iftttwall

Authored by Peter Berkowitz via RealClearPolitics,

On an Oct. 13 MSNBC broadcast with anchor Jen Psaki, Democratic strategist – and former political advisor to President Bill Clinton – James Carville denounced Donald Trump for putting “the entire Constitution in jeopardy.” Carville offered a concrete example of the right’s subversion of American freedom and democracy: “The Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas have totally greenlighted the idea that you could round up, use the military to round up your political enemies.” A former political advisor to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Psaki replied with a smile, “We love the truth telling.”

Carville and Psaki are typical. The left often portrays itself as the rigorous defender of truth against relentless right-wing disinformation while resolutely promoting progressive disinformation, including the falsehood that disinformation is a distinctively right-wing phenomenon.

Small wonder that Carville did not elaborate on his extraordinary accusation, and that Psaki did not ask why he singled out Justice Thomas or how the Supreme Court authorized the rounding up of political enemies. Perhaps Carville had in mind the court’s holding last July in Trump v. United States “that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” But the Constitution does not give the president authority to round up political enemies.

Did Carville glibly attack Trump and did Psaki politely play along? Did partisan rage distort Carville’s judgment as well as Psaki’s? Did Carville resolve to assert – and Psaki to endorse – whatever it takes, including nightmare scenarios, to protect democracy from Trump?

It is hard to read hearts and minds. But one can confidently affirm that deceiving about politics is as old as politics.

Circumstances change. Regimes come and go. Empires rise and fall. Parties win and lose. Yet even as modernization and technology revolutionize human affairs by generating material abundance, destabilizing settled expectations, and eroding inherited understandings, human beings remain social and political animals. Individuals need one another’s company and cooperation while – given diverse backgrounds, disposition, abilities, and interests – differing over what is useful, just, and good. Some strive to exercise power over others while most try to minimize the power that others exercise over them. Through it all, passion and prejudice constantly buffet everyone’s reasoning, and auspicious opportunities and dire predicaments tempt even the virtuous to portray the facts as other than they are.

No doubt novel opportunities abound today for promulgating lies and disseminating the family of departures from the truth that human beings routinely produce, distribute, consume, and rail against. In particular, the Internet, digital communications, and social media have facilitated the acquisition and transmission of immense amounts of information. This has greatly increased the quantity and accelerated the velocity of casual errors, self-deceptions, well-meaning half-truths, fraudulently marketed opinions and ideas, and outright lies that swirl through political culture.

Both right and left in America partake of the free-for-all of duplicity – often crude, occasionally artful – that plagues American politics. There is, however, an asymmetry.

Both sides insist that the other is exclusively at fault for the decay of public discourse. But the left controls the commanding heights of education, mainstream and social media, and government bureaucracy.

The left’s false contention that the right exercises a monopoly on manipulation, deceit, and falsehood is particularly damaging because the left amplifies its accusation through domination of the nation’s communication, elite opinion formation, and rule-making and law-enforcement institutions. This substantial advantage in the struggle to shape public opinion encourages the left’s sense of superiority while blinding progressives to their own intellectual subterfuges and ideological swindles. It also foments outrage on the right. Conservatives justify their extreme statements and outrageous claims as playing by progressives’ rules.

Atlantic staff writer Charlie Warzel recently illustrated the left’s propensity to wrongly present disinformation as a specifically right-wing pathology. Author of “Galaxy Brain,” The Atlantic’s newsletter “about technology, media, and big ideas,” Warzel argues in “I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is” that an unprecedented assault on truth has “been building for more than a decade.” The crisis stems, he maintains, from a calamitous combination of right-wing extremism and digital technology that breaks reality into two – a world of truth inhabited by the left and a world of “dark” falsehoods that the right creates, outfits, and calls home.

“This reality-fracturing is the result of an information ecosystem that is dominated by platforms that offer financial and attentional incentives to lie and enrage, and to turn every tragedy and large event into a shameless content-creation opportunity,” writes Warzel. “This collides with a swath of people who would rather live in an alternate reality built on distrust and grievance than change their fundamental beliefs about the world.”

Warzel would have placed his analysis of just how badly political discourse in America has deteriorated on much sounder footing if he had recognized that the left also employs digital technology to fabricate and maintain a separate world. In the left’s alternative reality, the remorseless siege of systemic racism, sexism, and other sinister forms of oppression obliges progressives to abandon basic requirements of evidence and argument to rally the faithful and save the nation and the world.

Responses to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, maintains Warzel, have set a new low. “Even in a decade marred by online grifters, shameless politicians, and an alternative right-wing-media complex pushing anti-science fringe theories,” he writes, “the events of the past few weeks stand out for their depravity and nihilism.” He gives chilling examples careening around the Internet of harebrained conspiracy theories about government malfeasance and implausible stories of official neglect, or deliberate disregard, of storm victims that have delayed the delivery of essential government services. These remind that people can easily dupe others and be duped, especially when hurricane season coincides with election season, and individuals are armed with smart phones and social media accounts, and distrust elite institutions.

Warzel is rightly alarmed that “Americans are divided not just by political beliefs but by whether they believe in a shared reality – or desire one at all.” But his one-sided analysis inadvertently underscores that fault for the splintering of America does not lie solely with Trump and his backers.

Or even primarily.

Yes, Jan. 6, 2021, was a disgrace. Yes, right-wing rhetoric can be ridiculous, ominous, and vile. And yes, right-wing activists also exploit the Internet to stoke grievance and stir up resentment and rage.

