Closer than we think.

"Break up. Do your solo albums. Move on." The post Sufjan Stevens’ musical turn-off: “Any band that’s still together after 10 years” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Hated it‚ and for good reason. The post Eric Bell’s awkward encounter with Metallica: “I don’t know why they called me” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Lately‚ I have written and focused on the history of Watergate because I find it helpful in understanding American politics and power today. After living through Watergate‚ President Donald Trump has the benefit of having watched how the establishment’s legal-political-money-media lynch mob operates — a perspective that has allowed him to navigate through its attacks in ways Nixon simply couldn’t. READ MORE from Newt Gingrich: Washington Is Waging a War: First Nixon‚ Now Trump But Watergate is only one data point in mapping out how the establishment tries to destroy its enemies. One of the most amazing things about Watergate is that Nixon’s predecessors‚ Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson‚ had done far more illegal things. The allegations Nixon was charged with pale in comparison. Many of the people who worked to destroy Nixon had been directly involved in breaking the law in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. In retrospect‚ it is stunning how hypocritical Nixon’s enemies were. The story is‚ of course‚ still relevant today. The Washington establishment has continued to attack Trump with the same extraordinary hypocrisy. It paid to have Trump framed for made-up crimes (the Steele Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign and handed over to the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee) and then used the instruments of government to surround him with falsehoods to drive him out of public life (the phony dossier was used as a basis for getting FISA warrants to spy on and later investigate Trump and his associates‚ etc.). These efforts are amazing and teach us much about the corruption and illegality of Washington’s establishment structure — but the pattern started much earlier.  The Kennedy Administration v. Martin Luther King Jr. When conservatives talk about the weaponization of the FBI and the Justice Department‚ they should include the astonishing story of our government’s long vendetta against our lifetime’s most consequential civil rights activist.  The FBI began watching Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. after the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 as part of its domestic counterintelligence program‚ known as COINTELPRO. Most of the nation saw King’s August 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech as brilliant and visionary. The FBI‚ under President Kennedy‚ had a different response. FBI Special Agent William Sullivan led the domestic intelligence division at the time. Two days after King’s famous speech‚ Sullivan wrote in an FBI memo: “We must mark [King] now…as the most dangerous Negro of the future of this Nation from the standpoint of communism‚ the Negro and National security.” Robert F. Kennedy‚ who served as his brother’s attorney general‚ authorized wiretaps on King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. John Doar‚ who would later lead the House Judiciary Committee effort on Watergate was involved with the Kennedy Justice Department’s efforts to identify and spy on some 18‚000 African Americans whom intelligence officials considered potentially subversive.  The FBI didn’t just monitor and wiretap King; as he grew more powerful and influential‚ the bureau’s efforts grew more desperate. When he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize‚ the FBI put together a suicide kit and sent him an anonymous letter along with tapes they had made of him in various hotel rooms. They threatened to destroy King’s reputation unless he killed himself. When he ignored the letter‚ senior FBI officials tried to get the media to expose King’s personal life. Even after King was killed‚ the FBI continued to try to smear him. Many Americans have been frightened by recent FBI efforts to label Catholics and concerned parents as potential terrorist groups — unfortunately‚ it really isn’t anything new. In an earlier era‚ more than two dozen FBI offices were told to “disrupt‚ misdirect‚ discredit‚ or otherwise neutralize the activities of the black nationalists.”  