Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Monday, July 23, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
A Fox in the conservative henhouse…
It’s one thing to have the left wing media come after your candidates, another however when an so-called ally does it. Many of us thought Fox was a sanctuary for conservative thought and expression.
WRONG!!!
After listening to the made up brouhaha over what the president said or meant concerning the president’s statements about Trump’s playing footsie with dictator Putin makes me wonder what you would have said when Churchill and Roosevelt joined with the despicable Russian dictator of the time Uncle Joe Stalin.
Fox, get off your high horse and dump your afternoon hypocrite and return to what made me a regular viewer in the first place. My granddad used to caution that you have not been really screwed until a friend does it.
Viva Olay. Bring on a new and refreshing conservative network.
PS - I’m not alone in my suspicion Fox has turned on some its most loyal supporters…
Below is the first in a three part history lesson.
Ciao…...Moe Lauzier
Virgil: The President’s Controversial Policy Toward Russia: The Good Guys Risk Losing If the Bad Guys Are United — Part One of Three
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty ImageThe Necessary Mission to Moscow
The President of the United States is under fire for being too close to Russia; he is now being attacked daily for being too helpful to that country in a time of crisis.
One Senator, a member of the President’s party, warns that the administration’s Russia policy exceeds its constitutional authority; the lawmaker says he is dead-set “against every step which gives dictatorial powers to the President.” The Senator adds, “Never before has a Congress coldly and flatly been asked to abdicate.” In the meantime, a Congressman says dismissively of the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, “Let the President clean his own house; quit issuing half-truths.”
A second Senator says angrily of entanglement with Russia,“I care not for Russia and Russia’s greed,” warning the President, in the starkest possible terms, against any partnership with Moscow: “Do not plunge this country into that sort of holocaust.”
Yet the President, born and bred a wealthy New Yorker, doggedly insists on continuing his pro-Russia policy, declaring publicly, “It is our duty, as never before, to extend more and more assistance and ever more swiftly to . . . Russia.” In fact, the President has also communicated privately to the Russian leader, promising to keep working “to assure you of our great determination to be of every possible material assistance.”
Does all this seem familiar? Were you thinking maybe that this is a description of the year 2018, as the 45th President, Donald Trump, pursues his controversial Russia vision?
Well, actually, Virgil was recalling criticism of the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt during the first eleven months of 1941, January to November—that is, the fraught period just prior to Pearl Harbor. (For the historically curious, the links to all of FDR’s comments can be found here.)
American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882 – 1945) declares an ‘unlimited’ national state of emergency over the radio in response to German aggression during World War II, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1941. (Photo by FPG/Getty Images)
Indeed, a look back at history—at the choices made by FDR in 1941—provides useful perspective for today, because it casts light on the choices being made by Trump in 2018.
How so? One big reason is that then, as now, the U.S. President has had to consider the possibility of working with Russia—repugnant as that country’s regime was, and still is—in order to build a coalition against an even greater threat. That is, the Commander-in-Chief must see if it’s possible to include Russia in a coalition that would serve the ultimate national-security interests of the United States. In 1941, that greater security threat was Nazi Germany; in 2018, it’s the People’s Republic of China.
Americans have been slow to realize the threat from China. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that President Bill Clinton proclaimed that he was engaging China in a “constructive strategic partnership.” And of course, the Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama administrations were always touting ever more “free trade” with China.
Yet in recent years, Americans have been waking up. During the 2016 campaign, Trump accused China of “raping” the U.S. on trade, and today, of course, U.S.-China trade relations are a flashpoint. Indeed, the whole world is waking up to China’s rapidly expanding military, economic, and geopolitical power.
Perhaps most urgently, Chinese spies and hackers have been penetrating deeply. In his July 18 testimony on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that while the Russians have been an “aggressive actor,” it’s the Chinese who are the real danger. As Wray put it, “I think China, from a counterintelligence perspective, in many ways represents the broadest, most challenging, most significant threat we face as a country.”
One leading American figure who has been sounding the China alarm loudly is Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump White House adviser and former Breitbart News chief. Bannon is not unmindful of the threat from Russia, and yet he is more mindful of the much greater threat from China; after all, China has 10 times the population, and 10 times the GDP, of Russia. And of course, whatever the Russians can do, hacking-wise, the Chinese can do more—and, indeed, they are doing more.
