Category Archives: Libertarian

Political commentator George Will says in a scathing new opinion piece that Donald Trump is "the suppurating wound on American life," predicting the end of the former president's political career.

Will, a libertarian-conservative author, serves as a regular columnist for the Washington Post, providing an opposing view for the typically liberal newspaper. Will was also a contributing editor for Newsweek until 2011.

Many Republicans continue to stand behind former President Trump. Will argued in a Post op-ed published Friday, though, that Trump's influence over the party was waning, saying that he was "faltering at the business of commanding outcomes that are...independent of his interventions."

"Floundering in his attempts to wield political power while lacking a political office, Donald Trump looks increasingly like a stray orange hair to be flicked off the nation's sleeve," Will wrote. "His residual power, which he must use or lose, is to influence his party's selection of candidates for state and federal offices."

"This is, however, perilous because he has the power of influence only if he is perceived to have it. That perception will dissipate if his interventions in Republican primaries continue to be unimpressive," Will said.

Will used the example of former Georgia Senator David Perdue as an example of what he said was Trump's detriment to Republicans.

"Trump, harping on the cosmic injustice of his November loss in 2020, confused and demoralized Georgia Republicans enough to cause Perdue's defeat by 1.2 percentage points in the January 2021 runoff," Will said. "Nevertheless, Trump talked Perdue into running in this year's gubernatorial primary...in a February poll, [current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp] led Perdue by 10 points."

A number of Trump's other political endorsements for the upcoming 2022 midterms are also trailing in their respective polls, Will noted. This includes the case of Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachen, who, despite the former president's endorsement, trailed in the primary by 41 percent in a January poll.

Another person pointed out by Will was Representative Ted Budd (R-N.C.), a Trump-backed candidate for a North Carolina Senate seat that is currently also behind in the polls.

Will continued by analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, where Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion remains ongoing.

"A European war is unhelpful for Trump because it reminds voters that [poet Henry Wadsworth] Longfellow was right: Life is real, life is earnest," Will said. "Trump's strut through presidential politics was made possible by an American reverie; war in Europe has reminded people that politics is serious."

"We are the sum of our choices, and Vladimir Putin has provoked some Trump poodles to make illuminating ones," Will wrote. "J.D. Vance, groveling for Trump's benediction (Vance covets Ohio's Republican Senate nomination), two weeks ago said: "I don't really care what happens to Ukraine."

Will ended his piece by saying: "For Trump, the suppurating wound on American life, and for those who share his curdled venom, war is a hellacious distraction from their self-absorption. Fortunately, their ability to be major distractions is waning."

While Will does identify as a libertarian-conservative, his lambasting of Trump is not the first time that he has criticized the former president, along with other Republicans.

In 2012, Will wrote of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who at the time was one of the top contenders in the GOP presidential primaries: "[Gingrich]... embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington." He also heavily criticized Sarah Palin's vice-presidential candidacy in the lead up to her 2008 electoral loss.

Notably, Will also wrote of his dislike for Trump several times throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, later saying in an interview that year that he was no longer a registered member of the Republican Party.

Will additionally told USA Today in 2020 that he would vote for then-candidate Joe Biden in the upcoming election.

Newsweek has reached out to Trump's office for comment.

See original here:

Trump Is 'Stray Orange Hair To Be Flicked Off Nation's Sleeve,' Says Writer - Newsweek

Poland has absorbed around 1 million of the 1.5 million refugees who have fled Ukraine since Russia invaded on Feb. 24, The Guardian reported Sunday.

"Poland's population has increased by about 3 percent in the last 10 days due to Ukrainian refugees," Alex Nowrasteh, the director of economic and social policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote on Twitter.

"Good for Poland," Nowrasteh continued. "[K]eep those doors open."

According to data from the World Bank, Poland had a population of around 38 million in 2020.

The Guardian reported Anastasia Lapatina, who observed the refugee crisis in a Polish border town, said she saw "the best of humanity" as Polish volunteers provided Ukrainian refugees with free "food, water, clothes, phones with prepaid plans, accommodation, [and] legal advice."

According to The New York Times, men between the ages of 18 and 60 are forbidden to leave Ukraine, and consequently "the crowds pouring into Poland, Hungary and other neighboring nations are eerily devoid of men."

European Union Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said last Sunday that European Union member nations "should be prepared for millions" of refugees.

Continued here:

Ukrainian refugees swell Poland's population by 3 percent in 10 days - The Week

What do they mean by "true conservative?"

Sown into the narrative of the September Conservative Party of Canadas leadership campaign is yet another a debate about who or what is truly conservative. Or, to be completely accurate in the context of the current leadership race, "truly Conservative."

Leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre has become the latest advocate of the true Conservative movement. Fluently bilingual, born in Calgary, and now holding a seat in the greater Ottawa area, Poilievre is a fiscal and social conservative with strong libertarian sensibilities, a skepticism about climate change and a refined grasp of retail politics.

Poilievre is considered the front-runner in the race to replace former leader Erin OToole, although hes also the only declared candidate right now. But even without a formal opponent to battle, hes clearly concerned about reports suggesting that former Quebec premier and Progressive Conservative Party of Canada leader Jean Charest is considering a run.

Pierre Poilievre is considered the front-runner in the race to replace former leader Erin OToole. (Michael Bell / The Canadian Press files)

Perhaps to discourage him from entering the race, Poilievres forces are letting the party members know that Charest is not a "true Conservative."

The rhetoric is becoming dangerously unstable. Recently, Tory MP Shannon Stubbs, who is from Alberta, Tweeted a meme of Charest and Trudeau together with the message that "our leader must share our values and respect our policies."

Statements like this start to sound dangerously sectarian. It doesnt matter whether youre talking about race, religion or political ideology, anyone touting the "one true way" is really just trying to bludgeon dissent and debate within an institution.

How do Poilievre and his supporters come to this conclusion about Charest?

Once a leader of the now-defunct federal Progressive Conservative party, Charest left federal politics and went on to become the premier of Quebec and leader (gasp!) of the Quebec Liberal party. Western conservatives may gag at Charests career path but informed sources closer to the scene of that bit of political history know the Quebec Liberal party has very little in common with the federal Liberal party.

Moreover, Quebec political pundits understand that many federal Conservatives park their provincial votes with the Liberals. Disparaging Charests time as a provincial Liberal may help Poilievre win support from Western Canadian party members, but it wont help his partys flagging fortunes in Quebec.

None of that stopped MPs, Senators and strategists supporting Poilievre from assailing Charest as having questionable Conservative credentials.

Poilievre supporters have accused Charest of unforgivable sins of supporting gun control, advocating for carbon pricing to combat climate change and otherwise embracing "anti-energy" policies that would devastate Canadas oil and gas industry. Its almost as if the entire party failed to embrace the painful lessons dealt to them in the last federal election.

Once a leader of the now-defunct federal Progressive Conservative party, Jean Charest left federal politics and went on to become the premier of Quebec. (Ruth Bonneville / Winnipeg Free Press files)

In a bid to defuse the Liberal partys tenuous hold on power, OToole tried to muzzle ugly socially conservative notions, moderate his partys position on climate change and pandemic management and avoid getting drawn into the quagmire of debates on things such as gun control. When he lost, he was labelled a turncoat by many of the people who are now lining up behind Poilievre.

Those people simply will not accept that OTooles failure in last falls election was not due to his refusal to adopt far-right values; his defeat was sown by a party that refuses to give up values and policies that only appeal to a small, angry constituency.

The biggest problem facing the CPC now is that there appears to be very little chance of going back and making the party more moderate, and thus more competitive.

The evolution of the CPC from Progressive Conservative through the Canadian Alliance party has shown an increasing appetite to lurch the party to the right. Former leader and prime minister Stephen Harper tried soft-selling true Conservatism to voters until, in 2015, he let the country see just how far right of centre he really was.

To borrow heavily from Monty Pythons infamous Dead Parrot skit, the progressive conservative movement that married the ideas of socially progressive and fiscally conservative has simply "expired." Its metabolic processes are now history. Its kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible. This is an ex-movement.

And what will replace it?

It looks increasingly likely the CPC is headed to the far-right fringes of the political wilderness. Under Poilievre, its easy to see the party attempt a raid on the ranks of the Peoples Party of Canada to create a new and potent right-wing movement, a la Donald Trumps "Make America Great Again" juggernaut.

The problem is that to achieve true power as a true Conservative in Canada, he needs to win more seats than any other party. If Trump had to win seats, as opposed to votes in a popularity contest, he would not have become president. Poilievre seems destined to follow a political strategy that simply does not work in a Canadian context.

Perhaps Charest, or another viable moderate, will run against Poilievre and make the CPC a truly national political party.

More likely is a scenario where he wins the leadership, alienates conservative voters outside of Western Canada, and allows the Liberals to continue governing on the slimmest of electoral margins.

Apparently, this is the fate that awaits the true Conservatives.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com

See more here:

Federal conservatives headed to the far-right fringes - Winnipeg Free Press

Its not too late to hear the candidates for governor talk about climate change at back-to-back public events this week.

Maryland Matters is a co-sponsor of in-person forums on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and that will also be live-streamed.