Still, progressives tend to neglect that Trump and his voters have reasons, accumulating for decades, for distrusting institutions fundamental to the nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom and dominated by progressives: universities, the mainstream media and social media, and the federal bureaucracy.

Contrary to the common view on the left that Trump inaugurated a war on truth, our universities have for at least two generations sought to emancipate students from the traditional understanding that higher education’s purpose is to pursue knowledge and cultivate independent minds. Instead, through a succession of intellectual fashions and fads – including positivism, relativism, postmodernism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, identity politics, and intersectionality – universities have fostered the incoherent and partisan belief that since moral values are socially constructed, progressive policies must prevail.

Meanwhile, our progressive media – mainstream and social – and our progressive federal bureaucracy have collaborated to promote progressive national narratives by censoring opinions that challenge the progressive perspective and weaponizing the law against those who oppose progressivism’s hegemony.

The most egregious such collaboration revolved around the charge – widely presented as established fact by the press, defeated candidate Hillary Clinton, and elected Democratic officials and progressive intellectuals – that Donald Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. This weighed down President Trump and hampered his administration. Yet after a two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose team contained several experienced and high-powered Democratic lawyers, issued a lengthy report stating that the investigation “did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Another disreputable collaboration to advance progressive ends sought to push Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden over the finish line in November 2020. A few weeks before the election, the New York Post accurately reported that a laptop containing incriminating evidence belonged to Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The mainstream media, social media, and the FBI censored the Post’s reporting while disseminating the falsehood that the computer was a product of Russian disinformation.

A third major collaboration occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The New York Times and the Washington Post derided the notion that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab, which it likely did, and government officials, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, suppressed the lab-leak hypothesis. In addition, the mainstream media, social media, and federal government teamed up to discredit and silence those who raised questions about the efficacy of masks, lockdowns, and vaccines.

To do their share to arrest the splintering of America, progressives must do more than profess their love of the truth. They must act like they mean it.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on X @BerkowitzPeter.

Authored by Ryan Bonifay via RealClearPolitics,

Hurricane Helene devastated large swaths of western North Carolina, with entire towns wiped away or forever altered. The human disaster will be felt for decades. But there’s another impending disaster no one is talking about – a political one.

North Carolina is a perennial swing state with a penchant for split-ticket voting. In 2020, Donald Trump won the state by less than 1.5 percentage points. In 2008, Barack Obama clinched the state for the Democrats by a mere 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million votes. This year, North Carolina is once again a battleground state, with both political parties spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and both presidential nominees are spending significant time here. In the Tar Heel State, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are literally fighting for every single vote.

But Hurricane Helene didn’t just wipe out towns. It may also wipe out people’s right to vote. Tens of thousands of voters are homeless or temporarily camped out far from their homes. While the North Carolina Board of Elections is tweaking rules to make it easier to vote, residents in the most severely damaged areas probably have other, bigger problems on their minds – like missing relatives, lost livelihoods, children who can’t go to school, filing insurance claims, just to name a few. The last thing on their to-do lists is remembering to reregister to vote at their new address before Oct. 6, which has since come and gone. 

There is an unspoken question that needs to be voiced: What happens if hundreds of thousands of voters in western North Carolina can’t vote in the 2024 election?

The disaster declaration in western North Carolina encompasses 25 counties, comprising 1.3 million registered voters, of which 974,514 voted for president in 2020.

Currently, registered Republicans make up 37.9% of western North Carolina voters compared to 28.2% in the rest of the state. Registered Democrats make up only 22.8% of western North Carolina voters compared to 33.2% in the rest of the state. In 2020, Trump won 604,119 votes to Joe Biden’s 356,902 votes in those 25 counties. 

In other words, western North Carolina is Republican country, even with deep blue Asheville sitting in the heart of the mountains. In the closest election in recent history, Republicans don’t have 600,000 votes to spare.

In order for a Republican candidate to have a fighting chance of winning statewide in North Carolina, they have to drive up their margin of victory in the western part of the state. Since 2016, Republican presidential and Senate candidates have won by a margin of 23.4% to 27.9% in western North Carolina. In those same elections, all Republicans (Trump, Tillis, Budd), except former Sen. Richard Burr, also lost the rest of the state.

Compare those margins to losing Republican candidates. In 2016, the incumbent governor, Pat McCrory, won western North Carolina by 19.3%. Four years later, Republican Dan Forest only eked out an 18.7% margin in the west. McCrory lost the rest of the state by 4.4%, and Forest lost it by 9.5%.

In other words, statewide Republicans can’t win North Carolina without soaking up every red vote to the west.

As of Oct. 7, absentee ballot requests in western North Carolina totaled 46,094, accounting for 15.7% of statewide requests. Some of those ballots will never reach their intended recipients. That is concerning, but the bigger impact will come from in-person early voting, slated to begin October 17. In 2020, 70% of Trump’s vote in western North Carolina came from in-person early voting sites. It is not yet clear how many early voting sites are damaged, but the wide expanse of Helene’s damage suggests it will be significant. According to Axios, “infrastructure, accessibility to voting sites, and postal services remain severely disrupted” in 13 counties, accounting for 552,514 registered voters.

With North Carolina growing increasingly close, hundreds of thousands of Tar Heel voters who are unable to vote could doom Republicans chances here – and nationwide – over the next 27 days. While it is possible for Trump to win 270 electoral votes while losing North Carolina, it makes a narrow path to the White House that much narrower.

