March 27, 2014
CFR: Puppeteers behind "the establishment?"
With the presidency of George W. Bush, American constitutionalists and other liberty advocates learned that even Republican policies can promote big-government liberalism, central planning, and other ideals previously thought the exclusive domain of Progressives, Marxists and others of that ilk. With the TEA Party movement of 2010 came the identification of "the establishment" as the source of such anti-capitalist, redistributionist, mercantilist tendencies in the party we all had believed was the only real counterweight to Democratic socialism in America - the GOP.
Such talk has been dismissed as conspiracy theorizing, tut tutting it's speakers with dismissive rejoinders like, "Just who exactly is this great 'establishment' of power brokers who control the Republican party?" I can't answer that question definitively but I will nominate a prime suspect: CFR, or the Council on Foreign Relations. Their fingerprints can be traced to, among many others, Egypt, Benghazi, Cuba, and now, Ukraine.
Employing the indispensible insight and analysis provided by Golitsyn and the detailed information in his books, it is difficult to view the orchestrated chaos that has been unfolding in Ukraine without recognizing unmistakable evidence that it is being directed along a pre-planned path toward EU-U.S.-Ukraine-Russian convergence. Putin’s role is to rattle the sabers menacingly enough to frighten reluctant Ukraine to join the EU, while also convincing American and EU taxpayers to be forthcoming with the foreign aid and IMF funding that will “rescue” Ukraine and avert a war.
And, after the hyperventilating CFR policy “experts” move on to their next project and things settle down, we will look around to find Putin and his oligarchs carrying on business as usual with the new Ukrainian government and its oligarchs — as well as with the Obama administration and “our” oligarchs.
What does this have to do with the GOP, you might ask?
During the Bush administration, Nuland was the principal foreign policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney (CFR), a committed “Republican” globalist who boasted at a CFR luncheon that he had successfully kept his CFR membership secret while a congressman so that his conservative constituents in Wyoming wouldn’t find out. Cheney has joined John McCain (CFR) and other interventionist Republicans in stirring the Ukrainian pot. Prior to serving under Kerry, Nuland served Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is not herself, formally, a CFR member (although her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, both are), but who in a speech to the CFR infamously referred to the CFR as the State Department’s “mother ship” and confessed that the State Department looks to the CFR “to be told what we should be doing and how we should think.”
Which gives substantial support to the popular notion that "there's no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans." On the level of foreign relations and federal government, it seems more true than not.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:59 PM
| Comments (8)
I clearly bit off a very large bite here. I see the outlines of a web that connects many issues that have at times seemed perplexing and I floated it here as a combination early warning, breaking news, and sanity check. The first return appears to be, I'm insane. It deserved much more care than I was able to give at the time so I'll work on developing it into, as Jasper wrote in a pre-9/11 article, "bites of the elephant." Yes, he does have a John Birch air about him. But just because he's paranoid...
I took the "Republican" scare quotes to mean that Cheney believed his party bonafides were threatened by his CFR membership.
It's true that a degree of dot-connecting is required here since CFR has not, to my knowledge, issued a press statement that they are covertly working to establish a world government of hoi oligoi that can manage the lives of the hoi polloi, and conveniently enrich themselves in the process. But let me complete the alternative picture that you find to be a more simple explanation:
CFR is nothing but a social club composed of retired world leaders and high-level bureaucrats with nothing but the purest of intentions and no desire to influence government policy in America or any other nation, nor any desire to inflate their collective individual bank balances. Transitioning from an office of power and influence back to a position of near irrelevance is effortless for every single one of them. And Hillary Clinton didn't actually suggest that CFR tells the State Department what to do and how to think.
I may be lost in the wilderness in this line of inquiry, and honestly hope to find that I am. But too much of it is so imminently plausible to dismiss it out-of-hand.
Just finished the Weekly Standard piece on the Condi speech and will note that the associations listed for her included NRCC (not the Senate Conservatives Fund) Mitt Romney (not Ron Paul) Mitch McConnell (not Rand Paul) and a Karl Rove GOP primary candidate, although Sarah Palin has not yet made an endorsement and the 2010 primary winner Joe Miller lost his last statewide bid. These are not proof of a CFR plot but they are all establishment figures.
