Leap Frog Tag Junior Book Pal - Purple- Book Explorer 22004 The Little ssqkde1809-Learning Systems

Military Forces 100 Pc. W\carrying Case. Xtra Pcs Inside. Used. Great condition

Tamiya XB Series No.205 1 18 Kong head 6 6 G6-01 chassis propoxyphene wi... P O

From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn’t just a trade war, says The Economist in a major cover package. “Trade is not the half of it,” declares the magazine. “The United States and China are contesting every domain, from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration.” The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win world are gone.

For its own cover, The Financial Times’ Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, “Trade is just an opening shot in a wider US-China conflict.” The subhead: “The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence.” Writes Stephens: “The trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential threat.”

Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled “Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge,” released last year by President Donald Trump’s Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, “China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there.” The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is “Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future.”

The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as “an altogether hotter war.”


As the Pentagon’s strategic paper posits, China’s overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America’s strategic platform for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II.

America has been projecting significant power into Asia since the 1890s, when President William McKinley acquired Hawaii through annexation, then seized Guam and the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. For good measure, he cleared the way for the construction of the Panama Canal and continued his predecessors’ robust buildup of the U.S. Navy. President Theodore Roosevelt then pushed the Canal project to actual construction, accelerated the naval buildup, and sent his Great White Fleet around the world as a signal that America had arrived on the global scene—as if anyone could have missed that obvious reality.

With the total victory over Japan in World War II, America emerged as the hegemon of Asia, with colonies, naval bases, carrier groups, and strategic alliances that made it foolhardy for any nation to even think of challenging our regional dominance. Not even the Vietnam defeat, as psychologically debilitating as that was, could undercut America’s Asian preeminence.

Now China is seeking to position itself to push America back into its own hemisphere. And judging from the language of the National Defense Strategy, America doesn’t intend to be pushed back. This is a clash of wills, with all the makings of an actual military conflict.

But if China represents the greatest potential threat to America’s global position, making an eventual war likely (though not inevitable), why is Beijing not acting like it knows this? Why is it engaging in so many silly military capers that undermine its ability to focus attention and resources on the China challenge? While the National Defense Strategy paper suggests that U.S. officials understand the threat, China’s actions reveal an incapacity to grapple with this reality in any concentrated fashion.

Here’s a general idea of what a U.S. foreign policy under Trump might look like if it was based on a clear recognition of the China threat:

Iran: Since the end of the Cold War, the sheer folly of Trump’s Iran policy has been exceeded only by George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion. Barack Obama bequeathed to his successor a rare gift in the Iran nuclear deal, which provided an opportunity to direct attention away from Tehran and toward America’s position in East Asia. In no way did it serve America’s national interest to stir up tensions with Iran while the far more ominous China threat loomed. A policy based on realism would have seized that opportunity and used the channels of communication forged through the nuclear deal to establish some kind of accommodation, however wary or tenuous. Instead, America under Trump has created a crisis where none need exist.

Personnel: While the Iran policy might be difficult to reverse, a reversal is imperative. And that means Trump must fire National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While their bully boy actions on the global stage seem to mesh with Trump’s own temperament, the president also appears increasingly uncomfortable with the results, particularly with regard to their maximum pressure on Iran, which has brought America closer than ever to actual hostilities. Whether Trump has the subtlety of mind to understand just how destructive these men have been to his broad foreign policy goals is an open question. And Trump certainly deserves plenty of blame for pushing America into a zone of open hostility with Iran. But he can’t extricate himself from his own folly so long as he has Bolton and Pompeo pushing him toward ever more bellicosity in ever more areas of the world. He needs men around him who appreciate just how wrongheaded American foreign policy has been in the post-Cold War era—men such as retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor and former Virginia senator Jim Webb. Bolton and Pompeo—out!

Item specifics

New: A brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item (including handmade items). See the seller's ... Read moreabout the condition
MPN: 22004
Year: 2009 Brand: LeapFrog
Binding: Toy Platform: Tag Junior
UPC: 708431220041

Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America’s inability to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.

The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China’s global rise is to be thwarted, it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia’s sphere of influence—and its defense perimeter—for centuries.

Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within Russia’s natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli—and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.

Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can’t be sure, but that certainly wouldn’t be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it’s never been tried? We now understand that allegations of Trump’s campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it’s time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin’s strategic aims. That’s impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.

NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist. The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe’s doorstep are gone as well.

So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union’s GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia’s, while Russia’s per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe’s. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe’s 512 million. Does anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo—Europe as subservient to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.

This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn’t be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led, not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe’s calculation of that will inform us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO’s Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked, should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization itself.

And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively—absent, of course, any Russian provocations.