Playing around with the electoral map produces a number of scenarios in which Trump comes short of 270 electoral votes without North Carolina. One scenario gives Trump Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania while losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. He loses that election 265 to 273.

Getting western North Carolina back on its feet has to be the priority for the federal and state governments. However, with such an important election at our doorstep, it would be irresponsible to ignore the political implications of this historic disaster. It’s not just about disenfranchising voters – which is important enough.

Imagine for a moment that this election comes down to a razor-thin margin in storm-torn North Carolina. Allegations start flying – about lost ballots, late ballots, ballots sent to the wrong precincts, etc. It will be Florida circa 2000 on steroids, and nobody wants to go through that again. Our country is already fraying at the seams with little trust in our democratic institutions. Talk about throwing a match into a powder keg.

To prevent this election outcome from being dictated by a 100-year storm, it is incumbent on the Board of Elections to do absolutely everything in its power to make sure western North Carolinians, especially those in rural and most isolated parts of the impacted area, have every opportunity to cast their ballots. It’s also incumbent on Republicans to start tackling this problem now. Don’t wait until Nov. 6 to sound the alarm.

No one wants to politicize a storm that has destroyed so many lives, but that’s exactly what will happen if we don’t get this right.

Ryan Bonifay is the director of data & analytics at ColdSpark and lives in Lexington, North Carolina. Bonifay has worked and served as data director for several campaigns and organizations across the southeast, including the Republican National Committee, Engage Texas, Texans for Greg Abbott, and former U.S. Senator David Perdue.

The FBI and the Department of Defense are scrambling to uncover how it was that two highly classified intelligence documents related to Israel’s preparation for a potential retaliatory attack on Iran appeared on a Middle East news-related Telegram channel days ago.

The White House has described President Biden as “deeply concerned” over the serious breach, and has confirmed there is an intense investigation ongoing to ascertain how it happened and who had access.

At this point it’s not even confirmed whether the documents were made public via a hack or a leak by an individual who had access to them.

The documents were produced by the US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, and were marked “Top Secret” and restricted from distribution from most foreign allies, with the exception of countries belonging to the “Five Eyes”.

The White House also said Monday that at this point officials do not believe that more documents were breached beyond the two which were made public.

CNN meanwhile reports that investigators currently believe the intel docs were leaked by someone within the US intelligence community:

The FBI is leading the investigation, working with Pentagon investigators and the intelligence community, according to US officials briefed on the matter.

In recent days, investigators have worked to authenticate the documents and determine who could have had access to them, the officials said.

That focus is one indication that, for now, the FBI and other investigators are working off the theory that the breach most likely came from a government insider and not from a cyber intrusion.

Statements attributed to the FBI further suggest authorities are getting close to tracking down the culprit. While both documents were available among a relatively large pool of US intelligence analysts and officials, CNN has noted that one of them appears to have been scanned from a printed briefing book.

“That could provide investigators with a critical jumping-off point: The Defense Department, like other federal agencies, tracks when employees print classified documents. The pool of people who printed these pages would be relatively small, these sources said,” CNN details.

Another statement by the Telegram channel rejects claims made by Axios and Jerusalem Post that the group is “Iran-affiliated”. And more info on how the leak originated: pic.twitter.com/EJdiLBGyx7

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) October 20, 2024

This is precisely how US Air Force veteran and former NSA translator Reality Winner got caught. She printed a single classified document from her work computer, and then anonymously mailed it to The Intercept. It was an NSA document related to alleged ‘Russian interference’ in the 2016 United States elections, which involved some phishing scams and efforts at breaching voting software. The document itself was relatively vague. Government investigators were able to very quickly determine which printer was used, and which NSA employee viewed it.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House task force investigating the July 13 assassination attempt targeting former President Donald Trump concluded that the incident was “preventable,” releasing new testimony from local law enforcement officials who provided accounts of communications and operational failures at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Released on Monday, the report concluded that there was a “lack of planning and coordination” between the U.S. Secret Service and its local law enforcement partners during the Trump rally.

The Secret Service, it found, “did not give clear guidance to the relevant state and local agencies about managing areas outside the secure event perimeter, and there was no joint meeting on the day of the rally between [the Secret Service] and all state and local law enforcement agencies assisting” the federal agency.

Monday’s House task force report mostly echoes findings made by the Senate Homeland Security panel report and an internal Secret Service report, both of which were released in September.

The report included findings that were already publicly released. But the report contained new interviews with local law enforcement officials in Butler County on how the Secret Service failed to perform on July 13.

Unnamed officials in Butler provided more details on how the gunman was first spotted by law enforcement and that nothing was done until he opened fire upon the rally, clipping Trump’s right ear with a bullet while killing a rally-goer and severely injuring two others.

As one example, one emergency services official told the panel that he sent a text message to his colleague that the shooter was seen with a rangefinder at around 5:17 p.m. However, the colleague did not see the message until more than 20 minutes later, at around 5:40 p.m.

The report also included new testimony from the officer who attempted to climb on the roof of the building where the gunman had perched before he opened fire. Days after the shooting, local officials confirmed that an officer tried to get on the roof but that the shooter pointed his weapon at him, forcing the officer to back down.

Police body-camera footage was also released of the incident, showing the officer getting a boost from another law enforcement official in a bid to climb on the roof. The shooter could not be seen in that clip.