Now, I do agree with Condi that America's defense budget should be large enough to support a strong and well supplied military force but I do wonder what that has to do with Ukraine? When she says, "What are we signaling when we say that America is no longer ready to stand in the defense of freedom" what is she speaking of, exactly? Ukraine? Iraq?
I'd never call you insane. There is indeed a lot going on here.
Were you to replace the nefarious CFR with "State Dept. Striped Pants Bureaucracy," we could probably sing Kumbaya and crack a couple of those German Pilsners. Yes, there is an entrenched apparatus -- I think it goes back to some John Quincy Adams appointees.
And of course Condi is establishment; I suggested her view as a coherent explanation of the CW, Muscular, Establishment, Republican position. Her particular field of expertise was Russia/Soviet policy.
I part with many of liberty friends by being sympathetic to this view, but I think the world needs American leadership and I think the globalization and wealth creation I champion require a bit of "pax Americana" to get those iPad parts between 42 countries.
If my grouchy meter got set off, it was your last paragraph. As a guy who hates war (it interferes with prosperity), I think it invited by weakness. I'm not calling for Slim Pickens to mount up and ride, but I think we could advocate for freedom and respect for sovereignty. I would permit drill sites and LNG export ports. And I would not have pulled missile defense sites out of Poland to begin with.
Thanks for clarifying. And there is much room for clarification all around this subject.
I think we'd agree that CFR can be viewed, at the very least, as the SDSPB - Senior Tour. The extent of their fingerprints on policy is debatably somewhere between "advisory" and "puppet master." We'll not get into where, exactly, on that scale. At least for the moment.
Let me choose just one assertion to discuss further: "I think the world needs American leadership and I think the globalization and wealth creation I champion require a bit of "pax Americana"..." I think there is more than one way to lead. The best American leadership is the example of private industry and free trade on a worldwide basis. The worst American leadership is choosing sides in the affairs of other nations. Like the fifty states, some may choose to become democracies or totalitarian states and provide the world their example. Trying to build democracy from the outside is like trying to teach a pig to sing. I'm all for patrolling the high seas with an American navy, but can we stay on our side of international borders please?
The closest we have today to a Nazi death regime is in North Korea, yet I see nobody advocating an invasion there to "defend freedom."
The more I find to complain about in our federal government, the more I am sympathetic to foreign nations complaints about same.
Any objection to my "bumping" this post to give it more time? We haven't done foreign policy since that cowboy was in the White House.
I'm thinking my blog brother has gone "Full Rand Paul." And that is a coherent, rational, and defensible belief.
I see Russian incursion into Ukraine as a much closer cousin of "piracy on the high seas" to be opposed than the meddling and nation building which we have both grown to reject. When was the last time a sovereign nation was invaded, occupied and subsumed by into the conqueror's borders? That's not rhetorical -- I do not recall. But I suspect the last time it happened, I was too young to be drafted instead of too old.
You, me, and the Junior Senator from Kentucky agree on the power of freedom. I wish the President had whipped out his pen and approved the 24 LNG exporting stations awaiting certification, then fired up his phone and called Angela Merkel and David Cameron with promises of energy. I like that a lot better than some warships in the Black Sea.
But there is clearly a level where we do not find comity. I'd suggest that Poland redeploys missile defense.
I actually compliment the President (whoaaaa) on the sanctions and the general direction of his rhetoric. Reforming the G-7: well done, sir. I'd suggest not going to the World Cup, but that's 40% because it is boring, and 60% to punish Russia.
We're left with few good options -- I think Sec. Rice's point is that fecklessness and apathy bled the arsenal of options. Going forward, President Paul should trim the military of its obligations on the Korean Peninsula, Germany, and any theatre where we are not in actual hostilities. But -- as to shrinking inside our borders -- I think we invite aggression (cf., Atchison, Dean) and threaten global prosperity (cf. Lal, Deepak).
