theamericanconservative--2020-03-11--Congress Has a Chance to Reform the Patriot Act—But Moderates Want to Water It Down

We should n't let them .
It 's possible to both protect the homeland and make sure our civil liberties are preserved .
Unless Congress comes to an agreement by the end of this week , three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) will expire .
Some may recall that last December , Inspector General Michael Horowitz identified numerous abuses of the surveillance law that the FBI famously used to monitor a member of Donald Trump ’ s presidential campaign in 2016 .
Today , it seems that Congress is about to settle for an underwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while upholding a broken status quo .
The intelligence community and moderates in Congress would like to make Americans—and the president—believe there is no path forward to reform FISA and uphold Americans ’ right to privacy .
But that simply isn ’ t true .
A coalition of members from the House Freedom Caucus and House Progressive Caucus submitted the bipartisan , bicameral Safeguarding Americans ’ Private Records Act ( SAPRA ) , which contained serious reforms .
However , Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler canceled a markup on his own bill rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff objected to them .
The reforms that Nadler and Schiff rejected include granting public advocates to American citizens who are under investigation by the secretive FISA court and assuring that First Amendment-related activity is properly protected .
They also don ’ t see the urgency in requiring intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before collecting Americans ’ phone and internet data .
Senators Mike Lee and Patrick Leahy also have presented some admirable reforms , which could serve as a starting point towards long overdue accountability .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up these packages as is the House .
Intelligence hawks and neoconservatives call these reforms “ radical ” or “ progressive.
” But I submit that they are required by the Constitution .
Anything short of this amounts to an abandonment of liberty and tacit approval of the federal government ’ s extralegal spying regime .
To be sure , there are those of us who would be willing to sunset the Patriot Act in its entirety .
Indeed , the reforms in SAPRA already represent a compromise .
However , between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the even more damning revelation that the FBI repeatedly abused a different provision of FISA to collect phone and email records from tens of thousands of American citizens , members of Congress should have an appetite for change .
Attorney General William Barr suggested that Congress should simply reauthorize the programs in question and allow the Justice Department to fix FISA through rulemaking .
However , administrative rulemaking doesn ’ t carry the same assurance as legislation passed through Congress .
And protecting Americans ’ privacy is too important a job for Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president with an unpalatable FISA reauthorization , it would be better to let the provisions expire while Congress works out a solution that addresses civil liberty concerns .
The “ lone wolf ” provision has never once been used and so can be no great loss to the FBI or NSA .
The roving wiretap provision—which allows intelligence agencies to maintain surveillance on targets regardless of the use of burner phones—raises unsettling questions about probable cause and the broad interpretation granted to agents conducting national security investigations .
Nevertheless , I offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roving wiretaps and lone wolf provisions for three years while allowing the Section 215 authority under the Patriot Act , which established the FISA court , to expire .
This , too , would enjoy bipartisan and bicameral support , if Congress were allowed to vote on the full range of proposed solutions .
Maintaining our national security should serve as an incentive to Congress to quickly adopt one of the bipartisan proposals that includes the constitutional requirements to maintain citizens ’ privacy .
It is possible to have both , and Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , in our oath of office , every member of Congress solemnly swears to support and defend that Constitution against all enemies , foreign and domestic .
It ’ s time we started taking that seriously .

Unless Congress comes to an agreement by the end of this week, three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire. Some may recall that last December, Inspector General Michael Horowitz identified numerous abuses of the surveillance law that the FBI famously used to monitor a member of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. Today, it seems that Congress is about to settle for an underwhelming deal that pays lip service to reform while upholding a broken status quo.
The intelligence community and moderates in Congress would like to make Americans—and the president—believe there is no path forward to reform FISA and uphold Americans’ right to privacy. But that simply isn’t true.
A coalition of members from the House Freedom Caucus and House Progressive Caucus submitted the bipartisan, bicameral Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act (SAPRA), which contained serious reforms. However, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler canceled a markup on his own bill rather than entertain these sound changes, in part because Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff objected to them.
The reforms that Nadler and Schiff rejected include granting public advocates to American citizens who are under investigation by the secretive FISA court and assuring that First Amendment-related activity is properly protected. They also don’t see the urgency in requiring intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before collecting Americans’ phone and internet data.
Senators Mike Lee and Patrick Leahy also have presented some admirable reforms, which could serve as a starting point towards long overdue accountability. Yet the Senate is just as unlikely to take up these packages as is the House.
Intelligence hawks and neoconservatives call these reforms “radical” or “progressive.” But I submit that they are required by the Constitution. Anything short of this amounts to an abandonment of liberty and tacit approval of the federal government’s extralegal spying regime.
To be sure, there are those of us who would be willing to sunset the Patriot Act in its entirety. Indeed, the reforms in SAPRA already represent a compromise. However, between the surveillance of the Trump campaign and the even more damning revelation that the FBI repeatedly abused a different provision of FISA to collect phone and email records from tens of thousands of American citizens, members of Congress should have an appetite for change.
Attorney General William Barr suggested that Congress should simply reauthorize the programs in question and allow the Justice Department to fix FISA through rulemaking. However, administrative rulemaking doesn’t carry the same assurance as legislation passed through Congress. And protecting Americans’ privacy is too important a job for Congress to delegate.
In lieu of presenting the president with an unpalatable FISA reauthorization, it would be better to let the provisions expire while Congress works out a solution that addresses civil liberty concerns.
The “lone wolf” provision has never once been used and so can be no great loss to the FBI or NSA. The roving wiretap provision—which allows intelligence agencies to maintain surveillance on targets regardless of the use of burner phones—raises unsettling questions about probable cause and the broad interpretation granted to agents conducting national security investigations.
Nevertheless, I offered a compromise amendment that would have authorized roving wiretaps and lone wolf provisions for three years while allowing the Section 215 authority under the Patriot Act, which established the FISA court, to expire. This, too, would enjoy bipartisan and bicameral support, if Congress were allowed to vote on the full range of proposed solutions.
Maintaining our national security should serve as an incentive to Congress to quickly adopt one of the bipartisan proposals that includes the constitutional requirements to maintain citizens’ privacy. It is possible to have both, and Americans should rightly expect it of their government. After all, in our oath of office, every member of Congress solemnly swears to support and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It’s time we started taking that seriously.
Congressman Warren Davidson is a Republican representing Ohio’s 8th District.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-11--Bloomberg + Steyer = 2 Plutocrats Who Gambled on Voters, and Lost