That unnamed official told the panel that as he attempted to move his way onto the roof, the gunman “slowly turned on his waist” and “slowly turned around.”

“And as I came up, that’s when he pointed his firearm in my face,” the official said. “And at that time, I could see, you know, he had a bookbag with him, I could see mags (gun magazines).

“I knew he had a long gun, like an AR-platform. And as I’m coming up and he’s got the gun pointed at me, I don’t know if I reach for my gun, if I slip, but all I know from that point is I’m looking at him, and all my weight is on my, like, arms, my hands, and I don’t have a grip.”

The officer added, “The next thing I know, I smack against the ground and fall.”

“I just start yelling out to the guys that are there, I yell on the radio right away,” the official added. “I start saying, you know, South end, He’s got a long gun. Male on the roof. I just kept repeating, He’s got a gun. He’s got a long gun. I’m telling the guys that are around, like, he’s right up there, guns up, eyes up, still screaming on the radio.”

Overall, local and state law enforcement officials who spoke to the House panel were largely critical of the lack of a unified command and communications post to oversee security at the Trump event.

They also said that there was no unified briefing between the federal and local partners that could “have led to gaps in awareness among state and local law enforcement partners as to who was stationed where, spheres of responsibility, and expectations regarding communications during the day,” according to the report.

The Secret Service has not issued a comment on the House panel’s report. The Epoch Times contacted the agency but received no response by publication time.

The acting director of the Secret Service in August conceded that the agency failed in its mission to protect Trump during the rally, did not properly secure the rally site, and that several agency staffers would face punishment over the incident.

Two months later, federal law enforcement officials said that Trump was the target of a second assassination attempt, this time at his Florida golf course while he was golfing. The Secret Service said that an agent who was protecting Trump saw the barrel of a rifle sticking out of a perimeter fence on Sept. 15 before he engaged with the suspect and opened fire, prompting him to flee.

Ryan Wesley Routh was later arrested and charged with multiple felony counts in connection to the incident and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors say that Routh had authored a note that indicated he wanted to assassinate the former president.

So much for 2% inflation…

The Girl Scouts could be forced to raise yearly membership from $25 to $85, according to a new report from Fox News. That marks a rise of 240%, for those of you keeping inflation score at home. 

Girl Scouts of the USA President Noorain Khan and CEO Bonnie Barczykowski said this week: “We have collectively acknowledged that a membership dues increase is needed which is greater than the 25 percent (or $6.25) the National Board has authority to approve in a single triennium.”

“Over the past few years, costs have increased everywhere, and neither GSUSA nor our councils have been immune to this pressure,” it continued. “Operating at a deficit — spending more than we bring in — as we have been doing, is not sustainable.”

The statement continues: “We can no longer afford to use our financial reserves, and we cannot pass through all escalating costs to our councils.”

It says: “The additional revenue generated by national annual membership dues of $85 for girls and $45 for adults will enable all of us, together, to deliver our Movement strategy.”

The Fox News report says that Girl Scouts membership has declined in recent years, partly due to the pandemic. Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts, now Scouting America, began accepting girls in 2018.

The Girl Scouts ended the 2023 fiscal year with a $4.4 million deficit, which is projected to grow to $5.6 million by the end of 2024.

Girl Scout troop leader Sally Bertram commented: “I just feel like a triple jump in numbers is going to dissolve the Girl Scouts in southeast Indiana. People out here do not pay that kind of money.”

“I think that these girls could lose a lifetime of experiences,” she continued. 

In a statement to Fox, Girl Scouts said: “Ensuring that Girl Scouts can be here for girls (now and in the future) requires financial resources. Girl Scouts has not raised membership dues in over 8 years.”

“This is not a decision we take lightly, which is why 900 delegates representing Girl Scouts’ membership are coming together to weigh options and vote to ensure that Girl Scouts thrive and that, most importantly, every girl has access to the Girl Scout experience so desperately needed today.”

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

When you take on the role of the world’s policeman, don’t be surprised when countries who cannot fight their own wars call “911.”

That is exactly what is happening to the United States on two fronts and it is bankrupting our country, depleting the military that should serve our own national interest, and threatening to drag the US into World War III.

Last week, Ukraine’s “president” Vladimir Zelensky publicly presented his “Victory Plan.”

It was delusional: immediate NATO Membership for Ukraine, NATO strikes against incoming Russian missiles, and permission to use Western long-range missiles for strikes deep into Russia including Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The real intent was not hard to understand.

Ukraine is on the verge of losing its war with Russia and is desperate to draw the United States military into the fight. There were numerous opportunities to avoid this bloody war but at every step the Ukrainian leadership listened to western neocons (like Boris Johnson) and decided to keep fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian.

But now that they are nearly down to the last Ukrainian, they are calling on us to step in and fight the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth -Russia – in a battle that could not be more unrelated to our actual interests.

Washington’s answer should be simple but firm:

“No more weapons, no more money. You’re on your own. Make peace.”

Would the US be mortally wounded if the people in Eastern Ukraine were allowed to secede from Kiev and join Russia?

Would anyone except the Russia-obsessed neocons in DC think tanks even notice?

Likewise with Israel.

