theamericanconservative--2020-11-03--High Stakes…Whispers of Fraud…Are We Headed for Another Election of 1960?

Historians still debate whether JFK really beat Richard Nixon .
But what 's clear is that it was close and skulduggery was involved .
CHICAGO - SEPTEMBER 25 : NIXON KENNEDY DEBATE John F. Kennedy , left , and Richard M. Nixon at the first televised presidential debate .
( Photo by CBS via Getty Images ) On the eve of the 2020 presidential election , even those who are confident in the final result are timid to publicly put all their eggs in one basket .
Democratic nominee Joe Biden leads by a healthy margin in both national polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump hopes his in-person barnstorming of swing states has orchestrated a late surge of support .
Both sides acknowledge that America will likely not know the winner by Wednesday morning .
After a year of pandemic , state-imposed lockdowns , an economic crisis , and widespread rioting , the most destructive development of the presidential election would be an unclear result and a loss of public confidence .
Both parties have laid the groundwork to possibly dispute the outcome .
Since the summer , Republicans have cast aspersions on mail-in ballots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous records this year .
The allegation is that mail-in ballots are open to fraud , forgery , and outright elimination .
Most discomforting is Donald Trump ’ s repeated refusal—for over a month—to state that he would concede a defeat and consent to a transfer of power .
The Democrats haven ’ t been much better .
Despite an assurance given during the first presidential debate ( “ If I lose , that will be accepted ” ) , Joe Biden has contradicted himself on the campaign trail , saying , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chicanery going on with regard to polling places.
” Democratic operatives have spent months discrediting the mail-in ballot system , with accusations of voter suppression , conspiracies about Post Office manipulation , and sensational tales of people stealing mailboxes on neighborhood corners .
There is a not-improbable possibility that the United States will be rocked by a political crisis—either a stolen election or , more likely , an election accused of being stolen by the disadvantaged party .
How both Donald Trump and Joe Biden choose to react to that scenario may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years to come .
Not since 1960 have party leaders been faced with such a difficult choice—investigate fraud and abuse to the hilt or let sleeping dogs lie and carry on .
The legendary presidential election that year , between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy , had the closest popular vote of the 20th century , less than 113,000 votes out of over 68 million cast .
The results of the Electoral College hinged on Illinois and Texas , both declared for Kennedy .
Continuing questions about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states has permanently tarnished the legacy of Camelot .
Illinois ’ Cook County political machine had been ensconced in power since the Great Depression .
Its leader , Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley , had been noncommittal during the Democratic primaries , and was not known as a Kennedy partisan .
In November 1960 , his concerns were much more local , with the well-being of the machine taking precedence over the party ’ s national leaders .
“ Daley is worried that year about a fellow named Benjamin Adamowski , who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the state ’ s attorney [ for Cook County ] , and he ’ s running for reelection .
And he wants that guy out , because the state ’ s attorney can make big trouble for big city machines , ” explains historian David Pietrusza , author of 1960 : LBJ vs JFK vs Nixon : The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies .
“ So if Mayor Daley can steal the election or win the election—however you want to phrase it—to beat Adamowski and he can elect the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , so much the better.
” In the month prior to the election , there were numerous reports about abnormalities and suspicious occurrences .
“ The reports are coming out ( just like you ’ re seeing now actually ) , where you ’ re seeing a hundred mail-in ballots dumped here , people being stricken from the election rolls as fraudulent there , etc , ” says Pietrusza .
“ There ’ s reports in the Chicago Tribune—which of course is a solidly Republican paper then—but they ’ re coming up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts and they see people are registered to vote from vacant lots , or places where there aren ’ t apartments , the usual dead people are voting , people are voting in multiple locations and precincts , and all these things are being reported in October.
” Five days before the election , the city ’ s Commission on Honest Elections—formed by former Chicago Corporation counsel David H. Brill—contended to a grand jury that 10 percent of the city ’ s voter rolls were irregular , filled with “ deadheads , ghosts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only bad actor in Chicago .
Sam Giancana , the lead mobster of the Chicago outfit and heir to Al Capone , was very friendly with Joe Kennedy , the candidate ’ s father , and worked hard to ensure Jack made it the White House .
According to some , this was as innocent as hiring drivers to get people to the polls in the mob-controlled waterfront and whipping the union vote .
Others contend it was more underhanded , including voter intimidation and stuffing some ballot boxes while tossing others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and Giancana ’ s methods , they were effective .
Kennedy received over 1,378,000 votes in Cook County , more than he received in any single state excluding New York , California , Ohio , Michigan , and Massachusetts .
This enormous turnout allowed him to eke out a win statewide by a slim margin of less than 9,000 votes ( while Adamowski lost his job by 25,000 votes ) .
Further south , the Texas of 1960 was dominated by Lyndon Baines Johnson , the Senate majority leader and Kennedy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in politics for over 30 years and had successfully amassed a $ 20 million fortune through corrupt licensing .
“ The Johnsons ’ wealth was rooted in raw political power , ” writes economist David R. Henderson .
After his initial run for the Senate ended in defeat in 1942 , Johnson learned that success in politics sometimes required dirty tricks .
“ So when he runs for the Senate in 1948 , he ’ s not going to make the same mistake again .
And he has allies in certain counties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parr , ” Pietrusza tells The American Conservative .
“ You see , it was sort of like early ballot harvesting .
You see all these names , which kind of come in a box , in the last minute , in this one precinct , in this one county in Texas .
And they all come in , remarkably , all in alphabetical order .
And they are just about all for Lyndon Baines Johnson .
And Johnson wins that election by 87 votes and is known , until he has his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as ‘ Landslide Lyndon , ’ very derisively.
” Similar peculiarities were reported in Texas in 1960 .
In Democratic Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn ’ s home county of Fannin , 4,895 registered voters cast 6,138 ballots .
In a precinct in Angela County , Kennedy won 147 votes to Nixon ’ s 24—despite only 86 individuals voting .
And when Nixon did win a precinct in Fort Bend County 458 to 350 , 182 of his ballots were declared void .
Despite widespread indications of duplicity , Richard Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think he had his suspicions ; he didn ’ t have his proofs , ” theorizes Pietrusza .
And being only 47 , Nixon probably realized ( correctly ) that he had future presidential campaigns to plan , ones that should not be bogged down by charges of being a “ sore loser.
” Yet while Nixon publicly accepted the results , behind-the-scenes party workers did what he couldn ’ t .
RNC Chairman ( and Kentucky Senator ) Thruston Ballard Morton initiated calls for recounts in 11 states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , with the only substantial change being a circuit judge declaring that Kennedy had actually won the state of Hawaii , not Nixon .
The true winner of the election is an unknowable and is still debated by historians .
That there were errors in vote counting and outright fraud—particularly in Chicago—is not disputed .
But whether it was substantial enough to shift Kennedy ’ s 9,000-vote lead in Illinois , and his larger 46,000 vote lead in Texas , is a harder case to prove .
Still , the narrative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the popular consciousness .
No one less than Andrea Mitchell , NBC correspondent and one of the D.C. establishment ’ s most pedigreed journalists , says the election “ had obviously been stolen in 1960 ” from Richard Nixon .