The Middle East: The United States should reduce its footprint in the region on a major scale. It should get out of Afghanistan, with assurances to the Taliban that it will allow that country to go its own way, irrespective of the outcome, so long as it doesn’t pose a threat to the United States or its vital interests. U.S. troops should be removed from Syria, and America should stop supporting Saudi Arabia’s nasty war in Yemen. We should make clear to Israel and the world that the Jewish state is a major U.S. ally and will be protected whenever it is truly threatened. But we should also emphasize that we won’t seek through military means to alter the regional balance of power based on mere perceptions of potential future threats to countries in the region, even allies. The United States won’t get drawn into regional wars unrelated to its own vital interests.

Far East: Once the other regional decks are cleared, America must turn its attention to Asia. The first question: do we wish to maintain our current position there, or can we accept China’s rise even if it means a U.S. retreat or partial retreat from the region? If a retreat is deemed acceptable, then America should secure the best terms possible over a long period of tough and guileful negotiations. But if we decide to maintain regional dominance, then China will have to be isolated and deterred. That will mean a long period of economic tension and even economic warfare, confrontations over China’s extravagant claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea and elsewhere, strong U.S. alliances with other Asian nations nurtured through deft and measured diplomacy, soaring technological superiority, and a continual upper hand in any arms race.

In this scenario, can war be averted? History suggests that may not be likely. But either way, America won’t remain an Asian power if it allows itself to be pinned down in multiple nonstrategic spats and adventures around the world. Asia is today’s Great Game and China is winning. That won’t be reversed unless America starts playing. 

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century.

Barska 40x - 2000x Binocular Compound Microscope AY13074

1 18 Norev 1986 Ford Capri 280 Diecast Model Car Green 182718

We’re told that the Trump administration’s brinksmanship on Iran stems from 1998 Furby zebra striped Brown eyes by President Donald Trump’s undeterrable national security advisor, John Bolton. And it’s true that Bolton has never met a “preventive” war he didn’t like and that there’s every reason to suspect him of scheming to create an excuse for one. But lately it’s getting hard to distinguish President Trump from “President Bolton.” “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran,” Trump Acrylic Ant Farm Nest Educational Formicarium Ants Work Nest For LIVE Ants. “Never threaten the United States again!”

If the administration can’t be convinced to stand down, the House of Representatives should launch a preemptive strike of its own. They should credibly threaten to impeach the president if he goes to war without congressional authorization.

Waging war without legal authority is an impeachable offense, if anything is. Impeachment was designed to thwart RED LINE - FERRARI F575 SUPER AMERICA red; congressional control of the war power was one of that document’s core guarantees. “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,” James Madison 109153071 Hanomag R35 Granja Tractor 1955 red, 1 18 Minichamps, “than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”

The first federal impeachment case, brought less than a decade after the Constitution’s ratification, centered on charges of unauthorized warmaking. In 1797, the House impeached Tennessee Senator William Blount for conspiring to raise a private army for “a military hostile expedition” against Spanish-held Louisiana and Florida, “in violation of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States.” In the Founding era, usurpation of the war power was considered serious enough to merit the ultimate constitutional remedy.


No president has yet been impeached for illegal warmaking, but Richard Nixon came closest. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee debated impeaching Nixon for conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia “in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war.” The article never made it into the final charges, possibly scuttled by Democratic leadership out of fear of BEST MODEL BT9368 FERRARI 308 GTB N.36 RALLY MONZA 1983 FACETTI-ABIR 1 43 “that a few prominent members of their party had known about the secret bombing at the time.” As Congressman William Hungate WAFF Spara Combo Large, Purple, 8.25 x 5.5. Brand New afterwards: “It’s kind of hard to live with yourself when you impeach a guy for tapping telephones and not for making war without authorization.”

Current members of Congress should find it hard to live with themselves if they don’t do something to prevent the Trump administration from dragging us into an illegal and unnecessary war. Yet so far the congressional response has been limited to ineffectual grousing and the introduction of a few bills that are wholly inadequate to the task at hand.

Instead the House should consider passing a resolution “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of offensive military force against Iran without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

The Mercedes 450 Salt 6.9 W116 1976 - Norev 1 18, long one of the most jealous guardians of Congress’s power “to declare War,” proposed AMODEL 1 72 DORNIER F WAL OLANDESE during President Obama’s second term, when the administration was publicly contemplating airstrikes on Syria. Jones introduced CIJ NOREV COFFRET 4 CAMIONES FORD POISSY Y STUDEBAKER EDICIÓN LIMITADA 1000 EX stating that “except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” is an impeachable offense.

The Jones resolution only secured a handful of cosponsors and proved unnecessary in any event, when President Obama decided to 100 Malt Extract Agar 100 X 15mm Sterilized Petri Dish (MYA) for airstrikes, then abandoned the effort entirely. The stakes are far higher now.

The current House leadership is notably gun-shy about impeachment. But over the last two years, House Democrats have threatened to impeach Trump for much less. In the previous Congress, for example, Congressman Steve Cohen introduced articles charging Trump with, among other things, overspending on Ferrari 750 Monza Retired Targa Florio 1955 Maglioli Sighinolfi 1 43 Model. In January 2018, Congressman Al Green got 66 Democratic votes to move forward on a resolution to impeach Trump for “attempting to convert his bigoted statements into United States policy” in the form of the travel ban and the ban on transgender troops.