So with that in mind, Bannon urges a revised geopolitical strategy. That is, if China is the greater risk, then Americans should adjust their thinking accordingly. As Bannon told CNBC on July 18, we’re already in an “economic war” with China.
That same day, a headline in the British Spectator summed up another key part of Bannon’s message: “‘We have to end the Cold War with Russia’: The former White House strategist thinks China poses a much greater threat.” As Bannon told the magazine, Russia is a “kleptocracy . . . not good guys,” and yet still, “we have to bring Russia into some sort of alliance or rapprochement with the West.” That is, pull Russia into some sort of working relationship.
In fact, the Russians have always been suspicious of China; the two countries are natural rivals for dominance on the Eurasian land mass, and they have fought innumerable battles and skirmishes along their extensive borderlands, including as recently as 1969. To this day, the Chinese claim extensive Russian territories as their own; in fact, much of what the Russians call “Siberia” is known to the Chinese as “Outer Manchuria.”
So yes, it should be possible, as well as desirable, for the U.S. to enlist Russia into a China-containment policy. Yet if such a cordon sanitaire cannot be established, and if Russia were to slip into the Chinese orbit, well, that would spell bad news for the U.S.; the prospect of a Eurasia united in anti-Americanism would be scary, indeed. As Bannon says grimly, if Russia were ever to partner “with this [China-led] axis, the 21st century will be quite different.” That is, for America, quite worse.
In the meantime, Trump is determined to ride out the controversy over his Russia policy. As the President tweeted on July 18, “Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!” And the following day, he added, “The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.”
In fact, Trump’s outreach to Russia is already paying dividends, as attested by this July 20 headline in The Washington Post: “Inside the Putin-Netanyahu-Trump deal on Syria.” As the article details, the three leaders—Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, and Trump—seem to have worked out a deal on Syria, which, among other things, gives Israel the right to strike at Iranian targets in that country. As the picture of Netanyahu and Putin shaking hands, all smiles, suggests, the Israelis, at least, seem quite pleased. (Yes, it’s a bit odd that the Post, which normally spends 99 percent of its time trashing Trump, would run an article demonstrating that he’s actually accomplishing things; we might say that this pro-Trump piece was a one-off, even as, of course, the underlying reality of a deal over Syria is more important than any mere gaggle of headlines.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, Pool)
The Hard Choice Made by Churchill and Roosevelt
So with the realization that a diplomatic understanding with Russia can be valuable, even vital, it’s worth looking back to the diplomacy of the early 1940s, to a time when Uncle Sam and the Russian Bear found common ground at a time of extreme crisis. As we shall see, that ground was always unsteady, even rocky—and yet the cooperation that was achieved saved America and the world.
We can begin with the events of August 23, 1939, when Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia reached an agreement—the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact—with each other. The leaders of the two countries, Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin, were hardly friends; indeed, the two men had never so much as met each other. And yet the Hitler-Stalin entente was a big deal, because it enabled both dictators to pursue their respective plans of conquest.
Réunion entre le bras droit de Staline Viatcheslav Molotov et Adolf Hitler, circa 1930. (Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)
So on September 1, 1939, Hitler, flagrantly violating numerous treaties, invaded Poland. In response, Britain and France loyally, albeit reluctantly, declared war on Germany. The two Western countries had no chance of actually defending Poland from the blitzkrieg onslaught, but it was the right thing to do.
Then, astonishingly, after the German Wehrmacht had mostly destroyed Poland’s defenses, the Red Army attacked from the east. As a result, Poland disappeared from the map, brutally partitioned by its two neighbors.
We might now pause to consider the geopolitical situation as it must have appeared to London or Paris in 1939: The terrible dictators, Hitler and Stalin, each boasting huge armed forces, were teaming up on nasty conquest. From the point of view of liberal democracy, it’s hard to think of a worse situation—the bad guys, united, vastly outnumbering the good guys.
Then the situation got worse: In late 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland. Only the gallant defense of the Finns, fighting bravely in the wintery forests they knew well, staved off the complete subjugation of that country. Instead, the Finns suffered only a partial defeat.
For its part, Germany was even busier—and more effective. In May-June 1940, the Nazi military overran most of Western Europe, including France. Those German victories were so staggering that the world hardly noticed the smaller Soviet wins in the meantime: The Russians invaded and occupied the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
To look at a map of Europe in mid-1940 is to see that Churchill’s England was, well, alone. As a pair of Oscar-winning movies reminded us last year, this was Britain’s darkest hour, and yet, at the same time, one of its finest hours.
