81 Million Neville Chamberlains... Nuclear War, Maybe, But At Least No Mean Tweets

Vladimir Putin is a bad guy.  Vladimir Putin is a megalomaniac.  Vladimir Putin is a criminal.  All of those things are true.  Similarly, Adolph Hitler was a bad guy, a megalomaniac and a criminal. But Vladimir Putin is not Adolph Hitler and Russia in 2022 is not Germany in 1938/39.  But in both cases, the future of the world hung on / hangs in the balance.  But maybe not in the way you think…

Much of the world was already engaged in war in 1941 when the United States joined the fight.  Most of Europe and much of North Africa were under the boot of the Nazis while most of the Far East was controlled by the Japanese.  German U Boats were prowling the seas sinking ships around the world from belligerents and non belligerents alike.  There was a world war going on, we just weren’t active, frontline participants prior to Pearl Harbor. However one looks at that period, the world as we know it was under fierce attack and eventually would have enveloped the rest of the world, including the United States. 

In February 2022 none of that was true.  Sure, Russia invaded Ukraine after invading Georgia in 2008 (then leaving after six months) and annexing Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.  And sure, Vladimir Putin has been saber rattling about reconstituting the lost parts of the USSR.  But the world in 2022 was not the world in 1938/39…

NATO didn’t exist then. The UN didn’t exist then.  More importantly, the economic integration of European nations to one another and the rest of the west didn’t exist to the extent it does today.  And finally, in the late 1930s the Nazis had the most powerful military on the planet, while today Russia’s troops are rightly seen as inferior to most they would face in the West.

All of that to say when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of this year, the world was not on the brink of anything resembling a world war.  

If you took a time machine and went back to February of 2022 and asked the American people would they be willing to spend in excess of $50 billion and send the world into an economic tailspin if Russia invaded Ukraine, my guess is they would have said no.  They might have talked about bulking up NATO forces, they might have talked about sanctions, but I doubt they would have supported propping up a corrupt regime in a notoriously corrupt nation with tens of billions of dollars that would have to paid for by taxpayers already struggling under the weight of inflation and economic malaise.  Nor would they have wanted to bring America and the world to the brink of a nuclear cataclysm. 

But here we are, six months later, exactly there, with Vladimir Putin opaquely threatening to use nuclear weapons and the leader of Ukraine goading the United States to strike first with its nuclear weapons.

What is most sad about all of this is that none of it had to happen. A new piece in Foreign Affairs states “in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”  So essentially, in April, less than two months after the beginning of the war, the parties involved were close to agreement with returning to the status quo of what existed the day before Russia invaded.  But the agreement collapsed.  Why? Joe Biden…

“As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky, following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.

"Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign [an agreement] with you [Ukraine], but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over” is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.”

Now that’s Pravda, a Russian mouthpiece, but its assertion dovetails with statements Johnson made publically two weeks later:  “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said any peace talks over Ukraine are likely to fail, as he compared holding talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiating with a crocodile. Johnson said dealing with Putin was like "a crocodile when it's got your leg in its jaws" and said it was vital that the West continues arming Ukraine.” And “Johnson said world leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden, agreed on a call this week that they would continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, including artillery, as Russia intensified its attacks on Ukraine's East.”

So, essentially, the combatants had come to a resolution to their conflict when the west shows up and decides they’d rather have more war. The “they” in Johnson’s statement about not being on board with a peace settlement is telling.  Johnson was no doubt acting on behalf of the man who “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades”, Joe Biden.  There’s simply no way to believe that the UK was going to put the kibosh on what could be a peaceful settlement to a potential powder keg without Washington’s approval or encouragement.

At the very moment when a fragile peace could have been worked out and negotiators begun to solve the differences between Russia and the Ukraine, Joe Biden steps in and does what he does best, mess things up.  The timeline here is interesting… Despite the fact that on March 10^th the US promised Ukraine $13 billion and on March 26^th Biden told the world that Putin "cannot remain in power," the Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were still able to come to an agreement on a peace deal.  And staggeringly, Joe Biden scuttled it.

Here we are, in September and the much of the world is in recession, prices for everything are up dramatically, the US has provided Ukraine with upwards of $60 billion in aid and Europe is facing energy shortages and skyrocketing prices just as winter approaches.  And now nuclear war is in the air.

All of this because Joe Biden wants revenge on Russia for something they didn’t even do…

Most certainly Russia tried to influence the 2016 elections in the US, but many countries do so.  It’s called statecraft and most certainly the United States does an enormous amount of it.  Nonetheless, even the Washington Post, the Democrat mouthpiece, states that the Russian’s “efforts were small in scope, relative to homegrown media efforts,” instead blaming “Fox News and the insular right-wing media ecosystem it anchors.”

And there we have it. The world of 2022 is looking a bit more like Europe of the late 1930’s and on the brink of war because of Joe Biden’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. But rather than being some troll on Twitter reposting Democrat memes from his Mom’s basement, Joe Biden is the leader of the free world and is expressing his TDS by sending billions of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, sending the world into a global recession and threatening Russia to the point where its leader threatens to use nuclear weapons. 