The scale of the FBI’s history of violating the constitutional rights of Americans was captured in the final report of the U.S. Senate’s 1976 Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities‚ which reviewed COINTELPRO and found: [T]he domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens. The legal questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions‚ they were intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the ‘national security’ the law did not apply. While this assessment was written nearly five decades prior‚ it could have been applied to the FBI’s role in smearing candidate and later President Trump — and the continued FBI bias against conservatives and in favor of the Left. As an aside‚ in my research about government misdeeds related to Watergate‚ I was reminded of a jarring story about Kennedy before he became president. Jimmy Breslin wrote about it in his 1975 book How the Good Guys Finally Won: During the 1960 Presidential campaign‚ [U.S. Rep. Tip] O’Neill was an advance man in Missouri for John F. Kennedy and in the course of his duties he came upon August Busch‚ who offered to round up thirty people for a $1000-a-head breakfast meeting if Kennedy would show up. O’Neill called Kennedy‚ who quickly asked the comical question about the proposed meeting. “What time should I be there?” The breakfast was arranged at an airport motel and Kennedy arrived‚ stepped into the room‚ received the money nod from O’Neill‚ and then said to the guests‚ “If you’ll excuse Congressman O’Neill and me for a moment.” The two of them went out and jammed into what O’Neill remembers as the world’s smallest men’s room. “Now I have twelve thousand in cash and seventeen thousand in checks‚ what do you want me to do with it?” O’Neill said. “Give the checks to Kenny O’Donnell. I’ll take the cash.” O’Neill handed Kennedy the cash and watched it disappear into the inside jacket pocket. “Geez‚ this business is no different if you’re running for ward leader or President of the United States‚” O’Neill said to Kennedy. Kennedy said nothing and the two of them went back to the breakfast. Remember that this story of Kennedy illegally taking campaign cash for his personal use is in a pro-O’Neill book written by someone eager to have Nixon impeached. They are regarded as “the good guys” in the story. It apparently never occurred to Breslin that perhaps the pattern of money in politics was a lot more complicated and problematic than the Nixon-centric morality tale suggested. Democrats who steal from campaign donors are “the good guys.” Republicans are the enemy.  Regardless‚ the pattern Kennedy set was continued by his predecessor. Johnson v. Goldwater The most startling example of the Nixon set-up may be the story of Howard Hunt. Hunt was a key member of the Watergate scandal and a former CIA operative who worked for the Nixon team. As it turned out‚ breaking into the Democratic Headquarters at Watergate was the second time Hunt had spied on a presidential campaign. Steve Usdin described Hunt’s first expedition for Politico: “Over a six-week period in the late summer of 1964‚ Hunt deployed … staff to undertake a new type of project: infiltrating the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater on behalf of President Lyndon Johnson.” Usdin went on to assert:  Whether the impetus came from the White House or Langley‚ it is clear that Hunt arranged the infiltration of the Goldwater campaign headquarters. “My subordinates volunteered inside‚ collected advance copies of position papers and other material‚ and handed them over to CIA personnel‚” Hunt wrote. Hunt’s assets included a secretary on Goldwater’s campaign staff who provided advance copies of speeches and press releases. A female CIA employee who worked from the Continental Press offices would pick up the material and deliver it to Cooper. LBJ wasn’t squeamish about using the inside information‚ and he did so in a blunt fashion that must have made CIA officers cringe. Goldwater campaign staff noticed that the Johnson campaign had the unnerving habit of responding to points in their candidate’s speeches before he had delivered them. Johnson didn’t seem to care that his actions made clear to Goldwater that he was being spied on…. Hunt retired from the CIA in 1970 and was hired by the White House in 1972 to lead a unit known as the Plumbers that was dedicated to plugging leaks within the Nixon administration‚ playing dirty tricks on Nixon’s opponents and obtaining political intelligence. Years later‚ Hunt justified his actions by comparing them to the CIA’s spying on Goldwater. His logic was that if it was OK to use surreptitious methods to obtain political intelligence on behalf of one president‚ it was acceptable to do the same for another president. “Since I’d done it once before for the CIA‚ why wouldn’t I do it again [inside Watergate in June 1972] for the White House?” Hunt explained to the New York Times in late December 1974. Imagine how the Watergate investigation would have developed if the country had known that the Watergate break-in was simply the follow-up to a six-week campaign of spying on Goldwater — led by the same man but this time on President Lyndon Johnson’s behalf. It gets even stranger when you learn the leading Republican on the Watergate Committee interviewed Hunt — and knew about the Johnson espionage effort against Goldwater — but didn’t bring it up. As Usdin wrote:  On December 18‚ 1973‚ on a closely guarded excursion from a federal penitentiary in