It was a massive miscalculation .
They need to brush up on their Max Weber .
Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg , two plutocrats who thought the presidency was just another acquisition .
Now having spent nearly $ 1 billion between them on their failed campaigns—and maybe a lot more than that , as we shall see—they are a little bit poorer .
But probably not much wiser .
Steyer and Bloomberg are both smart guys , but they might have done some due diligence , in the form of reading—or at least being briefed on—Max Weber ’ s well-known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vocation.
” If they had , they would have learned that , as Weber put it , politics “ takes both passion and perspective.
” And by “ passion , ” Weber didn ’ t mean just lust for high office .
As he put it , such egoistic greed is a “ sin against the vocation ” when it “ becomes purely personal self-intoxication.
” Instead , Weber meant that the successful politician must balance an “ Ethic of Moral Conviction ” with an “ Ethic of Responsibility.
” No doubt Steyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that and more—after all , they paid good money for everything .
According to OpenSecrets , Steyer spent nearly $ 253 million—99 percent of it donations to himself—on his White House bid .
But perhaps he really spent much more .
Let ’ s not forget that back in 2013 he started an overtly political organization , NextGen America , aimed at raising green consciousness .
Later , in the Trump era , he founded Need to Impeach , which is self-explanatory .
Both of these groups gave Steyer a national platform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early phases of a well-lawyered presidential campaign , helpful at building name recognition , accumulating lists , and warehousing talent .
Yes , these ventures no doubt made perfect sense as a presidential business plan .
The only problem , of course , was that the product , Steyer , wasn ’ t very good .
As for Bloomberg , he reportedly spent $ 600 million on his formal campaign , although again , the real dollar total in pursuit of his political ambitions is surely significantly higher .
In 2019 alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3.3 billion ; according to Tom Scocca of Slate , his goal was “ buying goodwill and the silence of potential critics across the country.
” As an aside , we might ask : shouldn ’ t the Federal Election Commission be looking into all this ?
And the IRS as well ?
That is , if plutocrats can spend this kind of money on their proto- and actual campaigns , shouldn ’ t there be some sort of honest accounting ?
And that ’ s to say nothing of rigorous enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what is simply a political bet .
Interestingly , many of the usual “ campaign finance watchdogs ” have fallen silent ; it ’ s been a while since most Democrats feared “ money in politics.
” These days , when big money is coming from the likes of Steyer and Bloomberg , aiming to smite Trump , they seem to want even more of it .
In the meantime , the two tycoons have discovered that money can ’ t buy everything .
If only they ’ d brushed up on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech in Munich , the eminent German sociologist identified three kinds of “ inner justifications ” for political votaries .
The first of these , he declared , was “ traditional , ” as in the authority of the “ eternal yesterday.
” So merely being rich—especially the nouveaux riches of Steyer and Bloomberg—doesn ’ t fit the bill .
The second justification , Weber continued , was “ charismatic ” —and so for those two , we can stop right there .
( To anticipate a question , here ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , he was reviled by many , yet revered by enough to win . )
The third Weberian justification was “ legal.
” That is , “ belief in the validity of…functional competence , based on rationally created rules.
” Since Steyer had no political track record , there was no daylight for him there , and yet there might have seemed to be some for Bloomberg .
After all , he had been mayor of New York for 12 years , and his supporters say he did a great job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Las Vegas , Bloomberg hit the competence theme hard , describing himself as a skilled “ manager ” no fewer than three times .
Of course , that was the very debate that sank Bloomberg , as Senator Elizabeth Warren repeatedly fired verbal torpedoes that hit him below the waterline .
Indeed , political vocationalists were amazed that Bloomberg had no satisfactory shield , or evasive maneuver , against such predictable projectiles as his sexual harassment rap sheet and his tax returns .
It does seem , in fact , that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics than just spending money .
Once again we can look back to Weber , who declared that a successful politician must be seen as a “ servant of the state ” —and nobody who has watched Bloomberg for more than five minutes thinks that he sees himself as a servant to anybody or anything .
Moreover , both Bloomberg and Steyer should have recognized that they flunked Weber ’ s two prime prerequisites for successful politicians , the aforementioned “ passion and perspective.
” Both men wanted to be president—that was their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Weber had in mind .
Indeed , the warped passion of their own naked ambition further warped their perspective .
If a sultan hires enough viziers , they will tell him anything he wants to hear , yet proper perspective isn ’ t gained that way .
In the case of Bloomberg , his me-first perspective became blindingly visible at a campaign event on March 3 , when in the middle of the coronavirus crisis , he grabbed a piece of pizza , tore off the crust , ate the rest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crust back in the pizza box .
In other words , in less than a New York minute , he violated just about every public health protocol .
Soon the video of his virus-friendly chow down went viral .
No doubt Bloomberg , and Steyer too , would say that whatever their flaws , they had more important things to say and do than were the province of ordinary politicians , such as , say , Joe Biden .
Indeed , the Bloomberg campaign repeatedly insisted that Biden , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should step aside so that Bloomberg could take on Senator Bernie Sanders one on one , and so save the Democrats from socialism .
Needless to say , Biden , that dogged political veteran , chose not heed to Bloomberg ’ s advice—and so now it ’ s Bloomberg who has stepped aside for Biden .
A century ago , it seems that Weber had Bloomberg pegged as the non-politician he is : “ Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or too base for what he wants to offer.
” As for Biden , Weber seemed to get him right too : “ Only he who in the face of all this can say ‘ In spite of all !
’ has the calling for politics.
” In the Weberian reckoning , Biden the pol seems stoic , maybe even a little bit heroic—which is one reason why he ’ s on track to be the Democratic nominee .
We might add that while there ’ s a timelessness to Weber ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a little poignance to the time and place of his address .
Weber was speaking just two months after the old German political order—that of the Hohenzollerns and the Prussian Junkers—had collapsed alongside Germany ’ s defeat in World War I .
Into that political vacuum came communists and Nazis , even as well-meaning Germans struggled to create a viable democratic republic .
In his academic way , Weber was attempting to teach his audience what normal and healthy politics might look like .
Sadly , soon afterward , in 1920 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide flu pandemic .
He was only 56 .
Thus we are left to wonder if Weber ’ s steadying conservatism could have helped stave off the bleak fate that befell Germany ’ s Weimar Republic .
So now back to the USA a century later .
As we have seen , Bloomberg and Steyer have no place in elective politics , and yet interestingly—and perhaps ominously—Bloomberg seems to have gotten the political bug .
While still in the race , his campaign had pledged to “ spend Trump out of office.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg declares himself to be just as determined : as he said in his March 4 farewell to his Manhattan campaign staff , “ I entered the race for president to defeat Donald Trump , and today , I am leaving the race for the same reason : to defeat Donald Trump.
” Though come to think of it , Bloomberg isn ’ t saying “ farewell ” at all , at least not financially .
Reports have it that he is simply going to shift his campaign , at his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , Bloomberg seems to have gone from self-funding his campaign to self-funding much of Biden ’ s campaign .
Legal sticklers have asked if such a resource shift is legal .
Quite likely , Team Bloomberg will re-cross enough T ’ s and re-dot enough I ’ s to make everything fine .
Besides , if the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) can ’ t be bothered to adequately account for all of Bloomberg ’ s ( and Steyer ’ s ) political spending over the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bet that the FEC isn ’ t going to do anything about Bloomberg ’ s spending in the next eight months .
In other words , Bloomberg is going to spend whatever it takes to keep himself in the political spotlight .
To be sure , if he spends a billion , or more , to help Biden , he can expect to remain a continuing target of Trump ’ s tweets—and he seems to welcome the attention , as well as the accompanying opportunity to tweet back .
For instance , Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Star Wars—and , of course , cast Trump as Darth Vader .
No doubt , in the weeks and months ahead , there will be many more mogul media melees .
Of course , there ’ s still the basic Weberian problem , namely that Bloomberg isn ’ t an attractive politician—or ally .
Thus should the billionaire insist on being a prominently visible presence in Biden ’ s campaign , it could only give Trump another target with which to hurt the former vice president ’ s chances in November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s continuing lust for the presidency .
He might never understand the Weberian ideal of the political vocation , but he no doubt still sees politics as a financial proposition .
So if something bad were to happen to Biden in the next few months—such as , say , one of his anecdotes falls into anecdotage and can ’ t get up—it ’ s possible that the 3,979 delegates convened at the Milwaukee Democratic convention could find themselves in a political bazaar .
If so , expect many presidential wannabes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at you , Hillary ! )
, to enter the souq , haggling for the deal of a lifetime .
Or maybe the convention will be more like an auction house .
If so , Bloomberg the big spender will be ready .
He might not be much of a pol , or even much of a Democrat , but as a plutocrat , Bloomberg ’ s credentials are sound .
And a billionaire always knows how to make a high bid .

Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg, two plutocrats who thought the presidency was just another acquisition. Now having spent nearly $1 billion between them on their failed campaigns—and maybe a lot more than that, as we shall see—they are a little bit poorer. But probably not much wiser.
Steyer and Bloomberg are both smart guys, but they might have done some due diligence, in the form of reading—or at least being briefed on—Max Weber’s well-known 1918 speech, “Politics as a Vocation.” If they had, they would have learned that, as Weber put it, politics “takes both passion and perspective.”
And by “passion,” Weber didn’t mean just lust for high office. As he put it, such egoistic greed is a “sin against the vocation” when it “becomes purely personal self-intoxication.” Instead, Weber meant that the successful politician must balance an “Ethic of Moral Conviction” with an “Ethic of Responsibility.”
No doubt Steyer and Bloomberg would say they had all that and more—after all, they paid good money for everything.
According to OpenSecrets, Steyer spent nearly $253 million—99 percent of it donations to himself—on his White House bid. But perhaps he really spent much more. Let’s not forget that back in 2013 he started an overtly political organization, NextGen America, aimed at raising green consciousness. Later, in the Trump era, he founded Need to Impeach, which is self-explanatory.
Both of these groups gave Steyer a national platform. In fact, they now look like the early phases of a well-lawyered presidential campaign, helpful at building name recognition, accumulating lists, and warehousing talent. Yes, these ventures no doubt made perfect sense as a presidential business plan. The only problem, of course, was that the product, Steyer, wasn’t very good.
As for Bloomberg, he reportedly spent $600 million on his formal campaign, although again, the real dollar total in pursuit of his political ambitions is surely significantly higher. In 2019 alone, Bloomberg’s charitable giving hit $3.3 billion; according to Tom Scocca of Slate, his goal was “buying goodwill and the silence of potential critics across the country.”
As an aside, we might ask: shouldn’t the Federal Election Commission be looking into all this? And the IRS as well? That is, if plutocrats can spend this kind of money on their proto- and actual campaigns, shouldn’t there be some sort of honest accounting? And that’s to say nothing of rigorous enforcement as to what is a charitable contribution and what is simply a political bet.
Interestingly, many of the usual “campaign finance watchdogs” have fallen silent; it’s been a while since most Democrats feared “money in politics.” These days, when big money is coming from the likes of Steyer and Bloomberg, aiming to smite Trump, they seem to want even more of it.
In the meantime, the two tycoons have discovered that money can’t buy everything.
If only they’d brushed up on their Max Weber. In his 1918 speech in Munich, the eminent German sociologist identified three kinds of “inner justifications” for political votaries.
The first of these, he declared, was “traditional,” as in the authority of the “eternal yesterday.” So merely being rich—especially the nouveaux riches of Steyer and Bloomberg—doesn’t fit the bill.
The second justification, Weber continued, was “charismatic”—and so for those two, we can stop right there. (To anticipate a question, here’s where Donald Trump squeezed into politics; in 2016, he was reviled by many, yet revered by enough to win.)
The third Weberian justification was “legal.” That is, “belief in the validity of…functional competence, based on rationally created rules.” Since Steyer had no political track record, there was no daylight for him there, and yet there might have seemed to be some for Bloomberg. After all, he had been mayor of New York for 12 years, and his supporters say he did a great job. Indeed, in the February 19 debate in Las Vegas, Bloomberg hit the competence theme hard, describing himself as a skilled “manager” no fewer than three times.
Of course, that was the very debate that sank Bloomberg, as Senator Elizabeth Warren repeatedly fired verbal torpedoes that hit him below the waterline. Indeed, political vocationalists were amazed that Bloomberg had no satisfactory shield, or evasive maneuver, against such predictable projectiles as his sexual harassment rap sheet and his tax returns. It does seem, in fact, that there’s a lot more to good politics than just spending money.
Once again we can look back to Weber, who declared that a successful politician must be seen as a “servant of the state”—and nobody who has watched Bloomberg for more than five minutes thinks that he sees himself as a servant to anybody or anything.
Moreover, both Bloomberg and Steyer should have recognized that they flunked Weber’s two prime prerequisites for successful politicians, the aforementioned “passion and perspective.” Both men wanted to be president—that was their passion, though it wasn’t what Weber had in mind. Indeed, the warped passion of their own naked ambition further warped their perspective. If a sultan hires enough viziers, they will tell him anything he wants to hear, yet proper perspective isn’t gained that way.
In the case of Bloomberg, his me-first perspective became blindingly visible at a campaign event on March 3, when in the middle of the coronavirus crisis, he grabbed a piece of pizza, tore off the crust, ate the rest, licked his fingers, then put the crust back in the pizza box. In other words, in less than a New York minute, he violated just about every public health protocol. Soon the video of his virus-friendly chow down went viral.
No doubt Bloomberg, and Steyer too, would say that whatever their flaws, they had more important things to say and do than were the province of ordinary politicians, such as, say, Joe Biden.
Indeed, the Bloomberg campaign repeatedly insisted that Biden, as well as the other “moderate” Democratic hopefuls, should step aside so that Bloomberg could take on Senator Bernie Sanders one on one, and so save the Democrats from socialism.
Needless to say, Biden, that dogged political veteran, chose not heed to Bloomberg’s advice—and so now it’s Bloomberg who has stepped aside for Biden.
A century ago, it seems that Weber had Bloomberg pegged as the non-politician he is: “Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer.”
As for Biden, Weber seemed to get him right too: “Only he who in the face of all this can say ‘In spite of all!’ has the calling for politics.” In the Weberian reckoning, Biden the pol seems stoic, maybe even a little bit heroic—which is one reason why he’s on track to be the Democratic nominee.
We might add that while there’s a timelessness to Weber’s understanding of politics, there’s more than a little poignance to the time and place of his address.
Weber was speaking just two months after the old German political order—that of the Hohenzollerns and the Prussian Junkers—had collapsed alongside Germany’s defeat in World War I. Into that political vacuum came communists and Nazis, even as well-meaning Germans struggled to create a viable democratic republic. In his academic way, Weber was attempting to teach his audience what normal and healthy politics might look like.
Sadly, soon afterward, in 1920, Weber died of—more poignance—the legendarily lethal worldwide flu pandemic. He was only 56. Thus we are left to wonder if Weber’s steadying conservatism could have helped stave off the bleak fate that befell Germany’s Weimar Republic.
So now back to the USA a century later. As we have seen, Bloomberg and Steyer have no place in elective politics, and yet interestingly—and perhaps ominously—Bloomberg seems to have gotten the political bug. While still in the race, his campaign had pledged to “spend Trump out of office.” And now that he has dropped out, Bloomberg declares himself to be just as determined: as he said in his March 4 farewell to his Manhattan campaign staff, “I entered the race for president to defeat Donald Trump, and today, I am leaving the race for the same reason: to defeat Donald Trump.”
Though come to think of it, Bloomberg isn’t saying “farewell” at all, at least not financially. Reports have it that he is simply going to shift his campaign, at his own continuing expense, over to help Biden. In other words, Bloomberg seems to have gone from self-funding his campaign to self-funding much of Biden’s campaign.
Legal sticklers have asked if such a resource shift is legal. Quite likely, Team Bloomberg will re-cross enough T’s and re-dot enough I’s to make everything fine. Besides, if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can’t be bothered to adequately account for all of Bloomberg’s (and Steyer’s) political spending over the past few years, it’s a safe bet that the FEC isn’t going to do anything about Bloomberg’s spending in the next eight months.
In other words, Bloomberg is going to spend whatever it takes to keep himself in the political spotlight. To be sure, if he spends a billion, or more, to help Biden, he can expect to remain a continuing target of Trump’s tweets—and he seems to welcome the attention, as well as the accompanying opportunity to tweet back.
For instance, Bloomberg equated himself to the saintly Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars—and, of course, cast Trump as Darth Vader. No doubt, in the weeks and months ahead, there will be many more mogul media melees.
Of course, there’s still the basic Weberian problem, namely that Bloomberg isn’t an attractive politician—or ally. Thus should the billionaire insist on being a prominently visible presence in Biden’s campaign, it could only give Trump another target with which to hurt the former vice president’s chances in November.
Moreover, we can be sure of Bloomberg’s continuing lust for the presidency. He might never understand the Weberian ideal of the political vocation, but he no doubt still sees politics as a financial proposition.
So if something bad were to happen to Biden in the next few months—such as, say, one of his anecdotes falls into anecdotage and can’t get up—it’s possible that the 3,979 delegates convened at the Milwaukee Democratic convention could find themselves in a political bazaar. If so, expect many presidential wannabes, new and old (here’s looking at you, Hillary!), to enter the souq, haggling for the deal of a lifetime.
Or maybe the convention will be more like an auction house. If so, Bloomberg the big spender will be ready.
He might not be much of a pol, or even much of a Democrat, but as a plutocrat, Bloomberg’s credentials are sound. And a billionaire always knows how to make a high bid.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-10--Time to Slap a Tariff on Oil Imports?

Time to Slap a Tariff on Oil Imports?

