Day: January 26, 2024

РБК:  Black boxes from the Russian military transport aircraft Il-76, which crashed in the Belgorod region, were delivered to the laboratory of a specialized research institute. TASS and RIA Novosti write about this with reference to operational services.

This is about an on-board voice recorder and a device…

Armenia-Iran Dialogue: Pursuing Stability Amid Geopolitical Shifts  BNN Breaking

At a recent Fox News town hall, Trump teased about his pick for a running-mate, “I know who it’s going to be” — but he didn’t say. 

Well, I’m pretty certain I know. 

The answer is important, not just because the choice could affect some voters’ decisions in November, but also because (as is the case with Biden) during the course of the next term, the number two may well become number one.

So who will it be?

Not Kari Lake, a Senate candidate in Arizona and election denier, who’s even more deranged than Trump. She’s not sufficiently well known. And too wild and undisciplined. 

Not South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, another Trump lapdog. Not great on television. 

Not Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. Too unpredictable and ego-maniacal. 

Not South Carolina’s Senator Tim Scott. Racists in Trump world worry he’ll turn off white voters. 

Trump’s most likely pick … (drumroll) … New York State’s Elise Stefanik. 

Why? She’s a woman, and she’s young (39 years old). Trump obviously needs help with women and young people. 

She’s also a fierce culture warrior. 

When some student protesters defended the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas, Stefanik immediately saw an opportunity to attack diversity programs, score points with rich Wall Street donors, and put a thumb in the eye of the Ivy League (even though — or maybe because — she graduated from Harvard). 

“This is just the beginning,” pledged Stefanik, after her questioning of Dr. Claudine Gay helped set in motion the Harvard president’s resignation. “Our robust congressional investigation will continue to move forward to expose the rot in our most ‘prestigious’ higher-education institutions and deliver accountability to the American people.”

She’s donor bait. Stefanik’s campaign raised more than $5.2 million during the last quarter of 2023 — including contributions from more than 35,000 first-time donors — in a haul that set a new personal record and put her among the ranks of the top fundraisers in Congress.

She’s influential among House Republicans — the highest-ranking woman. 

And she’s an outspoken Trumper. 

She was an early endorser of Trump for the 2024 election. 

She’s even been imitating his words and phrases. In recent weeks, Stefanik has made headlines for referring to people imprisoned for storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as “hostages,” and then rescinded her endorsement of a GOP congressional candidate in Ohio after he called Trump arrogant.

And taking bonkers Trump-like positions. On Thursday, she broke with the rest of GOP leadership and voted against a short-term extension spending bill to avert a government shutdown. She supported such stopgap measures in mid-November and late September. A spokeswoman said Stefanik voted against the measure, which excluded border measures, over concerns about illegal crossings from Canada.

Canada?

Last week she defended Trump against reports that he confused his presidential primary rival Nikki Haley with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The reality is Nikki Haley is relying on Democrats, just like Nancy Pelosi, to try to have a desperate showing,” Stefanik said.

She also accused “Joe Biden and his Democrat cronies” of “blatant election interference” in a one-day delay of E. Jean Carroll’s civil defamation case — even though it was Trump’s own attorneys who asked for the delay. 

When she joined Trump Friday evening at a campaign event in New Hampshire, he introduced her to the crowd as “brilliant” and said she “got very famous” for questioning the college presidents. She “did it in a surgical way. Wasn’t it beautiful?”

And she is ambitious and unprincipled — which makes her even more compatible with Trump. 

“I would be honored to serve in the Trump administration in any capacity,” she said in a recent interview, when asked if she was open to the vice president post. 

Her only downside, from Trump’s standpoint, could be that she was once a Republican moderate. She worked in the George W. Bush administration as a domestic policy aide and later for Rep. Paul Ryan when he was a vice presidential nominee. 

After being elected in 2014 to a House seat vacated by a retiring Democrat (becoming at age 30 the youngest Republican woman in Congress), she initially took centrist positions and occasionally broke with Trump. 

She opposed Trump’s tax cut in December 2017 because it capped the state and local tax deduction at $10,000, which disproportionately affected tax filers in high-tax states like New York. In June 2017, she called his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord a mistake.

But then she saw which way the wind was blowing — not right-ward but nut-ward — and in a viral moment in November 2019, used her spot on the House Intelligence Committee to vigorously defend Trump during hearings in his first impeachment. 

In response, Trump declared, “a new Republican star is born.”

She joined the Republican leadership in 2021 to replace Rep. Liz Cheney, who was ousted for repeatedly criticizing Trump. (Cheney recently posted on X, formerly Twitter, “One day [Stefanik] will have to explain how and why she morphed into a total crackpot. History, and our children, deserve to know.”)

If Trump were smart (if pigs could fly), he’d pick as a running mate a moderate who could reassure independents he’s not utterly unhinged. 