Surely, more Democrats—and even a few Republicans, like Congressman Justin Amash—could rouse themselves to threaten impeachment to avoid a disastrous war in violation of a core constitutional guarantee.

Other options on the table. H.R. 2354, barring funds for military action against Iran absent congressional authorization, can—and would—be vetoed by the president. A sense of the House resolution Mercedes W125 H.lang Donington GP 1937 1 18 Model 114 CMC. It wouldn’t have the force of law, but it would be more than mere symbolism: a shot across the administration’s bow and fair warning to the president. Moreover, a resolution publicly declaring war with Iran an impeachable offense could serve as a precommitment device for the House, a public pledge to take action should he cross that line.

Only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House, yet others still fear joining their ranks. Trump has claimed he’s “CARRERA CAR27541 BMW M4 DTM M. WITTMANN N.11 1 32 MODELL DIE CAST MODELL” worried about the prospect, but MAZ 537 Tractor Unit + ChMZAP 5247G heavy semi-trailer AVD Models 1 43 7054AVD and his public High Quality Break Your Own Geode Softball Size feed tell a different story. Earlier this week, he RIO RI4540 FIAT 128 RALLYE 1971 white 1 43 MODELL GEGOSSENE STERBEN MODELL at Representative Amash for opining that he’d engaged in impeachable conduct: “Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!”

Impeachment’s purpose isn’t primarily to punish abuses after the fact—that would be cold comfort here—but to prevent damage from being done in the first place. “It will not be the only means of punishing misconduct, but it will prevent misconduct,” future Supreme Court justice James Iredell remarked during the ratification debates in 1788. “Although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.” But in law as in war, deterrence sometimes requires a credible threat.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of NZG NZG9541-10 VW T6 MULTIVAN RED WHITE 1 18 MODELLINO DIE CAST MODEL

SPARK MODELO S1982 PORSCHE 908 02 N.67 NC LM 1972 C.FARJON DE POIred-P. 1 43



India, soon to be the world’s most populous country, has been booming economically, while also trying to tackle other problems, especially grinding poverty. The country is bewilderingly complex, home to thousands of religions, castes, ethnicities, languages, and cultures that somehow manage to interact with each other through a complicated and messy political and social system.

Yet ever since the Hindu right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, came to power in 2014, the dominant media narrative in the United States has focused on the dangers of Hindu nationalism and the alleged plight of minorities, especially Muslims and Christians. As India awaits the results of its 2019 national elections (most exit polls SPARK MODEL S5175 FORD FIESTA WRC N.1 GREAT BRITAIN 2017 OGIER-INGRASSIA 1 43 a big win for Modi and the BJP), a plethora of articles have appeared in the American press arguing that India is at a dangerous crossroads. These pieces say the BJP must be defeated for India to survive and be “great,” as Doug Bandow LeapFrog LeapPad Ultra 7 Tablet With 6 Games, Case, AC Adapter, headphones at The American Conservative. Reading Bandow, one gets the impression that India is a hellhole with no freedoms, populated by bigoted Hindu mobs braying for blood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, most Westerners do not know much about India and should avoid falling prey to simplistic caricatures.

While there are many problems with the BJP’s ideology and policies, it should nonetheless be given credit for the enormous economic improvements it’s made. Yet this story is almost always sidelined in favor of warnings about alleged religious intolerance in India. It bristles to read of the unidimensional manner in which the Western press portrays India and Hinduism. Because of the pantheistic nature of their religion, Hindus believe that the divine (or “God”) can take on many forms and approach in various ways. This openness is the basis of India’s greatness and freedom. Religious groups persecuted elsewhere, from Tibetan Buddhists to Persian Zoroastrians, have throughout history found a safe haven in India. Of course, Muslim and European empires have given much to India, especially cuisine, architecture, and administration. But these have ultimately been integrated into the country’s 5,000-year-old civilization.

Nevertheless, Western media often take a reductionist view of India based on a few narratives available to them in English. These narratives are not necessarily factually inaccurate, but they frame issues in alarmist ways. For example, a IXO MODELS Sd.Kfz251 8 Ausf.C sch.Pz.Abt.501 Sidi Bou Zid Tunisia 1943 TANK 1 43 in Al Jazeera posits that the title of a new Bollywood movie, Kesari—meaning “saffron”—is evidence of rising Hindu bigotry because the “colour [is] associated with the ruling party and the right wing in India.” Never mind that the flag of India, designed by the left-leaning Congress Party, contains saffron, in homage to the robes of ancient sages. Saffron is also a traditional color of Sikhism: the movie Kesari is actually about a last-stand battle between 21 Sikh soldiers and 10,000 Afghans.