Tel Aviv has, in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, launched a war to annihilate Palestinians from Gaza, invade and occupy southern Lebanon, degrade the military of Iraq and Syria, and take on Iran. But the Israeli military has nowhere near the capacity to fight so many wars on so many fronts, so it has increasingly demanded US involvement in the conflicts. Already the US has provided some $23 billion in additional military aid to Israel and has employed US military assets in the region to shoot down missiles and provide increased weapons and intelligence.

But it’s still not enough for Israel. To fight Iran, with its significant military capabilities, Israel appears desperate to drag the US military into the battle. The stationing of one or perhaps two THAAD air defense systems, each with 100 US troops to operate them, is part of that effort. These 100-200 US troops are illegally engaged in combat, but what’s worse is that they are being used as a tripwire. US and Israeli leaders understand that they will be considered legitimate targets for any additional Iranian missile attack, but as soon as American troops start getting killed in Israel there will be a massive push for further US involvement. Imagine the mainstream media war propaganda if such a terrible thing happens.

That is no way to use members of the US armed services. It is the opposite of supporting our troops.

Washington’s response to Israel trying to drag us into its war with Iran should be just like with Ukraine:

“No more weapons, no more money. You’re on your own. Make peace.”

That is what a pro-America foreign policy looks like. Our Founders understood it very well and wrote about it often.

It’s called “non-intervention.”

Bacterial infections are becoming more dangerous.

When you’re fighting a bacterial infection, a doctor will typically prescribe you an antibiotic to help you recover. Unfortunately, rising antibiotic resistance means these drugs are becoming less effective.

In part one of this series on antimicrobial resistance, Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross partnered with the MSCI Sustainability Institute to highlight the increase in bacteria’s resistance to antibiotics.

What is Antibiotic Resistance?

Antibiotic resistance happens when bacteria evolve and become resistant to the drugs used to treat them. To some extent, this occurs naturally due to genetic changes in pathogens. 

However, people have misused and overused drugs to prevent, control, and treat infections in humans, animals, and plants. This is the primary cause of more resistant bacteria.

Resistance Rates Over Time

Based on the latest available data, the resistance rates of key antibiotics increased from about 16% in 2001 to 44% in 2020. In other words, nearly half of infections are not responsive to the antibiotics typically used to treat them. 

Unfortunately, the majority of experts believe that some of these key antibiotics—including amoxicillin and cephalexin, some of the most prescribed drugs in the U.S.—will very likely be lost to resistance within the next 15 years.

The Impact of Antibiotic Resistance

With treatments no longer working for illnesses like pneumonia or urinary tract infections in some cases, the risk of disease and death increases. Every year, antibiotic resistance directly leads to nearly 1.3 million deaths.

On top of this, rising resistance creates investment threats. For instance, companies failing to address antimicrobial resistance might face reputational damage. However, there are also opportunities for investors when it comes to the development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments.

In the second part of this series, we highlight the gap between infection-related deaths and research efforts. 

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

The global Covid response was the turning point in public trust, economic vitality, citizen health, free speech, literacy, religious and travel freedom, elite credibility, demographic longevity, and so much more. Now five years following the initial spread of the virus that provoked the largest-scale despotisms of our lives, something else seems to be biting the dust: the postwar neo-liberal consensus itself. 

The world as we knew it only a decade ago is on fire, precisely as Henry Kissinger warned in one of his last published articles. Nations are erecting new trade barriers and dealing with citizen uprisings like we’ve never seen before, some peaceful, some violent, and most that could go either way. On the other side of this upheaval lies the answer to the great question: what does political revolution look like in advanced industrial economies with democratic institutions? We are in the process of finding out. 

Let’s take a quick march through modern history through the lens of US-China relations.

From the time of China’s opening in the 1980s to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the volume of trade imports from China only grew, decade after decade. It was the most conspicuous sign of a general trajectory toward globalism that began following the Second World War and accelerated with the end of the Cold War. Tariffs and trade barriers fell ever more, as dollars as the world reserve currency filled the coffers of world central banks. The US was the global source of liquidity that made it all possible. 

It came at a huge cost, however, as the US through the decades lost its manufacturing advantages in dozens of industries that once defined the American commercial experience. Watches and clocks, pianos, furniture, textiles, clothing, steel, tools, shipbuilding, toys, household appliances, home electronics, and semiconductors all left US shores while other industries are on the rocks, most especially cars. Today, the much-celebrated “green energy” industries seem fated to be outcompeted as well. 

These industries came to be largely replaced by debt-financed financial products, the explosion of the government-backed medical sector, information systems, entertainment, and government-funded education, while the primary exports of the US became debt and petroleum products. 

Many forces combined to sweep Donald Trump into office in 2016 but resentment against the internationalization of manufacturing was high among them. As financialization replaced domestic manufacturing, and class mobility stagnated, a political alignment took shape in the US that stunned the elites. Trump got busy on his pet issue, namely erecting trade barriers against countries with whom the US was running trade deficits, primarily China. 

By 2018, and in response to new tariffs, the volume of trade with China took its first huge hit, reversing not only a 40-year trajectory of growth but also dealing the first the biggest blow against the 70-year postwar consensus of the neo-liberal world. Trump was doing it largely on his own initiative and against the wishes of many generations of statesmen, diplomats, academics, and corporate elites. 

Then something happened to reverse the reversal. That something was the Covid response. In Jared Kushner’s telling (Breaking History), he went to his father-in-law following the lockdowns and said:

 We’re scrambling to find supplies all over the world. Right now, we have enough to get through the next week—maybe two—but after that it could get really ugly really fast. The only way to solve the immediate problem is to get the supplies from China. Would you be willing to speak to President Xi to de-escalate the situation?