But Trump being Trump, he wants a loyal clone, a total crackpot. 

Stefanik fits the bill perfectly.

This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

By Jon Miltimore

Argentina’s President Javier Milei went to Davos to attend the 54th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting last week.

Attendees of the meetings—often derided as global elites who bask in their pomp, privilege, and luxury as they try to address global problems with collectivist solutions—received a jarring message from Argentina’s newly-elected president: you are the problem.

“Today I’m here to tell you that the Western world is in danger,” Milei said in his prepared remarks. “And it is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism, and thereby to poverty.” (Click here to read: Speech Of Argentina’s President Javier Milei At Davos – Transcript)

That Milei was directing his message at those in attendance is of little doubt. Global leaders have abandoned freedom for “different versions of what we call collectivism,” he said.

The collectivism Milei references was the dominant theme in a bevy of speeches delivered by the world’s crème de la crème, who explained the actions that must be taken to save the world from freedom, markets, and various “crises.”

Maroš Šefčovič, a Slovak diplomat and a leader of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, discussed ways European countries, given the proper coercive tools, can slash emissions by 90 percent over the next decade and a half.

“The phase-out of fossil fuels is essential and inevitable,” said António Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, in a separate speech.

Leaders of several countries discussed a proposed “global plastics treaty” to curb plastic pollution. It included discussion on bans already in place in some countries on the manufacturing and import of plastic bags, as well as “ecotaxes” on the selling and production of certain plastic products.

There were also numerous discussions on the global threat of “misinformation,” which is apparently the top concern of the global business community.

And then there was Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the WEF, who praised the Chinese Communist Party for its “commitment to a global regulatory approach” on innovations like artificial intelligence.

This is just a sprinkling of the topics discussed in Davos, of course, but you’ll notice a common current that runs throughout them: the solution to virtually every problem requires more government and “collective action,” and less freedom.

This is precisely the kind of thinking Milei, a self-described libertarian, took aim at in his speech, which was a clarion call for leaders to reject collectivist thinking and embrace individual freedom.

“The main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism,” Milei told the audience. “We’re here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world; rather they are the root cause.”

As Milei pointed out, few can better attest to the failures of collectivism than Argentines. The country surged to prosperity in the latter half of the nineteenth century, only to experience a massive drop in prosperity due to its embrace of Peronism, a blend of fascism and socialism named after the left-leaning revolutionary Juan Domingo Perón (1895–1974) who dominated Argentine politics for decades following his initial ascent to power in 1946.

While many of Milei’s predecessors, such as the jet-setting Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a self-described Peronist and progressive, were delivering international speeches in Copenhagen about tackling climate change through “a new multilateralism,” Argentines watched their country slowly collapse into poverty.

By embracing protectionist trade policies and rampant government spending, Peronists set Argentina’s economy on fire. By 2023, 40 percent of the population was in poverty and inflation had reached more than 140 percent due to massive money printing. Because of the constantly eroding value of pesos, Argentine merchants are compelled to update prices on chalkboards throughout the day.

The human disaster in Argentina was not caused by climate change or AI or “misinformation.”

It was caused by Argentine politicians and bureaucrats abandoning free-market capitalism, an economic system that brought about unprecedented human prosperity across the globe, and a stark contrast to its various collectivist counterparts—fascism, Peronism, communism, anti-capitalism, etc.

This is why Mr. Milei called capitalism the only “morally desirable” economic system, and the only one that can alleviate global poverty.

“Countries that have more freedom are twelve times richer than those that are more oppressed,” Milei said. “Poverty is twenty-five times lower; extreme poverty is fifty times lower.”

This invites an important question, however. What is freedom?

Almost all conservatives will tell you they support freedom, of course, but many will advocate policies contrary to the principles of liberty. The same can largely be said of progressives.

Milei, who is not your typical politician, went beyond talking points on freedom.

Citing Argentine philosopher Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr., he gave listeners a definition of the essence of liberty—libertarianism:

Libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others, based on the principle of non-aggression, in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.

Its fundamental institutions are private property, markets free from state intervention, free competition, and the division of labor and social cooperation, in which success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price.

In other words, capitalist successful business people are social benefactors who, far from appropriating the wealth of others, contribute to the general well-being.

This is a wonderful description of the freedom philosophy, and it shows what separates Milei from nearly all other major political figures today, but particularly those gathered in Davos.

Milei recognizes that free-market capitalism is the source of human prosperity, not something that needs to be “bridled” or pillaged in a quixotic effort to save humanity or redistribute its fruits.

“It should never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that has failed in all countries where it has been tried out,” Mr. Milei said. “It has been a failure economically, socially, culturally, and it has also murdered more than one hundred million human beings.”

Milei is not wrong, but his critique does not apply merely to the failed socialist powers of the past, such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Venezuela, and others. It applies to new strains of anti-capitalism that currently infect Western systems, such as “social justice” and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) ideas.