Oil industry consultant Monty Besler discusses the state of the oil fracking industry on the Bakken Shale Formation on September 6 , 2016 , near Williston , North Dakota .
( ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images ) Expectations of a Saudi deal with Russia to cut oil production have collapsed .
On Thursday , Russia announced that it wanted no part of such an arrangement .
On Saturday , Saudi Arabia pledged to abandon any quotas itself and commenced a full-blown price war .
While sharply cutting prices , the Saudis also threatened to increase oil production to 12 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ) .
When markets opened on Sunday , oil futures fell nearly 30 percent to around $ 30 a barrel for U.S. crude , half the level at which they started the year .
How low the oil price will go , and for how long , is a pressing question for speculators .
The answer is probably low and long enough to shatter the American shale industry , itself loaded up on debt and short on profit .
The United States should act to prevent this .
We need an oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is a key Russian and Saudi purpose—though not , perhaps , their only purpose—to drive the U.S. oil patch out of business .
That is not a sinister motive on their part , as the rise of American shale production has badly compromised their own prospects .
By the same token , key U.S. interests would be imperiled if Washington does nothing to frustrate that purpose .
To understand the case for a tariff , one has to assess the costs and benefits over time .
If low prices now mean high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think very likely , the refusal to consider a tariff doesn ’ t look so good .
If the washout of domestic industry leads to much greater dependence on foreign sources in the future , the policy looks even worse .
Even the short-term costs of allowing “ market forces ” to work unhindered are substantial , as the bankruptcy of the domestic industry ( 7.6 percent of GDP for the energy sector overall ) would exacerbate the oncoming recession .
With travel gutted by the coronavirus pandemic , the demand boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muted .
Credit distress from the oil patch will gravely aggravate the intensifying financial contagion .
Why feed it ?
A well-conceived variable tariff would tax oil imports steeply while prices are low , but would disappear if prices rose past a certain level .
What that level should be is a tough question .
$ 50 to $ 55 a barrel—around the current average cost of shale production—seems about right to me , but I ’ m open to argument on that score .
However that question is answered , the principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is to obstruct short-term predatory pricing raids by others and to ensure greater energy security for the United States .
The greater the wash-out today , the greater the peril of upward price explosions in the future .
If the industry is protected when oil prices are low , the public ought to be protected when oil prices are high .
If in the future the oil price were to rise above a specified level , the public should share in the proceeds through the progressive taxation of those profits .
Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both parties .
The Saudis and the Russians will suffer from a prolonged price collapse but may be able to hang on long enough to cut U.S. oil production sharply .
What is the compensation for them for such suffering in the present ?
It ’ s that they may enjoy in the future a greater power to raise prices and keep them up .
President Trump should be attracted to this plan .
It seeks to protect American industry from a classic predatory business raid .
It would not raise prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from falling further .
It would help contain the consequences of impending bankruptcy in the oil patch .
The shale boom was one of the great surprises of the last decade .
It boosted U.S. production from 5 to 13 million barrels a day from 2011 to 2019 , confounding the peak-oilers .
Yet incredibly the industry in aggregate never turned a profit during this time .
The costs proved greater than the returns .
The whole enterprise was floated by the delusive expectations of investors on Wall Street , who funded it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then yielded the increased supplies that helped collapse the price .
It was less an empire than the project of an empire , one that cost over $ 1 trillion in capital to develop .
All in all , the shale boom worked a lot better for the interests of the United States than it did for its investors and the producers , many of whom are now on the cusp of bankruptcy .
Back in 2007 and 2008 , oil imports cut a $ 400 billion annual hole in the balance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price in the summer of 2008 was a key though now forgotten contributor to the financial crisis of that year .
The closure of this deficit by the shale revolution was a big deal .
Why should we court a return of such insecurity ?
The oil industry is particularly subject to booms and busts .
The purpose of the policy suggested here is to moderate those extremes and the bad consequences they bring .
In effect , the United States would be giving protection to one part of its domestic industry in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even with a variable tariff , many domestic companies may go bust .
But energy and economic security requires that we look beyond the current bust to the vulnerabilities that would accrue if the market , dancing to the tune of Saudi Arabia and Russia , is allowed to do unhindered its work of uncreative destruction .
Such whimsical dreams of a grand concordat may strike the reader as impossible , practically speaking , given who we are and what we have become .
I have no answer to this objection , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unavoidable conclusion , one supposes , is that we should wash our hands of the whole thing .
Every hour on the hour , as they say .
Even if you object to certain things in the foregoing essay , I ’ m sure that that advice is looking pretty good to you right now .
David C. Hendrickson is professor of political science at Colorado College and the author of Republic in Peril : American Empire and the Liberal Tradition ( 2018 ) .

Expectations of a Saudi deal with Russia to cut oil production have collapsed. On Thursday, Russia announced that it wanted no part of such an arrangement. On Saturday, Saudi Arabia pledged to abandon any quotas itself and commenced a full-blown price war. While sharply cutting prices, the Saudis also threatened to increase oil production to 12 million barrels a day (from 9.7 mbd today). When markets opened on Sunday, oil futures fell nearly 30 percent to around $30 a barrel for U.S. crude, half the level at which they started the year.
How low the oil price will go, and for how long, is a pressing question for speculators. The answer is probably low and long enough to shatter the American shale industry, itself loaded up on debt and short on profit.
The United States should act to prevent this. We need an oil import tariff to protect domestic industry.
It is a key Russian and Saudi purpose—though not, perhaps, their only purpose—to drive the U.S. oil patch out of business. That is not a sinister motive on their part, as the rise of American shale production has badly compromised their own prospects. By the same token, key U.S. interests would be imperiled if Washington does nothing to frustrate that purpose.
To understand the case for a tariff, one has to assess the costs and benefits over time. If low prices now mean high prices five years from now, as I think very likely, the refusal to consider a tariff doesn’t look so good. If the washout of domestic industry leads to much greater dependence on foreign sources in the future, the policy looks even worse. Even the short-term costs of allowing “market forces” to work unhindered are substantial, as the bankruptcy of the domestic industry (7.6 percent of GDP for the energy sector overall) would exacerbate the oncoming recession. With travel gutted by the coronavirus pandemic, the demand boost from lower gas prices would be greatly muted. Credit distress from the oil patch will gravely aggravate the intensifying financial contagion. Why feed it?
A well-conceived variable tariff would tax oil imports steeply while prices are low, but would disappear if prices rose past a certain level. What that level should be is a tough question. $50 to $55 a barrel—around the current average cost of shale production—seems about right to me, but I’m open to argument on that score. However that question is answered, the principle of the thing should be clear. It is to obstruct short-term predatory pricing raids by others and to ensure greater energy security for the United States. The greater the wash-out today, the greater the peril of upward price explosions in the future.
If the industry is protected when oil prices are low, the public ought to be protected when oil prices are high. If in the future the oil price were to rise above a specified level, the public should share in the proceeds through the progressive taxation of those profits. Call it a public-private partnership, with advantages for both parties.
The Saudis and the Russians will suffer from a prolonged price collapse but may be able to hang on long enough to cut U.S. oil production sharply. What is the compensation for them for such suffering in the present? It’s that they may enjoy in the future a greater power to raise prices and keep them up.
President Trump should be attracted to this plan. It seeks to protect American industry from a classic predatory business raid. It would not raise prices for consumers, but simply keep them from falling further. It would help contain the consequences of impending bankruptcy in the oil patch.
The shale boom was one of the great surprises of the last decade. It boosted U.S. production from 5 to 13 million barrels a day from 2011 to 2019, confounding the peak-oilers. Yet incredibly the industry in aggregate never turned a profit during this time. The costs proved greater than the returns. The whole enterprise was floated by the delusive expectations of investors on Wall Street, who funded it all. The success of the frackers then yielded the increased supplies that helped collapse the price. It was less an empire than the project of an empire, one that cost over $1 trillion in capital to develop.
All in all, the shale boom worked a lot better for the interests of the United States than it did for its investors and the producers, many of whom are now on the cusp of bankruptcy. Back in 2007 and 2008, oil imports cut a $400 billion annual hole in the balance of payments. The escalation of the oil price in the summer of 2008 was a key though now forgotten contributor to the financial crisis of that year. The closure of this deficit by the shale revolution was a big deal. Why should we court a return of such insecurity?
The oil industry is particularly subject to booms and busts. The purpose of the policy suggested here is to moderate those extremes and the bad consequences they bring. In effect, the United States would be giving protection to one part of its domestic industry in exchange for greater energy security thereafter. Even with a variable tariff, many domestic companies may go bust. But energy and economic security requires that we look beyond the current bust to the vulnerabilities that would accrue if the market, dancing to the tune of Saudi Arabia and Russia, is allowed to do unhindered its work of uncreative destruction.
Such whimsical dreams of a grand concordat may strike the reader as impossible, practically speaking, given who we are and what we have become. I have no answer to this objection, as it is almost certainly correct. The unavoidable conclusion, one supposes, is that we should wash our hands of the whole thing. Every hour on the hour, as they say. Even if you object to certain things in the foregoing essay, I’m sure that that advice is looking pretty good to you right now.
David C. Hendrickson is professor of political science at Colorado College and the author of Republic in Peril: American Empire and the Liberal Tradition (2018).


