While normal daily editor David Leonhardt is on vacation, the New York Times is bringing in outside writers to cover the morning newsletter until Aug. 27. This week’s authors are Meagan Day and Bhaskar Sunkara of Jacobin, the socialist magazine. The NYTs, by providing this very visible platform on what is basically the official newsletter of the Democratic Party, allows for an insight into just where they are heading. And that is a brazen, all-out attack on the US Constitution. From the Day and Sunkara newsletter:

Consider a few facts: Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The Senate, the country’s most powerful legislative chamber, grants the same representation to Wyoming’s 579,315 residents as it does to 39,536,653 Californians. Key voting rights are denied to citizens in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other United States territories. The American government is structured by an 18th-century text that is almost impossible to change.

These ills didn’t come about by accident; the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution’s framers. For James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” incompatible with the rights of property owners. The byzantine Constitution he helped create serves as the foundation for a system of government that rules over people, rather than an evolving tool for popular self-government.

Writers on the left such as Jacobin’s Seth Ackerman and the journalist Daniel Lazare have long argued that constitutional reform needs to be on the agenda. Even some liberals like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias rightly worry that the current system of governance is headed toward collapse. [Read more…]

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That, for anyone who recognizes it, is the language of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and with respect to “freedom of the press,” it should properly be read as “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

As I was taught when young, and God alone knows what is taught today on the subject, if anything, we in this country owe John Peter Zenger a debt for freedom of the press, not the First Amendment.

For those who have forgotten, or never were taught in the first place, John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German American printer and journalist in New York City who printed The New York Weekly Journal. [Read more…]

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante

In a recent article in the Cape Charles Mirror entitled “Ferris Bueller’s Lesson: Trump’s Tariffs will be damaging to the US Economy,” this following comment was made, which comment deserves attention and consideration from every voting age person in America to wit:

“. . . nor will I disparage the only man who gives America a chance in the face of a long-term Democrat/Liberal/progressive plan to destroy us.”

Now, how that statement is to be interpreted is unclear without knowing exactly who is the “us” that are to be destroyed by this alleged Democrat/Liberal/progressive plan, but for the sake of argument, we can make some assumptions as to who the “us” might be, based not only on our political history, because Teddy Roosevelt was a true “progressive,” and we know who he was out to destroy, but also the political history of England circa 1900 to WWI, and perhaps more importantly Dutch history in the period of the Batavian Revolution, which was a period of political, social and cultural turmoil at the end of the 18th century that marked the end of the Dutch Republic and saw the proclamation of the Batavian Republic.

By the end of the 18th century, the Netherlands found themselves in a deep economic crisis, perhaps very similar to that we find ourselves in today in this country, and during that time in the Netherlands, the banks of the Dutch Republic held much of the world’s capital, with the government-sponsored banks owning up to 40% of Great Britain’s national debt.

This concentration of wealth in the Netherlands of that period led to the formation of the Dutch Patriots by a minor Dutch noble named Joan van der Capellen tot den Pol.

The Patriots who were the “progressives” of their time, were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, and what they desired were a more democratic government and a more equal society.

Jump forward in time to America at the close of the “Gilded Age,” and the “progressivism” of Teddy Roosevelt, and one finds that same theme, just as one finds that same theme today in America, where like before, we are looking at the essence of class warfare – the haves versus the have-nots.

In that period of time, the people of the Netherlands grew increasingly discontent with the authoritarian regime of the stadtholder, William V, while in our times today, the people of America are growing increasingly discontent with the authoritarian regime of Donald Trump.

Back then, the Dutch Patriots built support from most of the middle-class and founded militias of armed civilians, which between 1783 and 1787 managed to take over several cities and regions in an effort to force new elections which would oust the old government officials.

Today, in America, instead of militias, voting blocs are being created in an effort to oust the “old government” of corrupt Democrats and equally corrupt Republicans, and it is that which apparently Donald Trump is supposed to save “us” from, assuming we are a part of what Donald Trump represents, which is the same greed that was good in the time of the “Gilded Age,” and again during the reign of American Republican political icon Ronald Reagan.