Yet even as Churchill was proving himself to be a determined war leader and inspirer of the human spirit, he was nonetheless a realist. He could see that both Hitler and Stalin were malevolent, and yet he saw that of the two, Hitler was worse—and this at a time when nobody yet knew the full depths of Hitler’s evil; his greatest crimes were still to come.
So to preserve Britain, Churchill had to make a choice. That is, he had to decide to to oppose one dictator, but not both. If Hitler was the urgent threat, well, then, Hitler was the enemy—an enemy to be fixated on, with relentless focus. And as for Stalin, well, by default, if he wasn’t the enemy, then he was, at least potentially, a friend.
This was a hard choice for Churchill, and yet in the world of high-stakes statecraft, all big choices tend to be hard choices. And once he had made his choice, Churchill was both resolute and articulate, quipping, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
Prime Minister Winston Churchill outside 10 Downing Street, gesturing his famous ‘V for Victory’ hand signal, London, June 1943. (Photo by H F Davis/Topical Press Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
So where was the U.S. at this time? As we know, the Yanks had come to the aid of Britain and France in World War One, and yet the disappointing aftermath of the Versailles peace proved to be deeply disillusioning to Americans. Even two decades later, according to the polls, majorities in the U.S. wanted nothing to do with a second European war.
For his part, President Roosevelt could see that a war with Germany was likely, like it or not. As far back as 1937, he had argued in favor of a heavily armed stance for the U.S.—he called it a “quarantine”—aimed at mostly Nazi Germany, but also at Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.
Yet many well-placed American observers thought that Germany was unbeatable. One such was the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh; he had traveled to Germany, schmoozed with top Nazis, and reported back to America that German aviation would give that country a decisive edge in any conflict. Indeed, Lindbergh’s wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, went even further; in 1940, she published a best-selling book, The Wave of the Future,predicting, in glowing terms, a fascist destiny for America.
So we can see: In 1940, it wasn’t at all obvious that the U.S. could even survive as a free country, let alone prevail in a second world war.
And yet Roosevelt knew that America needed to do more than just await a bitter fate. On June 10, 1940, even as the Nazis were storming into Paris, FDR spoke at the University of Virginia, explaining that isolationism was not an option; as he put it, some Americans “still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we of the United States can safely permit the United States to become a lone island, a lone island in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.” (Only years later did we learn that Hitler, in fact, had every intention of someday attacking the U.S. in North America.)
Yet even so, FDR knew that, powerful as he was, he could still only nudge, not shove, public opinion. So he used the bully pulpit: On December 29, 1940, he delivered one of his “fireside chats”—only this chat was anything but cozy. Describing the ominous world situation, he warned:
…If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia, and the high seas—and they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us, in all the Americas, would be living at the point of a gun—a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military.
As he spoke of guns and bullets, FDR had a plan. And that’s why that December 29 address is remembered for the vivid phrase, “arsenal of democracy.” Virgil will take up that mighty subject in Part Two.
This is the first of three parts. Next: Using Russia to overcome the greater foe.
Political Potpourri and More by Chuck Muth in Nevada
* * * The City of Baltimore – my hometown – has major problems. Soaring crime, lousy schools, budget problems, drugs, trash on the streets and the worst team in major league baseball.
Yet the bozos on the city council ignored those problems this week while summoning up the “courage” to pass an ordinance banning sodas from kids’ menus in privately-owned and operated restaurants.
Welcome to McDonald’s new Unhappy Meals.
* * * The NFL has a death wish.
It stood by as its players disrespected the United States – and by extension, our military and law enforcement folks - by taking a knee during the National Anthem over the last two seasons.
Amid public backlash and a tremendous drop in attendance and viewership, league officials finally did the right thing a couple weeks ago and declared that any player not willing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner had to stay in the locker room until it was over.