Mitchell called Nixon ’ s decision not to contest one of the “ better moments in American history.
” Stores are already being boarded up in preparation for post-election violence .
If machinations are at play , are they worth ignoring to preserve a functioning body politic ?
Or should such consequences be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Richard Nixon asked himself 60 years ago , and that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden must ask themselves as they watch the returns come in tonight .
Hunter DeRensis is the communications director of BringOurTroopsHome.US and a regular contributor to The American Conservative .
Follow him on Twitter @ HunterDeRensis .

On the eve of the 2020 presidential election, even those who are confident in the final result are timid to publicly put all their eggs in one basket. Democratic nominee Joe Biden leads by a healthy margin in both national polls and early absentee voting, while President Donald Trump hopes his in-person barnstorming of swing states has orchestrated a late surge of support. Both sides acknowledge that America will likely not know the winner by Wednesday morning.
After a year of pandemic, state-imposed lockdowns, an economic crisis, and widespread rioting, the most destructive development of the presidential election would be an unclear result and a loss of public confidence. Both parties have laid the groundwork to possibly dispute the outcome.
Since the summer, Republicans have cast aspersions on mail-in ballots, the use of which will break all previous records this year. The allegation is that mail-in ballots are open to fraud, forgery, and outright elimination. Most discomforting is Donald Trump’s repeated refusal—for over a month—to state that he would concede a defeat and consent to a transfer of power.
The Democrats haven’t been much better. Despite an assurance given during the first presidential debate (“If I lose, that will be accepted”), Joe Biden has contradicted himself on the campaign trail, saying, “The only way we lose is by the chicanery going on with regard to polling places.” Democratic operatives have spent months discrediting the mail-in ballot system, with accusations of voter suppression, conspiracies about Post Office manipulation, and sensational tales of people stealing mailboxes on neighborhood corners.
There is a not-improbable possibility that the United States will be rocked by a political crisis—either a stolen election or, more likely, an election accused of being stolen by the disadvantaged party. How both Donald Trump and Joe Biden choose to react to that scenario may decide the legitimacy of the American government for years to come.
Not since 1960 have party leaders been faced with such a difficult choice—investigate fraud and abuse to the hilt or let sleeping dogs lie and carry on. The legendary presidential election that year, between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, had the closest popular vote of the 20th century, less than 113,000 votes out of over 68 million cast. The results of the Electoral College hinged on Illinois and Texas, both declared for Kennedy. Continuing questions about the validity of the vote in those two states has permanently tarnished the legacy of Camelot.
Illinois’ Cook County political machine had been ensconced in power since the Great Depression. Its leader, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, had been noncommittal during the Democratic primaries, and was not known as a Kennedy partisan. In November 1960, his concerns were much more local, with the well-being of the machine taking precedence over the party’s national leaders.
“Daley is worried that year about a fellow named Benjamin Adamowski, who had been one of his allies and was now the state’s attorney [for Cook County], and he’s running for reelection. And he wants that guy out, because the state’s attorney can make big trouble for big city machines,” explains historian David Pietrusza, author of 1960: LBJ vs JFK vs Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies. “So if Mayor Daley can steal the election or win the election—however you want to phrase it—to beat Adamowski and he can elect the president of the United States in a bargain, well, so much the better.”
In the month prior to the election, there were numerous reports about abnormalities and suspicious occurrences. “The reports are coming out (just like you’re seeing now actually), where you’re seeing a hundred mail-in ballots dumped here, people being stricken from the election rolls as fraudulent there, etc,” says Pietrusza. “There’s reports in the Chicago Tribune—which of course is a solidly Republican paper then—but they’re coming up and they’re digging on the facts and they see people are registered to vote from vacant lots, or places where there aren’t apartments, the usual dead people are voting, people are voting in multiple locations and precincts, and all these things are being reported in October.”
Five days before the election, the city’s Commission on Honest Elections—formed by former Chicago Corporation counsel David H. Brill—contended to a grand jury that 10 percent of the city’s voter rolls were irregular, filled with “deadheads, ghosts, and phantoms.”
Neither was Daley the only bad actor in Chicago. Sam Giancana, the lead mobster of the Chicago outfit and heir to Al Capone, was very friendly with Joe Kennedy, the candidate’s father, and worked hard to ensure Jack made it the White House. According to some, this was as innocent as hiring drivers to get people to the polls in the mob-controlled waterfront and whipping the union vote. Others contend it was more underhanded, including voter intimidation and stuffing some ballot boxes while tossing others into the river.
Whatever Daley’s and Giancana’s methods, they were effective. Kennedy received over 1,378,000 votes in Cook County, more than he received in any single state excluding New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, and Massachusetts. This enormous turnout allowed him to eke out a win statewide by a slim margin of less than 9,000 votes (while Adamowski lost his job by 25,000 votes).
Further south, the Texas of 1960 was dominated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Senate majority leader and Kennedy’s running mate. Johnson had been in politics for over 30 years and had successfully amassed a $20 million fortune through corrupt licensing. “The Johnsons’ wealth was rooted in raw political power,” writes economist David R. Henderson.
After his initial run for the Senate ended in defeat in 1942, Johnson learned that success in politics sometimes required dirty tricks. “So when he runs for the Senate in 1948, he’s not going to make the same mistake again. And he has allies in certain counties in Texas, particularly a guy named George Parr,” Pietrusza tells The American Conservative. “You see, it was sort of like early ballot harvesting. You see all these names, which kind of come in a box, in the last minute, in this one precinct, in this one county in Texas. And they all come in, remarkably, all in alphabetical order. And they are just about all for Lyndon Baines Johnson. And Johnson wins that election by 87 votes and is known, until he has his own landslide against Barry Goldwater in 1964, as ‘Landslide Lyndon,’ very derisively.”
Similar peculiarities were reported in Texas in 1960. In Democratic Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn’s home county of Fannin, 4,895 registered voters cast 6,138 ballots. In a precinct in Angela County, Kennedy won 147 votes to Nixon’s 24—despite only 86 individuals voting. And when Nixon did win a precinct in Fort Bend County 458 to 350, 182 of his ballots were declared void.
Despite widespread indications of duplicity, Richard Nixon decided not to contest the election results. “I think he had his suspicions; he didn’t have his proofs,” theorizes Pietrusza. And being only 47, Nixon probably realized (correctly) that he had future presidential campaigns to plan, ones that should not be bogged down by charges of being a “sore loser.”
Yet while Nixon publicly accepted the results, behind-the-scenes party workers did what he couldn’t. RNC Chairman (and Kentucky Senator) Thruston Ballard Morton initiated calls for recounts in 11 states. After a month, the efforts petered out, with the only substantial change being a circuit judge declaring that Kennedy had actually won the state of Hawaii, not Nixon.
The true winner of the election is an unknowable and is still debated by historians. That there were errors in vote counting and outright fraud—particularly in Chicago—is not disputed. But whether it was substantial enough to shift Kennedy’s 9,000-vote lead in Illinois, and his larger 46,000 vote lead in Texas, is a harder case to prove.