That Trump is the champion of the “haves,” and the “greed is good” mentality that the “progressives” like Teddy Roosevelt were very much against is very much apparent in a Slate article entitled “Trump Celebrates Tax Bill With Mar-a-Lago Friends: ‘You All Just Got a Lot Richer’” by Daniel Politi on Dec. 24, 2017, as follows:

President Trump was in a celebratory mood on Friday night and told a group of his wealthy friends, “You all just got a lot richer” after he signed the tax cuts into law.

Trump reportedly uttered the words to a group of friends who were having dinner nearby at Mar-a-Lago, including two friends who spoke to CBS News about the remark.

Anyone spending time at what has come to be known as the “Winter White House” is not exactly suffering economically, considering the initiation fee is $200,000 and annual dues are $14,000.

End quotes

Those are the people who fear the “progressives” in America today, and the “progressives” in America today are a reaction to those same people, just as was the case earlier in England, and before that in the Netherlands.

Without the one, there would not be the other.

The powerful few against the impoverished many, which takes us back to the Dutch Patriot Revolt, as follows:

After the halcyon days of the Dutch Golden Age of the first two-thirds of the 17th century, the Dutch economy entered a period of stagnation and relative decline.

The absolute size of Dutch GNP remained constant, but the economy was overtaken by that of other European countries in the course of the 18th century, and in a number of economic sectors, such as the fisheries and most industries that had sprung up in the early 17th century, an absolute decline occurred.

In a direct comparison with where we are today in this country, the deindustrialization of the Netherlands (“offshoring”) resulted in de-urbanization as artisans that had worked in the disappearing industries had to move to areas where work was still to be found, and the shrinking industrial base was also concentrating in particular areas, to the detriment of other areas where certain industries (shipbuilding, textiles) had formerly been prominent.

Thus, just as in America today, in the Netherlands of that time, economic inequality markedly increased during the 18th century with the Dutch economy becoming dominated by a small group of very rich rentiers, and the economy shifted to what we would now call a service economy, in which the commercial sector and the banking sector dominated.

As is the case in this country today, those shifts had a devastating effect on the people who experienced downward social mobility and ended up in the lower strata of Dutch society.

Just as is the case in America today, in the Netherlands back then, the disaffection with the perceived state of the economy and the diplomatic decline was paired with a growing disaffection with the political system of the Dutch Republic among middle-class Dutchmen.

The Dutch “constitution” defined the Dutch Republic as a confederation of sovereign provinces with a republican character, just like America started out so many years ago, where power was supposed to flow upward, from the local governments toward the provincial States, and eventually the States-General. ‘

Those local governments, however, though ostensibly representing “The People” according to the prevailing ideology, had in fact involved into oligarchies dominated by a few families that in the cities at least were not formally part of the nobility, but were considered “patrician” in the classical sense.

Just as is the case in America today, the concentration of power in a more and more closed oligarchy frustrated the middle class, that saw its opportunities for political and social advancement blocked, also because the political patronage in regard to all kinds of petty offices was concentrated in the hands of the oligarchs, who favored their own political allies.

So there is some necessary background, which brings us back to the central question in the minds of Americans all across America today  – who exactly is it that Donald Trump, himself a member of the oligarchy, or plutocracy, going to save us from, and how?

So stay tuned, and we will hopefully see what answer emerges here.

“It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy,” he wrote in a famous passage. “It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.” – John Adams

The great shortcoming of democracy is and always has been the culture, the people themselves.   The stupidity and hypocrisy displayed every day on social media is proof of that.

As was noted above, John Adams, and other Founding Fathers, were dubious about the idea of democracy, precisely because it provided the means to weaponize the general stupidity of people.

But isn’t America a democracy?

Well…despite what the anti-electoral college idiots tell you…the pledge of allegiance states, “and to the republic for which it stands.”

This photo prompted talk show personality Samantha Bee to call Ivanka Trump “a feckless cunt”, all to the cheers of Progressives.

The Framers of the Constitution were, again dubious of pure democracy, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”– (Federalist No. 10).

They instead opted for a republic. A democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly–through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, by proxy make decisions for them.