theamericanconservative--2020-03-13--Three of Biden’s All-Time Tall Tales on Foreign Policy

Former vice president Joe Biden has spun his foreign policy bona fides for the better part of two decades in order to make them fit with the political zeitgeist .
Now , as he nears the Democratic nomination , it ’ s time for the media to take a closer look .
With that in mind , here are three of Biden ’ s most outrageous distortions of his national security record .
Biden was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he voted to give President George W. Bush the broad authority to go to war in Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for the war—he helped sell it to the American public , even though the majority at the time did not support taking immediate military action .
Biden even praised Colin Powell ’ s notorious United Nations Security Council speech , saying , “ I think Secretary Powell made a very powerful , and I think irrefutable , case today.
” “ President Bush did not lash out precipitously at Iraq after 9/11 , ” Biden said in a 2002 floor speech .
“ He did not snub the U.N. or our allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regimes .
He did not ignore Congress .
At each pivotal moment , he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation…in each case in my view he has made the right rational calm deliberate decision.
” On October 11 , 2002 , the Democratic Senate passed the resolution for authorization of use of military force in Iraq by a vote of 77 to 23 , with Biden voting yes .
Just hours before the invasion , on March 19 , 2003 , Biden told CNN , “ I support the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make no distinction .
…Let ’ s get this war done.
” “ We voted to give [ Bush ] the authority to wage that war .
We should step back and be supportive , ” he said .
But when asked about his Iraq vote during the July 2019 Democratic debate , Biden stated : “ From the moment ‘ shock and awe ’ [ the invasion of Iraq ] started , from that moment , I was opposed to the effort , and I was outspoken as much as anyone at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the claim that he was against the war “ immediately , the moment [ shock and awe ] started ” again during an interview on NPR on September 3 , 2019 .
Biden didn ’ t actually call the war a “ mistake ” until 2005—not because he thought his vote for it was wrong , but because in his estimation we should have sent more troops : “ We went too soon .
We went without sufficient force .
And we went without a plan.
” Of course by that time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped off precipitously .
Now , in his 2020 bid for the presidency , Biden continues to offer “ jumbled Iraq war revisionism.
” “ Yes , I did oppose the war before it began , ” Biden said at a September 6 campaign event .
During the Democrats ’ September debate , he claimed he only voted for the war authorization “ to allow inspectors to go in to determine whether or not anything was being done with chemical weapons or nuclear weapons.
” Biden frequently conflates his Iraq vote with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was necessary to approve the AUMF in order to guarantee those inspections .
It was not , and the timeline bears that out .
Almost a month before Biden ’ s pro-war vote , in September 2002 , Iraq said it was willing to allow in inspectors without conditions .
Those inspections began in November .
There were several senators who , unlike Biden , voted against the Iraq war while also arguing for the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq .
When President Barack Obama sought advice on whether to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad , Pakistan , Biden advised him not to strike because he felt the U.S. needed more information .
Vouching for Obama ’ s stellar “ instincts ” when he retold the moment to Democratic colleagues at their congressional retreat in 2012 , Biden said : Obama ’ s then-White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Biden was “ speaking accurately ” at the retreat about what had taken place in 2011 .
By 2015 , Biden had changed his story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ it would have been a mistake ” to offer an opinion in front of the group , and that instead of saying to go or not go , he privately advised Obama to “ go.
” Biden has continued to proffer this revised account , as recently as January of this year , despite the fact that it is contradicted by senior Obama officials , including none other than Hillary Clinton in her book Hard Choices and former CIA director Leon Panetta in his book Worthy Fights .
In January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As commander in chief , if you were ever handed a piece of intelligence that said you could stop an imminent attack on Americans—but you have to use an airstrike to take out a terrorist leader—would you pull the trigger ?
” Biden replied : “ Well we did—the guy ’ s name was Osama bin Laden.
” “ Didn ’ t you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden that day ?
” Fox News asked .
Biden has misstated multiple key facts in a war story that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to The Washington Post : Joe Biden painted a vivid scene for the 400 people packed into a college meeting hall .
A four-star general had asked the then-vice president to travel to Konar province in Afghanistan , a dangerous foray into “ godforsaken country ” to recognize the remarkable heroism of a Navy captain .
Some told him it was too risky , but Biden said he brushed off their concerns .
“ We can lose a vice president , ” he said .
“ We can ’ t lose many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joke.
” The Navy captain…had rappelled down a 60-foot ravine under fire and retrieved the body of an American comrade , carrying him on his back .
Now the general wanted Biden to pin a Silver Star on the American hero who , despite his bravery , felt like a failure .
He said , “ Sir , I don ’ t want the damn thing !
” Biden said , his jaw clenched and his voice rising to a shout .
“ Do not pin it on me , Sir !
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
He died .
He died !
” … ” This is the God ’ s honest truth , ” Biden had said as he told the story .
“ My word as a Biden.
” The problem with Biden ’ s moving account is that , as the Post puts it , “ almost every detail in the story appears to be false ” and that Biden seems to have “ jumbled elements of at least three actual events into one story of bravery , compassion and regret that never happened.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but as a senator , not as vice president .
Twenty-year-old Army specialist Kyle J .
White , not a Navy captain , performed the rescue .
And Biden did not pin the medal on White ; then-president Obama did six years after Biden ’ s trip .
In one short story , Biden managed to be wrong on the time the event took place , the location , the person being honored , the rank and branch of the military the honoree belonged to , the type of medal awarded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own role in the event .
Unlike Brian Williams ’ “ I was there ” Iraq account and Hillary Clinton ’ s claim to have “ landed under sniper fire ” in Bosnia , both tales that exaggerate the tellers ’ heroism , it is muddier what Biden ’ s mixed-up , mish-mashed Afghanistan account was supposed to achieve .
The most charitable take may be that it is simply a result of his alleged cognitive decline .
The same can not be said for his record , however .
Unlike his plagiarism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had far-reaching , devastating , international consequences .
If he becomes president , that will be doubly true .