The forums will take place at the University of Maryland College Park on Tuesday evening and at Goucher College in Towson on Wednesday evening. The public is welcome to attend the events in person, though seating is limited and members of the audience will be asked to show that they are fully vaccinated.

Click here to read more from our Climate Calling series.

Due to participate in both events: Democrats Jon Baron, Doug Gansler, Ashwani Jain, John King, Laura Neuman and Jerome Segal, Republican Robin Ficker and Libertarian David Lashar. Democrats Wes Moore and Tom Perez have committed to attending the Tuesday forum in College Park, and Democrat Peter Franchot will attend the Wednesday event at Goucher College.

The first climate forum is from 7-8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8 at the Riggs Alumni Center at the University of Maryland at College Park.

The second is a night later, Wednesday, March 9, from 7-8:30 p.m. at the Ungar Athenaeum at Goucher College.

Republicans Dan Cox and Kelly Schulz have declined invitations to participate. Democrat Rushern Baker initially confirmed he would be at both events but now is not attending.

Maryland Matters co-sponsors for both events are the Maryland League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Sierra Club Maryland chapter, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Ed Hatcher and Angie Cannon. The College Park forum is also being sponsored by the Prince Georges County NAACP and the Environmental Justice Journalism Initiative. The Goucher event is being co-sponsored by the Baltimore County NAACP branch.

Maryland Matters Founding Editor Josh Kurtz will be a panelist at both events, asking the candidates questions.

For the College Park event, he will be joined as a questioner on the panel by Dr. Tonya Harrison-Edwards, legislative affairs chair for the NAACP Prince Georges County Branch, and Rona Kobell, an environmental journalist who is co-director of the Environmental Justice Journalism Initiative.

At Goucher, Kurtz will be joined on the panel by Staci Hartwell of the NAACP Maryland State Conference, Sheilah Kast, host of WYPRs On the Record, and Stella Krajick, a Goucher College political science and environmental studies student.

Click here if you are interested in learning more about these events.

The forums will be live-streamed on the Facebook pages of the Maryland LCV Education Fund, the Maryland Sierra Club and NAACP Maryland State Conference. If you are interested in watching the College Park forum on Facebook Live, click here. If you are interested in watching the Goucher forum on Facebook Live,click here.

The Maryland LCV is also sponsoring watch parties at a handful of college campuses in the state. For more information, click here.

And be on the look-out for post-forum coverage in Maryland Matters.

Maryland Matters participation in this event is part of the Climate Calling project we launched last year and another sign of our commitment to illuminating major issues in Maryland and holding political leaders to account. As part of that project, we raninterviews last fallwith the nine Democratic candidates for governor who were then in the race.

View original post here:

Time to Hear the Candidates for Governor Talk About Climate Change - Josh Kurtz

Every year the whos who of the real conservative America meets at the Conservative Political Action Conference organized by the American Conservative Union. Over the Trump administration, the faces of CPAC have changed from a more traditional conservative (tax cuts, pro-corporation) to an odd mixture of libertarian isolationism and cultural dog-whistling so loud that my labradoodle back at home started howling.

Back in 2017, I wrote for Nationofchange a piece titled You should be frightened, CPAC drifts even more right where I discussed the speeches from Wayne LaPierre, Dana Loesch and of course Donald Trump. They were terrifying, and meant to be sothey laid out a future of liberals running the future, forcing your kids to be gay, and cops knocking down your doors to get your guns.

Obviously, none of that has come to passbut we did in the proceeding years see a global pandemic that has killed one million Americans and an attempted and ongoing insurrection. There is a new type of fear to be had at CPAC 2022its masks, mandates, critical race theory, voter fraud, and to a lesser extent, immigrants.

Turning Point USAs Charlie Kirk, who has been drifting more and more right for years gave what was likely the best-received speech (outside of Trumps of course)told the audience that they need not worry about Ukraine and Russia. The U.S. southern border matters a lot more than the Ukrainian border, Im more worried about how the cartels are deliberately trying to infiltrate our country than a dispute 5,000 miles away in cities we cant pronounce, in places that most Americans cant find on a map. Former Trump official KT McFarland later in the day attempted to make people care about Russian expansionism and it fell on deaf earsisolationism and nationalism has taken over CPAC.

The cheerleaders for the pandemicanti-maskers anti-vaxxers and medical disinformation purveyors were among the main speakers at CPAC 2022. Sunday, Dr. Robert Malone sat on a panel with Senatorial candidate Dr. Oz (Ill get to him in a minute) called The Government is Dangerous to Your Health and continued spreading his disinformation. Dr. Malone has been the lead horse in the apocalyptic charge amongst right-wing media punching disinformation about vaccines and the virus. He was Joe Rogans guest that prompted the large outcry against the MMA commentator and reality show hosts podcast.