November 1, 2013
"M for Mankind"
Promoted to embed from a comment by brother Keith, offered in response to melancholy references to the archaic and the obsolete, that among these are the idea that every man is an end within himself. And yes, it is today's ACA Horror Story.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM
| Comments (3)
It has been said, and I would agree, that the best of science fiction grows out of social commentary - a projected future based on the present. Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles," Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" all being fine examples. Rand's "Anthem" could be included here as well. Serling's work in the Twilight Zone often stood in this stream as well.
Thank you for the kind mention, too -
I love the Twilight Zone. If only TV had something so thought provoking today....
The blog contrarian is warming up... I want to wait until I watch the clip. I don't remember this episode and it sounds superb.
But please good people, go easy on the TV nostalgia in my presence. I will comment on the Twilight Zone episode and try to find a link to Jonah Goldberg's making my point better that I can.
But the point is that, while Twilight Zone was swell, this has filtered to the top out of the tons of nonsense of the time.
What saddens some TheeeSourcers is the expectation of intellectual capacity that we see in Twilight Zone or the Johnny Carson interview of Ayn Rand. It is certainly pitched to a lower common denominator these days.
But take away Rod Serling and you're left with I Love Lucy, Dick van Dyke, Andy Griffith and Hogan's Heroes. All of whom have their charms (well, maybe not Hogan), but compare poorly to Buffy, Firefly, the Miami Vice episode with Willie Nelson playing the Texas Ranger, Castle, Eureka, Defiance, and my new show Sleepy Hollow.
That, and a three-network lock on information that we're just beginning to crack at the edges. I'm less than nostalgic.
October 11, 2013
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:43 PM
| Comments (0)
October 7, 2013
Steyn: That Which Shall Not Be Discussed
John Stossel took a peek into Nancy Pelosi's "bare" cupboard last night to see if she was correct in saying there is nothing left to cut. Brilliantly, he placed Social Security, Medicare and military spending on top of the cupboard since "those are so big they don't even fit in the cupboard." Mark Steyn takes on the same issue today saying, Too Much of the Federal Government Can't Be Shut Down.
"Mandatory spending" (Social Security, Medicare et al.) is authorized in perpetuity -- or, at any rate, until total societal collapse. If you throw in the interest payments on the debt, that means two-thirds of the federal budget is beyond the control of Congress' so-called federal budget process.
That's why you're reading government "shutdown" stories about the PandaCam at the Washington Zoo and the First Lady's ghost-Tweeters being furloughed.
He segues from there to what passes for a spending prioritization process in the capitol of our national, nee federal, government.
Pace Sen. Reid, Republican proposals to allocate spending through targeted, mere multi-billion-dollar appropriations is not only not "irresponsible" but, in fact, a vast improvement over the "continuing resolution": To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, but continuing power corrupts continually.
America has no budget process. That's why it's the brokest nation in history. So a budgeting process that can't control the budget in a legislature that can't legislate leads to a government shutdown that shuts down open areas of grassland and the unmanned boat launch on the Bighorn River in Montana.
I've been Tweeting and Facebooking that we're witnessing day whatever-it-is of "Essential Government." In reality, what's still steaming ahead full is well beyond what is essential.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM
| Comments (1)
How's about we put all the mandatory items in Al Gore's lockbox?
June 12, 2011
Ignorant Laws Have No Excuse
I set out on the internet this morning to find support for a personal premise: The existence of unenforced laws undermines respect for those laws that are enforced. The experience caused me to recognize an unacknowledged subsequent premise: Individual liberty is enhanced in a law-abiding society. For some time now I have thought the first premise was a call to action in furtherance of the second premise but then I questioned the validity of that objective, and of the second premise itself.
Slate magazine published, in October 2007, a rather wide-ranging compendium of unenforced law discussion by Tim Wu.
He addressed the drug war, illegal immigration, copyright, polygamy and more. Wu seems to conclude that non-enforcement is good for America. Not, as I would attempt, in furtherance of greater liberty but of "the economic interests of the nation."
Immigration policy is perhaps the strongest example of the ways in which tolerated lawbreaking is used to make the legal system closer to what lies in the economic interests of the nation but cannot be achieved by rational politics. All this is why the Bush administration faces an uphill battle in the course of trying a real internal enforcement strategy.