CAJITAS DE BISUTERÍA MANUALIDADES unicorn caballo Corazón Mosaico mosaikkästchen


India is also not on the brink of a genocide. Mobs are not running rampant lynching people. The idea that the rise of the Hindu right has led to Jim Crow-like conditions against Indian minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, is not borne out by the evidence. It is true that life in rural India is in many ways pre-modern and often characterized by private violence, some of which has a communal angle. But there are no formal, legal barriers to minority rights, just social ones.

Of course, attacks against minorities should be absolutely forbidden, and the perpetrators punished. But it is important to keep in mind how relatively minor these incidents are in proportion to India’s population. Only 28 people were killed in vigilante attacks against Muslims between 2010 and 2017. MG TD Arnolt Continental Sportster white 1 43 Neo neu & OVP 44611 to a data analysis, the nature of crimes between Hindus and Muslims has also been frequently misinterpreted in the name of sensationalism: “Muslim crimes against Hindus were simply ignored, or not counted as hate crimes. Conversely, Hindu crimes against Muslims for non-religious reasons were counted as hate-crimes.” In addition, Hindus in the majority Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir have essentially been cleansed by Pakistani-sponsored militants. In Pakistan, the remnants of the Hindu population are subject to constant humiliations and persecutions, such as girls being kidnapped and forcibly married to older Muslim men.

The distortion of what’s really happening in India is enormous. It would be as though Asian media framed events at Charlottesville and Ferguson as proof that the United States was being run by white mobs. While some level of bias against minorities exists in both the U.S. and India, and there are sporadic episodes of violence, most minorities go about their daily lives normally.

There is no denying that many Hindus, regardless of their political affiliations, are deeply anti-Muslim, which probably leads to a systemic bias in some areas. But other minorities are much better off. In fact, BJP-allied governments serve in all three of India’s majority Christian states, and there are almost no communal problems involving minorities that aren’t Muslim.

The answer to the problem of bias against Muslims isn’t to separate them from Hindus. Yet some of this ghettoization of Indian Muslims is self-imposed. Muslim community leaders in India have not pushed for liberal and modern values. Rather they have demanded TRU020 DAF 2600, Frans Maas (NL), 1965, 1 43 IXO that allow their communities to retain a separate legal system, including the right of a man to take four wives and to instantly divorce a wife by uttering the Arabic word talaq three times. Hindus, meanwhile, are governed by a more modern civil law code that was passed over opposition by more traditional Hindus. The push for a common law for all Indians should be seen as a push for Enlightenment values.

Finally, there is the question of caste. Yes, the traditionally “lower” castes have historically faced discrimination. They’ve also been the target of Christian proselytizing, and there is some problematic anti-proselytizing sentiment among politicians in India. Yet since traditional Hinduism encountered European value systems, interpretations have been put forward that are emphatically anti-caste, at least in the hereditary sense. No major political party or intellectual group in India advocates hereditary caste. While caste persists socially, especially in rural areas, and is taken advantage of politically, there is no institutionalization of it. The breakdown of caste is ultimately the goal of the Hindu right, because it wants to form a united Hindu society.

The “lower” castes for the most part have never sought to leave Hinduism for Christianity or any other religion, despite the emergence of a neo-Buddhist movement associated with this demographic. The civil rights movement in the United States did not seek to radically overturn the political system or undermine its premises; rather, it wanted to extend its benefits and rights to all. Similarly in India, the spread of European Enlightenment ideas have led not to the replacement of Indian religions and culture with Western ones, but to reformist ideas within the Indian religious context. At the elite level, British-educated Indian intellectuals have sought out universal, pan-Indian ideas that transcend old ways of thinking. Hinduism has evolved and changed in many ways over the past two centuries as a result of contact with the West, while remaining true to much of its philosophy.

Meanwhile, women, untouchables (Dalits), and other groups that have faced discrimination in traditional Hindu society have organized in order to make Hinduism work for them. For example, during the early 20th century, Dalits in today’s state of Kerala led and won a temple entry movement, gaining access to sanctums traditionally open only to higher castes. They did this because they wanted to be accepted within their cultural-philosophical tradition, rather than convert to Christianity.  

There is no doubt that India is in a ferment, and that relations between its various ethnic and religious groups are changing. Unlike in many European countries, India’s many minorities, including Muslims and Christians, are natives, genetically and culturally, descendants of converts to those religions. They are just as Indian as followers of Indian-origin religions. Reconciling this with the genuine desire of the Hindu majority for recognition is a task that will require compromise and a halfway meeting point. India, like most countries in the world, is not as post-modern and post-identitarian as globalized elites would like to believe.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an international relations writer and analyst of Indian history, culture, and politics. Follow him at Twitter FurReal Roarin' Tyler The Playful Tiger WH004.



Josh Hawley, elected to the Senate from Missouri last year, was born on December 31, 1979. As such, he is the youngest sitting U.S. senator, and a member, at least on the older end, of the Millennial generation—that being a cohort thrust into the political conversation by Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg.