Dr. Oz who has been at the head of medical misinformation for decades, used his wildly popular and long-running tv show to stow doubt in his viewers about trusted medicineand push them towards his miracle cures. Hes now running for U.S. Senate in the Pennsylvania Republican primary and hasnt stopped. Current polling has him in second placebut Oz is well funded by his own millions hes sold selling snake oil.

The insurrectionists were also at CPAC in force (this time no Oath Keepers were seen) all on stage with prominent speaking times. Sen. Josh Hawley, Representatives Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, and Matt Gaetz were all cheered and greeted at martyrs to the cause. All had been canceledand they were there to speak about it.

Sen. Hawley in his speech specifically cited his heroic fight to stop the count and defend election integrity. He was cheered for it. Pillow magnate Mike Lindell was not on stage but still had his own speaking time in the exhibition room. Friend of Ali Alexander and Stop the Steal campaigner and grassroots activist Scott Pressler did make it to the stage and the line for selfies with him was around the hall.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, joined by CPAC speaker and pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio also attended the America First PAC conference on the other side of Orlando. She shared a stage with AFPAC organizer, the racist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Fuentes leads a troop of young Christian fascists nick-named the groypers. Also in attendance at this event were Arizona Republican State Senator Wendy Rogers, Congressman Steve King, and Gab founder Andrew Torbaall people known for embracing white nationalism.

Wandering the halls, identified as America Firsters by their hats were also a small number of Fuentes groypers. Arizona Neo-Nazi and groyper Greyson Arnold was in attendance for at least Thursday and Friday.

While Im doubtful well be seeing Nick Fuentes and his groypers speaking on panels in the next year or twotheres no need. His message of fear and nationalism has been heard by the conservatives in Washington D.C. and at the American Conservative Union. Embrace it or get buried. Thats how Trump won in 2016theyre using his fascist trailblazing but getting rid of the dog-whistles.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Go here to read the rest:

CPAC 2022no war, but the culture war - NationofChange

Two years ago this month, as the COVID-19 virus spread uncontrollably through large swaths of the country, much of our society shut down. Church services were suspended. We all learned about "spiritual communion" and how to attend Mass via Zoom. We Catholics also learned that we have not done a very good job explaining what the church teaches about conscience.

No one is better at turning church teaching into gibberish than Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas. He repeatedly encouraged people to not get vaccinated and that a well-formed Catholic conscience was grounds for anexemption from any vaccine mandates. Poor thing, now he is posting dumb tweets about the convoys of fake truckers protesting in Canada and the U.S.: "The freedom convoy is deeply rooted in the basic values that have built the world we take for granted,"he tweeted. "We must be free to make choices for our own lives." Where is the balance? Where is the "both/and" that has always characterized the Catholic intellectual tradition?

Strickland was not alone. Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services argued that soldiers who are Catholic could refuse the vaccine.In a statementthat noted the Vatican said the vaccines were morally permissible, yet some soldiers still claimed a conscientious objection to receiving the vaccine, Broglio said, "This circumstance raises the question of whether the vaccine's moral permissibility precludes an individual from forming a sincerely held religious belief that receiving the vaccine would violate his conscience. It does not."

The bishops of Coloradoissued a statementthat sounded like it had been written with help from the libertarian Acton Institute, or maybe from the Republican National Committee. "We always remain vigilant when any bureaucracy seeks to impose uniform and sweeping requirements on a group of people in areas of personal conscience," they wrote, without explaining how public health measures during a pandemic can be anything but "uniform and sweeping" or whether their sweeping claim about bureaucracies applies to, say, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Let's be clear. Conscience is not the right to do whatever you want. Conscience is the opposite of self-will. Conscience is the voice of God in our hearts, helping us to apply the divine law to the moral choices we make. The caricature of conscience as a person with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other is just that, a caricature, but it is closer to the mark than the three statements cited above. Conscience is God's voice telling us to follow his law in a specific situation, thereby creating or strengthening the disposition to make virtuous choices.

No Catholic is more associated with the idea of conscience than St. John Henry Newman, and no comment of his about conscience is more famous than the quip with which he ended the fifth section of his famous "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk": "Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." Indeed, it is black letter Catholic theology that a person is always bound to follow their conscience, even if it is in error. Just so, the obligation to form one's conscience is grave indeed.

It is an earlier passage in the famous letter of Newman's that almost seems to reach through the ages and speak to us today:

The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and thepulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

If the great Newman had written nothing else, if he had not written the sermon "The Second Spring," nor the poem "The Dream of Gerontius," nor his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua," the phrase "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ" would have earned him a place in the pantheon of great English writers.

