply confirm almost everything conservative and libertarian commentators have been saying for years; all those “conspiracy theories” about Big Tech censorship of conservatives turned out to be true. Not only that, but the theory that government agencies and officials from the DNC worked with Big Tech to silence and undermine their political opponents was also true. Twitter has long denied that they “shadow ban” users, but this was a lie. The data shows that small groups within Twitter called “strategic response teams” suppressed up to 200 accounts per day. Usually these were accounts of larger and more influential conservative politicians and celebrities. And, these teams operated in coordination with Democrat officials and agencies like the FBI. In some cases the goal was to mute a particular individual. In other cases the goal was to steer national elections. Internal Twitter communications show that SRT groups spent most of their time fabricating reasons why certain information was subject to TOS. In other words, if Twitter's rules were not being violated, they made up new rules. The exposure of Twitter is the biggest story of the decade because it provides proof of a hidden cabal. It shows the ugly mechanics behind the scenes and exposes a network of elites and their errand boys who were involved in direct operations to destroy the 1st Amendment for the sake of ideological supremacy. It's the classic definition of fascism, a definition that Benito Mussolini reiterated when he argued: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” And, if this brand of Fascism was happening within the halls of Twitter, then there is little doubt it is also happening at companies like Google/YouTube, Apple, Facebook, etc. Before we had evidence, now we have confirmation. The corporate media argues over relevance instead of morality because they benefited from the censorship. It's important to remember that one of the first measures Big Tech companies applied after suppressing the alternative media during the pandemic was to then amplify the corporate media. These companies are floundering with dismal audience numbers and dwindling profits. No one listens to them anymore. Yet, as long as they promote the establishment narrative their opinions and disinformation are given priority on nearly every search engine and social media platform. Of course they aren't interested in the Twitter Files, liars are often “bored” by honest commentary and factual information. Also, their continued existence relies on the censorship of their competition in the alternative media. The bottom line is this: According to the Bill of Rights, it is illegal for agents of the US government to obstruct the free speech of law abiding American citizens. It does not matter if the action is done by using “private businesses” as middlemen. And, if a private business is colluding with government to implement political policy then it is no longer a private business. Twitter was participating in a form of treason, along with the agencies that they cooperated with. It's a huge story, and one that should lead to punishment for those involved. Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge. The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade Click on the headline to read the full story from From Shadow Bans to Black Lists Musk Forces a Free-Speech Reckoning for Politicians and Pundits12/12/2022 ![]() ![]() ![]() Below is a slightly augmented version of my column in the Hill on the latest release of the Twitter files, confirming long-denied use of shadow banning and other techniques to suppress conservative and dissenting viewpoints. Here is the column: “We don’t make exceptions for jokes or satire.” That line from a third tranche of company documents released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, captures the social media giant’s censorship culture. Its humorless, officious tenor is all too common with state censors throughout history. Censorship creates an insatiable appetite for more censorship, where even jokes become intolerable. Censorship apologists are running out of room for evasion. They first insisted that Twitter was not censoring disfavored views and then said that claims of secret throttling or shadow banning were “conspiracy theories.” They then insisted that there was no evidence of meetings with the FBI or other agencies. These latest Twitter files shatter all of these past spins. This includes confirmation of “shadow banning” and other suppression techniques despite denials by former CEO Jack Dorsey under oath before Congress and public denials by top corporate executives. The legal ramifications will become clearer as more information emerges. Yet, a far more significant problem already is confirmed in these files: the existential threat of corporate censors to free speech. In the new material released late Friday, journalist Matt Taibbi confirmed that Twitter executives met weekly with FBI, Homeland Security and national intelligence officials to discuss “disinformation” they felt should be removed from the site. Those discussions apparently included the Hunter Biden laptop story. You don’t need a state ministry of information if the media voluntarily maintains official narratives and suppresses dissenting views. And what emerges from these files is the notion of an effective state media in America — an alliance of media, business and political figures who act, not out of