And this is the challenge the world faces today.

The way forward will not be found by simply denouncing collectivism in its various forms. It will be found by embracing the ideas of freedom: voluntary action, property rights, individualism, trade, and free competition.

With many countries around the world reaching a dangerous crossroads due to mounting public debt, Mr. Milei’s speech did not fall on deaf ears.

• About the author: Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at FEE.
• Source: This article was published by FEE

While the peak of threats against every statue celebrating American history seems to have passed, one recent example stood out to me. The National Park Service announced plans to remove the statue of William Penn in Welcome Park (named for the ship he sailed to America on) in Philadelphia, in the state named for his family. 

Those plans have now been withdrawn. But they were particularly poorly chosen, given the sorts of attacks usually made to justify such “statutory” destruction. 

Penn was a pacifist who joined the Quakers at age 22, so he could not credibly be called a war monger. 

His nonconformist views also made him an outsider in British society, and he was expelled from Oxford, arrested several times, and imprisoned for blasphemy in the Tower of London. Penn was not a power broker whose privilege supposedly harmed others. 

Pennsylvania Quakers were also among the earliest fighters against slavery. 

Penn did not treat Indians unfairly. He insisted that their lands be purchased through negotiation rather than conquered or stolen. As Peter Lillback put it, “The one American that cannot possibly be accused of any hostility toward the original inhabitants of the land in North America is William Penn.”

Penn’s example was also a powerful influence on rights Americans now treasure. 

When he was put on trial for preaching at a Quaker gathering, he invoked his legal rightunder British law to see the charges brought against him, because “if these ancient and fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property…must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who then can say that he has a right to the coat on his back?” 

The judge — the Lord Mayor of London — refused and pressed the jury for a conviction, but the jury exonerated Penn. The Lord Mayor then sent Penn back to jail for contempt of court, and also fined and jailed the jury. From prison, they fought back, resulting in wresting English juries away from judicial control, so that verdicts could not be coerced and juries could not be punished for verdicts the government disliked. Penn called it “the insurance which we have on our lives and property” against government abuse, and his thinking is reflected now in the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Penn anticipated John Locke’s ideas on the “unalienable rights” referenced in our Declaration of Independence, as Locke also heavily influenced Jefferson. Locke wrote that “Men being born with a title to perfect freedom and uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature…no one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political view of another, without his consent.”

When Penn was given authority over Pennsylvania (literally, “Penn’s woods”) in 1682, he implemented his Frame of Government, Pennsylvania’s first constitution, which included elected representatives, a separation of powers, religious freedom, and fair trials, all since incorporated into our Constitution.

Penn’s history of abuse at government hands had cemented a fierce commitment to freedom, because “people…may be better managed by wisdom than ruled by force.” Consequently, he wrote, “I shall not usurp the right of any, or oppress his person.” 

Ronald Reagan even made Penn an honorary citizen, “whose contributions to its traditions of freedom, justice, and individual rights have accorded them a special place of honor…and to whom all Americans owe a lasting debt.”

Accordingly, historian Jim Powell called William Penn “the first great hero of American liberty,” particularly because “For the first time in modern history, a large society offered equal rights to people of different races and religions…He showed that people who are courageous enough, persistent enough, and resourceful enough can live free,” going beyond noble rhetoric to pioneer “how a free society would actually work.”

In fact, when I think of those words, I am reminded of a little-noted aspect of Penn’s “firsts.” He wrote with a great deal of wisdom about many central constitutional issues before those who are now often given primary credit. 

John Locke’s 1690 Second Treatise On Government is probably given the most credit for that inspiration. Richard Henry Lee even charged that Jefferson had essentially plagiarized Locke in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. But Penn’s Frame of Government was implemented in 1682 – eight years earlier. 

Cato’s Letters, which argued for Locke’s reasoning and which were so influential that many of our founders’ words echoed it closely, were not published until beginning in 1720. Baron Montesquieu has often been given much of the credit for the idea of separation of powers in his 1748 The Spirit of Laws, but it was already in Penn’s Frame of Government, over half a century earlier. 

Those Penn firsts make keeping his statue and honoring him particularly important for historical purposes, though few seem ever to have noticed. But for our present circumstances, the fact that so many of the things Penn, and our founders after him, implemented are being eroded or simply ignored also gives him added importance. 

Consider just a few examples. Allegedly unalienable rights seem to be alienated with some frequency, and every branch of our federal government has been involved, no separation of powers required. There is precious little in the way of separation of powers in President Biden’s education loan vote-buying gambits. Former President Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights have been pretty well trampled by the “lawfare” being waged against him in court. 

But each of those examples rejects aspects absolutely crucial to America continuing to be what was once acceptable to call “a beacon of hope” for the world. That is why we should remember Penn’s insights. Penn’s commitment to a free society needs our re-commitment.

This article was published by AIER