On literally every single issue of consequence today Joe Biden is wrong.  On the single biggest issue of today Joe Biden has not only been wrong, but catastrophically so.  At the moment the world should be finding ways to pick itself up from the economic body blow of the Covid lunacy, the world is watching Putin hover his shaky finger over the nuclear button and wondering how many Europeans will freeze to death this winter because they don’t have enough energy to heat their homes.

In 2022 if the world finds itself in a nuclear conflict, Vladimir Putin will bear some of the blame, but he will share that with the feckless Joe Biden.  Putin’s a thug and Biden’s a dunce and everyone knows it. Most of the blame however will sit squarely on the shoulders of the purported “81 million” Americans who were so angered by “mean tweets” that they put into the most powerful office in the world someone demonstrably not capable of running a lemonade stand.  But at least, like Neville Chamberlain they had good intentions. 

Hitler, Chavez, Putin and Trump... The Constitutional Road to Tyranny

Many people make the mistake of thinking that dictators or tyrants always came to power illegally, through some coup or some other extra constitutional manner. Of course that is sometimes true. Both Mao and Fidel Castro fomented and then won revolutions which put them in power. But more often tyrants and dictators come to power perfectly legally.

Take Adolf Hitler as example. While Hitler was a miscreant and led a group of violent thugs in Weimar Germany, he is not guilty of a palace coup. In 1930 his Nazi party won 18% of the seats in the Reichstag and became the 2nd largest party in Germany. Two years later, building on the violence in the streets – much of which they incited – the Nazis became the largest party in government. On 30 January 1933 President Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor and not long thereafter the Nazis began twisting the Constitution, suspending civil liberties and eliminating opposition. By August of 1934 Adolf Hitler was the dictator of Germany.

Hugo Chavez took a similar path. A lifelong military man, in the early 1990s he was a participant in several attempted coups d'etat. Each failed, with Chavez ending up in prison once and forcibly retired from the Army after another. In 1998 Chavez ran for and won the presidency and immediately set about rewriting of the constitution. Empowered by a constitution that eliminated the senate and strengthened the presidency, Chavez would eliminate almost all political opposition, put a stranglehold on the press and purge opponents from the military and courts. He died in 2013 having spent a decade and a half in almost complete control of every aspect of Venezuela, having nationalized most of the once productive economy and leaving in his wake a failed state.

And then there is Chavez’s contemporary, Vladimir Putin. In 1999 Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin Prime Minister. Later he would make Putin acting President. In 2000, on a backdrop of terrorism, crime and economic malaise, Putin would win the presidency with 53% of the vote. Thus began a period oppression of the opposition, intimidation of the media and constitutional gymnastics that would keep Putin with a steel grip on Russia that he maintains today. Along the way he has accumulated $200 billion in personal wealth and turned the Russian economy into an ATM for favored businessmen while leaving the average Russian living near poverty.

All three of these men used populist movements against state dysfunction to legally step into power. Once in power they all moved to eliminate virtually all opposition and take total control. Political opponents were often intimidated by supporters and sometimes simply thrown in jail. Opposition or objective newspapers and television stations were either closed or taken over. Economic rivals had their property taken and or found themselves in jail. Citizens voicing opposition often found themselves in the same place or worse.

Under the veneer of official authority a would-be tyrant’s power is almost absolute. Whether that power is backed up by partisans terrorizing citizens in the street, badged stormtroopers kicking down doors or bureaucrats using regulations to outlaw everything and everyone who might pose a threat, legislatures and courts are rarely a match for a determined would-be dictator. Such men rarely seize absolute power by overtly eliminating competing power centers, but rather usually couch the takeover in trumped up charges that lead to arrests or calls for equality of one sort or another. Under the cover of such populist movements properties are seized, businesses are closed and opponents are arrested. With the façade of legitimacy intact dictators then portray themselves as the heroes just doing what is necessary to defend the nation and the people.

So why does any of this matter here? Because in January we may well find ourselves inaugurating a man who could very much move down that road of tyrants. Barack Obama has already mainstreamed the idea of an extra constitutional presidency. From appointing members of the NLRB outside of the Constitution’s framework to rewriting his own Obamacare via executive fiat to nationalizing auto companies, he’s already laid the groundwork for a banana republic like strongman president, and that is exactly what Donald Trump would be. As a citizen Trump sought to use bankruptcy laws and the government’s eminent domain powers to threaten, intimidate and coerce opponents. He has threatened to use the courts to punish journalists who dare to write unflattering pieces on him. Prior to Ted Cruz exiting the race, Trump threatened violence if he was not handed the nomination, even if he hadn’t won. He has threatened corporations with bills of attainder for escaping the US’s confiscatory tax rates and suffocating regulations. Add to that the fact that he has made a career out of demonizing and making viscous personal attacks against real and perceived opponents, and it becomes clear that things might not look good for those who choose not to get on board the Trump Train.