But last week the NFL reversed itself and said players will be allowed to take a knee again this season after all. You can’t fix stupid. #BoycottNFL
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“Rather than another 30 years of lawsuits (over Yucca Mountain), Congress should try a different approach: bribery. Offer a $2,500 per-person refundable tax credit to Nevadans if Yucca goes through. Instead of storage, put a reprocessing facility there and direct 20 percent of the gross proceeds to Nevada’s general fund. Provide funding to make UNLV the nation’s premiere research institution on nuclear energy. Instead of another ‘Screw Nevada’ bill, advertise the benefits of a ‘Make Nevada Rich’ bill to limit local opposition.” – Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Victor Joecks, 7/22/18
Any thoughts on how we can get Mr. Muth (he’s a political consultant) to Massachusetts to teach us how to start a second political party. The Republicans are in third place is a two way race.
HILLARY AND THE HOUSECOAT
THE LIBERTY DAILY
FISA Applications Omitted Game-Changing Fact That Steele Dossier Was Bankrolled By Clinton Campaign And The DNC
‘Hoax From The Beginning’: Carter Page FISA Application Exposes Flimsy Underpinnings Of FBI ‘Witch Hunt’
Carter Page Surveillance Documents Indicate Obama State Department Provided Initial Info After Interacting with Hoax Dossier Author
DEEP STATE BUSTED: Obama FBI Flatly and Repeatedly Declares in FISA Warrant that Carter Page is a Russian Agent; Yet, Page has Never Been Charged With a Crime; Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Dana Boente, Sally Yates and James Comey ALL Signed Phony Warrants
Analysis: 70% of FISA Application to Spy on Carter Page REDACTED: ‘Very Cagey’
‘The Clergy Are at Their Best When They Proclaim the Solid Gospel’
'And they can be at their weakest when they assume a prerogative to comment on problems outside their competence'
Samuel Taylor Coleridge indulged his romantic naiveté in suggesting that culture should be governed by an educated elite, which he called a “clerisy.”
The word had the same root as “cleric,” since the clergy had a pre-eminent role in erudition. Coleridge meant it to include all who were versed in higher thought. He was ignorant of the dictum that an intellectual is often someone educated beyond his intelligence.
Knowledge is not wisdom. Common sense thrives best among those whom the clerisy caste tend to patronize as common.
Along with professors and bureaucrats, the clergy have to be careful, since clerisy is a relentless illusion. The clergy are at their best when they proclaim the solid Gospel, and they can be at their weakest when they assume a prerogative to comment on problems outside their competence.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops published in 1983 a pastoral letter on disarmament, “The Challenge of Peace,” which, if taken seriously, might have prevented the fall of the Berlin Wall six years later.
Their pastoral letter on economics in 1986, “Economic Justice for All,” prescribed a big-government solution that could have thwarted the economic boom that ensued despite them. The clerisy rejected a cogent critique of “Economic Justice” chaired by William Simon, the former secretary of the Treasury, and supported by Secretary of State Alexander Haig and J. Peter Grace, among others.
Opponents of the peace pastoral, Archbishop Philip Hannan and then-Bishop John J. O’Connor, were ignored even though Hannan was the only bishop who had served in World War II, and the future cardinal was auxiliary bishop for the armed forces.
Recently, a bishop suggested that anyone who supported laws on illegal immigration might be subject to canonical penalties, a stricture he did not invoke against Catholic congressmen in his state who support abortion. The bishops have also disagreed with the Supreme Court’s defense of the right to work for federal employees. Clerisy often prefers gratuitous politics to doctrinal orthodoxy.
Then there is the curious inconsistency of a cardinal who has said that priests “have no credibility” when it comes to marriage instruction because they have not been married themselves.
A bishop suggested that anyone who supported laws on illegal immigration might be subject to canonical penalties.
Having prepared over 800 people for marriage, I might venture to enlist most of them in witness against his demurral from competence, and would also ask, if that cardinal is correct, why does he not see any inconsistency in declaring this as prefect of the dicastery for the Laity, Family, and Life.
Pope Francis has said that “no one better than [a priest] knows” the challenges that married couples face. Clerisy may be well-intentioned, but Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said that the road to hell is full of good intentions.
Clerisy does have its flaws, in witness to which one might conjure the ghost of Samuel Taylor Coleridge who, despite his erudition, died from recourse to opium.
Fr. George William Rutler is a Catholic priest and the pastor of the Church of St. Michael in Manhattan. This article is from his parish church bulletin.
Jackie Mason: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘to the Left’ of Putin
Pope Francis has said that “no one better than [a priest] knows” the challenges that married couples face. Clerisy may be well-intentioned, but Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said that the road to hell is full of good intentions.