Over time, “democracy”, liberalism, has become a bit bastardized, adopted to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense, the United States might accurately be called a democracy. [Read more…]

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante

This past weekend, some 478.2 miles roughly north of Cape Charles, Virginia, in the tiny town of Poestenkill, New York, just to the east of the state capital of Albany, where Progressive Democrat and presumptive Democrat presidential front-runner in the 2020 presidential elections Young Andy Cuomo holds court, and this is according to eye-witness accounts, the New York State Police were seen scouring an otherwise quiet residential area for a fugitive from the law.

The person they were hunting was not some terrorist, or raper, or thief, or escaped murderer.

To the contrary, the subject of the dragnet or manhunt was a young woman who refuses to take psych drugs that make her feel suicidal.

Yes, people, you are reading that right – in New York state, according the law as written, a doctor can demand that someone be put on psych drugs, and if that person won’t take the drugs, the doctor can then issue an order to the New York State Police to have them pick the person up, and then deliver that person to the psych unit of a local hospital, in this case, the Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York.

This is very reminiscent of a similar scheme, or scam, that was the subject of an Association Of Certified Fraud Examiners article entitled “Bribery on the Bench: A Look at Judicial Corruption” by Jordan Underhill, J.D., Research Specialist, ACFE, as follows:

In September 2009, a federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, returned a 48-count indictment against two judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan.

The indictment included conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, conspiracy to commit tax fraud, honest services fraud, racketeering, bribery, money laundering and extortion.

The basis of these charges was an alleged kickback arrangement with private prison operators that netted the Luzerne County judges more than $2.6 million over at least seven years.

Conahan colluded with private prison operators to shut down the county-run juvenile detention center in favor of privately run facilities and Ciavarella did much of the sentencing that filled the new detention centers’ beds.

The private juvenile detention centers received state funding proportionate to the number of offenders that they housed; thus, they were incentivized to house as many individuals as feasible.

The judges deliberately funneled juvenile offenders (who were often advised by the judges that they did not need legal counsel) into the private juvenile detention centers, regardless of whether the charges merited the punishment.

One 16-year-old was arrested for gesturing with her middle finger at a police officer responding to a custody dispute involving her parents and sister.

Ciavarella sentenced her to six months in juvenile detention.

A 14-year-old was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention for mocking a school principal on Myspace.

At least 5,000 juveniles appeared before Ciavarella in the five years preceding the discovery of the scheme, many unrepresented and severely punished for minor infractions.

The FBI and IRS began investigating the judges after another Luzerne County judge, Anne H. Lokuta, accused Conahan of conspiring to remove her from the bench (she was, in fact, removed from the bench in November 2008).

Lokuta aided federal investigators in discovering the kickback arrangement.

After the full extent of the scheme was discovered, hundreds of juvenile adjudications were ordered overturned.

The so-called “kids-for-cash” scheme is an alarming reminder of the amount of damage that a dishonest judiciary can cause.

The scheme not only defrauded taxpayers of millions of dollars, but also violated the constitutional rights and severely disrupted the lives of thousands of children.

End quotes

In writing this, it is that last sentence I am focused on, because in New York State, once a doctor signs that order, essentially, one’s civil rights disappear, and I can say that with authority, because I had that happen to me in New York State, where the Mental Hygiene Law is used by the corrupt politicians as an offensive retaliatory weapon.

The law in question here, and I am speaking of this in the Cape Charles Mirror, one, because this is the only publication I know of in America where discussions of this nature can take place, and more importantly, because this law will be held up as a national model by the Democrats in these coming months, especially if they can win control of the congress in this year’s mid-term elections, is known as “Kendra’s Law.”

Hence, the people of America who do not live in New York State, and who are unaware of the ramifications of this law, as I was, up until just recently, should have the opportunity to be made aware of this law, and what it might mean to our future as a nation, especially when we are in the midst of a drug epidemic and a spate of teen violence that may well be linked to the side effects of these psych drugs being forced on the children and youth in America.