The divine law contains many dictates, and during a pandemic, none have greater claim upon our decisions than the common good. It is the nature of a public health emergency that bad decisions by any one individual can have disastrous consequences on others, often people they do not even know. As we discovered, overburdened hospitals had to postpone important and needed surgeries for others becausethere was no room for non-COVID patients. As San Diego Bishop Robert McElroytold U.S. Catholic last year, "[People] do not have a right to go against the common good. That's not Catholic teaching."

It is astonishing to me that the anti-vaxxers used the exact same logic and language as the supporters of abortion rights "My body, my choice" yet, so far as I know, no prominent personage in either camp found in this strange commonality a reason to reconsider their position. Libertarian ideologues prate on about conscience but they are allergic to moral scruples. There is nothing liberal or Catholic about libertarianism. I repeat: There is nothing liberal or Catholic about libertarianism.

Conscience is not something lightly asserted. One wrestles with one's conscience. Conscience challenges us to act in ways that go against our interest. Conscience often exacts a high price for following it. I submit that no one in this great free country of ours should be tied to a gurney and vaccinated against their will, to be sure. The right to bodily integrity, a right that is foundational to so many legal and moral maxims, demands as much. But, the refusal to get vaccinated allows society to protect itself and demand that the unvaccinated no longer participate in, say, a church service or the military or any communal activity at which they risk spreading the virus to others.

One of the worst abuses of the idea of conscience in recent years came in 2015 when Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigan, the papal nuncio in Washington, introduced Pope Francis to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses and went to jail after she refused to let another clerk issue the licenses. The now-disgraced former nuncio told the pope that Davis was a conscientious objector. But, as I observed at the time:

If the pope wanted to show support for the right of conscientious objection, it would have been better to have him meet with a conscientious objector. Davis lost her right to consider herself a conscientious objector when she forbade other people from issuing the marriage licenses she did not wish to issue herself. Davis was not jailed for practicing her religion. She was jailed for forcing others to practice her religion. She is a public official with a sworn duty. If she cannot carry out that duty, she should seek a work-around or an accommodation, which is what she ended up accepting, or she could have done what a real person of conscience would do: quit.

Conscience, like faith, makes demands and there is nothing that is more damaging to both than people who try and invoke it on the cheap. As we heard this week in the Gospels, people who wish to follow Jesus must take up their cross, not wave it in other people's faces.

We have learned a great deal about our society during this pandemic. The Holy Father addressed many of the challenges the pandemic highlighted in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti. The fact that the church in America has been unable to articulate a Catholic understanding of conscience in our hyper-individualistic society is one of the challenges we knew existed before the pandemic but which has been shown to be even worse than feared because of COVID-19. Especially as the bishops begin to rewrite their quadrennial document on voting, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," it is vital that the bishops, with the assistance of theologians, search for better ways to teach what the church believes about conscience.

Read more:

What two years of COVID-19 have taught us about the abuse of conscience - National Catholic Reporter

Along with millions across the globe, I have watched with horror as the Russian military invaded Ukraine. Its clear that Russias intervention in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad, with its lack of restraint against civilians and bombing of medical facilities, was a dry run for the Ukraine operation. The difference is that in Syria, Russian troops act at the invitation of Assad, so their presence there is not considered illegal under international law, even if some of their actions have been.

Ukraine, however, is a sovereign country, and with this invasion, Vladimir Putin is now directly contesting the legitimacy of any post-WWII rules-based international order. When the U.S. launched its illegal invasion of Iraq, it recognized that its infringement of Iraqi domestic sovereignty would at least require some semblance of international legitimacy; thats what brought us Colin Powells shameful appearance at the U.N. falsely claiming evidence of Saddam Husseins possession of weapons of mass destruction. This was a pretense for imperialist invasion, one accompanied by a worldwide program of secret detentions, torture, massive civilian casualties, and immense war-profiteering. Putin has certainly recognized American hypocrisy when it comes to the defense of human rights and the rule of law, and so no amount of moral outrage or argument is likely to have any effect upon his actions in Ukraine, even if the principle of sovereignty is constantly invoked.

More from Kelly Grotke

It also clearly underscores the present limitations of sovereignty, too, when it comes to protecting people. Imposing sanctions on the wealth of Russias so-called oligarchs, presumably in order that they might exert pressure on Putin to back down, is symptomatic of a very serious weakness within the present international order: the increasing sovereignty of private wealth and private interests at the expense of people everywhere. If such wealth is effectively sovereign, operating at the root of decisions about states domestic and foreign policies, then most people are left without real representation.

In the U.S., neither political party has done anything about the immense influence of private money upon our domestic affairs. We have nurtured an anti-democratic oligarchic class of our own, one that now has far more influence over the conditions of citizens lives than those citizens themselves.