I tend to agree with this conclusion but I attribute as cause the very American attitude of individual liberty amongst voters who won't tolerate a heavy hand against individual workers and employers. More to the point is what this does to our representative government. Since our legislatures cannot achieve rational laws our judiciaries and our executives, at both state and federal levels, exercise discretion in which laws are enforced and to what extent. This appears, at first, to be a good outcome since the forces that guide the police and the courts are those of public opinion which derive, in turn, from individuals. We effectively have 300 million citizen legislators. However, this system has (at least) two major flaws.
First is the disparate influence on the legal system from concentrated versus individual interests and the tyranny of the majority. Allowing the trial lawyers lobby, the AARP and SEIU to dictate which laws are left to wither (and which to be bolstered) is no boon to liberty.
But worse yet, the ability of government to "get" any individual on some trumped up charge whenever it is "necessary" is a hallmark of totalitarian states.
At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity--say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. (...) The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."
It's one thing when government lawyers make selective prosecution into a drinking game, but quite another when used as a tool of coercion and intimidation. In the name of liberty, laws to prevent "injuring a mail bag" have no place in a just society. Liberty is enhanced when laws are obeyed, but said laws must first be not just objective and knowable but also justified in the cause of protecting individuals from others and not from themselves.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:47 PM
| Comments (3)
Three Words: Bastiat, The Law.
Looking the other way at drugs invites discrimination against the statistically minority poor. That has been one of my big objections. Rightly or wrongly, minority youths feel that they are hassled by law enforcement, increasingly under the rubric of suspected drug possession.
Taken to its logical conclusion, unenforced law is no law, but rather rule by police and prosecutors.
Excellent post. The undermining of voluntary enforcement is a powerful point as well.
Love the link. Six stars! If you've posted it before I was delinquent in following it.
"The Desire to Rule Over Others" is a good reply to your current FB tilt.
Agreed. Great post and response. Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
June 3, 2010
Why copy Europe now?
Much as this June 1 post made one ponder why America is so eager to emulate Canadian-style health care, Victor Davis Hanson muses about the example of Europe...
In short, as a reaction to the self-destruction of Europe in World War II and the twin monsters of fascism and communism, Europeans thought they could change human nature itself through the creation of an all-caring, all-wise European Union uber-citizen. Instead of dealing with human sins, European wise men of the last half-century would simply declare them passé.
But human-driven history is now roaring back with a fury in Europe -- from Mediterranean insolvency, to the threat of radical Islam, to demographic decline, to new international dangers on the horizon.
Only one question remains: At a time when Europe is discovering that its democratic socialism does not work, why in the world is the United States doing its best to copy it?
Both are good questions, and I have a single answer for both of them: If America doesn't follow suit quickly enough the "utopian" Euro-centric systems may crumble of their own weight before we get there.
The Progressives/Marxists/Euro-socialists will, of course, tell us that once America is integrated into the collective it will suddenly become sustainable. How, exactly, they never say. Nor do they explain our lack of recourse if, once the "bill is passed," we find it undesirable.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:12 PM
| Comments (1)
Or the explanation for why communism failed in the USSR: "It wasn't done right, but here we'll make it work! We won't make the same mistakes." This ignores that the entire collectivist "experiment" is one big gigantic mistake.
March 22, 2008
Congress and Obama: Freedom be Damned
Hello all. Very busy here with work. But here is an important issue to be aware of.
Ed Cline has written an excellent article, entitled Congressional Duplicity, or Treason?, about Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act.
The beginning of the article lays out his theme:
I rarely write commentary from anger, preferring a properly objective, psuedo-dispassionate approach to a subject deserving my attention. But news of the details, nature and scope of pending legislation in the U.S. Senate has caused me to make an exception to that rule.
As though Americans were not already burdened with:
• Extortionate and confiscatory taxes wherever they turn on virtually everything they earn, purchase, or do, from the local level on up to the federal level;
• Myriad regulations, controls and arbitrary rules that hamper or obstruct their productivity and their lives;
• Footing the endless bills of earmarked pork barrel projects at home in the amount of billions;
• Footing the bill in the amount of the billions for bottomless altruist and "humanitarian" pork barrel projects abroad;
• Footing the bill for an ever-expanding and ever more costly welfare state to subsidize the ill, the retired, the aged, the young, etc.