As to the laws of the state of New York as they relate to people accused of being mentally ill and dangerous becoming a model for the nation, I would refer the interested reader who wishes to educate themselves on this subject to a February 26, 2018 Press Release by New York’s Progressive democrat governor Young Andy Cuomo entitled “Governor Cuomo Announces Massachusetts, Delaware and Puerto Rico Join ‘States for Gun Safety’ Coalition to Combat the Gun Violence Epidemic,” where we are informed as follows:

Multi-State Coalition Now Represents Over 35 Million Americans

Massachusetts, Delaware and Puerto Rico Enter Agreement to Create Multi-State Database to Supplement Ineffective Federal NICS System

Multi-State Coalition Will Share Information, Trace and Intercept Flow of Out-of-State Guns, and Establish Nation’s First Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium

New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy and Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo today announced Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Delaware Governor John Carney and Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló are joining the “States for Gun Safety” coalition — a multi-state partnership launched this month to combat the gun violence epidemic.

With the addition of these new members, the coalition of states now represents over 35 million Americans and will take action to stop gun-related violence in the face of continued federal inaction.

Massachusetts, Delaware and Puerto Rico will join a multi-state task force to trace and intercept illegal guns in the region.

The new members will work in cooperation with other partner states to enhance intelligence gathering, information sharing, and response efforts related to gun violence.

Participating states will leverage collective investigative resources in order to determine comprehensive, coordinated plans for gun violence responses.

Governor Cuomo said, “It’s time for the horrifying mass shootings that have plagued this country for far too long to spur real action and real policy changes.”

“Our states collectively already have better gun safety laws than the federal government, and by working together to share information and bolster enforcement, we will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and better protect our communities.”

“If the federal government refuses to act, we will work together to enact the important reforms families deserve, and I welcome these new states to our coalition.”

End quotes

There is our future as a nation and a free people shaping up there, people, and with respect to this manhunt going on in the Town of Poestenkill in New York State for a young woman who refuses to take psych meds that make her feel suicidal, it is not a pleasant one to contemplate.

In that same Press Release, Governor Malloy of Connecticut said, “The addition of Massachusetts, Delaware, and Puerto Rico to this multi-state coalition is an important step toward regional cooperation to prevent gun violence, and I applaud these governors for being a partner in this endeavor.”

“The massacre in Parkland – like the massacres in Las Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Umpqua, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and countless others – are a tragic reminder of the urgent need to tear down political barriers and work together to make our communities, schools, and public places safer.”

“That said, while we can make a significant difference, we need real and substantive action from Congress if we are serious about ending this epidemic of gun violence.”

“It shouldn’t need saying, but the lives of children are far more important than any powerful special interest.”

“It’s time to act.”

End quotes

Yes, let’s protect our children from guns and the NRA, but are the lives of children more important than the powerful special interest known as BIG PHARM?

Not in New York State, they are not.

In New York State, through this “Kendra’s Law,” our children have literally been rendered as property of BIG PHARM, losing their right to refuse medication, as a result.

As to how this “Kendra’s Law” came into being in the first place, according to an official publication of the New York State Office of Mental Health titled “Kendra’s Law: Final Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment – Appendix 2” by Keith J. Brennan, Esq., Assistant Counsel, New York State Office of Mental Health, on January 3, 1999, an event occurred which galvanized the mental health community, and served as a catalyst for an effort to identify and address the needs of the small population of persons who respond well to treatment when hospitalized, but who have trouble maintaining their recovery once back in the community.

On that date, Andrew Goldstein, a man with a history of mental illness and hospitalizations, pushed Kendra Webdale onto the subway tracks in a tunnel beneath the streets of Manhattan.

Ms. Webdale lost her life as a result.

What followed was a bi-partisan effort, led by Governor George Pataki, to create a resource delivery system for this population, who, in view of their treatment history and present circumstances, are likely to have difficulty living safely in the community.

End quotes

In the case of this young woman in Poestenkill who is now a fugitive from the law because she refuses to take psych drugs that have literally destroyed her young life, she was living safely in the community.

But that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, anymore.

Getting back to “Kendra’s Law,” on August 9, 1999, Governor Pataki signed Kendra’s Law, creating a statutory framework for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment (“AOT”), to ensure that individuals with mental illness, and a history of hospitalizations or violence, participate in community-based services appropriate to their needs.

