We live in an extraordinary time where the world gets to look on in awe as Donald Trump transcends the role of President to reach the level of an American founding father.
Being the movement of scientific dictatorship, the Progressive movement deserves a Democratic nominee who is as robotic and dictatorial as possible.
And in this weak Democratic primary field the tyrannical iron lady that stands out is none other than America’s own perpetual presidential motion machine herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Trump Should Bait Rep. Alexandria Cortez on the Internet to Raise Her Profile
I ignored Cortez because she is an idiot, powerless, and seemed to be irrelevant.
She remains a powerless idiot but she has, through the strength of her own stupidity, suddenly become relevant as a new perfect foil for Trump; at least as good a foil as Pelosi will be for the rest of the year.
Whether economic growth under Trump continues past the 2020 election depends on whether the expansion is young or old in the business cycle.
American expansions (such as those of the 1980s and 1990s) usually last 5 to 7 years while economic dips normally last 1 to 2 years. Because the economy technically began to recover in the middle of Obama’s first term it has been assumed by many economists that the present expansion is late in cycle and that a correction during the next year or two is overdue.
But where the expansion is depends on what theory of the business cycle is used.
Of course Trump made the right decision to withdraw from Syria because I had been in favor of a withdrawal long ago: And when both Trump and I agree (as is usually the case) then you can be sure our position is the best of any other option.
From December of 2017 –
The Israeli-Saudi strategy has been to support the removal of Assad. In my opinion this is the wrong strategy. The fall of Assad would have left a power vacuum that Iran could have filled with other terrorist proxies. Leaving a gravely weakened Assad in power is better because Assad’s weakness will be easier to leverage into concessions favorable to the Israelis and Saudis.
And, from April of this year –
Under that strategy there is no need to keep American forces in Syria so long as we have a proxy ally in Syrian Kurds that are lent indirect logistical support. If for some reason there is need to send withdrawn combat forces back to Syria there will be military assets next door in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East which can be quickly deployed.
Is it necessary to give a proof of this last fact ? We think we have furnished it in remarking that one of the sentiments most natural to man, that of nationality, is erased from the Liberal catechism, and that where the word is still employed, it is used by the heads of the party as a pretext to enchain Governments, or as a lever to bring about destruction. The real aim of the idealists of the party is religious and political fusion, and this being analysed is nothing else but creating in favour of each individual an existence entirely independent of all authority, or of any other will than his own, an idea absurd and contrary to the nature of man, and incompatible with the needs of human society.
April 23. — My proposals are confined to the discipline of the universities, and do not at all touch the studies themselves—two questions which are very closely related, but yet in the present discussion necessarily separated. If we meddle with the latter, nothing at all will be done, and a letter from Müller sufficiently points this out to me, in which in speaking of this affair he observes ‘ that the disorder in the universities proceeds from the Reformation and that it can only be really set right by the recall of the Reformation.’ I deny neither the assertion nor its justice. But here on the Quirinal I cannot meddle with Dr. Martin Luther, and I hope that nevertheless some good will come of it without even touching its source— Protestantism. The last very excellent letter of Müller’s reminded me involuntarily of Golowkin’s proposition for the investigation of ‘ Causes primitives de la révolution française.’
Napoleon was not irreligious in the ordinary sense of the word. He would not admit that there had ever existed a genuine atheist ; he condemned Deism as the result of rash speculation. A Christian and a Catholic, he recognized in religion alone the right to govern human societies. He looked on Christianity as the basis of all real civilization ; and considered Catholicism as the form of worship most favourable to the maintenance of order and the true tranquility of the moral world ; Protestantism as a source of trouble and disagreements. Personally indifferent to religious practices, he respected them too much to permit the slightest ridicule of those who followed them.