• Being held hostage by, say, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other hostile "oil-producing" countries, because our government has decided that snail darters, sea cows, and caribou have a greater right to live than have human beings;
• Paying more for food because mandated ethanol, which reports prove costs more in oil to produce than it "saves," in the gas they buy is taking more crop acreage out of production;
Congress is proposing, in Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act (S.2433, based on H.R. 1302, passed by the House September 25, 2007), that Americans be delivered into a state of indentured servitude as laborers for the United Nations. Perhaps "indentured servitude" is too kind a term, for as horrendous a condition as it is, there is usually a time limit to such servitude. Slavery would be the more accurate term in this instance, for what Congress is considering is servitude by Americans in perpetuity, in exchange for nothing but the privilege of laboring to "save" the world without thanks or reward, of filling the alleged needs of others, of performing unlimited "community service" for the offense of merely existing.
He does an expert job of concretizing the issue, of developing the consequences of the Global Poverty Act, and of identifying the principles which the act violates: freedom and natural individual rights.
P.S. Dr. Yaron Brook has an excellent article, entitled "War On Free Political Speech," on "campain finance" law published on Forbes.com. Dr. Brook says:
"Without [campaign finance laws], advocates say, the wealthy would control political speech.
What is the actual effect of wealth on political speech? Is it true that a diversity of political viewpoints would be shut out without campaign finance restrictions? Clearly not, when wealthy Americans include a vast diversity of individuals, and when we are free to watch Fox News or CNN, read the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, listen to Rush Limbaugh or Air America, visit Instapundit or Daily Kos. No private citizen (or corporation), however wealthy, has the power to censor the speech of others. He can refuse to support, finance or promote ideas or candidates he disagrees with--which is his inalienable right--but he cannot forcibly suppress them. Jack Welch could choose not to contribute to MoveOn.org; he can't forbid them to speak or us to listen.
It's not money that corrupts--it's the lure of arbitrary political power."
The article has solid reasoning and good examples, and it puts the issue in proper context: in context of individual rights, including the rights to property and free speech.
Posted by Cyrano at 1:23 PM
| Comments (1)
That abominable piece of legislation will be hard for Senator Obama to defend in the general election. The guy has few legislative credits, and the one prominent one that bears his name cedes sovereignty to the U.N. It might be an effective Sister Soljah moment for Senator Clinton to say that he went too far and to tell superdelegates that he is unelectable.
That said, I have to register disagreement with Cline's overwrought prose (This kettle is truly blacker than this pot, hang with me). The charge of Treason is good wordplay, but I'd advise Mr. Cline to stop there. Nope, it's treason and slavery:
Perhaps "indentured servitude" is too kind a term, for as horrendous a condition as it is, there is usually a time limit to such servitude. Slavery would be the more accurate term in this instance, for what Congress is considering is servitude by Americans in perpetuity, in exchange for nothing but the privilege of laboring to "save" the world without thanks or reward, of filling the alleged needs of others, of performing unlimited "community service" for the offense of merely existing.
Now, were it treason, slavery and dog abuse, perhaps people would come out against it.
June 2, 2006
Another One Bites the Dust
Over at the Counterterrorism Blog, they report that Gaddafi is worried about Charles Taylor being prosecuted:
It is interesting to see that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is slamming Nigeria for turning Charles Taylor over to face justice. News reports quote Gadaffi as saying such a move sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of Africa.
"This also means that every (African) head of state could meet a similar fate -- this sets a serious precedent," he said. Indeed it does. If one butcher goes down, others may follow. For Gaddafi, that must be a terrifying prospect.
Gadaffi, more than any other leader except perhaps Blaise Campoare in Burkina Faso, has good reason to fear Taylor's testimony. It was Gaddafi who trained not only Taylor and his thugs for Liberia, but also Foday Sankoh and other leaders of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Campaore's troops who assassinated president Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, and on and on. My entire blog is here.
Dictatorship: An evil enterprise which needs to be eliminated from the human experience.
Posted by Cyrano at 8:17 PM