The law became effective in November of 1999.

Since that time, 4,245 court orders have been issued for AOT statewide, together with 2,559 renewal orders.

The majority of orders and renewals have been issued in New York City.

End quotes

And now that the money-making potential of this law has been discovered outside of New York City, the abuse of this law has spread to upstate New York, all the way into small rural communities like this Poestenkill, where these manhunts for this young woman ae taking place.

When I first heard of this, I was not a sceptic; I was totally unbelieving.

This is monstrous, I said.

This is something you would expect to hear about happening in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.

This **** doesn’t happen here, I said, but I was wrong – it certainly does.

And a disturbing aspect of this law is as follows:

New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.59

Immunity from liability

(a) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any general, special or local law, an ambulance service as defined by subdivision two of section three thousand one of the public health law and any member thereof who is an emergency medical technician or an advanced emergency medical technician transporting a person to a hospital as authorized by this article, any peace officers, when acting pursuant to their special duties, and any police officers, who are members of an authorized police department or force or of a sheriff’s department, who are taking into custody and transporting a person to a hospital as authorized by this article, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission unless it is established that such injuries or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such emergency medical technician, advanced emergency medical technician, peace officer or police officer.

End quotes

Who in their right mind can take comfort from that, especially in the case of the apprehension of a young person because they refuse to take drugs that are hurting them and destroying their lives?

In capturing this young woman, and surely she will eventually be captured, the police are given license to treat her roughly, with immunity from the law, while the burden would be on her to prove that gross negligence was involved, which is ridiculous.

And what kind of message does that send to a community already afraid of police violence?

As to Constitutional Challenges, the Office of Mental Health states as follows:

Kendra’a Law was signed into law by Governor George Pataki on August 9, 1999, and became effective on November 8, 1999.

Even before the law was implemented, there emerged a focused debate concerning the issue of whether the law achieved its goal of creating a mechanism to insure that individuals who met the statutory criteria remained treatment compliant while in the community, in a way that was consistent with the Constitutional rights of those individuals.

On one side of the debate, proponents of the law recognized the numerous procedural aspects of the law which were included specifically to meet constitutional standards, many of which were deliberately modeled after other provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law, which themselves had survived prior judicial scrutiny and had been found to be constitutional.

The supporters of the law argued that any compulsion occasioned by the law was justified by the law’s important objective of helping individuals with a history of treatment non-compliance resulting in violent acts and/or repeated hospitalization, to live safely in the community.

On the other side of the debate, opponents of the law primarily relied upon prior judicial decisions which found that forcible medication over objection required a finding of incapacity.

The opponents of the law read into these decisions a much broader proscription of any measures which might influence an individual’s decision to comply with treatment, even when those measures fall far short of forcible medication over objection.

This theoretical debate would not be resolved without judicial intervention and inevitably found its way into the courts.

In In re Urcuyo, the first court challenge to the constitutionality of Kendra’s Law, the Mental Hygiene Legal Service (“MHLS”) moved for dismissals on behalf of two respondents to Kendra’s Law petitions in Supreme Court, Kings County.

Respondents argued that Kendra’s Law violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the New York State and the United States Constitutions because the statute did not require a judicial finding of incapacity prior to the issuance of an order requiring the respondent to comply with the AOT treatment plan.

The court rejected all of respondents’ arguments, and held that the statute was in each respect constitutional.

End quotes

And there, people, is where the nightmare always begins – with a politically-appointed judge determining where our constitutional rights begin and end.

With that law having been deemed constitutional, all challenged to the abuse of that law have become that much harder, because in reality, those merely accused of being mentally ill and dangerous have their constitutional rights stripped from them.

They become societal objects, no longer citizens with rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is this still America?

Or have we become something else?

The candid world would like to know.

Candidates for Cape Charles Mayor and Town Council gathered at the Palace Theatre for the 2018 candidates forum. This season’s election boasts a series of fresh faces, as well as a slate of highly qualified candidates. The forum was hosted by the Northampton Rotary Club.