In the U.K., private finance dedicated around two-thirds of its political spending in support of Brexit. Within the alternative investment industry like private equity and hedge fundsa strong presence in Boris Johnsons governmentsupport was even higher, as much as 94 percent. Marlne Benquet and Tho Bourgeron have written that these Brexiteer financiers sought to transform the City [of London] into a kind of offshore investment platform, free from EU rules and operating as a fiscal asylum zone, akin to Singapore-on-Thames.

Thanks to our current global financial system, heads of state and their close associates can easily operate like private, for-profit corporations.

Within this widely shared libertarian vision, unregulated wealth generation is the highest value against which all others shrink. Freedom is for markets, not people; in classic Friedmanesque neoliberal fashion, the citizen is a mere consumer, and all are subordinate to the hierarchical governance of private corporate power.

But protests across the world against Russias brutal incursion, including within Russia itself, are proof of the absurdity of such a view. Ukrainians are not fighting for such a distorted and impoverished view of freedom. And while watching oligarch yachts being seized may be satisfying, it in a sense upholds a separate order that values private wealth and its sovereignty over democracy. Breaking this power and distributing it back to the people will require us to come to terms with the distorting lens of financialization.

THESE DAYS, THE U.S. can hardly be said to export democracy (arguably it does not have one to export). Our chief export is a highly financialized neoliberal ideology. Our culture continues to worship the business acumen of the wealthy even as income inequality has reached unprecedented heights. In practice, this means that the talents of most working Americans are considered inferior to those for whom wealth accumulation is the highest individual moral achievement.

The secretive world of alternative investments like private equity and hedge funds is perhaps the epitome of this worldview. That the head of Blackstone, Steve Schwarzman, can make over a billion dollars in a single year is not proof of his elect status or of some crazed libertarian notion of natural hierarchy; rather, it reflects a dysfunctional, deeply anti-democratic system designed to serve and protect the interests and preferences of its biggest beneficiaries.

Privacy and secrecy are at the center of this ideology of finance, and are an important part of its power.

The scale of Russian oligarchic wealth is similarly astonishing. According to benchmark estimates by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the oligarchs offshore wealth held in assets and private bank accounts abroad is three times larger than Russias net foreign reserves, and roughly equal in size to the total assets of the entire domestic Russian population.

As the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) put it in an important white paper, governments in theory do not operate according to principles of profitability and the maximization of shareholder value. Rather, they ensure the maintenance of public goods for citizens via taxpayer revenues. They must also handle their affairs in a manner that is amenable to public scrutiny and accountability, not least because taxation is a form of involuntary contribution that we cannot simply withdraw at will, as a shareholder in an investment could, except by moving to another local, national, or international jurisdiction. Sovereignty, especially in its liberal democratic and representational forms, has long been understood as something quite different from a private corporation that exists to benefit its investors.

And yet, thanks to our current global financial system, heads of state and their close associates can easily operate far more like private, for-profit corporations. The recent Credit Suisse leaks along with ICIJ investigations like the Pandora Papers, Luxembourg Leaks, Paradise Papers, the FinCEN Files, and the Panama Papers have exposed how many government leaders and their associates have stashed away enormous wealth outside of public scrutiny and often at the expense of their own citizens. The secrecy and lack of regulations both at home and abroad have made it nearly impossible to follow the money. Even the FBI has trouble obtaining information from the secretive private investment fund industry when investigating global money-laundering schemes. This does not bode well for the confiscation of Russian assets.

With the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has confronted the world with a clear vision of privatized, unapologetic sovereignty, one that is not conjured into being via constitutions, but rather emanates from the royalist control central to his personalized, neo-monarchical conception of power. In Syria, he helped Assad brutally maintain power as if the Syrian state and its people were merely a private company. With Ukraine, which he seems to view as his personal property, hes taken that model of governance global.

With the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has confronted the world with a clear vision of privatized, unapologetic sovereignty.

In this context, sanctions against oligarchs have emerged as a key avenue for pressuring Putin to reverse course and stop his illegal invasion. As Sen. Bernie Sanders put it, Incredibly, the 500 richest people in Russia with a net worth of at least $100 million now own more wealth than the bottom 99.8% of Russias population145 million people. This is the type of inequality that exists not just in Russia, but throughout the world. He is correct. This is an enormous global problem, no less relevant in the U.S. than in Russia.