Still, the narrative of a stolen election is widely accepted in the popular consciousness. No one less than Andrea Mitchell, NBC correspondent and one of the D.C. establishment’s most pedigreed journalists, says the election “had obviously been stolen in 1960” from Richard Nixon. Mitchell called Nixon’s decision not to contest one of the “better moments in American history.”
Stores are already being boarded up in preparation for post-election violence. If machinations are at play, are they worth ignoring to preserve a functioning body politic? Or should such consequences be waved away? These are the questions that Richard Nixon asked himself 60 years ago, and that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden must ask themselves as they watch the returns come in tonight.
Hunter DeRensis is the communications director of BringOurTroopsHome.US and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-03--The Libertarian Case for Trump

The Libertarian Case for Trump

Many libertarians reject Trump because he is n't the perfect candidate , but a second term would be their best chance to pursue their policy goals .
Have no fear , libertarians .
Voting for Trump ’ s reelection is not “ choosing the lesser of two evils.
” It is choosing liberty over tyranny and rejecting the snooty universalist libertarians who support Biden .
Extremely briefly , some autobiography .
I just voted to reelect President Donald J. Trump after not voting for him in 2016 .
I left the presidential box blank on my ballot four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Libertarian Party presidential candidates in 2012 , 2008 , and 2004 , as far back as I have been old enough to vote .
I was too timid and ill-informed on the ethics of voting to cast a ballot for Trump in 2016 , but now there is a clear and easy choice , and I will make it happily .
Other libertarians seem to see a clear choice this election cycle as well—though Biden is their pick .
One sixth of Reason Magazine ’ s staff is made up of Biden supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they ’ d quite reluctantly vote for Trump .
Still , nearly half will vote for the LP ’ s Jo Jorgensen , while nearly a third won ’ t vote .
Funnily enough , Reason ’ s criminal justice reporter is voting for Biden .
One of the magazine ’ s senior editors , who hates Ron Paul , won ’ t vote and hasn ’ t voted since 2008 when she cast her ballot for Obama , which she doesn ’ t regret .
In a time of fast-changing definitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oxford dictionary still defines reason as “ the power of the mind to think , understand , and form judgments by a process of logic.
” Before we compare and contrast Trump and Biden on the top libertarian issues , let ’ s set something straight about voting for Jorgensen .
It ’ s crude to call it a wasted vote , but it is essentially a protest vote , so it is indeed on a different plane and serves an alternative end .
There are really two distinct choices for president this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ choosing the lesser of two evils.
” This is a fallacious construct .
Just because a negative or evil effect flows from an action does not necessarily make that action evil .
Not much could be done for liberty if that were not the case .
The principle of double effect helps clear this up .
Obviously , there are many non-libertarian and anti-libertarian aspects of how either candidate would govern .
But as long as none of those negatives are actively pursued by the voter as immoral means to libertarian ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results outweigh the negative ones , then the vote is not an evil one .
Only a vote for Trump passes this test .
That doesn ’ t make him an angel , but just take the issues one by one in contrast to Biden ’ s positions .
On defending private property , Trump ’ s record is more libertarian than Biden ’ s .
Small businesses have suffered or been destroyed by arson , looting , and other forms of “ mostly peaceful ” protests , which would seem vindicated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Covid-19 lockdowns , stay-at-home orders , and mask mandates are championed by Biden and his supporters .
On the family , Trump is much stronger on school choice than Biden , floating the idea that federal funding for closed schools ought to go directly to the parents and students .
Trump also ended Title X funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and revived the Mexico City policy , which denies funding to any international organization that deals in abortion services .
Foreign policy under Trump has been tamer than under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s also lamer than what libertarians dream of .
However , Trump ’ s pick to be the next ambassador to Germany is retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor , a supporter of the Ron Paul Institute and fierce critic of U.S. interventions .
The president also nominated William Ruger , a non-interventionist , to be ambassador to Afghanistan to help end the nearly two-decade war .
Yes , Trump should end the war with a stroke of his pen , but if he feels this appointment is necessary first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , Biden is backed by the War Party establishment .
Kamala Harris brags about it .
Another top issue is auditing the Federal Reserve , which Trump tweeted support of in 2016 but has failed to fulfill .
Along with the record debt increases , this may perhaps be the greatest letdown of the Trump era so far .
Still , the president has nominated gold standard defender Judy Shelton to the Fed board .
He also manages to expose the fiction of Fed independence from time to time , which could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden or Harris won ’ t likely bring .
The Biden-Harris ticket all but promises to pack the Supreme Court , abolish the electoral college , and destroy the rest of the dwindling remnants of federalism .
Trump is often called a wrecking ball , but a Biden presidency stands to actually live up to that image .
Libertarians who seek to root out statism at the federal level have more to hope for in a Trump presidency than any administration in the modern era .
That may not be saying much , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one other piece of evidence is Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria , whose knowledge of free market economics is being put to good use , to the horror of the media .
In 1992 , Murray Rothbard endorsed President George H. W. Bush against the challenger Bill Clinton , in order to “ hold back the hordes for another four years.
” Rothbard admitted it wasn ’ t a “ soul-satisfying ” thing to do , when he would rather be “ launching a counter-revolution in government , in the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malignant left-liberalism.
” “ When oh when do we get to start ?
” Rothbard lamented .
A second Trump term is as good a time as any .
Nick Hankoff is a writer , editor , and host of a podcast at nickhankoff.com , where his other writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Advocates for Self-Government can also be found .
He lives in Fort Wayne , Indiana , with his wife and their three children .

Have no fear, libertarians. Voting for Trump’s reelection is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” It is choosing liberty over tyranny and rejecting the snooty universalist libertarians who support Biden.
Extremely briefly, some autobiography. I just voted to reelect President Donald J. Trump after not voting for him in 2016. I left the presidential box blank on my ballot four years ago, even though I had voted for Libertarian Party presidential candidates in 2012, 2008, and 2004, as far back as I have been old enough to vote. I was too timid and ill-informed on the ethics of voting to cast a ballot for Trump in 2016, but now there is a clear and easy choice, and I will make it happily.
Other libertarians seem to see a clear choice this election cycle as well—though Biden is their pick. One sixth of Reason Magazine’s staff is made up of Biden supporters, while just one in 24 staffers said they’d quite reluctantly vote for Trump. Still, nearly half will vote for the LP’s Jo Jorgensen, while nearly a third won’t vote.
Funnily enough, Reason’s criminal justice reporter is voting for Biden. One of the magazine’s senior editors, who hates Ron Paul, won’t vote and hasn’t voted since 2008 when she cast her ballot for Obama, which she doesn’t regret. In a time of fast-changing definitions, as of this writing, the Oxford dictionary still defines reason as “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.”
Before we compare and contrast Trump and Biden on the top libertarian issues, let’s set something straight about voting for Jorgensen. It’s crude to call it a wasted vote, but it is essentially a protest vote, so it is indeed on a different plane and serves an alternative end.
There are really two distinct choices for president this year, yet many libertarians will decry “choosing the lesser of two evils.” This is a fallacious construct. Just because a negative or evil effect flows from an action does not necessarily make that action evil. Not much could be done for liberty if that were not the case.