The candidates bring solid, yet varied work and life experiences to the table.

The forum began with the Mayoral candidates Smitty Dize and Terry Carney. Each candidate articulated their qualifications, with Dize noting that Cape Charles is a water town, and he has spent his entire life working on or around the water, from commercial crabbing to a stint with the Merchant Marines. Carney countered that his previous career as an FBI agent provided him with the ability to analyze situations, but more importantly to listen to what people are actually saying. While Carney was able to articulate his vision a little better than Dize, Smitty was able to make the case that he has more history here and has a proven track record from his work as harbor master, and now as a manager of the Oyster Farm.

There is a lot to choose from for town council — Chris Bannon and Joan Natali represent current members of the council, David Gay, Tammy Holloway, Nioaka Marshall, Paul and Andrew Follmer are attempting to be first time members. While Natali and Bannon spent some time defending the current status of the town in areas such as the reverse-angle parking and water quality (taste and smell), the new kids on the block attempted to offer counterpoints such as attempting to find answers and alternatives to the current crisis of bad water and wierd parking angles.

After close to 5 hours of debate, the audience was left with the feeling that no matter who wins, there will be good folks occupying the seats.

Critique and Analysis

Citizen being forced to listen to Cape Charles candidate forum

Can you say Kumbaya? That, in a nutshell, was the approach by all the candidates. There was no snarkiness, no confrontations, no insults or accusations. At one time, it looked as if Mayoral candidates Dize and Carney would actually start making out, right there on the stage. All this collegiality made for a really boring and an altogether waste of a Sunday afternoon. They basically all agreed with each other on just about everything. The only thing we really learned about the candidates is that they are more about slick presentation than being forthright about how they really feel about the state of things, except for saying, “I love this town! I have a passion for this town!” I swear, I think they all said this at one time or another.

Except for Dize and Bannon, everyone else seemed so rehearsed and professional. It seemed inauthentic as if you could have just put a manakin with a prerecorded message in a chair, and there would hardly be a difference. While the candidates may have felt this lent an air of authority and knowledge, it instead came off as, ‘Oh, here’s a bunch of come-heres trying to tell us how they are going to make everything so much better’. How’s that been working out for you?

Annoyingly, many of the candidates kept bringing up their former jobs as if that somehow gave them credibility and prepared them for a role in local government. We’re glad you all had great careers, really we are, but let it go. None of that really matters, and the fallacy that it does is what is destroying this place.

These people never seem satisfied, and just can’t leave this place be.  All afternoon, we kept hearing how the town had to “step up its game” or “take it the next level” or whatever. Here’s the scary part: after acknowledging that there is no commercial property left in Cape Charles for the town to “grow into”, the word “Annexation”, which until now has only been muttered and whispered behind closed doors, was actually said out loud. Grab your wallets people…they are coming for you. [Read more…]

Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante

Those who don’t know history are fools and those who make them their leaders and then follow them are even bigger fools, and we are privileged to be living in a time when that story is playing out all around us on the world stage, where the con-man, that being United States President and seemingly World-Class moron Donald J. Trump, the “Let’s Do A Deal Dude” who is running this country like it was a shady bidness in some third-world ****hole, has inflicted FIRE AND FURY (a very tired and hackneyed phrase these days) on Bashar Assad of Syria.

Except he didn’t, and the only ones who believe that crap spew that he did are the incurably incredulous in this country who watched the fireworks on TV and said to themselves “WOW, HOLEY MOLEY, ZOUNDS, LOOK AT THAT TRUMP PUTTING A REAL GOOD ***-WHUPPING ON THAT BASHER DUDE IN SYRIA WHO IS KILLING THE MERCENARIES WE HAVE OVER THERE TRYING TO OVERTHROW HIM!”

Except he didn’t.

Look at what Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute has to say about it in the Washington Post article “Trump’s strikes on Syria risk retaliation, escalation in a war he wants to avoid” by Paul Sonne on 14 April 2018, as follows:

The allure of such strikes, Pollack said, is that they are “feel-good military operations,” which make the American public think they have done something to help Syrians.

“No we didn’t,” Pollack said.

End quotes
[Read more…]