Offshore vehicles used by corporations and the wealthy have (often quite legally) siphoned billions in revenue from jurisdictions all across the globe, rendering the matter of taxation as an involuntary contribution moot. The Tax Justice Network estimated in 2014 that the amount stashed abroad could easily total between $21 trillion and $32 trillion. Banks, financiers, accounting and consulting firms, and lawyers have been and remain complicit in these efforts, operating with a transnational ease and efficacy that youd think would be the envy of the U.N., which has been largely ineffective in resolving global conflicts because of continual clashes within the Security Council.

Sovereignty remains important for the agents of our financialized global system, but not chiefly as protection from outside interferences and the rights of citizens. Rather, sovereignty carries significance chiefly as a means of tax evasion and regulatory arbitrage. Should a global tycoon park assets in a U.S. jurisdiction, like Delaware, Wyoming, or South Dakota, or one offshore, like Cayman, Jersey, or Cyprus? At which countrys banks and financial institutions can the most secrecy and the most advantageous terms be found, and which armies of lawyers, accountants and consultants can best help keep money out of sight, or launder criminally gotten gains?

Contrast this with Ukraine today, where it is clear that sovereignty is something many of its citizens are willing to risk death to preserve. It could well be that the invasion has potentially disrupted the mystique of private finance and the hold it has on us.

Perhaps putting pressure and sanctions on Russias oligarchs will provide a path forward for de-escalation of Putins war. It sounds like a good idea, certainly in comparison with a third world war, and it also has a populist appeal. But without acknowledging and dealing with the underlying problems presented by financialization and its entrenched regimes of secrecy all across the world, I fear that the model of power now presented by Putin will continue to hold peace hostage, something especially dangerous because of the global need for cooperation in confronting climate change. Factually speaking, power today rests disproportionately upon the side of anti-democratic, oligarchically concentrated money and power, aided and abetted by the secretive world of finance. Do we have the will to stand with Ukraine and change course?

Original post:

Putin's Invasion and the Privatization of Political Power - The American Prospect

Speculation surrounds a trio of Republican lawmakers who were the only House members to vote against a resolution to support Ukraine's sovereignty.

The final tally on Wednesday was a near-unanimous vote of 426-3, with the House passing the resolution despite three "no" votes from Representatives Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The trio have not released official statements on their votes, however, heavy criticism was quickly aimed at all three, with some politicians chastising them for voting against a resolution that received nearly complete bipartisan support.

Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of the most outspoken critics of the current state of his party, tweeted that the trio of no votes was "unreal," adding that "the bright side is over 400 voted yes."

"Dear Gosar, Rosendale, and Massie, you are not anti-war," Kinzinger said in a follow-up tweet.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) tweeted a response to the resolution, calling the no votes from the Republican congressmen "truly despicable behavior."

"Last night, the president spoke of America standing with the wall of strength that is the Ukrainian people," the DCCC said. "Just now, three House Republicans voted NO on a resolution in support of Ukraine."

Amidst the continuing criticism from both sides of the aisle, Massie and Rosendale do not appear to have released any responses to their votes. However, Gosar did reply to Kinzinger's tweet following the vote, saying: "Talk to me when our border is secure."

As the news of the vote made the rounds on social media, some accused the trio of congressmen of aligning with Russia, with one account calling them "pro-Putin MAGA traitors."

In particular, eyes shifted toward Massie and his past sentiments regarding foreign policy and the invasion of Ukraine. This includes his expected Democratic opponent in the upcoming midterms, Matthew Lehman, who tweeted that Massie was "an anarchist hellbent on dismantling a secure and prosperous world order" after he signed a letter urging President Joe Biden to seek congressional approval before engaging in military action.

"Your childish stunts endanger millions of Ukrainians and free people around the world," Lehman added.

Others on social media pointed toward Massie's alleged ties with Russia. In particular, a 2019 article from liberal think tank Think Progress said: "Massie's recent votes in Congress...see the congressman consistently siding with Russia's interests."

The article added that "Massie attended a lavish February 2017 dinner alongside Maria Butina, the Russian agent who...is potentially facing years in prison for serving as an unregistered foreign agent."

Massie has denied having any connections or ties to Russia, and his votes in Congress have been cited as being a result of his libertarian viewpoint.

The motion, H. Res 956, was titled "Supporting the people of Ukraine" and was sponsored by Representative Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Res 956 stressed that "it is the right of all countries to decide their own future, foreign policy, and security arrangements free from outside interference or coercion."

"The House of Representatives demands an immediate cease-fire and the full withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory," the resolution said, adding that the U.S. "supports, unequivocally, Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

"[The House] states unambiguously that it will never recognize or support any illegitimate Russian-controlled leader or government installed through the use of force, and that only the people of Ukraine can choose their leadership through free and fair democratic elections without foreign interference, intervention, or coercion," the resolution continued. "[The House] stands steadfastly, staunchly, proudly, and fervently behind the Ukrainian people in their fight against the authoritarian Putin regime."