The principle of double effect helps clear this up. Obviously, there are many non-libertarian and anti-libertarian aspects of how either candidate would govern. But as long as none of those negatives are actively pursued by the voter as immoral means to libertarian ends, and as long as the good results outweigh the negative ones, then the vote is not an evil one.
Only a vote for Trump passes this test. That doesn’t make him an angel, but just take the issues one by one in contrast to Biden’s positions.
On defending private property, Trump’s record is more libertarian than Biden’s. Small businesses have suffered or been destroyed by arson, looting, and other forms of “mostly peaceful” protests, which would seem vindicated by a Trump loss. Not to mention that the Covid-19 lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and mask mandates are championed by Biden and his supporters.
On the family, Trump is much stronger on school choice than Biden, floating the idea that federal funding for closed schools ought to go directly to the parents and students. Trump also ended Title X funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and revived the Mexico City policy, which denies funding to any international organization that deals in abortion services.
Foreign policy under Trump has been tamer than under Obama, Bush, or Clinton, but it’s also lamer than what libertarians dream of. However, Trump’s pick to be the next ambassador to Germany is retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a supporter of the Ron Paul Institute and fierce critic of U.S. interventions. The president also nominated William Ruger, a non-interventionist, to be ambassador to Afghanistan to help end the nearly two-decade war. Yes, Trump should end the war with a stroke of his pen, but if he feels this appointment is necessary first, then why deny him that?
Meanwhile, Biden is backed by the War Party establishment. Kamala Harris brags about it.
Another top issue is auditing the Federal Reserve, which Trump tweeted support of in 2016 but has failed to fulfill. Along with the record debt increases, this may perhaps be the greatest letdown of the Trump era so far. Still, the president has nominated gold standard defender Judy Shelton to the Fed board. He also manages to expose the fiction of Fed independence from time to time, which could only arise from an adversarial relationship that Biden or Harris won’t likely bring.
The Biden-Harris ticket all but promises to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the electoral college, and destroy the rest of the dwindling remnants of federalism. Trump is often called a wrecking ball, but a Biden presidency stands to actually live up to that image.
Libertarians who seek to root out statism at the federal level have more to hope for in a Trump presidency than any administration in the modern era. That may not be saying much, but it’s true. Just one other piece of evidence is Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria, whose knowledge of free market economics is being put to good use, to the horror of the media.
In 1992, Murray Rothbard endorsed President George H. W. Bush against the challenger Bill Clinton, in order to “hold back the hordes for another four years.” Rothbard admitted it wasn’t a “soul-satisfying” thing to do, when he would rather be “launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism.”
“When oh when do we get to start?” Rothbard lamented.
A second Trump term is as good a time as any.
Nick Hankoff is a writer, editor, and host of a podcast at nickhankoff.com, where his other writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Advocates for Self-Government can also be found. He lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with his wife and their three children.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-03--Whither Foreign Policy in a Second Trump Term?

The president 's penchant for personnel turnover may be our best hope of seeing his campaign promises of realism and restraint become reality .
President Trump is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the polls , as he has been for months .
If these numbers are correct , he ’ ll lose the election , perhaps by quite a wide margin .
But then , the same was true in 2016 , and here we are .
Trump ’ s chances are worse this time , yet they aren ’ t zero , and that means it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could look like for foreign policy , the president ’ s most important—and most ignored—constitutional responsibility .
The premise of Trump ’ s 2016 primary campaign was his difference from the offerings of the Republican establishment , the contrast between his boisterous cruelty and “ please clap.
” But though he campaigned and , moreso , has governed in many ways like a typical GOP president , Trump had distinctive policies too , the best of which was his opposition to the United States ’ interventionist addiction to nation building and playing world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq the “ worst ” and “ most costly ” mistake in American history .
He called the war in Afghanistan a “ complete waste ” and argued for withdrawal in part to free up spending for domestic programs .
He critiqued his then-opponent Hillary Clinton for supporting regime change in Libya and warned that military intervention in Syria ’ s civil war could similarly lead to unintended consequences of terrorism and chaos .
The Trump administration , he promised shortly after Election Day four years ago , would “ pursue a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistakes of the past .
We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments.
” The result , Trump told a cheering rally crowd in Cincinnati , would be a “ new era of peace , understanding , and goodwill.
” That didn ’ t happen .
As president , Trump brought us to the brink of war with both Iran and North Korea and stalemated negotiations with each by issuing wildly unrealistic demands to which they will never concede .
He has escalated tensions with China , increasing the chance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to end a single war , though if he wins and stays on schedule—two decidedly uncertain conditions—he plans to withdraw the last U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the middle of 2021 .
The war in Iraq , however , still has no end in sight , and Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution to end U.S. involvement in Yemen ’ s civil war last year .
The major , positive distinctives of foreign policy Trump promised in 2016 haven ’ t materialized .
Would his second term be any different ?
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s habit of frequent personnel turnover .
Axios reported Monday that Trump “ expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper ” should he be re-elected .
Haspel ’ s nomination was controversial because of her alleged involvement in George W. Bush-era torture practices at the CIA , though she has little been in the spotlight since her confirmation .
Esper has developed a reputation as a “ quiet ” secretary , doing less to guide Trump ’ s foreign policy than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s replacement .
It ’ s not clear how much Haspel and Esper influence administration policy now , but should these and other high-ranking foreign policy positions be filled with advocates of American restraint , Trump ’ s second-term approach to foreign affairs could look more like what he promised for his first term .
The recent nomination of Afghan war critic Will Ruger to serve as ambassador to Afghanistan could be a portend of good things to come .
( Full disclosure : Ruger is a scholar at Defense Priorities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow . )
But the rumor that Pompeo might jump to the Defense Department seems a more likely preview of any second-term reshuffling .
Pompeo is an inveterate hawk and regime change advocate whose tenure at State has proven abysmal for American diplomacy .
That he is apparently not on the chopping block with Esper is revelatory enough .
If he truly is to be installed in the Pentagon , there is no chance of Trump heeding whatever of his better foreign policy impulses the last four years have not entirely suppressed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is that any post-election shakeup would leave this administration with a foreign policy staff not substantially different from that of Trump ’ s first term .
The faces will be different , but the assumption that the United States should aggressively manage the planet via military intervention will stay the same .
And that means a foreign policy also not substantially different from that of Trump ’ s first term : four more years of saber-rattling and cancelled talks and making “ endless wars ” live up to their name .
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP loses control of the Senate , where Cabinet nominations are confirmed—the two and a half months between the election and Inauguration Day will prove crucial for anticipating the foreign policy of the next four years .
That ’ s the time to closely watch personnel changes for hints of what ’ s to come .
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities , contributing editor at The Week , and columnist at Christianity Today .
Her writing has also appeared at CNN , NBC , USA Today , the Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other outlets .

President Trump is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the polls, as he has been for months. If these numbers are correct, he’ll lose the election, perhaps by quite a wide margin. But then, the same was true in 2016, and here we are. Trump’s chances are worse this time, yet they aren’t zero, and that means it’s worth considering what a second Trump term could look like for foreign policy, the president’s most important—and most ignored—constitutional responsibility.