Hawley, of course, is a Republican, and so his words and deeds are of little interest to the mainstream media. And yet that could change, as the press catches up with just how different Hawley is from the usual Grand Old Partier. Of course, the torch is always being passed to a new generation—to borrow the words of another young leader, John F. Kennedy—and now it’s Hawley who’s bearing fresh fire.

In his so-called “maiden speech,” delivered on the floor of the Senate on May 15, Hawley spoke with the coiled energy of a reformer, the intense passion of a muckraker, and the Trumanesque bluntness of a Show-Me Stater.

In his address, he offered no defense of the status quo and nary a word about his fellow Republicans—no ode to President Donald Trump nor paean to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He didn’t insult them; he simply didn’t mention them.


Instead, Hawley used his quick 14 minutes to strike a stark tone on other topics. He used the word “despair”—as in the feelings of ordinary people—four times. He used the word “middle”—as in middle class or middle America—nine times, a typical formulation being “middle America [is] under siege.” He used the words “work” and “workers”—as in “we need a society that puts American workers first, that prioritizes them over cheap goods from abroad”—15 times.

And he was equally detailed and dire about the culprits. He used the word “aristocrat,” or a derivation thereof, five times, and “elite” 10 times.

Just as interesting were the words not found in Hawley’s speech. Unheard was that staple of Republican platforming, “taxes”—not a peep about raising them, nor about lowering them. Nor did he mention “debt,” “deficit,” “spending,” “Constitution,” or “federalism.” Also unmentioned: “Reagan,” “Bush,” “terror,” “Iraq,” and “Iran.”

On the other hand, Hawley went into detail about the “drug addiction” that has “flooded our streets and our homes,” name-checking heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth, and marijuana.

He put it all together in a sharp critique of contemporary America. “Over the last 40 years, our economy has worked best for those at the top: the wealthy, the well-educated,” he charged. “If you have a job in Silicon Valley or an expensive and prestigious degree, this economy has worked for you. And Washington has focused on how to get more people to join this elite.”

We might pause to note that over the last four decades, four Republican presidents have occupied the White House. And speaking of those decades, we might note that the Millennial generation has been especially hard-hit. As The Wall Street Journal Mercedes-Benz L3000 Pritschenwagen mit Puch SG250 1 43 Premium ClassiXXs 12653 recently, Millennials have less income, less wealth, lower rates of home ownership, and overall worse life prospects than any living previous generation.

Hawley’s sweeping jeremiad thus brings to mind another young Republican reformer willing to take on the status quo, Theodore Roosevelt. Back at the turn of the last century, TR was the 43-year-old newcomer to the White House, having succeeded William McKinley, as well as a long line of Republican presidents before him. Yet in his Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster Yellow 1 18 Model MAISTO on December 3, 1901, Roosevelt implicitly chastised them all:

The tremendous and highly complex industrial development which went on with ever accelerated rapidity during the latter half of the 19th century brings us face to face, at the beginning of the 20th, with very serious social problems. [emphasis added]

We can be confident that Hawley is aware of this historical parallel. And why should we be so sure? Because back in 2008, he published an admiring book on the 26th president, SOLIDO 1 43 FERRARI 512 M - Daytona 1970 4605.1011 . (As Hawley notes, the preaching allusion comes from the prominent naturalist and TR ally Gifford Pinchot.)

In his book, Hawley describes the changes Roosevelt saw during the late 19th century:

Factories and railroads and coal mines and telegraphs transformed the American economy. The era of the small, independent producer, long an American ideal, succumbed in the fierce battle of prices and production to larger business conglomerates the press called “trusts.”  The age of combination was at hand.

It should be noted that TR was no enemy of industry; he was, in fact, an ardent proponent of Hamiltonian economic development. Still, mindful of basic justice—and fearful that radical revolution would be the inevitable consequence of Social Darwinism—Roosevelt wanted to make sure that the working man and his family received, as he called it, a “Square Deal.”

In that same spirit, Hawley aimed to speak to the same Main Street aspirations, even as he took note of the hurdles that elites have put in front of ordinary folks.

“If you want a life built around the place where you grew up, if your ambition is not to start a tech business but to join the family business, to serve in the PTA or in your local church, well, you’re told that you’re not a success,” he exclaimed. “And you’re told that you’re on your own.”

Warming to his theme of righteous indignation, Hawley said of such systematized injustice: “This is no accident. The people who make the rules now, who run our large corporations, who set the tone for our popular culture, all belong to the same class. This economy has been their economy. They made it for themselves.”

Hawley did not use the famous TR phrase Pmap0324 1 72 Guerra Mondiale 2 V2 Razzo Mimetico Tedesco Army 1945 W —but he well could have.

So what will Hawley do now that he has a Senate-sized bully pulpit? Only time will tell—although as an early indicator, he has just proposed neo-Rooseveltian legislation aimed at protecting consumer privacy from the slicing and dicing of Big Tech.

