In this interview with The New American’s Alex Newman, author and political analyst Linda Goudsmit outlines some of the pseudo-humanitarian hoaxes that have been used by world-government advocates to undermine American freedom on the road to a New World Order.
https://youtu.be/OpyvCOjlwLk
http://www.settimananews.it/politica/italy-and-its-productive-or-parasitic-new-left-thinking/
Perhaps there is a broader and deeper theoretical design behind the daily havoc caused by the ruling coalition in Italy, made up of the M5S (Five Star Movement) and the PD (Democratic Party): the effort to rebuild a new left.
In fact, with the end of the Cold War, the idea of an overall change to the production system that would abolish capitalism disappeared. From here, the drive of Western social-democratic groups that had asked for and obtained a part of redistribution of income also gradually slowed down.
In the past, on the one hand, the social-democratic groups had freed “the proletarian masses” from the lure of the communist sirens. On the other, they increased the standard of living of the middle class, which had become the backbone of the West.
The end of the communist alternative also weakened the pressure on Western business classes to redistribute wealth. The social divide has deepened, and the search for continuous uninterrupted economic growth is the only task entrusted to politicians. Once growth stops, the temporary social pact between voters and a political leader is broken, and other politicians are voted in.
These are the themes dear to a neo-Marxist like Thomas Piketty but also to the Church and to the great religions that almost institutionally care about the poor masses.
Perhaps this is the opinion of PD guru Goffredo Bettini, who is also fascinated by and a scholar of the experience of the neo-populist party of Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand. Clinging to the populism of the M5S, strengthening it in the PD, and transforming it into popular thought can be an interesting strategic idea. It would seek to embolden and expand an endangered middle class.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/499586-new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without
Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn’t received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.
The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.
Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.
Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That’s FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.
To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):
First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/right-from-wrong-why-we-want-netanyahus-trial-televised-629523
For some reason, the Jerusalem District Court – where the arraignment took place and the rest of the trial will be held – nixed the idea to televise it.
With few exceptions, the Israeli press is none too fond of Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu. The feeling, as a result, is mutual, with very good reason.
Acting as judge, jury and executioner, the country’s media outlets have not even tried to conceal their long-standing desire to see his dust. Imagine their delight, then, when the judicial system provided them with the perfect cover for their unbridled lack of neutrality and blatant partisanship.
Not that readers or viewers really believe that journalists are unbiased. More to the point, most people these days – including publishers, editors and reporters – seem have a hard time telling the difference between news, analysis and opinion.
Nor would this be the least bit of a problem if each outlet acknowledged its slant. There is no shame in having and promoting a worldview, after all. No, the disgrace lies in the pretense. And left-wing reporters are full of it, so to speak, which is why Netanyahu is a perfect target for them.
It is not his party, voters or even the entire Right – they claim – that is at the root of their open aggression, but rather the man himself. Indeed, they tell themselves and everybody else, the very fact that he is under indictment on charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust makes him fair game.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/05/conservative-guardians-of-the-nation-state/
“As successful as it has been, capitalism doesn’t come with a guarantee of permanency. It has been overthrown in parts of the world in the past. Socialists cum Marxists are forever lurking, feeding off the wishful thinking, naivety and short-term memories of the young; off economic recessions, as they loudly did in 2009; and off the nonsensical hype about income and wealth inequality. Spreading wealth destroys wealth. Which, when you think it about, could fit on a T-shirt. But, of course, whether on a T-shirt or explained at length it would not be understood by the leftist economic illiterates who push the inequality barrow.”
Once the Wuhan coronavirus has been overcome, we’ll no doubt go back to being scared by Greta Thunberg and company. “Deadly” virus replaced by the ongoing scare of impending death by a thousand belching chimneys, interruptible only in the event of the onset of another pestilence.
Be comforted. All is not doom and gloom. The virus has cast welcome doubt on the virtues of globalism. Too much interconnectedness evidently has its drawbacks. For one group with a particular philosophical outlook, to wit, conservatives, its drawbacks were evident long before the virus hit. And it has nothing at all to do with rubbing shoulders with international tourists.
Globalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive. There is a tension, but nation-states can retain their integrity (wholeness and cohesion) while interacting with one another on a global scale. It’s a question of setting the right balance between porous and impermeable national borders. Perspective on where the balance should lie separates conservatism from the rest of the political spectrum. From this separation different positions and policies flow, along with political allegiances and the future of capitalism.
While libertarians and classical liberals are on the same side of the political and economic fence as conservatives, they are, nevertheless, inclined to favour positions and policies which give rise to more porous borders which, if taken too far, can undermine the integrity of the nation-state. But, to be clear, those of the Left put them in the shade.
Leftists of today appear to have undisguised and profound disdain for the integrity of the nation-state; for what binds it together—sovereign territory, strong borders, a common rule of law, common values and customs, shared history and traditions. While they might be wary of the free movement of goods across borders, they certainly embrace people movements. In the United States, “Bring us your voters” is their subliminal siren call. Giving free health care to illegal migrants drew the support of all Democrat candidates when there were many of them on stage. What a magnet that would be.
Libertarians and classical liberals cannot be put in any category close to those on the Left. That would be insulting to many good people, including people I know. However, they embrace free trade. And, albeit in a measured and nuanced way, they do tend to err on the side of favouring borders open to the international movement of labour.
https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2020/05/27/new-york-media-coronacoddle-cuomo-n2569503
A bevy of bloggers on the right have highlighted one of the most dramatic examples of comparative coronavirus bias: those reckless Southern Republican governors in Georgia or Florida, who allegedly love commerce more than human lives, versus New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, our apparent national lodestar of competence.
The Republicans get the heat; Cuomo gets press conferences broadcast live across the country as celebrities confess their Cuomo crushes. The Republicans are “dangerous,” and Cuomo gets to joke around with his brother, the CNN host.
This tilt is not only in the “objective” press but also in the prestige brands in opinion journalism. Take The Atlantic, which made a dramatic turn by endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016. In a big NPR story, this was celebrated as rare and historic. Their loathing of Donald Trump never fades.
The Atlantic drew major heat for an April 29 article written by Amanda Mull that trashed Gov. Brian Kemp, titled “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice: The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy.” This article was also celebrated with a story on NPR. Mull took credit for the headline and insisted it was accurate. “I think that working-class Georgians, a group that is largely people of color, are being sacrificed to the state’s economy, largely,” she says.
But Georgia’s reopening made The Atlantic look foolish. Coronavirus cases and deaths didn’t surge. They declined. Mull wrote another article, headlined “The Horror of the Coronavirus Data Lag: Some reopening states are already claiming victory over the coronavirus. But the real consequences won’t be clear for weeks,” in which she insisted it was too early for apologies.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/27/advice-to-keep-d-c-schools-closed-until-theres-a-vaccine-proves-weve-been-gaslit/
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is advising D.C.’s mayor not to fully reopen schools until there’s a vaccine for COVID-19.
“The idea is at least in Stage 1 to have distance learning…but then over the next 2 stages….we would slowly begin to bring students in,” he told Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” Sunday. Eventually, schools would “basically reopen but in a very measured and deliberate way.”
D.C faces unique challenges, Chertoff explains, given that people from all over the world visit for work and can be vectors for transmission. He didn’t explain how outbreak mitigation efforts are served in any significant way by keeping schools closed to children, who are not only local but at extremely low risk for becoming seriously ill from the disease and are, contact tracing studies show, less likely to spread it.
But we can no longer expect scientific explanations for such absurd recommendations, much less why pandemic mission creep has gone unchecked over the past two months. I’m sure the Homeland Security secretary under George Bush would know nothing about that.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/27/legal-scholars-embarrass-themselves-in-pompous-letter-attacking-michael-flynn/
Twenty legal luminaries led by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe have written a brief urging Judge Emmet Sullivan to reject the government’s motion to dismiss the Michael Flynn case.