“Now is not a time to be proud,” said Trump. “I hate that we are in this position, but let’s set it up.”

It’s impossible to imagine the pain that decision must have caused Trump because this move meant a repudiation of all that he believed in foundationally and all that he set out to accomplish as president. 

Kushner writes:

I reached out to Chinese ambassador Cui Tiankai and proposed that the two leaders talk. Cui was keen on the idea, and we made it happen. When they spoke, Xi was quick to describe the steps China had taken to mitigate the virus. Then he expressed concern over Trump referring to COVID-19 as the ‘China Virus.’ Trump agreed to refrain from calling it that for the time being if Xi would give the United States priority over others to ship supplies out of China. Xi promised to cooperate. From that point forward, whenever I called Ambassador Cui with a problem, he sorted it out immediately.

What was the result? Trade with China soared. Within a matter of weeks, Americans were wearing Chinese-made synthetic coverings on their faces, having their noses stuck with Chinese-made swabs, and being tended to by nurses and doctors wearing Chinese-made scrubs. 

The chart on China’s trade volume looks like this. You can observe the long rise, the dramatic fall from 2018, and the reversal in the volume of PPE purchases following the lockdowns and Kushner’s interventions. The reversal did not last long as trade relations broke down and new trade blocs were born. 

The irony, then, is a salient one: the aborted attempt to restart the neo-liberal order, if that is what it was, occurred in the midst of a global bout of totalitarian controls and restrictions. To what extent were the Covid lockdowns deployed in service of resisting Trump’s decoupling agenda? We have no answers to that question but observing the pattern does leave room for speculation. 

Regardless, the trends of 70 years came to be reversed, landing the US in new times, described by the Wall Street Journal in the event of a Trump victory in 2024: 

If it turns out that the tariff on China is 60% and the rest of the world is 10%, the U.S.’ average tariff, weighted by the value of imports, would leap to 17% from 2.3% in 2023, and 1.5% in 2016, according to Evercore ISI, an investment bank. That would be the highest since the Great Depression, after Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1932), which triggered a global surge in trade barriers. U.S. tariffs would go from among the lowest to highest among major economies. If other countries retaliated, the rise in global trade barriers would have no modern precedent.

Talk of the Smoot-Hawley tariff really does plunge us into the wayback machine. Back in those days, trade policy in the US followed the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8). The original system granted Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among other powers. This was intended to keep trade policy within the legislative branch to ensure democratic accountability. As a result, Congress responded to the economic/financial crisis by imposing huge barriers against imports. The Depression worsened. 

It was a widely accepted belief among many in elite circles that the 1932 tariffs were a factor in the deepening of the economic downturn. Two years later, efforts began to transfer trade authority to the executive so that the legislature would never do something so stupid again. The theory was that the president would be more likely to pursue a free-trade, low-tariff policy. That generation never imagined that the US would elect a president who would use his power to do the opposite. 

In the waning days of the Second World War, a group of extremely smart and well-intended diplomats, statesmen, and intellectuals worked to secure the peace in the aftermath of the wreckage in Europe and around the world. They all agreed that a priority in the postwar world was to institutionalize economic cooperation as broadly as possible, under the theory that nations that are dependent on each other for their material well-being were less likely to go to war against each other. 

Thus was born what came to be called the neo-liberal order. It consisted of democratic nations with limited welfare states cooperating in trading relationships with ever-lower barriers between states. In particular, the tariff was deprecated as a means of fiscal support and industrial protection. New agreements and institutions were founded to be the administrators of the new system: GATT, IMF, World Bank, and the UN. 

The neo-liberal order was never liberal in the traditional sense. It was managed from the outset by states under US dominance. The architecture was always more fragile than it appeared to be. The Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, tightened through the decades, involved nascent institutions of global banking and included a US-managed monetary system that broke down in 1971 and was replaced by a fiat-dollar system. The flaw in both systems had a similar root. They established global money but retained national fiscal and regulatory systems, which thereby disabled the specie-flow mechanisms that smoothed and balanced trade in the 19th century. 

One of the consequences was the manufacturing losses mentioned above, which coincided with a growing public perception that the institutions of government and finance were operating without transparency and citizen participation. The ballooning of the security state after 9-11 and the stunning bailouts of Wall Street after 2008 reinforced the point and set the stage for a populist revolt. The lockdowns – disproportionately benefitting elites – plus the burning of cities with the riots of the summer of 2020, the vaccine mandates, and combined with the onset of a migrant crisis, reinforced the point. 

In the US, the panic and frenzy all surround Trump but that leaves unexplained why almost every Western country is dealing with the same dynamic. Today the core political fight in the world today concerns nation-states and the populist movements driving them versus the kind of globalism that brought a worldwide response to the virus as well as the worldwide migrant crisis. Both efforts failed spectacularly, most especially the attempt to vaccinate the entire population with a shot that is only defended today by manufacturers and those in their pay. 

The problem of migration plus pandemic planning are only two of the latest data points but they both suggest an ominous reality of which many people in the world are newly aware. The nation-states that have dominated the political landscape since the Renaissance, and even back in some cases to the ancient world, had given way to a form of government we can call globalism. It doesn’t refer only to trade across borders. It is about political control, away from citizens in countries toward something else that citizens cannot control or influence.