Clerisy does have its flaws, in witness to which one might conjure the ghost of Samuel Taylor Coleridge who, despite his erudition, died from recourse to opium.
Fr. George William Rutler is a Catholic priest and the pastor of the Church of St. Michael in Manhattan. This article is from his parish church bulletin.
Jackie Mason: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ‘to the Left’ of Putin
NEW YORK — Legendary comic Jackie Mason panned Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “ignorant” over her anti-Israel comments and “to the left” of Russian President Vladimir Putin because of her domestic platform.
Ocasio-Cortez last month sent political shockwaves across the nation when she won the Democratic party primary for New York’s 14th Congressional district against veteran Congressman Joe Crowley.
“Calling her to the left doesn’t even tell her story,” jested Mason. “She makes Putin look like he is on the right. She’s to the left of Putin.”
Mason was speaking in a pre-taped interview scheduled to air on this reporter’s Sunday night talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM in Philadelphia.
The comic, a staunch supporter of Israel, sounded off about Ocasio-Cortez’s unsubstantiated allegation during a recent interview about the “occupation of Palestine” before conceding that she is “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue” when challenged by the host to explain herself.
Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University with a degree in economics and international relations, according to her Facebook page.
“She studied international relations but not in a university,” exclaimed Mason. “She must have studied that in her kitchen because she knows as much about international relations as I know about skiing.”
“To call Israel an occupier makes you not only ignorant but a nutcase. How am I occupying my own house?” he added.
-
Medicare For All
-
Housing As a Human Right
-
A Federal Jobs Guarantee
-
Gun Control / Assault Weapons Ban
-
Immigration Justice / Abolish ICE
-
Mobilizing Against Climate Change
-
Clean Campaign Finance
-
Curb Wall Street Gambling: Restore Glass Steagall
-
The expansion of Medicare into a universal healthcare system
-
Infiltrating Congress
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Energy Group: Highest-Ever U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Liquids Production
Energy Group: Highest-Ever U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Liquids Production
David McNew/Getty ImagesThe American Petroleum Institute (API) released its monthly statistical report on Thursday, revealing the highest-ever production of U.S. crude oil and natural gas liquids in June.
During that month, production of crude oil hit 10.7 million barrels per day (mb/d), and production of natural gas liquids hit 4.2 million barrels per day, according to API.
“Record production of U.S. crude oil and natural gas liquids last month highlighted the strength of our nation’s energy renaissance,” Dean Foreman, API chief economist, said in the announcement of the report. “U.S. oil production has supplied all of the growth in global oil demand so far this year and helped compensate for production losses in some OPEC nations.”
“With continued increases in drilling activity, the U.S. is poised for further production increases in natural gas and oil,” Foreman said.
API has opposed President Donald Trump’s tariffs agenda, reiterated by Foreman’s remarks in the announcement.
“Unfortunately, increasing tariffs on steel and other components that are vital to our industry’s infrastructure and operations have emerged as a key challenge,” Foreman said, adding that the oil and gas trade association needs steel and other products for developing energy production infrastructure.
But Breitbart News reported when Trump announced putting in place tariffs on steel and aluminum in March that they are designed to protect U.S. steel producers and bolster national security:
Actions by the administration mark the conclusion of a process that began last year when the president ordered the Commerce Department to examine the impact on national security of steel and aluminum imports. That inquiry called a Section 232 investigation after of the portion of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 where it is authorized, concluded earlier this year with a recommendation that the administration impose sanctions to protect the industries.
Some other highlights from API’s June 2018 statistical report include:
•U.S. petroleum demand year-to-date at its strongest since 2007.
•Domestic refineries ran at their highest percent capacity utilization rate in June (96.6 percent) since 2005.
…
•Solid economic and energy market fundamentals also underpinned the strongest U.S. petroleum demand since 2007, at 20.6 mb/d.
•U.S. petroleum demand year-to-date at its strongest since 2007.
•Domestic refineries ran at their highest percent capacity utilization rate in June (96.6 percent) since 2005.
…
•Solid economic and energy market fundamentals also underpinned the strongest U.S. petroleum demand since 2007, at 20.6 mb/d.
The oil and natural gas industry supports 10.3 million U.S. jobs, according to API.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/07/www_23.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment