« The Lebanese Connection | Main | "Faint tapping" The beginning of the end for Japan »

06 December 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Elora Danan

Anyway, if you charge giving birth in a hospital at an average 10.000 to 30.000$, or contraception treatment at an average 1300$, may be abortion becomes the only way to birth control for a wide portion of the population.

Making impossible for them to have children, while criminalizing them for having abortions in a desperate situation, is like putting them against the wall.... towards desperation and mass extinction....

To see if that is not the intended outcome...

Taking all this into account, then Nancy Pelosi, who could be well an hypocrite in other issues, is showing herself compasionate in this one, which is a mandate from the Church....

Moreover, religious mandates are a voluntary thing to fullfil, even into Church believers. Trying to transform these mandates into mandatory law for all the citizens of a country which constituted itself as secular ( if not because of the wide variety of creeds...), is trying to force and privilege a certain religion doctrine unto the rest, what translates into a religious dictatorship we so much criticize in other countries like KSA...

Not to mention that not fullfilling every Church mandate is not in our hands neither to judge, nor to punish...that is the competence of God....
Trying to self-adjudge yourself the role of God on Earth is not only a great boldness, but also a great sin....



You have not understood the state of PRESENT Church teaching which judges in all cases that abortion is murder and a mortal sin. Can sin be forgiven? Yes, always. We are not Calvinists.



I can visualize the armed force of Germany and France serving as the basis for a European army but the armed forces of the UK are now so small as to be more of an ornament and tourist attraction than anything else. Separation of the Scots post Bexit would further complicate the situation.



It is not clear to me how much the additional data in U6 really means anything as other than merely interesting fluff.


The Empire (Deep State/Establishment) Strikes Back

" Three Possible Outcomes

The worst charge thus far alleged against President Trump is that he attempted to make $400 million in aid to Ukraine contingent on that country’s government investigating possible corruption by the Bidens. This is the much hoped for “smoking gun,” the “quid pro quo”—as if the foreign policy of any country in history has ever been borne aloft on the gentle vapors of pure altruism.

The central question would appear to be this: suppose that charge were abundantly substantiated by witnesses and documents—as it is not by the telcon—would that be sufficient to convince a majority of Americans, and a supermajority of senators, that Trump should be removed from office? In the latter case, possibly—Republican senators tend to be wobbly, and many want Trump gone for reasons that have nothing to do with this specific allegation, which merely offers a convenient excuse.

But in the former case, I don’t see it. Especially since a) no aid was actually withheld; b) no investigation was actually launched; c) the American people don’t care about Ukraine and would probably prefer to get their $400 million back; and d) they would inevitably ask: so were, in fact, Joe Biden and his son on the take from a foreign government? And if it looks like they might have been, why, exactly, was it improper for the president to ask about it?

Trump’s enemies’ answer to the last question is: because the president was asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent for purely personal gain. Really? Is potential corruption by a former vice president—and potential future president—and his family a purely private matter, of no conceivable import or interest to the public affairs of the United States? That’s what you have to insist on to maintain that the request was improper. That’s the line we can expect the Democrat-CLM axis to flog, shamelessly and aggressively. But will a majority of Americans buy it? Especially since career officials at the Department of Justice already determined, and anti-Trump witnesses appearing before Representative Adam Schiff’s secret star chamber reluctantly conceded, that nothing Trump did or is alleged to have done was technically, you know, illegal.

It’s both infuriating and amusing to read the intellectual Left, led by the New York Times, pivot from Project 1619—that racist, white supremacist founding!—to founders-as-paragons-of-democratic-integrity, whose wise Constitution reserved impeachment just for such dire but foreseeable emergencies.

Impeachment, we are often reminded, is a political, not a legal, measure. That’s true to the letter of the Constitution of course, but not to the way “impeachment” is being used now. If Trump’s enemies had sufficient political strength—which means the support of the people—they would have already impeached him. As it is, they’ve held but one narrowly procedural vote and are hinting that another may not happen until next year.

They need—and they know they need—the intervening time to further the transformation of this fundamentally political assault into a legal matter, and to find, assert, or manufacture some technical violation of the law. At the end of the day, “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever you can get 218 representatives and 67 senators to vote for. So long as the phrase is understood politically, the latter threshold—at least—is out of reach. The hope is that forcing the public to accept a legal understanding will bring both within reach.

And it might. It worked against Nixon. It almost worked against Reagan. But let’s be clear: if it works this time, there are only three possible outcomes:

First, deplorable-Americans will meekly accept President Trump’s removal, in which case the country as a self-governing republic will be finished; the elite coup will have succeeded, their grip on power cemented. With all due respect to the vice president, this is not the way—these are not the people on the backs of whom—he should wish to enter the Oval Office. And I am confident he will not.

Second, deplorable-Americans will revolt at the ballot box and punish the elites in a series of elections that put in power serious statesmen intent on rooting out corruption and reestablishing democratic accountability.

Or, third, deplorable-Americans’ attempt to set their government aright via ballots will not avail, as it has not so often in the past; they will realize that it has not, conclude that it never will, and resolve by any means necessary to get out from under the thumbs of people who so obviously hate them and wish to rule them without their consent.

Only one of these possibilities is healthy for the continued survival of republican government as currently constituted.

Oh, and let’s also be clear about something else: if the Republicans “collude” with this sham and force the removal of a president whose approval rating within his party hovers north of 90%, and whose voters scarcely understand—much less agree with—the “case” against him, they will destroy the party forever. I don’t often make predictions, because I’m not good at it, but this one is easy. They will have removed all doubt that they are anything but ruling class apparatchiks, adjuncts, and flunkies of the administrative state from which they take orders.

And let none of them dare gaslight us with the trite dismissal that Trump's removal would not overturn the 2016 election results because the president's replacement was also elected. Trump's intraparty enemies hate him, and wish to be rid of him, precisely because he is not one of them, because he stands for, and represents, something fundamentally different. Getting rid of him is, for them, a way to get back to business as usual. But there is no going back. A few of them in safely anti-Trump states or districts may survive the president’s removal but the vast majority will not. A new party—a Trumpian populist-nationalist party—will arise from the Republican Party’s ashes. More blue collar in economic orientation and less in hock to coastal and financial elites, it will do a better job of attracting Democrats and independents—possibly pointing the way to the first real national majority coalition since the Reagan era. And that new party will not welcome the traitors, who will have to make do with contributorships on CNN and MSNBC. Assuming any slots are available."


SAC Brat foreign nationals are not banned from buying firearms if they pass the federal background check. He probably had a residence address off base.


Elora Danan

The Catholic Church IS a "religious dictatorship" and will remain that. Those who do not accept that have placed themselves outside the Body of Christ. Pelosi's personal hypocrisy lies in citing her supposed Catholicism as defense of her attitude toward Trump. This has nothing whatever to do with her actions as a legislator or the secular nature of the US state. She chose to express outrage on the basis of her religion. She should not have done that.

Babak Makkinejad

You are a funny people, abortion is muder but post birth, the hell with the individual: let him die from his medical condition if does not have the funds for a treatment.



I suppose you mean Americans rather than Catholics. You claim to live in Michigan and you should know that hospitals are paid by the federal government to treat indigent patients.

Babak Makkinejad

There you go again.

What does it mean to be secular in Europe, and especially in Spain when your civilization is based on the three-year long ministry of one Jesus of Nazareth?

Babak Makkinejad

Yes but not the working poor without health insurance.


What happens in France are not "riots" (not yet), but protests with a few incidents mainly due to the police forces new doctrine (coming from Israel): hurt and frighten peaceful protesters so they do not come back.

Those protests are due to the fact that more and more french people are poor (90% of french had to share 18% of produced richness in 2017), but also to the fact that more and more french people understand that the political class is sold to corporate greed and doesn't care about France.
Pechiney, Alstom, Latecoere, Alcatel, Technip etc were successful french industrial corporations that were sold to US interests without any economical merits (sometimes in a Mafia like blackmail as was the case for Alstom).
After having destroyed the industrial companies, the Corporations want the state to privatize health protection, pensions schemes etc so that the banksters and others can make money out of it, just like in the desastrous american system. To give numbers, the 2018 private part of the health protection system represents now about 13-14% (in value) of the total health services performed. Still, for those 14% of services, those private companies have management fees that are now superior to all the management fees perceived by the public system which provide 85% of the health services... A complete robbery. The financial situation of the french social protection system (including pensions) is good, but the french politicians keep reducing the level of mandatory social contributions so that they can pretend the system is going bankrupt. At the same time, they keep very high taxes level for small businesses and a lot of taxes rebates for the big corporations.