From the time of the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, the idea of state sovereignty prevailed in politics. Not every nation needed the same policies. They would respect differences toward the goal of peace. This involved permitting religious diversity among nation-states, a concession that led to an unfolding of freedom in other ways. All governance came to be organized around geographically restricted zones of control. 

The juridical boundaries restrained power. The idea of consent gradually came to dominate political affairs from the 18th through the 19th century until after the Great War which dismantled the last of the multinational empires. That left us with one model: the nation-state in which citizens exercised ultimate sovereignty over the regimes under which they live. The system worked but not everyone has been happy with it.

Some of the most high-status intellectuals for centuries have dreamed of global government as a solution to the diversity of policies of nation-states. It’s the go-to idea for scientists and ethicists who are so convinced of the correctness of their ideas that they dream up some worldwide imposition of their favored solution. Humanity has by and large been wise enough not to attempt such a thing beyond military alliances and mechanisms to improve trade flows.

Despite the failure of global management last century, in the 21st century, we’ve seen the intensification of the power of globalist institutions. The World Health Organization (WHO) effectively scripted the pandemic response for the world. Globalist foundations and NGOs seem to be heavily involved in the migrant crisis. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, created as nascent institutions for a global system of money and finance, are exercising outsized influence on monetary and financial policy. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to diminish the power of the nation-state over trade policies.

Then there is the United Nations. I happened to be in New York City a few weeks ago when the United Nations met. No question that it was the biggest show on planet Earth. Vast swaths of the city were shut down to cars and buses, with diplomats and heavy-hitting financiers arriving via helicopter on the roofs of luxury hotels, all of which were full for the week of meetings. The prices of everything were jacked up in response since no one was spending his own money in any case.

The attendees were not only statesmen from all over the world but also the biggest financial firms and media outfits, along with representatives of the largest universities and nonprofits. All of these forces seem to be coalescing at once, as if they all want to be part of the future. And that future is one of global governance wherein the nation-state is eventually reduced to pure cosmetics with no operational power.

The impression I had while there was that the experience of everyone in town that day, all swarming around the big United Nations meeting, was one of deep separation of their world from the world of the rest of us. They are “bubble people.” Their friends, source of financing, social groupings, career aspirations, and major influence are detached not only from normal people but from the nation-state itself. The fashionable attitude among them all is to regard the nation-state and its history of meaning as passe, fictional, and rather embarrassing.

Entrenched globalism of the sort that operates in the 21st century represents a shift against and repudiation of half a millennium of the way governance has worked in practice. The United States was initially established as a country of localized democracies that only came together under a loose confederation. The Articles of Confederation created no central government but rather deferred to the former colonies to set up (or continue) their own structures of governance. When the Constitution came along, it created a careful equilibrium of checks and balances to restrain the national state while preserving the rights of the states. The idea here was not to overthrow citizen control over the nation-state but institutionalize it.

All these years later, most people in most nations, the United States especially, believe that they should have final say over the structure of the regime. This is the essence of the democratic ideal, and not as an end in itself but as a guarantor of freedom, which is the principle that drives the rest. Freedom is inseparable from citizen control of government. When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself is gravely damaged.

The world today is packed with wealthy institutions and individuals that stand in revolt against the ideas of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They believe they have a global mission and want to empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in nation-states.

They say that there are existential problems that require the overthrow of the nation-state model of governance. They have a list: infectious disease, pandemic threats, climate change, peacekeeping, cybercrime, financial stability, and the threat of instability, and I’m sure there are others on the list that we’ve yet to see. The idea is that these are necessarily worldwide and evade the capacity of the nation-state to deal with them.

We are all being acculturated to believe that the nation-state is nothing but an anachronism that needs to be supplanted. Keep in mind that this necessarily means treating democracy and freedom as anachronisms too. In practice, the only means by which average people can restrain tyranny and despotism is through voting at the national level. None of us have any influence over the policies of the WHO, World Bank, or IMF, much less over the Gates or Soros Foundations. The way politics is structured in the world today, we are all necessarily disenfranchised in a world governed by global institutions.

And that is precisely the point: to achieve universal disenfranchisement of average people so that the elites can have a free hand in regulating the planet as they see fit. This is why it becomes supremely urgent for every person who aspires to live in peace and freedom to regain national sovereignty and say no to the transfer of authority to institutions over which citizens have no control.

Devolving power from the center is the only path by which we can restore the ideals of the great visionaries of the past like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and the entire generation of Enlightenment thinkers. In the end, governing institutions must be in citizen control, and pertain to the borders of particular states, or it necessarily becomes tyrannical over time. As Murray Rothbard put it, we need a world of nations by consent. 

There are plenty of reasons to regret the collapse of the neo-liberal consensus and a strong rationale to be concerned about the rise of protectionism and high tariffs. And yet what they called “free trade” (not the simple freedom to buy and sell across borders but rather a state-managed industrial plan) also came at a cost: the transference of sovereignty away from the people in their communities and nations to supranational institutions over which citizens have no control. It did not have to be this way but that is how it was constructed to be. 

For that reason, the neo-liberal consensus built in the postwar period contained the seeds of its own destruction. It was too dependent on the creation of institutions beyond people’s control and too reliant on elite mastery of events. It was already crumbling before the pandemic response but it was the Covid controls, nearly simultaneously imposed all over the world to underscore elite hegemony, that exposed the fist under the velvet glove. 