The premise of Trump’s 2016 primary campaign was his difference from the offerings of the Republican establishment, the contrast between his boisterous cruelty and “please clap.” But though he campaigned and, moreso, has governed in many ways like a typical GOP president, Trump had distinctive policies too, the best of which was his opposition to the United States’ interventionist addiction to nation building and playing world police.
Trump dubbed the war in Iraq the “worst” and “most costly” mistake in American history. He called the war in Afghanistan a “complete waste” and argued for withdrawal in part to free up spending for domestic programs. He critiqued his then-opponent Hillary Clinton for supporting regime change in Libya and warned that military intervention in Syria’s civil war could similarly lead to unintended consequences of terrorism and chaos. The Trump administration, he promised shortly after Election Day four years ago, would “pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments.” The result, Trump told a cheering rally crowd in Cincinnati, would be a “new era of peace, understanding, and goodwill.”
That didn’t happen. As president, Trump brought us to the brink of war with both Iran and North Korea and stalemated negotiations with each by issuing wildly unrealistic demands to which they will never concede. He has escalated tensions with China, increasing the chance of catastrophic great power conflict. He has yet to end a single war, though if he wins and stays on schedule—two decidedly uncertain conditions—he plans to withdraw the last U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the middle of 2021. The war in Iraq, however, still has no end in sight, and Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution to end U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war last year. The major, positive distinctives of foreign policy Trump promised in 2016 haven’t materialized.
Would his second term be any different? The most plausible cause for hope is Trump’s habit of frequent personnel turnover. Axios reported Monday that Trump “expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper” should he be re-elected. Haspel’s nomination was controversial because of her alleged involvement in George W. Bush-era torture practices at the CIA, though she has little been in the spotlight since her confirmation. Esper has developed a reputation as a “quiet” secretary, doing less to guide Trump’s foreign policy than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is reportedly a possible candidate for Esper’s replacement.
It’s not clear how much Haspel and Esper influence administration policy now, but should these and other high-ranking foreign policy positions be filled with advocates of American restraint, Trump’s second-term approach to foreign affairs could look more like what he promised for his first term. The recent nomination of Afghan war critic Will Ruger to serve as ambassador to Afghanistan could be a portend of good things to come. (Full disclosure: Ruger is a scholar at Defense Priorities, a think tank where I am a fellow.)
But the rumor that Pompeo might jump to the Defense Department seems a more likely preview of any second-term reshuffling. Pompeo is an inveterate hawk and regime change advocate whose tenure at State has proven abysmal for American diplomacy. That he is apparently not on the chopping block with Esper is revelatory enough. If he truly is to be installed in the Pentagon, there is no chance of Trump heeding whatever of his better foreign policy impulses the last four years have not entirely suppressed.
The more likely outcome, I suspect, is that any post-election shakeup would leave this administration with a foreign policy staff not substantially different from that of Trump’s first term. The faces will be different, but the assumption that the United States should aggressively manage the planet via military intervention will stay the same. And that means a foreign policy also not substantially different from that of Trump’s first term: four more years of saber-rattling and cancelled talks and making “endless wars” live up to their name.
Should Trump win—and especially if he wins while the GOP loses control of the Senate, where Cabinet nominations are confirmed—the two and a half months between the election and Inauguration Day will prove crucial for anticipating the foreign policy of the next four years. That’s the time to closely watch personnel changes for hints of what’s to come.
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities, contributing editor at The Week, and columnist at Christianity Today. Her writing has also appeared at CNN, NBC, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Defense One, among other outlets.


theamericanconservative--2020-11-05--Explaining Northwest Chicago’s Web of Radicals

An anti-war group is overrun by anti-Americanism , race radicalism , and the revolutionary socialism of its Trump-resistance allies .
In early November of 2016 , I covered a far-left rally in Chicago .
It was unremarkable at the time , but one comment is interesting in retrospect .
“ We came out here today and we ’ ve been coming out here all week to make one thing very clear—Donald Trump better not come to Chicago because he ’ s not welcome here , ” Jon Beacham , an ANSWER organizer told the crowd to thunderous applause , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump.
” These days , joining the Trump resistance is fashionable—and , in many cases , a career move—but this was mere days after his election .
There were signs at this rally calling Trump a white supremacist , anti-immigrant , Islamophobe , fascist , and more .
All the most inflammatory attacks which have become staples against the president were on display in a rally days after his election and before he was even inaugurated .
These were the first days of the # resistance .
In fact , in the days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were protests in more than a dozen cities , with some turning violent .
ANSWER was a critical organizer of those rallies .
They rallied troops to the National Mall on Inauguration Day 2017 ; and they were one of the groups causing trouble in Chicago in March 2016 at a Trump rally that needed to be shut down after things got hairy .
Anyone who has followed ANSWER would not be surprised by any of this , because one thing they know how to do well is put on a rally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2001 , they have been involved in numerous rallies which have drawn thousands and garnered media attention .
On September 29 , 2001 , they organized 25,000 people in San Francisco and Washington , D.C. against war .
In 2003 , the group claimed to have organized several rallies which drew at least 100,000 .
In January 2020 , they organized coordinated rallies against ( the non-existent ) war with Iran which also drew thousands .
ANSWER , as the name implies , is anti-war , and they have generally stayed consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the aftermath of 9/11 ; they were also leading rallies against war with Libya in 2011 under Obama , and they have warned against wars with Iran , North Korea , and Syria under Trump .
They are also open-borders , pro-Palestine socialists who are critical of police and admiring of leftist governments like in Cuba and Venezuela .
The sources of their funding—which seems pretty sparse—are somewhat unclear .
A November 2016 article by Peter Hasson of The Daily Caller , on ANSWER ’ s role in anti-Trump protests , noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial backing but only found a single $ 9,700 payment from 2015 for educational programs .
ANSWER does not have 990s listed with GuideStar , as would be required for a registered non-profit .
To really understand ANSWER , I travelled to the Northwest side of Chicago to the Brown Line stop at Kimball .
The surrounding area is something of a hotspot for the city ’ s radical activity .
It is home to not only ANSWER ’ s headquarters , but those of another radical leftist group called Mexico Solidarity Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space was used by ANSWER to plan the Trump rally in November 2016 .
Besides favoring pro-illegal alien policies , MSN also runs something called the Autonomous University of Social Movements ( AUSM ) which includes a study abroad program in Cuba .
The pitch for the program doubles as a pitch for the regime : MSN does have 990s listed with GuideStar and they show a moderately impressive $ 622,143 in revenue in 2018 , the last year listed .
The area also houses the Party for Socialist Liberation ( PSL ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , all three organizations share the samephysicaladdress : 3460 West Lawrence Avenue .
To understand its partners , one would go to a rally or research their rallies and see who they partnered up with .
At the rally in 2016 , I saw copies of the Socialist Worker ( a now defunct socialist newspaper ) , as well as material from the World ’ s Workers Party ( another Marxist group ) , and REVCOM ( a U.S.-based Revolutionary Communist party ) .
I caught some of the REVCOM crew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ta resist it and we got ta get organized for an actual revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with a radically new system , ” one of the rally-goers said .