The office of President of the United States is the single most powerful position in the world. That power would be intoxicating to the most level headed of people. Put it in the hands of the man with perhaps the biggest ego since Napoleon Bonaparte, and it could make for a toxic and tragic combination. We’ve heard Donald Trump tell us for a year that he will get things done, that he will make America great again, and that he will revive the American economy. As he pursues those things and figures out that it takes more than bluster and intimidation to “get things done” in Washington and on the world stage, it’s difficult to imagine he won’t pick up on Barack Obama’s success in implementing extra constitutional actions and decide that he can do the same, only bigger and better. No doubt it will be a HUUUUUUUUUGE success.

Net Neutrality exposes Barack Obama's not so well hidden inner Vladimir Putin

On Thursday the FCC moved to regulate the Internet via what’s commonly called Net Neutrality – although like Obamacare before it was passed, we don’t know everything that’s included in it! Net Neutrality is beyond a doubt the single most despicable thing Barack Obama has done as president. (The FCC is ostensibly an independent agency, but under Obama it’s been anything but.) The big push for Net Neutrality came from Silicon Valley content companies who were whining that ISPs such as Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T were slowing or threatening to slow content that sucked up massive amounts of bandwidth. They are after all the ones who have to invest to expand that bandwidth. These ISPs were at the same time telling companies like Netflix and Google that they could ensure timely delivery of their content if they paid for the extra bandwidth that was being used. The Silicon Valley companies squealed to Barack Obama and he started leaning on the FCC.

Now this should not be viewed as a defense of Comcast or Time Warner. Both are horrible companies when it comes to service and customer service. Terrible! And you might ask how can they survive if they piss off so many customers? Government, of course. In most places they reign as the result monopolies… imposed by government.

This might sound like it’s just about whether you can have House of Cards running simultaneously in three rooms in your house or in every home in your neighborhood. It’s not. It’s about the government seeking to control the Internet, the single most powerful vehicle for the advancement of the human condition in history. That might sound like hyperbole, but it’s not. Today, because of the Internet more people have access to more information, more quickly than at any point since… well, ever. Not only that, they also have access to more products and services, usually at lower cost than any generation ever enjoyed. And perhaps most importantly, they have a vehicle through which they can express their thoughts and share their ideas and highlight oppression & injustice more freely and to more people more quickly than has ever been possible in human history.

A decade from now much of that will be a mere distant memory. Not that the Internet won’t exist, it will. But it will be a government controlled utility rather than the Wild West platform for the free exchange of ideas that it is today. Don’t believe it? Don’t forget, a year ago this same FCC proposed sending “researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.” Six months before that Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin were debating whether bloggers deserved 1st Amendment protections. And of course this is the administration that used IRS commissioners to stifle the free speech of opponents and the Justice Department to go after reporter James Rosen who just happened to be critical of it.

So now, we have Barack Obama’s FCC telling the country that the government gets to be the arbitrators of what can be said or done on the Internet. Imagine if the government decided that WiFi was a bridge too far when we were all hooked up to the Internet by those static filled phone lines. Imagine if the government put the kibosh on online music sharing when record companies complained about declining CD sales. Imagine if the government supported the status quo when Yahoo was the dominant search provider or MySpace was the dominant social networking site. In what universe would have any of that have been a good thing?

As bad as stifling innovation is, that’s not the worst of it. The worst? The death of free speech. Imagine if Richard Nixon had at his disposal the kind of control the FCC says it has now during Watergate. Ronald Reagan during Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski affair. George Bush in reference to GTMO or Abu Ghraib.

Barack Obama no doubt wishes he had that kind of power during Fast and Furious, the IRS Tea Party Scandal, Benghazi and countless other times. Now he pretty much will have it through his puppets on the FCC. Unfortunately the spineless obsequious leadership in the GOP will likely do nothing to stop this abuse of power. The result will be something slightly less onerous than being perpetrated by Barack Obama’s hero, Vladimir Putin, in Moscow. Putin can simply kill his opponents with little worry of consequence. Here in the United States, thankfully, that’s unlikely to go over as smoothly, however with the FCC’s unconstitutional overreach such measures wouldn’t be necessary. Why kill someone and make a martyr out of them when it’s much easier to simply muzzle them, or if that doesn’t work, label them a criminal and jail them with arbitrary regulations that you’ve set up specifically to target opponents? When government gets to decide who can be its critics or what its critics can say, it’s not a long march to a dictatorship.

Alas, our freedoms aren’t being taken from us by some foreign power with a gun pointed at our collective heads. No, staggeringly, American freedoms are being taken away by the very government a majority of brain-dead voters somehow sent to Washington. What’s worse, the opposition in Congress seems more than willing to capitulate and let the president get away with whatever he does, regardless of what’s in the Constitution, so long as they can stay in power in their little fiefdoms. With Obamacare and what the WSJ dubs the Obamanet, Barack Obama has succeeded in gutting both economic freedom and the freedom of speech in less than six years. Things that largely survived for 220 years... down the drain in six years! The consequences of the mistake that is Barack Obama in the White House will haunt Americans for decades to come, including those who were smart enough not to hand the keys of the greatest kingdom in human history to a petulant man more than willing to lie to get what he wants and a disdain for the very Constitution he swore to uphold.