Yet in the meantime, if we’re thinking back to reformers of past centuries, it’s hard not to recall another important figure from that era, one who was even more of a righteous preacher, namely William Jennings Bryan.

When in 2019, Hawley vindicates the simple verities of “family business,” “PTA,” and “local church,” it’s easy to reel back the years to Woody Joe 1 30 Cataluña Barco Madera Mini Kit de Modelismo Japón, when Bryan spoke of “the merchant at the crossroads store,” the “miner,” and “those hardy pioneers.” That speech, of course, was Bryan’s famous “cross of gold” oration, delivered to the Chicago Democratic National Convention. Bryan thus earned the nickname “The Silver-Tongued Orator of the Platte.” Indeed, the effect of his words on the delegates was so electric that he went from defeated 34-year-old ex-congressman from Nebraska to Democratic presidential nominee.

Bryan lost the 1896 presidential election, yet he carried Missouri. And four years later, when he ran a second time—against the GOP ticket of McKinley and Roosevelt—he carried Missouri yet again, even as he lost the nationwide balloting.

TR never liked Bryan. Yet he also understood that anyone who had earned another, more enduring nickname, “The Great Commoner,” had appeal to those whom TR affectionately, albeit perhaps condescendingly, referred to as the “plain people.” As Hawley wrote in his book a decade ago, TR was shrewd enough to “appropriate many of the Boy Orator’s themes and ideas.”

So now, in 2019, Hawley seems to be channeling a lot of TR, even as he, too, appropriates a little bit of Bryan.

That sure sounds like a potent political formula.

James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at The American Conservative. He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Matrix MX40102-101 - Alfa Romeo 2000 Sportiva coupe Bertone silver - 1954 1 43


BY: Ferrari 225 S Targa Florio 1952 Vittorio Marzotto 1 43 Model 0208 ART-MODEL SOVIET JS-4 HEAVY TANK KIT Trumpeter 1 35 TR05573 Model

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) on Tuesday took a shot at Democratic presidential candidates who have been calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump without following a specific process, saying this behavior is like a “runaway train.”

Raskin, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, appeared on MSNBC’s All In to discuss where his committee is on impeaching Trump. Host Chris Hayes asked Raskin to explain what his understanding is of a “formal inquiry of impeachment.”

“Is it what Sheila Jackson Lee means, which is a resolution a majority votes on. Is it what Jackie Speier just suggested, which is that the Judiciary Committee can just initiate itself or something else?” Hayes asked.

“I would say the best way for it to be fashioned is for it to be an actual formal resolution on the House floor that gets referred to the Judiciary Committee,” Raskin said. “Nobody on the Judiciary Committee is saying we should just go ahead like a runaway train, do our own thing, and then send it to the floor. That’s not how we operate. Look, people want to operate like that, they go run for president.”

Raskin went on to criticize the media for suggesting there are “divisions and polarization” among Democrats, calling the characterization “nonsense.”

“We are having discussions. Somehow members of your profession have done a great job of getting information about what’s going on behind closed doors and they blow it up into some big drama. We talk and that’s how we make progress,” Raskin added.


House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) said Tuesday that if put to a vote today, most House Democrats would vote “no” on impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Clyburn’s comments came amid increasing Democratic calls for impeachment proceedings after former White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Clyburn if the calls for impeachment characterized the majority of Democratic opinion.

“If you did a secret ballot among the Democratic caucus, yes or no on impeachment, what would the majority likely be?” Todd asked.

“Oh, the majority would be no,” Clyburn said.

“You believe that?” Todd asked.

Clyburn said he was confident the majority would still be no, even if the majority would be a bit smaller than it had been before McGahn did not appear to testify.

“A majority will be for staying steady, staying focused, stay on what we’re doing, because this thing is moving in our direction,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn said House Democrats should allow impeachment to happen naturally, listing what he considers recent Democratic victories that move in that direction.

“We have just seen members of staff at Deutsche Bank, saying they saw irregularities taking place, and they’re all for us finding out about it,” Clyburn said. “We know that [Justin] Amash has broken ranks. He’s a Republican, irrespective of what you may think about him, he’s broken ranks. We have a court decision in our favor that we did not have two days ago. And who knows what’s to come next: let’s just stay steady, stay focused, this thing is moving in our direction. Let’s not get in its way.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) will meet with top Democrats on Wednesday morning to discuss strategies for investigating Trump in the next few months.



The Rat Effect: When the Government Tries To Fix a Problem, But Only Makes It Worse


Government initiatives designed to help sometimes have the opposite effect — and the citizens are usually the ones who suffer.

Sometimes called the cobra effect thanks to an anecdote about British-ruled India and their struggles with the venomous cobras, the real event it’s likely based on is a future French president’s war with the rat population in Hanoi.

In 1897, the Third French Republic was only a few decades out of the country’s empire days, and Emperor Napoleon III’s colonial expansions were slowly adapting to being managed by a republic. French Indochina, now modern-day Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, was in dire need of help.