REVCOM ’ s website directs to Refuse Fascism , which claims , “ RefuseFascism.org is a movement of people coming from diverse perspectives , united in our recognition that the Trump/Pence Regime poses a catastrophic danger to humanity and the planet , and that it is our responsibility to drive them from power through non-violent protests that grow every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ REVCOM ’ s own chairman , Bob Avakian gave an hourlong talk in 2017 entitled , “ Must Go !
In the Name of Humanity , We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America : A Better World is Possible.
” ANSWER teamed up with the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition ( PRRC ) for a 2016 pro-Palestine march .
The PRRC also has 990s but they show a paltry $ 77,213 in contributions for 2018 , the last year listed .
A 2013 rally organized by ANSWER in Chicago also brought representatives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AFSCME , now you have influential unions coming into the fold .
SEIU ( Service Employees International Union ) listed $ 287,219,208 in revenues for 2018 , the last year listed .
AFSCME ( American Federation of State , County , and Municipal Employees ) listed $ 160,258,628 in revenue for 2018 .
While no money-flows are apparent between the unions and the radical groups , they are at least allies .
The Socialist Worker published numerous stories involving SEIU , mostly pertaining to strikes on which the two collaborated .
While COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of holding rallies , Brian Becker , the Executive Director of ANSWER , recently participated in a webinar entitled “ Standing Against Racism & War – the Only Road to Peace.
” Becker has previously appeared on foreign propaganda sites like Russia Today , CGTN from China , and Press TV in Iran .
Though perhaps not officially , this particular webinar seemed dangerously close to Chinese propaganda .
To sum up , the U.S. is supposedly moving toward war with China and every action—trade war , support for Hong Kong , support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ China virus ” , Trump ’ s crackdown on Chinese foreign nationals in postgraduate programs , etc.—is viewed by this webinar as an act of aggression .
Becker seemed to relish being able to rail against the U.S. : China is blamed for COVID-19 .
China is blamed for not telling the world about COVID-19 .
China is blamed by the Trump administration—or by the President himself—of perhaps having created creating the virus .
China is blamed for the 50 to 60 million who had to filed unemployment insurance claims since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200,000-plus Americans who died as a result of COVID , as a result of the utter incompetence and neglect , criminal failures of this government to protect its own citizens .
China is a convenient scapegoat , and at the same time the military-industrial complex—which one of the other speakers mentioned takes sixty percent of the discretionary budget of the national Treasury each year and the war spending is really about a trillion dollars .
That kind of spending can only be justified too if the United States has a big enough enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China provides what the military-industrial complex needs—a global enemy to take the place of the Soviet Union.
” ANSWER held rallies and conducted other campaigns against police brutality in Boston , Denver , and in 2016 in San Francisco .
The defund police mantra is especially prevalent at ANSWER Indiana .
On October 18 , 2020 , ANSWER Indiana released a statement bemoaning a $ 7 million increase in the budget of the Indianapolis Police : ANSWER Indiana ’ s anti-police activism has been especially lively in the wake of two police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early morning hours of May 7 , 2020 .
But what , if any , culpability the officers bear in these incidents is far from clear .
In the shooting of McHale Rose , IMPD officers were responding to a robbery in progress when they exchanged gunfire with Rose .
Here is more from the Indianapolis Star : The second black man shot by Indianapolis police , Dreasjon Reed , actually streamed his own shooting on Facebook Live .
After leading police on a high speed he parks the car and takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard saying , “ fuck you dawg , ” to the officer before the taser is applied .
The taser works for a couple seconds before failing .
Shots are then fired .
The popular YouTube channel Donut Operator broke down the video , concluding Reed had a gun and fired at the officers who fired at him .
These facts have done little , though , to temper ANSWER ’ s agitation .
On October 9 , 2020 , two members of ANSWER Coalition ’ s Indiana branch participated in another webinar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Disarm IMPD : Organizing in Indianapolis.
” The webinar also included two organizers from Indy 10 : Black Lives Matter , who favored the defunding of police in Indianapolis .
The webinar was part of the Compton Series , a set of lectures on “ The history , present , and future of the Black Liberation struggle in the U.S. ” put on by DePauw University .
Timi Aderinwale , an organizer with ANSWER ’ s Indiana branch , was a speaker in the webinar .
He summed up a recurring theme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connections between capitalism , imperialism , and the violence that is inflicted on Black , Brown , and all working-class folks in the United States.
” This is ANSWER ’ s philosophy : America is racist , and that racism is rooted in imperialism and capitalism .
Aderinwale continued : “ We recognize that all of these struggles are interconnected , and it ’ s simply impossible to get rid of one without getting rid of all of them , and getting rid of the systems that enable them .
”

In early November of 2016, I covered a far-left rally in Chicago. It was unremarkable at the time, but one comment is interesting in retrospect.
“We came out here today and we’ve been coming out here all week to make one thing very clear—Donald Trump better not come to Chicago because he’s not welcome here,” Jon Beacham, an ANSWER organizer told the crowd to thunderous applause, saying later: “We have to resist Trump.” These days, joining the Trump resistance is fashionable—and, in many cases, a career move—but this was mere days after his election.
There were signs at this rally calling Trump a white supremacist, anti-immigrant, Islamophobe, fascist, and more. All the most inflammatory attacks which have become staples against the president were on display in a rally days after his election and before he was even inaugurated. These were the first days of the #resistance.
In fact, in the days after Trump’s election, there were protests in more than a dozen cities, with some turning violent. ANSWER was a critical organizer of those rallies. They rallied troops to the National Mall on Inauguration Day 2017; and they were one of the groups causing trouble in Chicago in March 2016 at a Trump rally that needed to be shut down after things got hairy.
Who is ANSWER?
Anyone who has followed ANSWER would not be surprised by any of this, because one thing they know how to do well is put on a rally. Ever since their creation on September 14, 2001, they have been involved in numerous rallies which have drawn thousands and garnered media attention.
On September 29, 2001, they organized 25,000 people in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. against war. In 2003, the group claimed to have organized several rallies which drew at least 100,000. In January 2020, they organized coordinated rallies against (the non-existent) war with Iran which also drew thousands.
ANSWER, as the name implies, is anti-war, and they have generally stayed consistent. They were immediately against any war in the aftermath of 9/11; they were also leading rallies against war with Libya in 2011 under Obama, and they have warned against wars with Iran, North Korea, and Syria under Trump. They are also open-borders, pro-Palestine socialists who are critical of police and admiring of leftist governments like in Cuba and Venezuela.
The sources of their funding—which seems pretty sparse—are somewhat unclear. A November 2016 article by Peter Hasson of The Daily Caller, on ANSWER’s role in anti-Trump protests, noted that the Progressive Unity Fund was providing financial backing but only found a single $9,700 payment from 2015 for educational programs. ANSWER does not have 990s listed with GuideStar, as would be required for a registered non-profit.
The Kimball Stop
To really understand ANSWER, I travelled to the Northwest side of Chicago to the Brown Line stop at Kimball. The surrounding area is something of a hotspot for the city’s radical activity.
It is home to not only ANSWER’s headquarters, but those of another radical leftist group called Mexico Solidarity Network (MSN). MSN’s space was used by ANSWER to plan the Trump rally in November 2016.