The populist revolt of today might someday appear as the inevitable unfolding of events when people become newly aware of their own disenfranchisement. Human beings are not content to live in cages. 

Many of us have long predicted a backlash to the lockdowns and all that was associated with them. The full scale of it none of us could have imagined. The drama of our times is as intense as any of history’s great epochs: the fall of Rome, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the fall of the multinational empires. The only question now is whether this ends like America 1776 or France 1790. 

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin arrived in Ukraine’s capital by train on an unannounced visit Monday, at a moment Ukraine’s forces are getting steadily pushed back in the east, and as President Zelensky expresses frustration at the lack of large-scale new military aid.

“It’s been absolutely remarkable that Ukraine has been able to do what it’s done,” Austin told reporters as he went into Ukraine Sunday night. “It’s been able to do that, of course, because of the fact that we have supported them from the very beginning, and we’ve rallied some 50 countries to be a part of that support.”

In Kiev, Austin announced $400 million in new arms for Ukraine but did not acquiesce to the Ukrainians’ main ask – the greenlight to strike Russia with US-supplied weapons.

The Wall Street Journal also emphasized of the package, “It was one of the smaller aid packages the Biden administration has announced and included no new types of weapons systems.”

This trip to Ukraine is likely to be Austin’s last one there as Pentagon chief. CNN noted that it came amid a dark and pessimistic backdrop: 

The secretary’s visit was also meant to serve as a moment for him to “step back” and look at the “arc” of the US-Ukraine relationship over the last two and a half years of war, a senior defense official said.

It was not a victory lap, however. The Ukrainians are in a “very tough” situation against the Russians heading into winter, the official noted.

There was one moment in Austin’s remarks clearly aimed at Trump and Republican lawmakers back home. Amid ongoing GOP criticisms, including calls to take care of Americans first amid natural disasters instead of handing billions over to Ukraine, the defense secretary tried to brush back these arguments…

“For anyone who thinks that American leadership is expensive, well, consider the price of American retreat,” Austin said.

“Not since World War II has America systematically rallied so many countries to provide such a range of industrial and military assistance for a partner in need.”

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin has arrived in Kyiv on an unannounced visit. He will meet Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Defense Minister Rustem Umierov to discuss Ukraine’s arms needs. pic.twitter.com/TPWU3CMRdc

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) October 21, 2024

Zelensky last month lashed out at Trump running-mate J.D. Vance, calling him “too radical” for his stance on the war. The Ukrainian leader expressed that “the idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable.”

Clearly Austin’s Monday words were framed in response to that controversy, and some GOP operatives are not going to be happy that the Pentagon chief used an official visit abroad to weigh in. But one question that remains is: How much for North Carolina?

Authored by Anna Mason and Daksha Devani via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Instead of slurping from their cereal bowls and scrolling through their phones, Glade and Bethel Smith’s children start their day by eating breakfast as a family followed by a reading of the Bible.

The Smith kids—Madeline,13, Everett, 11, Annabeth, 10, Vivian, 7, Penelope, 6, and Henry, 3—are eager to read the verses but wait for their turn, after which they clean up the kitchen and get ready to start their day.

“We homeschool our kids,” 41-year-old Glade, from Nebraska, told The Epoch Times. “None of our kids have a phone or any electric devices. None of our kids play video games. [Instead] our kids love to read and love to use their imagination.”

Homeschooling and Helping Out at the Farm

The kids begin their homeschooling day at 8.30 a.m. with their stay-at-home mom reading novels aloud that align with what they are learning at school, followed by a fun session of singing together.

The Smith children, who read at least 25 to 30 books per year, are always begging for one more chapter to be read, said Glade, who owns Family Beef Farm Box—their family business that ships dry-aged, hand-cut beef across the country.

If they complete their school work by lunchtime, the kids are encouraged to help their dad on the farm—with 3-year-old Henry, who isn’t in school yet, spending most of his time doing just that.

“He’s probably our most animal lover of any of the kids,” Glade said, adding that the little boy loves milking cows and is not afraid of getting in there.

On Mondays, the older kids join Glade to pack beef boxes.

In the last couple of years, the parents have instituted the idea of paid jobs, with each child getting paid some money for completing their daily chores.

“My oldest daughter is in charge of some calves that need to be fed,” said Glade, who is also a multi-generational cattle producer and bred cattle marketing specialist with Wright Livestock. “My son is in charge of caring for 60 chickens. One of my younger daughters is in charge of gathering and washing eggs.”

The Smith kids—who were introduced to farm life at birth— have shown a strong work ethic despite being young.

Their proud father recalled a work trip to Oklahoma with his son, Everett, who won a fellow cattleman’s heart with his diligence.

“We’re gathering several hundred head of cattle, sorting and loading trucks. One of these hard-working, blue-collar cattlemen was blown away watching my [son] running cattle around doing a good job and gave him a $20 bill,“ he said. ”A year later, my boy still has that $20 bill. That meant so much to him.”

Over the last year, Everett has worked laboriously in the muddy fields laying out heavy 30-foot-long tubes for irrigating crops in the scorching heat. His tireless efforts have won neighbors’ hearts with many asking Glade for his son’s assistance in irrigating their fields.

“I was amused because I found myself being my son’s secretary, as neighbors were calling, [asking] ‘Can your son come help me today?’” Glade said, adding that he believes his hardworking son will become a “hot commodity” to farmers in the near future.

Read the rest here…