Allenwood‚ Pennsylvania‚ Hunt met with Senator Howard Baker‚ Jr. and the staff of a Senate committee that was investigating CIA abuses of power. Hunt told Baker that he’d been disturbed by the order to spy on the Goldwater campaign. This wasn’t because he had any hesitation about conducting what was obviously an illegal violation of the CIA’s charter‚ which imposes strict limits on the agency’s domestic operations. Rather‚ it was because Hunt was one of the few Goldwater supporters in the agency. “However‚ as distasteful as I thought it was‚ I performed the duty‚ accepting White House orders without question‚” he recalled. A year later‚ news of Hunt’s testimony leaked to the New York Times. The Watergate Dance Initially‚ it is hard to comprehend why Sen. Baker did not bring Hunt to testify about Johnson’s six-week espionage campaign. It would have changed the entire tone of the Nixon-focused investigation and would have made clear that Watergate was similar to Johnson’s earlier activity — although on a much smaller scale and much less intrusively. There is no evidence Nixon was directing an illegal spying operation on the McGovern campaign. Nixon himself faced scrutiny for the cover-up — not the espionage. It turns out the investigation’s refusal to look at past presidential lawbreaking was deliberate. The fix was in. Nothing before Nixon could be examined. While I was researching how Watergate unfolded — and how one of the most popularly elected presidents in modern history could be forced out of office — I was aided by one of the most dedicated historians of that period. Geoff Shepard pointed out that there was a special provision in the Senate actions establishing the Watergate Committee that limited its scope to Nixon. (RELATED from Geoff Shepard: Yesterday and Today: Judicial Bias in Washington‚ DC) Sen. Ed Gurney had moved that the committee be allowed to look at past presidential law-breaking‚ not just Nixon. Sen. Sam Ervin‚ who authored the resolution and would chair the committee‚ rejected the idea‚ saying:  It also has been suggested by others that the year “1972” be stricken out and that the Select Committee be authorized to conduct an inquiry into whether there have been any illegal or improper or unethical practices conducted in any other presidential election since George Washington was chosen for that office in 1789. I disagree with those who entertain this view‚ because I think the committee‚ if established by the Senate‚ will have a hard enough task to perform in connection with things that it is specifically authorized to do by the resolution. Gurney’s proposal was defeated on a party-line vote and a select committee with a Democratic majority focused on looking at the alleged crimes of only one person — the man who had won an election with 60.7 percent of the American people supporting him. If the Nixon administration’s activities had been considered in the context of the illegal activities of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations‚ the entire Watergate episode would have appeared to be one more instance of political activity in a pattern that had clear precedence in the recent past. Nixon’s reputation would have been bruised for trying to cover up the break-in‚ but it’s unlikely that he would have been impeached. This would have had a profound impact on American history. The 1974 elections would not have been nearly as bad for Republicans. Likely‚ Congress would not have cut off aid to the South Vietnamese government — and it may have survived. It would have been a different world.  The pattern of corruption‚ illegality‚ and bias used against Nixon in Watergate only grew. As a final historic example‚ review what happened during the nomination process for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Under the establishment’s system‚ Thomas was expected to timidly tolerate the smears and allegations of sexual misconduct against him — and accept the destruction of his nomination‚ reputation‚ and career. In one of the most dramatic moments in the rise of the new anti-establishment conservatism‚ Thomas instead pulled the mask of reasonableness away from his enemies. On Oct. 11‚ 1991‚ Thomas confronted the Senate Judiciary Committee‚ which was chaired by then-Sen. Joe Biden:  This is a case in which this sleaze‚ this dirt was searched for by staffers of members of this committee‚ was then leaked to the media‚ and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our entire Nation.  How would any member on this committee or any person in this room or any person in this country would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?