Newsweek has reached out to Massie, Gosar and Rosendale for comment.

Continue reading here:

Why Three Republicans Voted Against House Resolution Standing With Ukraine - Newsweek

Thomas L. Knapp| Reno Gazette Journal

This opinion column was submitted by Thomas L. Knapp,director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

As part of the Westernresponse to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, several regimes acted on Feb.26 to exclude certain Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)network. As of March 1, Reuters reports, SWIFT says it's awaiting a list of the sanctioned banks so that it can cut them off.

SWIFT is a messaging service that connects banks worldwide. It's not a bank itself. It's not even, strictly speaking, a payment network. It carries instructions for transfers, but the transfers take place via other networks. It's just one moving part in the world's complex finance and trade system.

As with most such measures, giving Russian banks the boot from SWIFTis certain to hurt the sanctioners along with the sanctioned. In this case, the potential victims with the most to lose arethe issuers and holders of U.S. dollars.

The dollar isn'tthe only currency that gets moved using SWIFT, but it's the de facto "global reserve currency" and thus the most affected by such moves. Nearly everyone accepts the dollar. Nearly everyone wants to have a fat stack of dollars on hand. In particular, global trade in oil has been powered by the "petrodollar" for nearly 50 years.

More: Could sanctions against Russia boomerang back on Americans?

If you want to buy a barrel of Brent crude from most sellers, you need to be able to plunk down (as I write this) 105.46 U.S. dollars. Not 395.72 Saudi riyals. Not 7,983.35 Indian rupees. Not 665.78 Chinese yuan. It's $105.46 or no sale.

What happens when one of the world's largest oil producers is 1) cut off from SWIFT; 2) doesn't want U.S. dollars as much as it used to because other sanctions make those dollarsdifficult to spend; and 3) has trading partners who are watching these sanctions and fear they could be the next victims? Well, this:

A "rupee-rouble trade arrangement may get a push now that Russia is out of SWIFT," reportsThe Times of India.China will presumably likewise increase its yuan-ruble trade with Russia.

The Times of India article reveals that this isn't a sudden development: "India had entered into a rupee-rouble trade arrangement with Russia earlier to shield the two nations from unilateral sanctions from the United States."

What makes the dollar valuable? The same thing that makes anything valuable: People wanting it. Between China and India, more than a quarter of the world's population are in the process of wanting the dollar less than they used to. That, in turn, makes every dollar in your pocket worth less than it once was.

In the short term, the SWIFT kick and other sanctions may hurt Russia more than they hurt you. But the uncontested reign of the U.S. dollar among global currencies seems to be nearing its end, in part because the U.S. government is driving the world away from it with the constant threat of sanctions.

The smart move for Americans? Hold as few dollars as you can get by on. Trade your dollars for gold, silverand cryptocurrency while they're still worth something, to someone, somewhere.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He lives and works in north central Florida.

Have your say: How to submit an opinion column or letter to the editor

Go here to see the original:

Opinion: SWIFT kick aimed at Russia, but it also will hit the US dollar | Thomas L. Knapp - Reno Gazette Journal

Former U.S intelligence consultant Edward Snowden,on Sunday, laid out the cause of his silence over Russias invasion of Ukraine.

What Happened: Snowden said he has lost confidence that sharing his thinking on this particular topic continues to be useful because he "called it wrong."

Snowden also took aim at people he described as "concern-trolling ghouls" in his tweet.

Why It Matters: On Feb. 19, Snowden had tweeted that the possibility of an attack on Kyiv was difficult for him to contemplate. Snowdens comments were made in response to President Joe Biden saying that an attack on the Ukrainian capital was days away.

At the time, he pointed out that Kyiv is bigger than Sarajevo, Grozny and Fallujah all cities that have experienced war in the preceding years.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced a Special Military Operation in Ukraine on Feb. 23, shortly after which explosions were heard in Kyiv.

Some commentators on Twitter called out Snowden for misreading the situationbut he receive word of support from the Libertarian Party of Tennessee.

Despite the relative silence of some like Snowdenon the Russia-Ukraine war, companies like Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL), Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (NASDAQ: FB), and Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) have been responding to Russias aggression against its neighbor.

Several Russian-born personalities like Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) co-creator Vitalik Buterin and Chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov have also voiced their opposition against the ongoing conflict.

Read Next: As Ukraine's Wealthy Scrambled To Buy Crypto Ahead Of Russian Invasion, Tether Became More Valuable Than Dollar

Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia

2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

See original here:

Edward Snowden Sends Out First Tweet Since Russia's Ukraine Invasion Says This Is Why He Has Been Silent - Benzinga