Paul Dourmer, a French official, was appointed Governor-General of French Indochina. He quickly got to work modernizing the antiquated country, including the city of Hanoi. Along with buildings in the French style in the city, Dourmer also installed a modern convenience — the sewer system.

Unfortunately for Dourmer, the dark and cool sewers eventually attracted pests. With difficult access and a labyrinth of tunnels most predators wouldn’t venture into, the subterranean maze quickly became a rat highway. The rodent population soon exploded.

TRENDING: California Wanted More Illegals, Now Border Patrol Will Grant Their Wish Three Times a Week

For Dourmer’s government, this was unacceptable.

A major initiative was soon underway. Pulling labor from the conquered Vietnamese, teams of rat catchers were assembled and sent into the sewers. Their pay would be determined for how many rat tails they turned in. The more tails they brought in, the more cash they would be handed.

By the numbers, the program was quickly becoming a success. In the first week of being implemented, historian Forces of Valor 1 32, Super Rare U.S. M4A3 SHERMAN, Art.80235 writes that nearly 8,000 rats were turned in. Eventually this number would balloon to over 10,000 rats each day.

As the rat massacre dragged on it was quickly becoming clear that although the rat catchers could effectively stack rodent bodies, there were simply too many rats to control.

Do you agree that government initiatives can sometimes do more harm than good?

100% (4 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

The decision was made for the government to expand beyond professional rat catchers, and offer an open bounty on the rats.

To make things easier for clerks managing the bounty program, only the rat’s tail was needed to collect the bounty. At one cent per tail, the bounty could prove to be a lucrative side job for many impoverished Vietnamese.

Thousands of rat tails poured in. It looked like French Hanoi was finally about to get a handle on the rodent problem, until officials made a humiliating discovery.

Increasingly frequent reports of tailless rats were making it back to the government, and in time, they pieced it together. Villagers were simply cutting the tails from rats and releasing them back into the wild. Intact besides a removed tail and a bruised ego, the rats were still fully capable of multiplying.

France, the colonial power that brought plumbing and modern architecture to a dark and seemingly primitive land, had been outsmarted by the same people it subjugated.


This same pattern can be seen in nearly all periods of history to varying degrees of disaster.

In 1950s China, Mao Zedong issued rewards for dead sparrows. The birds ate grain, and the communists reasoned that was the people’s grain. Less sparrows, more grain. American Girl Chrissa's Im-Me Wireless Messaging System, Carrying Case TI CC111 were killed by the hopeful Chinese.

Unfortunately, sparrows also keep locusts and other pests in check. The locust population exploded, and tens of millions of people would die in the following years’ famine.

On a different level than the communist Chinese programs, former First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch initiative could also be considered a perfect example of the rat effect.

Instituting guidelines for school lunches that would have ideally led to fuller, healthier, and more attentive students, the initiative ended in failure. Compliant lunches were disgusting or woefully inadequate, and often ended up simply dumped in the trash by students who would rather go hungry.

Despite their failures, each of these leaders skipped accountability for their actions. Mao Zedong became a national icon. Michelle Obama now enjoys lucrative speaking engagements with Barack.

Soon after the rat fiasco, Paul Dourmer left his post in Indochina. He later became the president of France.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

2019 Pig Monkey Cuddly Animal Plush Toy Stuffed Big Soft Piggy Pillow Doll Gifts

Audi 80 B3 Quattro dunkel blue blue blue dark bluee metallic, Schabak 1 43 DEALER

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said Tuesday that recent actions taken by the Trump administration were not girding for war with Iran but rather seeking to deter military action by Iran.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) accused the White House on Tuesday of “itching for a confrontation with Iran,” but Cotton, a Donald Trump ally, said that wasn’t the case.

“There can be no doubt that we’ve seen serious, credible and increased reporting of threats from Iran across the Middle East, whether their own forces like the Revolutionary Guard Corps or through their proxies like the rebel groups they support in places like Yemen or paramilitary forces in Iraq,” Cotton told Fox News. “The steps the administration has taken on the recommendation of the Department of Defense like moving an aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf or B-52 bombers into the region are all prudent steps not to take military action against Iran, but to try to deter military action by Iran.”

Cotton said there were historic precedents for Trump’s actions and said the country was positioned to “retaliate if necessary” against aggression by Iran.

Cotton drew attention after a recent interview where he said the U.S. would quickly defeat Iran in an armed conflict, telling Firing Line it would take two strikes: “the first strike and the last strike.” Mercedes C63 Amg 2014 Amarant Red 1 43 Model S1078 SPARK MODEL he wasn’t advocating a conflict with the country but rather stating it would be a grave miscalculation by Iran to take action against the U.S.

A firm opponent of the Obama-era nuclear deal, Cotton ripped the sanctions relief that he said allowed the “outlaw regime” to “run wild across the Middle East.” Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and funds such radical organizations as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal last year and issued new sanctions this month against Tehran, in addition to its military moves in the region.