… This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my standpoint‚ as a black American‚ as far as I am concerned‚ it is a high-tech lynching for uppity-blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves‚ to do for themselves‚ to have different ideas‚ and it is a message that‚ unless you kow-tow to an old order‚ this is what will happen to you‚ you will be lynched‚ destroyed‚ caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate‚ rather than hung from a tree. In many ways‚ Thomas was one of the first men to successfully overcome the establishment’s attacks — I suspect he has served as an example for Trump. The corruption and bias continue today. Johnson’s spying on Goldwater was just part of a long pattern that has recently included Russiagate‚ spying on Trump‚ and the signatures of 51 former intelligence leaders on a letter that falsely suggested that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  Today‚ the FBI is even more arrogant and willing to break the law. The legal system has moved even further to the left and is more aggressive. The media is more liberal‚ reliant on leaks from the deep state‚ and willing to lie to the American public on the establishment’s behalf. The Obama administration’s overreaches‚ Hillary Clinton’s disregard for the law‚ and Biden’s corruption are all continuations of the pattern. The reality of this commitment to illegality was confirmed in a recent survey by Scott Rasmussen. He studied a group he calls the elite 1 percent (people with graduate degrees‚ household incomes of $150‚000 or more‚ and who live in densely populated urban areas). Among other questions‚ he asked people if they would cheat to win an election. Only 7 percent of the American people said they would cheat. However‚ among the elite 1 percent who are “politically obsessed‚” 69 percent said they would cheat to win an election. Rasmussen said it was the most frightening number he had seen in 35 years of polling. (READ MORE: Obama’s Awful Elite Unveiled by Rasmussen) Tragically‚ Nixon went along with the pretense that Washington’s power structure would oversee a fair process and seek an acceptable outcome. Instead‚ Nixon learned a hard lesson. More than five decades later‚ President Donald Trump has learned that lesson too‚ and has decided to confront the establishment attack squad head-on with enormous courage and stamina. This is the 15th installment in a series by Speaker Gingrich on American despotism. Listen to The American Spectator’s exclusive interview with the Speaker here. Find the first in the series here‚ the second here‚ the third here‚ the fourth here‚ the fifth here‚ the sixth here‚ the seventh here‚ the eighth here‚ the ninth here‚ the 10th here‚ the 11th here‚ the 12th here‚ the 13th here‚ and the 14th here. For more commentary‚ visit Gingrich360.com and subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast. The post Trump Is the Man Nixon Couldn’t Be appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There’s a famous scene in the Humphrey Bogart classic The Caine Mutiny in which Bogart’s character‚ the unstable and largely incompetent Captain Queeg‚ appears as a witness against the officers who relieved him as the ship he commanded was at risk of foundering and proves them right for having done so. We had something of a reprise of that scene last Thursday in the person of Joe Biden‚ who’s rapidly living up (or down) to the nickname of Joe Deadhorse that I gave him a few weeks ago (and if you’ve had a look at the two installments of my new novel King of the Jungle‚ now being serialized here at The American Spectator‚ you’ll recognize the reference). Biden’s handlers juiced him up on … something‚ then hastily sent him out to angrily denounce the report of special counsel Robert Hur‚ who had been appointed to investigate the fact that Biden was in possession of oodles of classified documents that he was not legally entitled to have‚ and it went pretty badly: Of course‚ Biden should have been thanking Hur for noting his enfeebled mental state and his cognitive incompetence as a likely affirmative defense to a prosecution for his clearly illegal mishandling of classified information. Had Hur not made that reference the discussion would have been the absurdity of Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump for the same crime‚ with one major difference. READ MORE: Biden’s Sound and Fury That being the fact that Trump was president at the time he brought home those documents‚ and with the president having plenary power to declassify documents‚ it is physically impossible for Trump to have broken such a law — the act of taking those documents home is a de facto declassification. Biden‚ of course‚ was not president when he spirited those documents away. He was a senator and a vice president. We’re not talking about that fact. Instead‚ we’re talking about Joe Deadhorse and his broken mental state. We’re talking about the demented‚ senile old man roaring at the reporters who finally‚ at long last‚ are beginning to smell blood and ask the questions that ought to have been asked all the way back in 2020. But at the end of the day‚ perhaps it doesn’t matter — either way we would be talking about the brightly lit “DANGER” sign blinking in the faces of today’s Democrat Party honchos for