Besides favoring pro-illegal alien policies, MSN also runs something called the Autonomous University of Social Movements (AUSM) which includes a study abroad program in Cuba. The pitch for the program doubles as a pitch for the regime:
You will encounter a reality in Cuba unlike anything you have experienced. The total absence of commercial advertisements, the existence of mass organizations structured by the State, a continually evolving socialist revolution that includes free health care and education (imagine no student loans!), lack of ready access to many consumer goods, strong communities and tight family structures – all these things and many more will quickly turn your world upside down. The social, political and historical realities in Cuba generate many questions and challenge preconceived notions. You will quickly move outside your comfort zone, providing the perfect conditions for a unique and rewarding educational experience.
MSN does have 990s listed with GuideStar and they show a moderately impressive $622,143 in revenue in 2018, the last year listed.
The area also houses the Party for Socialist Liberation (PSL), another frequent collaborator of ANSWER. In fact, all three organizations share the same physical address: 3460 West Lawrence Avenue.
The Partners
To understand its partners, one would go to a rally or research their rallies and see who they partnered up with.
At the rally in 2016, I saw copies of the Socialist Worker (a now defunct socialist newspaper), as well as material from the World’s Workers Party (another Marxist group), and REVCOM (a U.S.-based Revolutionary Communist party).
I caught some of the REVCOM crew chanting in 2016:
“We gotta resist it and we gotta get organized for an actual revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with a radically new system,” one of the rally-goers said.
REVCOM’s website directs to Refuse Fascism, which claims, “RefuseFascism.org is a movement of people coming from diverse perspectives, united in our recognition that the Trump/Pence Regime poses a catastrophic danger to humanity and the planet, and that it is our responsibility to drive them from power through non-violent protests that grow every day until our demand is met.” REVCOM’s own chairman, Bob Avakian gave an hourlong talk in 2017 entitled, “Must Go! In the Name of Humanity, We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America: A Better World is Possible.”
ANSWER teamed up with the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition (PRRC) for a 2016 pro-Palestine march. The PRRC also has 990s but they show a paltry $77,213 in contributions for 2018, the last year listed.
A 2013 rally organized by ANSWER in Chicago also brought representatives of SEIU and AFSCME. With SEIU and AFSCME, now you have influential unions coming into the fold. SEIU (Service Employees International Union) listed $287,219,208 in revenues for 2018, the last year listed. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) listed $160,258,628 in revenue for 2018.
While no money-flows are apparent between the unions and the radical groups, they are at least allies. The Socialist Worker published numerous stories involving SEIU, mostly pertaining to strikes on which the two collaborated.
The Network Today
While COVID has stalled ANSWER’s chief endeavor of holding rallies, Brian Becker, the Executive Director of ANSWER, recently participated in a webinar entitled “Standing Against Racism & War – the Only Road to Peace.”

Becker has previously appeared on foreign propaganda sites like Russia Today, CGTN from China, and Press TV in Iran. Though perhaps not officially, this particular webinar seemed dangerously close to Chinese propaganda.
To sum up, the U.S. is supposedly moving toward war with China and every action—trade war, support for Hong Kong, support for Taiwan, Trump’s use of “China virus”, Trump’s crackdown on Chinese foreign nationals in postgraduate programs, etc.—is viewed by this webinar as an act of aggression.
Becker seemed to relish being able to rail against the U.S.:
China is blamed for COVID-19. China is blamed for not telling the world about COVID-19. China is blamed by the Trump administration—or by the President himself—of perhaps having created creating the virus. China is blamed for the 50 to 60 million who had to filed unemployment insurance claims since March. China is blamed for the 200,000-plus Americans who died as a result of COVID, as a result of the utter incompetence and neglect, criminal failures of this government to protect its own citizens. China is a convenient scapegoat, and at the same time the military-industrial complex—which one of the other speakers mentioned takes sixty percent of the discretionary budget of the national Treasury each year and the war spending is really about a trillion dollars. That kind of spending can only be justified too if the United States has a big enough enemy.
Becker then said, “Thus, China provides what the military-industrial complex needs—a global enemy to take the place of the Soviet Union.”
ANSWER, BLM, and Defunding Police
ANSWER held rallies and conducted other campaigns against police brutality in Boston, Denver, and in 2016 in San Francisco. The defund police mantra is especially prevalent at ANSWER Indiana.
On October 18, 2020, ANSWER Indiana released a statement bemoaning a $7 million increase in the budget of the Indianapolis Police:
There’s an old saying, “if you want to know a nation’s priorities, look at their budget.” Indianapolis’ Democrat majority City-County Council made their priorities clear last week when they approved a $7 million increase to the Indianapolis Metro Police Department for a total budget of $261 million—despite fervent calls from the people to defund the department. This increase in police funding represents about one-third of the city’s entire 2021 budget, the most money allocated for any department in the city. Continued increases in police funding have benefited literally no one but the police themselves, and the politicians who cynically use Black lives as cannon fodder so they can say they have been tough on crime. This allows politicians to prioritize allocating larger sums to police budgets to the detriment of social programs that are essential to achieving a more equal society.
ANSWER Indiana’s anti-police activism has been especially lively in the wake of two police shootings, which happened hours apart in the early morning hours of May 7, 2020. But what, if any, culpability the officers bear in these incidents is far from clear.
In the shooting of McHale Rose, IMPD officers were responding to a robbery in progress when they exchanged gunfire with Rose. Here is more from the Indianapolis Star:
According to IMPD, police were called to investigate a burglary in progress at an apartment complex on Woodglen Drive at about 1:30 a.m. May 7. Four responding officers approached the apartment, IMPD said, and were shot at by a man armed with a rifle standing outside. No officers were struck. According to IMPD, police returned fire and struck the suspect, later identified as Rose, 19. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The second black man shot by Indianapolis police, Dreasjon Reed, actually streamed his own shooting on Facebook Live. After leading police on a high speed he parks the car and takes off on foot. He can be heard saying, “fuck you dawg,” to the officer before the taser is applied. The taser works for a couple seconds before failing. Shots are then fired. The popular YouTube channel Donut Operator broke down the video, concluding Reed had a gun and fired at the officers who fired at him.
These facts have done little, though, to temper ANSWER’s agitation. On October 9, 2020, two members of ANSWER Coalition’s Indiana branch participated in another webinar entitled, “The Fight to Defund and Disarm IMPD: Organizing in Indianapolis.” The webinar also included two organizers from Indy 10: Black Lives Matter, who favored the defunding of police in Indianapolis.
The webinar was part of the Compton Series, a set of lectures on “The history, present, and future of the Black Liberation struggle in the U.S.” put on by DePauw University.
Timi Aderinwale, an organizer with ANSWER’s Indiana branch, was a speaker in the webinar. He summed up a recurring theme, “We see and understand the connections between capitalism, imperialism, and the violence that is inflicted on Black, Brown, and all working-class folks in the United States.” This is ANSWER’s philosophy: America is racist, and that racism is rooted in imperialism and capitalism.
Aderinwale continued: “We recognize that all of these struggles are interconnected, and it’s simply impossible to get rid of one without getting rid of all of them, and getting rid of the systems that enable them.”


theamericanconservative--2020-11-04--Biden Inches Ahead in a Chaotically Normal Election

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks at a drive-in election night event as Dr. Jill Biden looks on at the Chase Center in the early morning hours of November 04 , 2020 in Wilmington , Delaware .
( Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images ) Social media this morning is brimming with bloodshot snark ( when is it not ? )
.
Over and over again , variations on the same joke keep getting made : clearly we live in a healthy democracy when Joe Biden is winning the popular vote yet I ’ m sitting here refreshing the count in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yeah .
That ’ s how it works .
And tormenting journalists by forcing them to pay attention to places like Green Bay might actually be one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Electoral College .
Still , America ’ s peculiar machinery has made this election nothing if not a wild ride .
Four years ago , there was a clear narrative of Trump ascendance : Florida fell , North Carolina went next , Ohio was already gone , then into the Upper Midwest .
This year had far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too close to call , Arizona flipped to Biden yet Florida didn ’ t , Biden led early in Ohio only for Trump to pull ahead , the fuse continues to burn in the Upper Midwest .
As it stands , if Biden manages to win both Wisconsin and Michigan—he ’ s inched ahead in both—then he could ( narrowly ) take the presidency without Pennsylvania , which both campaigns spent the last week gaming .
So we ’ ll see .
The advantage right now is with the former vice president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s and Michigan ’ s urban counties remain uncounted .
But it ’ s also true that the left ’ s hopes of a landslide , burying Trumpism in history ’ s rubble , have been dashed .
This election is going to be close at a time when partisans are groping about for any space in which to doubt the results .
And while presidential legitimacy has been doubted before—2000 , 2004 , 2016 ; who isn ’ t still furious over Rutherford B. Hayes ?
—the political climate makes the narrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president has declared victory .
Late last night , he took to the White House East Room for that familiar Trumpian mix of gloating and grievance .
Michigan was his , he said , as was North Carolina .
“ This is a fraud on the American public , ” he continued .
“ This is an embarrassment to our country .
We were getting ready to win this election .
Frankly , we did win this election.
” Declare victory even if you haven ’ t won—Trump learned that from Roy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his other public relations dark arts .
The president also insinuated that he ’ ll take the election to the Supreme Court , where he ’ s no doubt hoping a Republican-appointed majority will be sympathetic to his pleas .
What basis does he have for suing ?
He offered only this : “ We want all voting to stop.
” That , of course , happened last night .
And thus does another one of America ’ s civic rituals threaten to descend into chaos .
The first thing I saw when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was : “ You ’ re watching CNN ’ s live election coverage…brought to you by Borat 2 !
” I have little use for Sacha Baron Cohen , whom Declan Leary skewered on Monday , but it does sometimes feel like we ’ re living through one of his crueler and more comprehensive pranks .
Yet whatever lies ahead , the strangest thing about the election was that it felt so normal .
There was no widespread social unrest , no Boogaloo Boys showing up to polling places with Super Soakers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a couple of states hold the balance , journalists are hallucinating from too much coffee—just as it ’ s supposed to be .
A few other takeaways , in no particular order .
Representative Collin Peterson , one of the last pro-life Democrats in Congress , has lost his bid for reelection , as the parties continue to tighten down cultural lines .
Louisiana has approved a constitutional amendment stating that abortion is not a right—good news , though mostly symbolic until Roe v. Wade is overturned .
Republican Susan Collins is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maine , signaling hope for that most endangered of species , the New England Republican .
Senator Tom Cotton won handily in Arkansas , though his opponent , a Libertarian ( the Democrat dropped out ) , mustered a third of the vote .
Yet America right now is a land of sweeping abstracts not picayune details , bold colors not pale pastels .
And the question on everyone ’ s lips is : has Trumpism been vanquished ?
The election itself is still too close to call .
Yet given the closeness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t about to vanish even if he loses , I think the answer is already clear .

Social media this morning is brimming with bloodshot snark (when is it not?). Over and over again, variations on the same joke keep getting made: clearly we live in a healthy democracy when Joe Biden is winning the popular vote yet I’m sitting here refreshing the count in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Well, yeah. That’s how it works. And tormenting journalists by forcing them to pay attention to places like Green Bay might actually be one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Electoral College. Still, America’s peculiar machinery has made this election nothing if not a wild ride. Four years ago, there was a clear narrative of Trump ascendance: Florida fell, North Carolina went next, Ohio was already gone, then into the Upper Midwest. This year had far more hairpin turns: North Carolina is still too close to call, Arizona flipped to Biden yet Florida didn’t, Biden led early in Ohio only for Trump to pull ahead, the fuse continues to burn in the Upper Midwest.
As it stands, if Biden manages to win both Wisconsin and Michigan—he’s inched ahead in both—then he could (narrowly) take the presidency without Pennsylvania, which both campaigns spent the last week gaming. So we’ll see. The advantage right now is with the former vice president, as reserves of votes in Wisconsin’s and Michigan’s urban counties remain uncounted. But it’s also true that the left’s hopes of a landslide, burying Trumpism in history’s rubble, have been dashed. This election is going to be close at a time when partisans are groping about for any space in which to doubt the results. And while presidential legitimacy has been doubted before—2000, 2004, 2016; who isn’t still furious over Rutherford B. Hayes?—the political climate makes the narrow count all the more tense.
Already the president has declared victory. Late last night, he took to the White House East Room for that familiar Trumpian mix of gloating and grievance. Michigan was his, he said, as was North Carolina. “This is a fraud on the American public,” he continued. “This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election.” Declare victory even if you haven’t won—Trump learned that from Roy Cohn, along with so many of his other public relations dark arts. The president also insinuated that he’ll take the election to the Supreme Court, where he’s no doubt hoping a Republican-appointed majority will be sympathetic to his pleas. What basis does he have for suing? He offered only this: “We want all voting to stop.”
That, of course, happened last night. And thus does another one of America’s civic rituals threaten to descend into chaos. The first thing I saw when I turned on my TV this morning was: “You’re watching CNN’s live election coverage…brought to you by Borat 2!” I have little use for Sacha Baron Cohen, whom Declan Leary skewered on Monday, but it does sometimes feel like we’re living through one of his crueler and more comprehensive pranks. Yet whatever lies ahead, the strangest thing about the election was that it felt so normal. There was no widespread social unrest, no Boogaloo Boys showing up to polling places with Super Soakers. The counting wore on through the night, a couple of states hold the balance, journalists are hallucinating from too much coffee—just as it’s supposed to be.
A few other takeaways, in no particular order. Representative Collin Peterson, one of the last pro-life Democrats in Congress, has lost his bid for reelection, as the parties continue to tighten down cultural lines. Louisiana has approved a constitutional amendment stating that abortion is not a right—good news, though mostly symbolic until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Republican Susan Collins is still ahead of challenger Sara Gideon in Maine, signaling hope for that most endangered of species, the New England Republican. Senator Tom Cotton won handily in Arkansas, though his opponent, a Libertarian (the Democrat dropped out), mustered a third of the vote.
Yet America right now is a land of sweeping abstracts not picayune details, bold colors not pale pastels. And the question on everyone’s lips is: has Trumpism been vanquished? The election itself is still too close to call. Yet given the closeness of the tally, given that Trump isn’t about to vanish even if he loses, I think the answer is already clear.