Former vice president Joe Biden has spun his foreign policy bona fides for the better part of two decades in order to make them fit with the political zeitgeist. Now, as he nears the Democratic nomination, it’s time for the media to take a closer look.
With that in mind, here are three of Biden’s most outrageous distortions of his national security record.
The Iraq War vote
Biden was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he voted to give President George W. Bush the broad authority to go to war in Iraq. But he didn’t just vote for the war—he helped sell it to the American public, even though the majority at the time did not support taking immediate military action.
As Tara Golshan and Alex Ward explain:
Biden bought into the Bush administration’s argument. He elevated the administration’s concerns about Hussein in the press. And in the months leading up to the vote authorizing war, he organized a series of Senate hearings, in close coordination with the White House, during which he echoed the administration’s talking points about weapons of mass destruction.
Biden even praised Colin Powell’s notorious United Nations Security Council speech, saying, “I think Secretary Powell made a very powerful, and I think irrefutable, case today.”
“President Bush did not lash out precipitously at Iraq after 9/11,” Biden said in a 2002 floor speech. “He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss new inspection regimes. He did not ignore Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation…in each case in my view he has made the right rational calm deliberate decision.”
On October 11, 2002, the Democratic Senate passed the resolution for authorization of use of military force in Iraq by a vote of 77 to 23, with Biden voting yes.
Just hours before the invasion, on March 19, 2003, Biden told CNN, “I support the president. I support the troops. We should make no distinction. …Let’s get this war done.”
“We voted to give [Bush] the authority to wage that war. We should step back and be supportive,” he said.
But when asked about his Iraq vote during the July 2019 Democratic debate, Biden stated: “From the moment ‘shock and awe’ [the invasion of Iraq] started, from that moment, I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress.”
Biden repeated the claim that he was against the war “immediately, the moment [shock and awe] started” again during an interview on NPR on September 3, 2019.
Biden didn’t actually call the war a “mistake” until 2005—not because he thought his vote for it was wrong, but because in his estimation we should have sent more troops: “We went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan.” Of course by that time, American support for the invasion had also dropped off precipitously.
Now, in his 2020 bid for the presidency, Biden continues to offer “jumbled Iraq war revisionism.” “Yes, I did oppose the war before it began,” Biden said at a September 6 campaign event. During the Democrats’ September debate, he claimed he only voted for the war authorization “to allow inspectors to go in to determine whether or not anything was being done with chemical weapons or nuclear weapons.”
Biden frequently conflates his Iraq vote with the issue of inspections, as if it was necessary to approve the AUMF in order to guarantee those inspections. It was not, and the timeline bears that out. Almost a month before Biden’s pro-war vote, in September 2002, Iraq said it was willing to allow in inspectors without conditions. Those inspections began in November. There were several senators who, unlike Biden, voted against the Iraq war while also arguing for the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq.
The raid on Osama bin Laden
When President Barack Obama sought advice on whether to carry out the raid that ultimately found and killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Biden advised him not to strike because he felt the U.S. needed more information.
Vouching for Obama’s stellar “instincts” when he retold the moment to Democratic colleagues at their congressional retreat in 2012, Biden said:
[When he] got to me, he said, “Joe, what do you think?” And I said, “You know, I didn’t know we had so many economists around the table.” I said, “We owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there.”
Obama’s then-White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Biden was “speaking accurately” at the retreat about what had taken place in 2011.
By 2015, Biden had changed his story about that fateful 2011 meeting, claiming that “it would have been a mistake” to offer an opinion in front of the group, and that instead of saying to go or not go, he privately advised Obama to “go.”
Biden has continued to proffer this revised account, as recently as January of this year, despite the fact that it is contradicted by senior Obama officials, including none other than Hillary Clinton in her book Hard Choices and former CIA director Leon Panetta in his book Worthy Fights.
In January, Biden was asked by Fox News: “As commander in chief, if you were ever handed a piece of intelligence that said you could stop an imminent attack on Americans—but you have to use an airstrike to take out a terrorist leader—would you pull the trigger?”
Biden replied: “Well we did—the guy’s name was Osama bin Laden.”
“Didn’t you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden that day?” Fox News asked.
“No, I didn’t,” Biden said.
An Afghanistan war story
Biden has misstated multiple key facts in a war story that he’s repeated on several occasions, according to The Washington Post:
Joe Biden painted a vivid scene for the 400 people packed into a college meeting hall. A four-star general had asked the then-vice president to travel to Konar province in Afghanistan, a dangerous foray into “godforsaken country” to recognize the remarkable heroism of a Navy captain. Some told him it was too risky, but Biden said he brushed off their concerns. “We can lose a vice president,” he said. “We can’t lose many more of these kids. Not a joke.” The Navy captain…had rappelled down a 60-foot ravine under fire and retrieved the body of an American comrade, carrying him on his back. Now the general wanted Biden to pin a Silver Star on the American hero who, despite his bravery, felt like a failure. He said, “Sir, I don’t want the damn thing!” Biden said, his jaw clenched and his voice rising to a shout. “Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!” …”This is the God’s honest truth,” Biden had said as he told the story. “My word as a Biden.”
The problem with Biden’s moving account is that, as the Post puts it, “almost every detail in the story appears to be false” and that Biden seems to have “jumbled elements of at least three actual events into one story of bravery, compassion and regret that never happened.”
Biden did visit Kunar province in 2008, but as a senator, not as vice president. Twenty-year-old Army specialist Kyle J. White, not a Navy captain, performed the rescue. And Biden did not pin the medal on White; then-president Obama did six years after Biden’s trip.
In one short story, Biden managed to be wrong on the time the event took place, the location, the person being honored, the rank and branch of the military the honoree belonged to, the type of medal awarded, the heroic act itself, and his own role in the event.
Unlike Brian Williams’ “I was there” Iraq account and Hillary Clinton’s claim to have “landed under sniper fire” in Bosnia, both tales that exaggerate the tellers’ heroism, it is muddier what Biden’s mixed-up, mish-mashed Afghanistan account was supposed to achieve. The most charitable take may be that it is simply a result of his alleged cognitive decline.
The same cannot be said for his record, however. Unlike his plagiarism, Biden’s foreign policy decisions had far-reaching, devastating, international consequences. If he becomes president, that will be doubly true.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-13--Joe Biden: The Democrats’ Exhausted Surrender

We 're about to find out whether anyone really would be better than Trump .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , sided by Dr. Jill Biden delivers remarks at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia , PA on March 10 , 2020 .
( Photo by Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images ) How did the Democrats end up with Joe Biden as their presumptive nominee ?
After three years of preparatory media fire about diversity and change , and chumming the electorate with promises of free college alongside all the health care-they-care-to-eat , Democrats started with six women , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy , and progressive ideas ranging from the necessary to the kooky .
The full list included 30 players .
They ended up choosing a candidate left over from 1958 .
Joe Biden is old , he ’ s tired , he lost the race for president twice already ( once for plagiarism and once for lying about his education ) , and he appears to be in some state of cognitive decline .
Between the hair plugs and the botox , he looks waxy , like grandpa putting himself out there for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away , God rest her soul .
The Democrats ’ entire premise is false .
They misunderstood Trump ’ s election as a fluke if not an outright scam .
This was sustained by a relatively small group of disconnected people who , through cancel culture , peer pressure , and the need to fill a 24/7 media vacuum , convinced each other they were right .
So when a mediagenic Hispanic woman won a nothing race with few votes cast against a sleepy incumbent in the ever-Democratic Bronx , they told each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the living proof .
The echo chamber backed them up as they serially proclaimed new saviors , offstage The Squad , onstage Beto !
and Pete , though Booker , Harris , Klobuchar , and others were granted mini-moments after a decent debate performance or some minor splash .
Some call it the “ pundit fallacy , ” the belief that Americans are at heart progressives who just haven ’ t been educated to vote the way they really should .
The problem was that as soon as the actual people were allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The primary narrowed quickly .
White voters didn ’ t like the black candidates .
Novelties like Yang and Steyer sucked up bandwidth and confused the electorate .
Midwesterners were terrified of initiatives aimed at transgender , reparation , and illegal immigrant support blocs that existed only in the minds of those who read The Atlantic and The Nation .
Everyone wanted better health care but very few agreed that a massive upheaval of our capitalist economic system was the way forward .
The candidates went out of their way to ignore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , especially purple voters .
The second to last man standing , Bernie , was artificial .
Unlike everyone else in the field , he started with a pre-built organization , fully formed policies , and cash from 2016 .
He had a certain glow to him , having been treated unfairly in 2016 , but that did not help much when there was no anti-Hillary vote to garner .
But while initial power-ups allowed Bernie to survive , he never grew .
Voter turnout did increase on Super Tuesday compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes went for Biden .
Bernie was the rock band still touring behind its only smash hit ; the audiences are the same people who loved them in the ’ 70s , just older now , even as the size of the venues shrinks .
The process of elimination was nudged along by old-fashioned party power plays .
Black voters were massed by local pols in South Carolina to come out for Biden .
Someone behind the curtain ( almost certainly Obama ) made the calls to Buttigieg and Klobuchar and told them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Biden to clear the way for Hillary , “ kid , this ain ’ t your night.
” That ’ s how you end up with Joe Biden .
One writer called Biden ’ s success the product of the “ politics of exhaustion.
” This sees a Democratic electorate not anxious for change , but just tired of being tired .
The unrelenting apocalyptic news cycle burned them out , and all they want is to put someone acceptable enough in charge .
When Nancy Pelosi declared the morning of Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is at stake in the 2020 election , ” they had had it .
You end up with Joe Biden , running on three things : 1 ) he ’ s not Trump ; 2 ) maybe he ’ ll die in office and his VP will take over early in his term ; and 3 ) Joe ’ s cognitive decline appears slightly less severe than Trump ’ s .
Not exactly “ Hope and Change.
” Biden candidacy also means sweeping three years of Democratic messaging under the bed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be able to talk about is a long one .
Russiagate imploded on its own .
Impeachment centered on Hunter Biden and ain ’ t nobody on the Democratic side gon na bring that up .
President Bone Spurs ?
Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War , same as Trump .
In 1968 , when his student status was wrapping up , Biden was medically reclassified as “ not available ” due to asthma .
Yet in his autobiography , he describes an active youth as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also lied about being on the University of Delaware football team .
Trump ’ s naughty finances ?
After leaving the Obama White House , Joe and his wife made more than $ 15 million , mostly via sweetheart book deals .
They made nearly twice as much in 2017 as they did in the previous 19 years combined .
The University of Pennsylvania gave Joe $ 775,000 to teach , and then was nice enough to grant him indefinite leave of absence from actually teaching .
Biden charged the Secret Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cottage on his property so they could protect him .
Since leaving office , he ’ s made $ 2.4 million on speaking engagements , including $ 10,000 for travel expenses to the University of Buffalo .
A speech at Southwestern Michigan in October 2018 included $ 50,000 in travel expenses .
Taxes ?
After failing to close the loophole with Obama , Joe left office to create his own S Corporation .
As a result , he receives money for things like book advances and speaking fees not directly , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Medicare taxes as with salaries , but laundered as divestitures from a corporation he owns .
As corporate money , nasty personal taxes are fully avoided , and the corporation can claim nearly unlimited “ business expenses ” to be deducted against those profits .
Joe ’ s S Corp also donated his own money back to his PAC .
Legal laundering .
Trump ’ s sexism and racism ?
Young people , Google “ Anita Hill ” now .
You ’ ll be hearing a lot about her come the fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they will never see health care reform again in their lifetime ( his comeback drove a $ 48 billion gain for health insurance stock ; they know . )
They also won ’ t see a woman president for who knows how many years .
Income inequality will remain the salient characteristic of our society .
To win , the 77-year-old Biden will have to break the record for oldest man sworn in as president ( Trump holds the title now ) .
But Biden ’ s worst enemy heading into November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent for Democratic votes will be Mr. Just Stay Home .
That ’ s why those polls showing broad dissatisfaction with Trump are pointless .
The Trader Joe Moms of Northern Virginia are never going to vote for Trump , but they just might vote for no one .
There are ominous signs : polls for states Biden won on Super Tuesday , including Massachusetts , Texas , and several southern states that helped catapult the former vice president into front-runner status , found that young voters did not show up at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black voters who saved Biden in South Carolina are notoriously fickle when it comes to turnout .
Older Americans , who favor Trump , historically turn out at 30 to 40 percent higher rates than younger voters .
The exaggeration of white privilege that became a cornerstone of the Democratic Party—whites are racist , opioid-soaked gun nuts—is also one of the reasons Democrats risk losing the 2020 race , as it leads inexorably to the devaluation of the very voters needed to clinch the Electoral College .
Biden ’ s new status triggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the issues that have dominated their agenda for three years in favor of droning on about electability .
It makes little sense .
Why else vote for someone if not because he represents something you like ?
You want electability ?
Run a puppy .
Biden represents the endpoint of the idea that anyone must be better than Trump .
That ’ s betting the whole house on one thin straw .
It ’ s what happens when you settle for Joe Biden .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