their manifest mistake of attempting to foist Biden on the public for a second term. A term‚ it should be noted‚ that would end with Biden having had his 86th birthday. Thursday’s Captain Queeg denouement reboot wasn’t a particularly bad moment for Biden. In fact‚ it might have been about as good as it gets from here on in. Biden’s handlers made sure he skipped the traditional presidential interview in the lead-up to Sunday’s Super Bowl coverage‚ because everyone knows and understands that he couldn’t sit down for a real interview with an actual journalist who would ask substantive questions about issues like the border‚ our exit strategy — or lack of one — in Ukraine‚ our $34 trillion national debt‚ inflation‚ Bidenomics‚ transgenderism‚ the declining national birthrate‚ the decreasing availability of decent housing or health care not just for the poor but for the middle class‚ catastrophic downturns in military recruitment numbers‚ and oodles of other issues on which his administration is performing abysmally. This is what Biden is now. And it’s going to get worse. All last week‚ the media circles were buzzing about that atrocious NBC News poll that had Biden at a meager 36 percent approval rating and getting blistered by 5 points in a head-to-head race with Donald Trump. Well‚ now there’s an Economist/YouGov poll giving Trump a 7-point lead on the question to respondents: “Who do you think would win?” That’s usually a pretty good predictive question‚ though it often has more power late in a race rather than early. Ah‚ yes‚ but is it really early in this race? Or is it actually fairly late? Mitch Landrieu‚ the formerly apocalyptically horrible mayor of New Orleans (he’s the dolt who knocked down the iconic statues of Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and built a billion-dollar airport without bothering to arrange a proper connection to I-10‚ all as crime skyrocketed thanks to a hug-a-thug consent decree he signed with the Obama DOJ) who was tabbed as Biden’s infrastructure czar and is now in charge of his reelection campaign‚ swears Biden ain’t goin’ nowhere. Landrieu dismissed Thursday’s debacle in front of the cameras by impugning the mental capacity of men far more lucid and successful than either himself or his boss: President Trump‚ just the other night‚ confused what day of the week it was. He is confused who the leader of North Korea and China are. He’s confused the leaders of Hungary and Turkey‚ by the way. Speaker Mike Johnson was on the other day and he confused Iraq and Iran. And of course‚ President Trump doesn’t know the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley. Landrieu would‚ of course‚ say these things because Joe Deadhorse Biden is his personal gravy train and sole path to political relevance. Landrieu can’t go home and run for much of anything without humiliating himself‚ and his record of achievement to date would likely qualify him for a career selling aluminum siding‚ or perhaps solar panels. The thing is that those not quite-so-personally invested in Landrieu seem to be a bit less sanguine about Biden’s future prospects. For example‚ there is this guy‚ who speaks for the Democrats’ boss‚ Barack Obama: David Axelrod warns Biden presser 'reinforces the meme' that the president is too old: 'Can't unring the bell' https://t.co/JAIi9L4ykT #FoxNews — Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) February 10‚ 2024 But Axelrod was full of bad news for Democrats — he poured ice water all over the idea of parachuting Michelle Obama in as the nominee: David Axelrod says Michelle Obama will not replace Biden on Democrat ticket. And Smerconish throws shade at NY Post reporter Cindy Adams‚ who has been stoking the Michelle rumors.pic.twitter.com/29duelhbHb — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) February 11‚ 2024 Well‚ what happens next‚ then? It won’t be Gavin Newsom‚ in case you’re thinking he’s the real nominee. The thing is‚ the Obama machine still controls the Democrat Party‚ and as such you cannot be the nominee without the machine giving you — or‚ better put‚ you earning — their imprimatur. Which is another way to say you have to be a puppet of the Obama regime if you want to be the Democrat nominee. And Gavin Newsom is nobody’s puppet — his ego is even bigger than Obama’s. What’s more‚ Newsom is entirely transactional — he’ll do whatever he thinks will make him popular‚ so long as he’s the center of attention. Wait‚ Scott‚ you’re saying — are you trying to tell me we’re about to see Kamala Harris’ (brief) moment in the sun? Well… Maybe so. Probably not‚ but then again… The thing is‚ Landrieu might be right for once in his life when he says that Joe Biden won’t step down no matter what. And the Democrats on Capitol Hill are not going to do to their president what the Republicans did to Richard Nixon. Joe Biden could be molesting toddlers live on MSNBC‚ and it won’t move them to ousting him via impeachment. And if Biden won’t walk the plank on his own‚ the 25th Amendment won’t dig him out of the White House. As David Catron noted here at the site yesterday‚ Johnathan Turley wrote at the Hill that this is no magic bullet: It is Section 4 [of the amendment] that allows the removal of a president.