Twenty legal luminaries calling themselves “Separation of Powers Scholars” and led by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe have written a brief urging Judge Emmet Sullivan to reject the government’s motion to dismiss the Michael Flynn case and to proceed to sentencing.
The brief is a shoddy piece of work. It tells little about the Flynn case, even misleading on that score, but it triggers disturbing ruminations about the sad state of current legal academia.
How We Got Here
Here’s a quick review of the case. For more detail, visit the roster of documents compiled by Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell.
Flynn, Trump’s first national security advisor, was charged with lying to the FBI. After great pressure was put on him in threats of extensive jail time, possible indictments of his son, and financial ruin from lawyers’ fees, he, advised by the D.C. establishment firm of Covington and Burling (headed by former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder), agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a government recommendation of no jail time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/world/asia/taliban-afghanistan-war.html
The Taliban stand on the brink of realizing their most fervent desire: U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan. They have given up little of their extremist ideology to do it.
ALINGAR, Afghanistan – Under the shade of a mulberry tree, near grave sites dotted with Taliban flags, a top insurgent military leader in eastern Afghanistan acknowledged that the group had suffered devastating losses from American strikes and government operations over the past decade.
But those losses have changed little on the ground: The Taliban keep replacing their dead and wounded and delivering brutal violence.
“We see this fight as worship,” said Mawlawi Mohammed Qais, the head of the Taliban’s military commission in Laghman Province, as dozens of his fighters waited nearby on a hillside. “So if a brother is killed, the second brother won’t disappoint God’s wish – he’ll step into the brother’s shoes.”
It was March, and the Taliban had just signed a peace deal with the United States that now puts the movement on the brink of realizing its most fervent desire – the complete exit of American troops from Afghanistan.
They have outlasted a superpower through nearly 19 years of grinding war. And dozens of interviews with Taliban officials and fighters in three countries, as well as with Afghan and Western officials, illuminated the melding of old and new approaches and generations that helped them do it.
After 2001, the Taliban reorganized as a decentralized network of fighters and low-level commanders empowered to recruit and find resources locally while the senior leadership remained sheltered in neighboring Pakistan.
The insurgency came to embrace a system of terrorism planning and attacks that kept the Afghan government under withering pressure, and to expand an illicit funding engine built on crime and drugs despite its roots in austere Islamic ideology.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-5-26-greta-thunberg-or-naomi-seibt
Almost certainly, you have heard of Greta Thunberg. Indeed, you undoubtedly know a lot about her. She is the Swedish teenager who for more than a decade has suffered from various mental illnesses, including depression, Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and even something called “selective mutism.” Apparently, in between bouts of mental illness, at some point she became interested in the issue of climate change. In late December 2018, at the age of 15, Greta suddenly sprang on the world stage, when she got invited to speak at a UN climate conference in New York. That’s when we first got to see her trademark anger — fury, even — about what she perceived to be the crisis of the climate. In 2019 she spent the year playing hooky from school and leading climate “strikes” and demonstrations wherever she could get an audience. On September 23, 2019 she was back at the UN in New York giving a barn-burning speech letting everyone know how deeply furious she is that anyone is enjoying their life. Here is some text from that speech:
[Y]ou all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
And what exactly was it that anyone had done to her to “steal [her] dreams and [her] childhood”? I’m still trying to figure that one out. My own inclination is to feel very sorry for this young lady. As a high-school age girl who hasn’t even attended school much of the time and hasn’t yet studied these things at all, she obviously has no real idea about whether “entire ecosystems are collapsing” or whether we are “in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Clearly, before her unhinged anger takes over everything and destroys her life, she needs to get some professional help with her mental issues. But that’s just my view.
Then there’s Naomi Seibt. You may not even have heard of her. She’s a little older than Greta — 19 to Greta’s 17 — and hails from the German state of North Rhine Westphalia.
Top Stories @ Fox News