How did the Democrats end up with Joe Biden as their presumptive nominee?
After three years of preparatory media fire about diversity and change, and chumming the electorate with promises of free college alongside all the health care-they-care-to-eat, Democrats started with six women, a couple of black people, the gay guy, and progressive ideas ranging from the necessary to the kooky. The full list included 30 players.
They ended up choosing a candidate left over from 1958. Joe Biden is old, he’s tired, he lost the race for president twice already (once for plagiarism and once for lying about his education), and he appears to be in some state of cognitive decline. Between the hair plugs and the botox, he looks waxy, like grandpa putting himself out there for one last fling after Grandma Obama passed away, God rest her soul.
The Democrats’ entire premise is false. They misunderstood Trump’s election as a fluke if not an outright scam. This was sustained by a relatively small group of disconnected people who, through cancel culture, peer pressure, and the need to fill a 24/7 media vacuum, convinced each other they were right.
So when a mediagenic Hispanic woman won a nothing race with few votes cast against a sleepy incumbent in the ever-Democratic Bronx, they told each other they were right and AOC is the living proof. The echo chamber backed them up as they serially proclaimed new saviors, offstage The Squad, onstage Beto! and Pete, though Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and others were granted mini-moments after a decent debate performance or some minor splash. Some call it the “pundit fallacy,” the belief that Americans are at heart progressives who just haven’t been educated to vote the way they really should.
The problem was that as soon as the actual people were allowed a word, it all fell apart. The primary narrowed quickly. White voters didn’t like the black candidates. Novelties like Yang and Steyer sucked up bandwidth and confused the electorate. Midwesterners were terrified of initiatives aimed at transgender, reparation, and illegal immigrant support blocs that existed only in the minds of those who read The Atlantic and The Nation. Everyone wanted better health care but very few agreed that a massive upheaval of our capitalist economic system was the way forward. The candidates went out of their way to ignore public opinion on these issues and alienate voters, especially purple voters.
Now quick, name a single Biden signature policy initiative.
The second to last man standing, Bernie, was artificial. Unlike everyone else in the field, he started with a pre-built organization, fully formed policies, and cash from 2016. He had a certain glow to him, having been treated unfairly in 2016, but that did not help much when there was no anti-Hillary vote to garner. But while initial power-ups allowed Bernie to survive, he never grew. Voter turnout did increase on Super Tuesday compared to 2016, but most of those new votes went for Biden. Bernie was the rock band still touring behind its only smash hit; the audiences are the same people who loved them in the ’70s, just older now, even as the size of the venues shrinks.
The process of elimination was nudged along by old-fashioned party power plays. Black voters were massed by local pols in South Carolina to come out for Biden. Someone behind the curtain (almost certainly Obama) made the calls to Buttigieg and Klobuchar and told them, as he likely did in 2016 with Biden to clear the way for Hillary, “kid, this ain’t your night.”
That’s how you end up with Joe Biden.
One writer called Biden’s success the product of the “politics of exhaustion.” This sees a Democratic electorate not anxious for change, but just tired of being tired. The unrelenting apocalyptic news cycle burned them out, and all they want is to put someone acceptable enough in charge. When Nancy Pelosi declared the morning of Super Tuesday, “Civilization as we know it is at stake in the 2020 election,” they had had it.
You end up with Joe Biden, running on three things: 1) he’s not Trump; 2) maybe he’ll die in office and his VP will take over early in his term; and 3) Joe’s cognitive decline appears slightly less severe than Trump’s. Not exactly “Hope and Change.”
Biden candidacy also means sweeping three years of Democratic messaging under the bed. The list of once-familiar subjects Joe won’t be able to talk about is a long one. Russiagate imploded on its own. Impeachment centered on Hunter Biden and ain’t nobody on the Democratic side gonna bring that up.
President Bone Spurs? Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, same as Trump. In 1968, when his student status was wrapping up, Biden was medically reclassified as “not available” due to asthma. Yet in his autobiography, he describes an active youth as a lifeguard and high school football player. He also lied about being on the University of Delaware football team.
Trump’s naughty finances? After leaving the Obama White House, Joe and his wife made more than $15 million, mostly via sweetheart book deals. They made nearly twice as much in 2017 as they did in the previous 19 years combined. The University of Pennsylvania gave Joe $775,000 to teach, and then was nice enough to grant him indefinite leave of absence from actually teaching. Biden charged the Secret Service $2,200 a month in rent for a cottage on his property so they could protect him. Since leaving office, he’s made $2.4 million on speaking engagements, including $10,000 for travel expenses to the University of Buffalo. A speech at Southwestern Michigan in October 2018 included $50,000 in travel expenses.
Taxes? After failing to close the loophole with Obama, Joe left office to create his own S Corporation. As a result, he receives money for things like book advances and speaking fees not directly, which would cause him to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as with salaries, but laundered as divestitures from a corporation he owns. As corporate money, nasty personal taxes are fully avoided, and the corporation can claim nearly unlimited “business expenses” to be deducted against those profits. Joe’s S Corp also donated his own money back to his PAC. Legal laundering.
Trump’s sexism and racism? Young people, Google “Anita Hill” now. You’ll be hearing a lot about her come the fall.
Biden represents to many Democratic voters that they will never see health care reform again in their lifetime (his comeback drove a $48 billion gain for health insurance stock; they know.) They also won’t see a woman president for who knows how many years. Income inequality will remain the salient characteristic of our society. To win, the 77-year-old Biden will have to break the record for oldest man sworn in as president (Trump holds the title now).
But Biden’s worst enemy heading into November will be low voter turnout. His opponent for Democratic votes will be Mr. Just Stay Home. That’s why those polls showing broad dissatisfaction with Trump are pointless. The Trader Joe Moms of Northern Virginia are never going to vote for Trump, but they just might vote for no one. There are ominous signs: polls for states Biden won on Super Tuesday, including Massachusetts, Texas, and several southern states that helped catapult the former vice president into front-runner status, found that young voters did not show up at the rate they did in 2016.
The black voters who saved Biden in South Carolina are notoriously fickle when it comes to turnout. Older Americans, who favor Trump, historically turn out at 30 to 40 percent higher rates than younger voters. The exaggeration of white privilege that became a cornerstone of the Democratic Party—whites are racist, opioid-soaked gun nuts—is also one of the reasons Democrats risk losing the 2020 race, as it leads inexorably to the devaluation of the very voters needed to clinch the Electoral College.
Biden’s new status triggered the mainstream media to drop any talk of the issues that have dominated their agenda for three years in favor of droning on about electability. It makes little sense. Why else vote for someone if not because he represents something you like? You want electability? Run a puppy. Biden represents the endpoint of the idea that anyone must be better than Trump.
That’s betting the whole house on one thin straw. It’s what happens when you settle for Joe Biden.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-13--Will the Coronavirus Wipe Out the New World Order?

Free trade suddenly seems like a dangerous fantasy , as nations start putting their own people first .
Dr. Brian Monahan , attending physician of Congress , told a closed-door meeting of Senate staffers this week that 70 million to 150 million Americans—a third of the nation—could contract the coronavirus .
Dr. Anthony Fauci testified that the mortality rate for COVID-19 will likely run near 1 percent .
Translation : between 750,000 and 1.1 million Americans may die of this disease before it runs its course .
The latter figure is equal to all the U.S. dead in World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil War .
Chancellor Angela Merkel warns that 70 percent of Germany ’ s population—58 million people—could contract the coronavirus .
If she is right , and Fauci ’ s mortality rate holds for her country , that could mean more than half a million dead Germans .
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis called Merkel ’ s remark “ unhelpful ” and said it could cause panic .
But Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch seemed to support Merkel , saying between 40 percent and 70 percent of the world ’ s population could become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 1 percent mortality rate and Lipsitch ’ s estimate prove on target , between 3 billion and 5 billion people on earth will be infected , and 30 million to 50 million will die , a death toll greater than that of the Spanish Flu of 1918 .
There is , however , some contradictory news .
China , with 81,000 cases , has noted a deceleration in new cases and South Korea appears to be gradually containing the spread of the virus .
Yet Italy , with its large elderly population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to come in the West .
As of Thursday , Italy had reported 12,000 cases and 827 deaths , a mortality rate of nearly 7 percent .
This suggests that the unreported and undetected infections in Italy are far more numerous .
In the U.S. , the death toll at this writing is 40 , a tiny fraction of the annual toll of the tens of thousands who die of the flu .
But the problem is this : COVID-19 has not nearly run its course in the United States , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaches what we might expect from a boiling national disaster .
The stock market has plunged further and faster than it did in the Great Crash of 1929 .
Trillions of dollars in wealth have vanished .
If Senator Bernie Sanders does not like “ millionaires and billionaires , ” he should be pleased .
There are fewer of them today than there were when he won the New Hampshire primary .
What does the future hold ?
It may one day be said that the coronavirus delivered the death blow to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of globalization , and to the era of interdependence of the world ’ s great nations .
Tourism , air travel , vacation cruises , international gatherings , and festivals are already shutting down .
Travel bans between countries and continents are being imposed .
Conventions , concerts , and sporting events are being canceled .
Will the Tokyo Olympics go forward ?
If they do , will all the anticipated visitors from abroad come to Japan to enjoy the games ?
As for the “ open borders ” crowd , do Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should no longer be a crime , and that immigrants arriving illegally should be given free health care , a proposition to which all the Democratic debaters raised their hands ?
The ideological roots of our free trade era can be traced to the mid-19th century , when its great evangelist , Richard Cobden , rose at Free Trade Hall in Manchester on January 15 , 1846 , and rhapsodized : “ I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antagonism of race , and creed , and language , and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.
” In the pre-Trump era , Republicans held hands with liberal Democrats in embracing NAFTA , GATT , the WTO , and most favored nation trade privileges for China .
In retrospect , was it wise to have relied on China to produce essential parts for the supply chains of goods vital to our national security ?
Does it appear wise to have moved the production of pharmaceuticals and lifesaving drugs for heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ?
Does it appear wise to have allowed China to develop a virtual monopoly on rare earth minerals crucial to the development of weapons for our defense ?
In this coronavirus pandemic , people now seem to be looking for authoritative leaders and nations seem to be looking out for their own peoples first .
Would Merkel today invite a million Syrian refugees into Germany no matter the conditions under which they were living ?
Is not the case now conclusive that we made a historic mistake when we outsourced our economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations that have never had America ’ s best interests at heart ?
Which rings truer today ?
We are all part of mankind , all citizens of the world .
Or that it ’ s time to put America and Americans first !
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists , visit the Creators website at @ @

Dr. Brian Monahan, attending physician of Congress, told a closed-door meeting of Senate staffers this week that 70 million to 150 million Americans—a third of the nation—could contract the coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci testified that the mortality rate for COVID-19 will likely run near 1 percent.
Translation: between 750,000 and 1.1 million Americans may die of this disease before it runs its course. The latter figure is equal to all the U.S. dead in World War II and on both sides in the Civil War.
Chancellor Angela Merkel warns that 70 percent of Germany’s population—58 million people—could contract the coronavirus. If she is right, and Fauci’s mortality rate holds for her country, that could mean more than half a million dead Germans.
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis called Merkel’s remark “unhelpful” and said it could cause panic. But Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch seemed to support Merkel, saying between 40 percent and 70 percent of the world’s population could become infected.
Again, if Fauci’s 1 percent mortality rate and Lipsitch’s estimate prove on target, between 3 billion and 5 billion people on earth will be infected, and 30 million to 50 million will die, a death toll greater than that of the Spanish Flu of 1918.
There is, however, some contradictory news.
China, with 81,000 cases, has noted a deceleration in new cases and South Korea appears to be gradually containing the spread of the virus.
Yet Italy, with its large elderly population, may be a harbinger of what is to come in the West.
As of Thursday, Italy had reported 12,000 cases and 827 deaths, a mortality rate of nearly 7 percent. This suggests that the unreported and undetected infections in Italy are far more numerous.
In the U.S., the death toll at this writing is 40, a tiny fraction of the annual toll of the tens of thousands who die of the flu.
But the problem is this: COVID-19 has not nearly run its course in the United States, while the reaction in society and the economy approaches what we might expect from a boiling national disaster.
The stock market has plunged further and faster than it did in the Great Crash of 1929. Trillions of dollars in wealth have vanished. If Senator Bernie Sanders does not like “millionaires and billionaires,” he should be pleased. There are fewer of them today than there were when he won the New Hampshire primary.
What does the future hold?
It may one day be said that the coronavirus delivered the death blow to the New World Order, to a half-century of globalization, and to the era of interdependence of the world’s great nations.
Tourism, air travel, vacation cruises, international gatherings, and festivals are already shutting down. Travel bans between countries and continents are being imposed. Conventions, concerts, and sporting events are being canceled. Will the Tokyo Olympics go forward? If they do, will all the anticipated visitors from abroad come to Japan to enjoy the games?
Trump has issued a one-month travel ban on Europe.
As for the “open borders” crowd, do Democrats still believe that breaking into our country should no longer be a crime, and that immigrants arriving illegally should be given free health care, a proposition to which all the Democratic debaters raised their hands?
The ideological roots of our free trade era can be traced to the mid-19th century, when its great evangelist, Richard Cobden, rose at Free Trade Hall in Manchester on January 15, 1846, and rhapsodized: “I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”
In the pre-Trump era, Republicans held hands with liberal Democrats in embracing NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and most favored nation trade privileges for China.
In retrospect, was it wise to have relied on China to produce essential parts for the supply chains of goods vital to our national security? Does it appear wise to have moved the production of pharmaceuticals and lifesaving drugs for heart disease, strokes, and diabetes to China? Does it appear wise to have allowed China to develop a virtual monopoly on rare earth minerals crucial to the development of weapons for our defense?
In this coronavirus pandemic, people now seem to be looking for authoritative leaders and nations seem to be looking out for their own peoples first. Would Merkel today invite a million Syrian refugees into Germany no matter the conditions under which they were living?
Is not the case now conclusive that we made a historic mistake when we outsourced our economic independence to rely for vital necessities upon nations that have never had America’s best interests at heart?
Which rings truer today? We are all part of mankind, all citizens of the world. Or that it’s time to put America and Americans first!
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-03-13--3 Tallest Biden Tales on Foreign Policy

3 Tallest Biden Tales on Foreign Policy