… It requires a vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office‚” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Kamala Harris could get eight Cabinet officers to go along with a letter to Congress‚ her status as the “Acting President” would likely be short-lived. Joe Biden (who yesterday declared‚ “I’m elderly and know what the hell I’m doing”) would only have to declare to Congress that “no inability exists.” Biden would then resume his powers. But while they can’t get rid of him if he doesn’t agree‚ the party’s in-crowd does actually have a say at their convention. Yes‚ you retort‚ but will they vote to dump Biden if Kamala Harris is all they’ve got? In that same NBC poll‚ Harris’ approval rating was a lot more upside-down than Biden’s was. She’s at 28 up‚ 53 down. And I don’t disagree with you. Kamala Harris as the nominee is little more than a sacrificial lamb. If she’s at the top of the ticket‚ all of their money will flow to the bottom of the ticket in a mad scramble to take back the House (the Senate is almost surely gone from the Democrats’ grasp this fall‚ given Biden’s unpopularity and the 12 seats currently held by Democrats in states Trump won in 2016‚ 2020‚ or both). Here’s the fundamental problem‚ though: They might not have a choice. The Democrats have been the party almost exclusively of ruinous‚ radical urban socialist political machines for close to two decades now‚ and that existence has denuded them of candidates capable of carrying a broad spectrum of the electorate. That’s one reason their bench is so scandalously short. The other reason‚ which is related‚ is the identity politics problem: They can’t afford to alienate black women‚ and passing Harris over for anybody other than Michelle Obama would do just that. Black women actually really like Kamala Harris‚ which doesn’t say great things about that demographic but does put the Democrats’ dilemma on the big screen in technicolor. One struggles to conjure up much sympathy‚ especially as events tumble forth to illuminate the damage this president‚ and the regime he represents‚ has done to the country. The post The Deepening Joe Deadhorse Dilemma appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Tucker Carlson’s recent‚ two-hour interview of Vladimir Putin generated massive attention around the world. Carlson deserves credit for the exclusive‚ although he left the former KGB apparatchik off the hook and looking more like an honest broker than he is or ever was. Of the numerous lies and non sequiturs that gushed from the Russian dictator‚ what he said about Poland cries out for rectification. I will get to that‚ but first let me set the stage. READ MORE: Utterly Conventional: Thoughts on the Tucker–Putin Interview Putin sounded like a scholar of history‚ spending the first half hour in a marathon lecture (some would call it a filibuster) about Russia’s past Ukrainian connections. Twice‚ Carlson questioned the relevance of it all‚ but Putin’s purpose was starkly obvious: He wants the world to believe that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that belongs to Russia‚ that to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians in the 21st century is a noble venture grounded in events from the 9th century. You’re excused if you didn’t follow the logic or the history. Neither did I. Nor does anyone who wonders why an authoritarian‚ blood-soaked regime that governs 11 time zones really needs one more. World governments whose hands are clean in foreign policy are few and far between. I am no apologist for Washington’s behavior at home or abroad. One can be on either side of the question of U.S. support for Ukraine and still find no justification — moral or geopolitical — for Putin’s invasion. I was repulsed by Putin’s prevarications not because of some unwarranted bias or vested interest but because I dislike prevarications from wherever they emanate. It’s a fact that history is one long tale of thugs battling each other for control of people‚ territory‚ and borders. Just about everyone can cherry-pick something from the past to prove their claims on others‚ but violence is violence. Putin’s slaughter today is senseless and immoral regardless of what some medieval tyrant said or did centuries ago. And it cannot be justified by any reasonable claim of self-defense. When Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February 2022‚ Putin argued that the possibility of Kyiv joining NATO was intolerable to Russia. From the Carlson interview‚ we now know that this was not the main reason for the invasion. Putin attacked simply because he sees Ukraine as nothing more than a hijacked Russian time zone. He knows full well that no agreement