government compulsion, but out of personal conviction. The notion of a privately-run state media is reinforced by the response to these disturbing disclosures — a virtual news blackout, with most major media offering little coverage of the disclosures. Just as Twitter suppressed dissenting or opposing views in a myriad of ways, many in the media are minimizing coverage of this scandal. To use a favorite term of Twitter executives found in these files, the media “amplifies” certain narratives or views while “deamplifying” stories that contradict those accounts. Some of these files reflect specific subjects or measures long pushed by powerful politicians to get private companies to do indirectly what they themselves are barred from doing under the First Amendment. In a Senate hearing where Dorsey apologized for blocking the Hunter Biden laptop story, for example, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) was more concerned about Twitter “backsliding or retrenching” on censorship and warned that Congress would not tolerate any reduction of “robust content modification.” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) reminded Dorsey that he expected censorship of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. Others, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called on social media companies to use enlightened algorithms to protect people from their own bad reading choices. As shown in the recent Twitter releases, these algorithms manipulate what someone sees in searches or trending stories. What these files suggest is an utter license to control political speech on social media platforms. Twitter executives often sound like overlords determining what the public should be allowed to read or say. This is hardly surprising, given the constant stroking by many politicians and pundits who say they are saving democracy by limiting free speech. In speaking to media figures in April, former President Barack Obama called upon “our better angels” to shape voters’ opinions. Similarly, President Joe Biden has said social media editors are vital to protecting citizens from their own misguided values or assumptions. Without enlightened editors, he asked, “How do people know the truth?” Such comments show total contempt for the ability of people to make up their own minds on subjects ranging from elections to vaccinations. Yet social media executives readily embraced their role in framing “the truth.” Former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal pledged to “focus less on thinking about free speech” and more on “who can be heard.” While some of us denounced his anti-free-speech agenda, others rose in defense of Twitter maintaining one of the largest censorship systems in history. Now, these Twitter files show precisely what it means to manipulate “who can be heard” — a process that went beyond controversial suspensions of users to include a broader, secret effort to suppress disfavored viewpoints. The new documents show Twitter using blacklists and “visibility filters” to interfere with user searches or to shadow-ban individuals and prevent their tweets from trending. The new material also indicates that “visibility filtering” was directed at various Republican campaigns, throttling or reducing candidates’ visibility before the 2020 election. Most striking in the latest documents is how Twitter censors knowingly discarded even their own policies to hamper then-President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. In one tweet, Trump referenced a mail-in voting problem in Ohio that was found to be true. Nevertheless, Twitter executives were praised for their speed to impose “visibility filters” so the tweet could not be “replied to, shared, or liked,” and the staff received a censorship “attaboy”: “VERY WELL DONE ON SPEED.” There was even a long debate over whether to censor a joke about mail-in voting by former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) because Twitter staff insisted they “don’t make exceptions for jokes or satire.” After all, the censors noted, a joke “could still mislead people” — the same logic that appeared to be the basis for suspending conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee. The only reason Huckabee’s joke wasn’t censored was a concern that “we’ve poked enough bears.” Of course, Twitter long ago exceeded its bear-poking quota with the public. A record number of users are signing up with Twitter and a recent poll shows a majority of Americans supporting his efforts to restore transparency and free speech on the site. Thus, Musk seems to be forcing a reckoning that few in Washington relish — and one which the media can’t continue to ignore, given an expected investigation by a Republican-controlled House. Political and media figures will be forced to dispense with any pretense of support for free speech in defending censorship, election manipulation, blacklisting and shadow banning. Twitter’s former executives were correct about one thing: There is nothing humorous about any of this — if you value free speech. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. From Shadow Bans to Black Lists, Musk Forces a Free-Speech Reckoning for Politicians and Pundits Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Nouriel Roubini, a former advisor to the International Monetary Fund and member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, was one of the few “mainstream” economists to predict the collapse of the housing bubble. Now Roubini is warning that the staggering amounts of debt held by individuals, businesses, and the government will soon lead to the “mother of all economic crises.” Roubini properly blames the creation of a debt-based economy on the near-or-at-zero interest rate and quantitative easing policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. The inevitable result of the zero-interest and quantitative easing policies is price inflation wreaking havoc on the American people. The Fed has been trying to eliminate price inflation with a series of interest rate increases. So far, these rate increases have not significantly reduced price inflation. This is because rates remain at historic lows. Yet the rate increases have had negative economic effects, including a decline in the demand for new homes. Increasing interest rates make it impossible for many middle- and working-class Americans to afford a monthly mortgage payment for even a relatively inexpensive home. The main reason the Fed cannot raise rates to anywhere near what they would be in a free market is the effect it would have on the federal government’s ability to manage its debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), interest on the national debt is already on track to consume 40 percent of the federal budget by 2052 and will surpass defense spending by 2029! A small interest rate increase can raise yearly federal debt interest rate payments by many billions of dollars, increasing the amount of the federal budget devoted solely to servicing the debt. The federal government’s fiscal picture is made worse by the fact that the Social Security “Trust Fund” will begin to run deficits by 2035 while the Medicare Trust Fund will run deficits by 2028. The looming bankruptcy of the two major entitlement programs, combined with the unwillingness of most in Congress to reduce either welfare or warfare spending, puts the Fed in a bind. If it raises rates to the levels needed to really combat price inflation, the increase in interest payments will impose hardships on individuals and businesses, as well as raise federal interest payments to unsustainable levels. This will cause a major economic crisis including a government default on its debt causing a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Also, if the Fed continues to facilitate federal deficits by monetizing the debt, the result will be an economic crisis caused by a collapse in the dollar’s value and rejection of the dollar’s world reserve status. The crisis will lead to social unrest and violence, as well as increased popularity of authoritarian movements on both the left and the right. This will lead to government crackdowns on civil liberties and increased government control of our economy. The only bright spot is this crisis will also fuel interest in the ideas of liberty and could even help bring about a return to limited, constitutional government, free markets, individual liberty, and a foreign policy of peaceful trade with all. Those of us who know the truth have two responsibilities. The first is to make the necessary plans to ensure our families can survive the forthcoming turmoil. The second is to do all we can to introduce as many people as possible to the ideas of liberty. The Mother of all Economic Crises Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Noam Chomsky once wrote that the astronomical cost of the Bush-Obama wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, estimated into trillions of dollars, is a major victory for Osama bin Laden, whose announced goal was to bankrupt America by drawing it into a trap. The Ukraine war too was planned as a trap for Russia. No one other than the the Bill Clinton administration’s point person for Russia, Strobe Talbot tweeted early this year when Russia’s special military operations began congratulating President Biden’s foreign policy team — Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken and JakeSullivan — for having successfully cornered Russia. Talbot didn’t call it a trap. For, a trap is only a trap if you don’t know about it; on the other hand, if you know about it, it’s a challenge. Russia already knew way back in 2014 that the US and its European allies — France, Germany and Poland — were posing a challenge to its security interests in Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea was Russia’s instinctive reaction. Where Talbot erred was that the US and its allies underestimated Russia, overestimated the trap and underestimated the fact that they overestimated themselves. To recapitulate, the so-called Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine signed by then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition under the mediation of the European Union and Russia on 21 February 2014 was formally witnessed as guarantors by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Poland and a French Foreign Ministry official, while Russia’s Special Representative, although a participant in the negotiations, refused to put his signature under the document. Moscow was unsure of the intentions of the three western “guarantors.” For sure, within the next 24 hours, the ground beneath the feet shifted dramatically in Kiev following the the takeover by the armed protestors backed by the western intelligence. Till today, the three “guarantors” have not cared to explain their strange acquiescence. But then, it is a well-known fact that the present US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland midwifed the transition in Kiev in February and even nominated the successor to Yanukovich. (By the way, Nuland was in Kiev last week amidst speculations about another regime change in Ukraine.) All this becomes relevant today, as the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a series of interviews recently with the Spiegel and Die Zeit admitted that the subsequent 2014 Minsk Agreement to address the Donbass situation was itself only “an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” Merkel added that “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.” Indeed, the Minsk Agreement was intended as a wayside station as the US pursued the agenda to introduce NATO and build up Ukraine’s military capability to eventually take on Russia. President Putin has repeatedly argued that Russia was left with no option but to react as the US/NATO “mission creep” began slouching toward its west borders. This is also the reason why Russia cannot afford to leave an anti-Russian Ukraine as its neighbour. If the proxy war continues, Russia will reduce Ukraine to a rump state. And that is where trouble, big trouble, lies ahead. It is apparent that Polish nationalist elements who have been in deep slumber are waking up to ponder how to return their so-called historical territories that were taken away by Joseph Stalin after the Second World War and merged with Soviet Ukraine. On the other hand, German revanchism is also apparent. Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote an essay last week in Foreign Affairs where he underscored the new “mindset” in Berlin — as he put it — against the backdrop of the “epochal tectonic shift” toward “this new multipolar world, [as] different countries and models of government are competing for power and influence.” Germany senses that its hour has come once again to lead in Mitteleuropa — German term for Central Europe. The Prussian vision of Mitteleuropa was a pan-Germanist state-centric imperium, an idea that was later adopted in a modified form by Nazi geopoliticians. The Mitteleuropa plan was to achieve an economic and cultural hegemony over Central Europe and subsequent economic and financial exploitation of this region, making of puppet states as a buffer between Germany and Russia. Scholz asserted in his essay that Germany is on a path of militarisation, shedding its post-World War II inhibitions, will promote arms exports hoping to be “one of the main providers of security in Europe… beefing up our military presence on NATO’s eastern flank.” Clearly, there isn’t going to be enough space for Poland and Germany in western Ukraine. While Ukrainian nationalists will resist Polish revanchism, they will see Germany as a counterweight to Poland. It is useful to recall that the history of the Black Sea Germans is more than 200 years old. The group of settlers commonly referred to as “Germans from Odessa and the Black Sea” were immigrants from western and southern Germany who migrated at the invitations extended by Catherine the Great and Tsar Alexander I to colonise large areas of Russia. Scholz wrote: “Putin needs to understand that not a single sanction will be lifted should Russia try to dictate the terms of a peace deal… Germany stands ready to reach arrangements to sustain Ukraine’s security as part of a potential postwar peace settlement. We will not, however, accept the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory… To end this war, Russia must withdraw its troops.” Putin may have replied to Scholz — inadvertently, of course — when in remarks on Wednesday, he said the Russian operations in Ukraine may be “a long process.” Putin said that “new territories have appeared – this is still a significant result for Russia, this is a serious issue. And, to be honest, the Sea of Azov has become the inland sea of the Russian Federation – these are serious things.” And, Putin remarked: “Peter I was still fighting to reach the Sea of Azov.” Scholz has opened a Pandora’s box. The ghosts of German history are returning — and the profound question in European history: Where are the borders of Germany? Poland announced in October that it wants to start negotiations with Germany on reparations during World War II, and Polish foreign ministry sent an official note to Berlin demanding around €1.3 trillion in damages to address the effects of Nazi Germany’s occupation of Poland from 1939 to 1945. To be sure, an assertive Germany will be a matter of disquiet for west Europe, especially France and Italy. Interestingly, the new season at the La Scala theatre in the Italian city of Milan opened on Thursday with premiere of Modest Mussorgsky’s opera Boris Godunov, with the title role performed by prominent Russian opera singer Ildar Abdrazakov. Italian president Sergio Mattarella, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Italy’s high society, including politicians, businessmen, actors, directors, fashion designers and architects, attended the Russian opera. Italy is marking distance from the Russophobic narrative in Europe. Again, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Sunday that the West should consider how to address Russia’s need for security guarantees. Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline. Italy Distances from ‘Cancellation’ of Russia Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|