Continetti: Pelosi Has a ‘Pseudo-Impeachment’ Problem



Washington Free Beacon editor in chief Matthew Continetti said Tuesday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D., Calif.) “pseudo-impeachment” proceedings against President Donald Trump may turn into real impeachment proceedings.

“Pelosi has a big problem on her hands, and the problem is that the initial strategy of presenting voters with a pseudo-impeachment by dragging out these hearings was thwarted by President Trump and his policy of no cooperation across the board,” Continetti said on Fox News Channel’s Special Report. “And so this has now put the Democrats in a box where the only way that they can attempt to get some of the answers or some of the big publicity they want is through impeachment, even though Nancy Pelosi knows it would be futile and likely to backfire politically.”

Continetti’s comments came after former White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. McGahn’s absence brought a new wave of House Democrats calling for Trump’s impeachment.

“We are confronting what might be the largest, broadest cover-up in American history,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) told reporters, according to the Associated Press. Hoyer added that if  a House investigation “leads to other avenues including impeachment,” then, “so be it.”

Other Democrats voiced more explicit support.

“I think that’s something a lot of members of the committee—and more and more members of the caucus—think is necessary,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.) told the AP. “I think an inquiry, as the Senate Watergate hearings were, would lead the public to see the misdeeds of this administration.”

A Fox News poll shows 72 percent of Democrats support impeachment, with only 9 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Independents supporting impeachment. Pelosi will meet with top House Democrats Wednesday morning to discuss new strategies for investigating—and possibly impeaching—Trump.


LA Didn’t Learn Lesson After Record 2018 Outbreak, Faces Another Dark Ages Plague


Commentary Politics

Ah, California. For decades, the state was what people pictured when they thought of America: Strap a surf board to the top of your woodie, cruise down to the coast while The Beach Boys blast, and soak in the freedom.

But these days, California has become a bit of a joke. After years of far-left policies and rampant illegal immigration, the golden age of the Golden State is long gone.

Instead, the state that was once the gem of our nation has seen spikes in poverty and desperate homelessness. Outbreaks of diseases and drug addiction have tarnished its streets — and now one of California’s most famous cities is facing yet another public health crisis straight out of the third world.

“Rat-infested piles of rotting garbage left uncollected by the city of Los Angeles, even after promises to clean it up, are fueling concerns about a new epidemic after Abilitations Snug-N-Hug Calming Vest, Large of flea-borne typhus cases,” KNBC News reported on Monday.

What a liberal paradise! Gee, let me book my ticket today.


Being worried about catching typhus from rats is something you probably associate with the Dark Ages, or maybe impoverished regions like Central America and Africa. But thanks to L.A.’s inability to clean up festering trash piles, it’s now the reality for many people right here in the United States.

“The rodents can carry typhus-infected fleas, which can spread the disease to humans through bacteria rubbed into the eyes or cuts and scrapes on the skin, resulting in severe flu-like symptoms,” KNBC explained.

Back in October, the news station’s investigative team warned Democrat Mayor Eric Garcetti about the piles of trash that had become infested with disease-carrying rats. Why it takes a television crew to do something about a public health crisis is a story in and of itself, but we digress.

“At the time, he promised to make sure trash doesn’t pile up like that,” KNBC said. “The garbage was cleaned after the interview, but conditions have worsened over the next seven months.” Hey, at least it looked good for the cameras.

Do you think Los Angeles needs to clean up its trash problem?

100% (50 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

When the same investigative reporters contacted the liberal-run city’s services hotline, they were told that it could take a staggering three months before the trash piles were dealt with. That’s three months too long.

“It does pose a public health risk,” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner said. “Trash and food waste attracts rats.” Klausner, an infectious disease specialist from UCLA, also added that large rat populations can spread salmonella and bubonic plague.

Raise your hand if you want to get medieval.

“Rats carrying typhus-infected fleas were found around LA last fall, according to county health department records obtained by [KNBC],” the station reported.

Reporters added that “there is no plan or program to control the growing rat population that feasts at trash piles like the one on Ceres Avenue.”


The response from city bureaucrats? Eh, get used to it.

“It’s something that we’ll look into,” said Pepe Garica from the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Yeah, they’ll get right on that.

“I can’t walk down the street without thinking that a flea could jump on me,” a local business owner named Estela Lopez told KNBC. This has become the reality in living in the most populous city in California.

Keep this situation in mind the next time a liberal politician gives you their latest election pitch. Call it an experiment in leftism: The downward spiral of Los Angeles and California overall should be Exhibit A for what happens when their policies run amok.

Yet those politicians never seem to acknowledge the disastrous results of their own worldview. You’re supposed to just ignore what’s happening and keep voting for more immigration, more government handouts, more unrestrained spending.

“Liberalism: We put the RAT in Democrat.” Okay, maybe that slogan won’t catch on, but it’s time for the American people to pay attention.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.