was ever signed between NATO and Russia that forbade the alliance’s eastward expansion. Some officials may have suggested privately or publicly that NATO would stay put‚ but that’s not a treaty. Whether Kyiv should be in NATO is a debatable matter‚ but who can fault any Ukrainian for favoring it? The country sits next to a giant neighbor that 1) imposed a communist tyranny on it for decades; 2) murdered millions of Ukrainians in a Moscow-directed adventure in famine and genocide in the 1930s; 3) abrogated 1990s agreements that recognized Ukrainian sovereignty and forswore the use of force; and 4) invaded Ukraine just a decade ago? Russia even offered Ukraine assurances of security in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its nuclear weapons (inherited from Soviet days). All of that seems far more real to me than the ridiculous fear that NATO is about to bomb Russia and start World War III. How can anyone expect Ukraine to trust serial liars in the Kremlin? Putin himself denied he planned to invade right up to the moment he invaded. Poles know about Russian aggression as well as anybody‚ and after the Carlson interview with Putin‚ they also know that he lies about Poland too. He told Tucker that in 1939‚ Poland was so “uncompromising” that Hitler had no choice but to attack and start World War II. Poor little Adolf. By not caving to the Nazi demand to give Germany the Danzig corridor (where the Polish city of GdaÅ„sk now resides)‚ the Poles pushed him into war. All he wanted (yeah‚ right) was a little strip of Polish territory‚ but the Poles had the audacity to say no! Maybe the Poles knew something that Britain and France had to learn painfully‚ namely‚ that appeasement only encourages dictators.   Putin even claimed that Poland “collaborated” with Hitler to partition Czechoslovakia in 1938–39. Poland had its issues with the Czechs‚ to be sure‚ but no evidence exists that the country saddled up with the Nazis to take the place over. None. Does anybody but Putin really believe that Hitler’s plan for Europe was peace‚ only to be derailed by an intransigent Poland?  Marcin Chmielowski‚ a good friend from the Freedom and Entrepreneurship Foundation in Katowice‚ Poland‚ tells me this: Poland was the country that militarily first opposed Hitler. We paid a high price for this. True‚ Hitler offered us an alliance‚ but we rejected it. Poland chose France and Great Britain as its allies. Now Putin‚ speaking of Poland as Hitler’s ally‚ is simply lying. It was the Soviet Union that was an ally of the Third Reich. Together these two countries invaded Poland. There was even a joint Soviet-Nazi victory parade. It was held in Brest-Litovsk and a German military orchestra played the anthems of both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Putin’s ridiculous revisionism is ironic‚ given his claim (repeated in the Carlson interview) that Ukraine needed a bloody invasion to stamp out Nazism. He says one of his objectives is the “de-Nazification” of a nation whose president is Jewish.  If anybody is a Nazi here‚ it’s the guy who thinks Poland pushed Hitler into war‚ who jails or murders his political opponents‚ who has all but wiped out any semblance of democracy in Russia‚ who kidnaps and deports Ukrainian children to Siberian reeducation camps‚ who is responsible for war casualties now exceeding half a million‚ and who perpetuates himself in power by shredding the law of his own country.  Having Vladimir Putin as an enemy is a badge of honor for Poland‚ a country that never signed an agreement with Adolf Hitler to divide and conquer anybody. Poland liberated itself from the Russian yoke in 1989 and is a free country today‚ no thanks to Moscow. It supports Ukraine because it knows that if Putin wins there‚ he’ll be sitting hundreds of miles closer to Warsaw. Poles have taken into their homes at least 1.5 million Ukrainians because they know what Russian oppression is about.  In 1940‚ the Russia of the old Soviet Union murdered 22‚000 Polish officers in the infamous Katyn massacre. You can see why an independent Ukraine‚ for Poland‚ is a matter of national security. “Show me a liar‚” wrote the English poet George Herbert in 1651‚ “and I will show thee a thief.” Vladimir Putin is both‚ in spades. Lawrence W. Reed‚ www.lawrencewreed.com‚ is President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education in Atlanta‚ Georgia‚ and a recent recipient of the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. The post Putin’s Self-Serving Lies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Annual income twenty pounds‚ annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence]‚ result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds‚ annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six‚ result misery.” —Mr. Micawber (fictional character in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens) Twenty pounds sterling would be pocket change in today’s global economy ($1 equals £0.78)‚ but when Charles Dickens was writing David Copperfield‚ a typical London laborer earned 20 shillings (£1) per week. The cost of living was‚ of course‚ considerably lower in 19th-century England than it is nowadays‚ amounting to about 19 shillings per week‚ according to some estimates. So if Dickens’ impecunious Mr. Micawber worked a then-standard 10 hours per day‚ six days per week year-round and was unmarried‚ childless‚ and abstemious‚ his annual income might have been £52‚ allowing him to live reasonably comfortably and debt-free. At £20‚ though‚ any extraordinary expenses would have plunged him into dire financial straits. READ MORE: Year 2024: Everyone Except Paul Krugman Is Wrong The U.S. national debt (the federal budget deficits that have been accumulating since the early 1960s) now is north of $34 trillion‚ a sum unimaginable to Wilkins Micawber‚ to the founders of our constitutional republic‚ and to most people living today. And that number does not include the unfunded future liabilities of Social Security‚ Medicare‚ and other so-called entitlement programs. Until the 1960s‚ a balanced-budget norm constrained Washington’s fiscal policymaking: Public revenues and expenditures remained largely on par‚ except during wartime. Borrowing was necessary to finance acquisitions of munitions and other war materials along with paying the men and women responsible for carrying out military operations‚ because‚ as Adam Smith recognized‚ it would be too perilous to wait for new tax revenue to flow into the Treasury. Even so‚ policies to retire public debts incurred during wartime (for example‚ by establishing “sinking funds”) were accepted widely. That norm held from the Revolutionary War to the end of World War II‚ more or less. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt‚ the architect of profligate New Deal spending initiatives‚ campaigned for his first White House term on a platform calling for a balanced federal budget. Of course‚ a third method of financing wars and responding to other “emergencies‚” other than taxing and borrowing‚ is available only to the federal government: resorting to the currency printing press (“quantitative easing”). Expanding the money supply to “pay” for current public spending — as the Lincoln administration did by issuing “greenbacks” during the 1861–1865 War of Secession and the last two presidents did during the COVID-19 pandemic — predictably causes price inflation‚ sometimes disguised temporarily by wage and price controls‚ as happened during World War II. The balanced-budget norm was broken for good by President John F. Kennedy under the influence of Keynesian macroeconomics. (See James Buchanan and Richard Wagner’s Democracy in Deficit.) Federal budget deficits have been business as usual in Washington‚ D.C.‚ ever since. They were worsened by the twin tragedies of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam War and Great Society‚ global financial crises‚ and more recent “shocks‚” during which little pretense to fiscal responsibility has been evident among politicians‚ policymakers‚ and most macroeconomists. Like Mr. Micawber‚ twice imprisoned for failure to pay his debts‚ our elites apparently remain hopeful that “something will turn up.” It is obvious that chronic budget deficits are explained by excessive public spending‚ not inadequate revenue. So-called modern monetary theory teaches that the government can borrow and spend without limit; if too much liquidity is injected into the economy‚ the theory says that it can be soaked up by raising taxes‚ which would amount to political suicide in an era‚ like today’s‚ in which GDP growth is anemic. For that reason‚ I am wary of proposed constitutional amendments that force Washington to balance its budget rather than reform fiscal policymaking simply to constrain the growth of spending. One problem with today’s budgetary processes is that neither the president nor any congressional committee is responsible for “bridging” the gap between the revenue and spending sides of the federal budget‚ as most state governors are required to do. Federal outlays these days are determined first‚ and then‚ as afterthoughts‚ “ways and means” of financing that spending are determined separately. Since raising taxes is politically costly‚ borrowing (which implies higher future tax bills but creates the illusion that government is less burdensome than it is) becomes the easiest way out. Political expedience aside‚ as Adam Smith wrote‚ “if [an empire or commonwealth] cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense‚ it ought‚ at least‚ to accommodate its expense to its revenue.” William F. Shughart II‚ research director of the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ California‚ is the J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Jon M. Huntsman School of Business. The post Charles Dickens Teaches Washington Elites How to Budget appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.