Macron is a bankster, a traitor sold to international corporations, as are many french politicians: the french working class is resisting to international corporate greed, and rightly so.


Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the 2016 Crowdstrike-missing DNC computer files fiasco. You just can't make things up and argue for or against them.

Anything related to the prior Burisma investigation that could ensnare Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's demand for a quid pro quo in 2016 was a side show.

Yet again, Trump detractors refuse to even bring up the Crowdtrike "favor" to unlock the three long years of bogus Russia-gate hysteria.


Where are you getting your facts, Babak. We spend the largest part of Medicare funding on the last 6 months of life. If anything, we do need to let more people die with dignity and not subject them to cash-extraction over-treatment during their final days. Seriously, where are you getting your cartoon anecdotal version of the US? An exception does not make a rule.

Eric Newhill

No one is dying for lack of available medical care in the US. That is Michael Moore/socialist propaganda. The mentally ill are a different story, but they are a challenging cohort to deal with.

I don't understand why anyone in this day and age needs an abortion. Birth control is readily available at Planned Parenthood and other organizations on sliding cost schedules. The "morning after pill" is readily available without prescription at most pharmacies in case in the heat of passion a potential mistake occurred.

Who is it that has unprotected sex, gets pregnant and then three or four (or more)months later decides to abort? That makes no sense to me. I asked SWMBO about it and, as a woman, she doesn't get it either.



iMO "Babak" is a multi person agitprop identity. the difference in English language ability among you is noticeable.



That is simply untrue. You apparently aren't up to date with health care in Michigan.

Babak Makkinejad

Not a true statement.

I stand by what I wrote: Republicans are against abortion and against universal health care.

Babak Makkinejad

Mistakes happen, even in this day and age.

Babak Makkinejad

That large funds are spent in the last 6 months of life is not in dispute. But is does not detract from my point, which is you rail against abortion yet deny medical care to the working poor as a matter of course. A 37-year old ditch digger with a cardiovascular medical condition is condemned to an early death since he cannot afford the medicine that could prolong his life: acttual case.

Babak Makkinejad

Perhaps the United States, being a country of immigrants- both legal and illegal - cannot afford anything like UK's NHS. But how is that UK or Spain or Sweden can deal with the costs of end-of-life care? They are poorer countries compared to US.

Babak Makkinejad

I recall when I needed it, I could not have it since I was unemployed. I imagine you were never in that situation, always being gainfully employed.


The three possible outcomes summation's author of the article The Claremont Institute is a Conservative think tank based in Upland California.


The Navy on Saturday identified the three victims of the NAS Pensacola shooting as

Ensign Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, of Coffee, Ala.;

Airman Mohammed Sameh Haitham, 19, of St. Petersburg, Fla.;

and Airman Apprentice Cameron Scott Walters, 21, of Richmond Hill, Ga.

English Outsider

Colonel - there is a great difference of opinion in the UK about the significance of the "European Army" and the UK's place in it. Some reckon it's not meant to be an ultimate replacement for NATO. Some think that the UK moves to integration with EU defence forces outside NATO are the thin end of the wedge.

According to recent reports the German armed forces are reckoned to need ten to twenty years to get up to scratch. UK armed forces are too small and getting smaller but are still reckoned to be Tier 1. "Tier 1" seems to refer to the ability to send troops abroad. The French armed forces are substantial but tend to be focused more on the ME and Africa.


From the little I know of military affairs it seems to me that talk of a "European Army" is pie in the the sky. That's if it's intended for anything serious. Tony Blair, of all people, is on record as stating recently that without the Americans Europe has no effective defence. That is a generally held view.

But things can change and I believe it is intended that they should change. This is a seldom discussed subject, compared with other subjects that are getting discussed rather more in the UK at the moment, but the impression I get is that joint defence projects will be the glue that holds this embryonic European army together. That was confirmed a while ago by one of Mrs Mogherini's officials who remarked that joint procurement was the starting point for integrated defence.

Small countries need alliances if they are to have an effective defence. It is my view that the UK should not select its alliances on the basis of who can offer the best joint procurement opportunities.

Might I ask, what is the American view on the value of European NATO and the possibility of it morphing into a separate European Army?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad