From the headlines, you would think that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance were committed to overthrowing the national security establishment.
“Trump Picking Vance Widens Rift With Foreign Policy Old Guard,” reported Bloomberg.
“Trump’s VP pick spells ‘disaster’ for Europe and Ukraine,” fumed Politico.
For all of Trump’s rhetoric about “endless wars” and Vance’s attacks on “neoconservatives,” however, the two politicians are all-in on some of the establishment’s most destructive military adventures. And in some ways, Trump and Vance are even more hawkish than the baseline.
“A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs,” Vance said in a Fox News interview at the Republican National Convention on Monday. “If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard, and that’s what [Trump] did when he took out [Iranian Gen. Qassem] Soleimani.”
Vance praised Trump for trying to “enable the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states” to fight back against Iran. In a speech to the Quincy Institute in May, Vance tried to sell a U.S.-Israeli-Arab alliance as a way for the United States to “spend less time and less resources in the Middle East.”
But that’s exactly the strategy that got us here in the first place, and the proof is in the pudding. Trump’s shows of force against Iran did not decisively end U.S.-Iranian conflict, nor did the Abraham Accords get Israel and the Arab states to pick up the military slack.
Vance even wants to add another counterinsurgency to America’s “forever war” roster. In July 2023, he told NBC News that he would “empower the president of the United States, whether that’s a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels” in Latin America.
Trump and Vance also share the establishment view that the United States needs to get ready for a conflict with China over Taiwan. At the convention, Vance told Fox News that China is the “biggest threat” to America, and he has voiced support for building up the Taiwanese military with American weapons in the past.
Noir Alley is a weekly film series on Turner Classic Movies. Normally starting at 9:00 PM on Saturday night, Noir Alley features films about crime and its detection, most from the late 1940s and early 1950s.
“Noir” is a French word, meaning “black” or “dark” and it has a double meaning (at least) as a descriptive for these films. Much of the action in Noir films takes place at night, in dimly light alleys, hallways or even harbors. “Noir” also refers to the darkness in the hearts and minds of the protagonists in these movies, and not always just the darkness of the villain’s deeds.
I have watched Noir Alley every week for several years. The quality of the films varies. Some are classics of the genre. A few are classics beyond any genre. And many are mid-grade “B” films, but even these are interesting for what they tell us about the era in which they were made and in which the plots take place.
Adding to the value of Noir Alley for the film enthusiast, or the cultural historian, Eddie Muller offers an intro setting some of the context for the film – how it was made, some facts about the writer(s), director, and main actors, and other interesting tidbits. More interesting usually is the outro, which gives more information on the film, the stars and what happened to them, and even the writers and directors.
Given the period in which most of the films shown were made – 1946 to 1954, as Eddie Muller noted in his intro Saturday night, July 13 – it is inevitable that politics intrudes into the stories of the films, and of the people who made them. Mr Muller gave an extended, and interesting talk on the significance of the “Red Scare” and the blacklist on Noir film making in the postwar period. To make clear the importance of context, Mr Muller states “…you cannot understand the Normandy invasion without knowing about the Holocaust…”
It does not diminish the horror of the Holocaust to note that the soldiers, sailors and military commanders involved in the Normandy invasion were not likely to be aware of the genocide being undertaken by the National Socialist regime in Germany. They were fighting the Third Reich to save Britain and France. But the Holocaust is important. It is part of the context for World War II. Just so, there is a context to the Red Scare in America that Eddie Muller has not really mentioned.
The Normandy Invasion was not specifically a response to the Holocaust, Eddie. But the Holocaust is directly related to another invasion – the Invasion of Poland in 1939, the proximate cause of the second European war, during which the Holocaust became the horrific historical fact that we still remember today. We often don’t remember that when troops of the German Reich invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Red Army entered Poland from the rear – I mean, the east.
The Invasion of Poland was the cause invoked by Britain and France to go to war with Germany. Poland was home to 3 million Jews, the largest Jewish population in Europe. The German death camps were established in Poland, and Polish Jews constituted the largest single bloc of victims of the Holocaust. The invasion of Poland took place during a period in which the Soviet Union was in alliance with National Socialist Germany.
Dark as these facts are, what do they have to do with Noir Alley, and Noir film of the postwar period? Victims. There are more victims than Eddie Muller has talked about – millions more. And those victims are part of the context for the Red scare, the expose of writers and actors with sympathies for the Soviet Union, and the Blacklist that Eddie Muller brings to light on a regular basis. But Eddie Muller is not the only one silent about the victims. How about the victims Eddie Muller talks about – did they say anything about Stalin’s alliance with Hitler that brought the subjugation of Poland, and the second European War?
Writers, directors and actors that were real or potential victims of the Hollywood blacklist, or of harassment by official agencies or crusading politicians were people who were or had been members of The Communist Party, or supporters of campaigns and front groups created by the Communist Party. They can include people involved in the Party or in front groups before the invasion of Poland, who remained loyal to the Party into the postwar years; those who joined the Communist Party or supported front groups after German invaded the Soviet Union; they saw the USSR as a bulwark against Nazi Germany despite the material support given the German Reich during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
The third group was composed of Dalton Trumbo. He was very anti-war, not a bad thing. He wrote Johnny Got His Gun during the period of the Hitler Stalin Pact. But he was not a member of the Party when he wrote the book. At the time the Communist Party was campaigning against any American involvement in a war to save Britain and France. That was the party line during the Hitler Stalin Pact, and Trumbo saw the party as a force for peace. Trumbo joined the Communist Party when it was allied with Nazi Germany. As Forest Gump would say, “…that weren’t a smart thing to do.”
I appreciate Eddie Muller’s little histories of the people who made these films. Some went into exile to continue working in films during the blacklist period. Some submitted scripts under pseudonyms. As Dalton Trumbo noted – “…the blacklist exists. So does the black market.” None of his little histories have involved writers or actors assassinated by FBI or CIA death squads, but the past is the undiscovered country.
Some of those who where blacklisted produced good or even great cinema, available because of the black market, offshore production and foreign employment. We don’t know as much about dissident writers or actors in the Soviet Union in the Noir Alley period, because the American writers and actors did not take up their cause. We often don’t know their names – there are many unmarked graves in Soviet labor camps.
I was hoping for some balance when he announced a film that would be obviously anti-Communist. Naturally, he showed a film that was over the top, and used the history of the development of the film to highlight the oppressive atmosphere for writers at the Hughes studio during the Cold War. Probably all true, and interesting. With the vast film library available to him, including foreign films. Eddie Muller could do a service if he found a sophisticated noir film that dealt with totalitarianism and those who commit to it and act on its behalf.
I can mention modern films that highlight the reasons people oppose Communism, and even Communists. Too modern for Noir Alley, but each has Noir elements. The Lives of Others includes undercover police, smuggling, blackmail, and police corruption in East Germany.
The Death of Stalin has a dead body, political corruption, undercover police, and complicated motives in the very era Noir Alley focuses on. The Deathof Stalin takes place in1953, but has regular reference to events up to 15 years earlier that led to the death and its aftermath.
Mr. Jones takes place in the 1930’s as some Noir Alley movies have done. Much of the action takes place at night in ill lit circumstances. There are dead bodies, some shown, more alluded to. An undercover investigator tries to expose a big crime. Most of the eye-witnesses are dead. Official agencies, news companies and writers he attempts to convince all have vested interests in their friendship with the perpetrator of the crime.
Of course, if Eddie Muller were to run Mr. Jones on Noir Alley, he would hopefully mention that today we know the crime boss in charge of the mass murder in Ukraine in the late 1930s. The crime boss was Joseph Stalin – still head of the Soviet regime in 1946 to 1953, when many Noir Alley writers and actors were still sympathetic to the great leader of the Russian people.
We can be sure that Mr. Jones portrays crimes that are way too dark for Noir Alley. It would have been nice if Dalton Trumbo or Lillian Hellman had ever acknowledged these crimes.
Turner Classic Movies is a private enterprise in America. I watch TCM alot, and I always watch Noir Alley. I would not presume to tell someone else how to run their business, unless they asked. But having watched it for years, I will always think of Saturday night as the night for Eddie Muller’s Rouge Alley.
Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig said former President Trump and other U.S. presidents can now be considered “above the law” after the Supreme Court ruled Monday that core presidential powers are immune from prosecution.
“It can never again be said that in America ‘no man is above the law,’” Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a post on the social platform X.
“The Supreme Court held today that the President of the United States — and the former president in particular — is above the law, and the only person in America who is above the law,” Luttig added.
The Monday ruling, which was decided along ideological lines, marked a significant victory for Trump. It found that presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken within their core official responsibilities, and they have presumptive immunity for all other official acts.
The 6-3 decision all but guarantees that the 2020 election interference case against Trump will not head to trial before the November election. The ruling sends the case back to the district court to determine if specific actions taken by Trump leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot fall outside the immunity protections.
Luttig has in recent years been among the most high-profile conservative critics of Trump and his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election; the former judge testified during the Jan. 6 House select committee’s hearings.
He has also criticized the high court for past decisions involving Trump, including in determining that the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban did not disqualify Trump from the ballot.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling comes four months before Election Day, when Trump hopes to retake the White House. The former president has floated removing the special counsel who brought two indictments against him if he were elected.
Human Rights Watch has issued a 66 page report “Education under Occupation: Forced Russification in Occupied Ukrainian Territories” which documents violations of international by Russian authorities in formerly occupied territories of Ukraine’s Kharkivska region, and other regions which remain under Russian control.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 42 educators, school staff. and other officials in Kharkivska region after Russian forces left the area, and interviewed teachers who had been displaced or escaped from the areas of Khersonska, Zaporiska, Donetska, and Luhanska regions that are currently under occupation.
American troops might be pledged to defend Saudi territory soon. President Joe Biden is seeking a “mega-deal” that would bind the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel into a Middle Eastern military alliance. After Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman last week, both governments announced that they had a “near-final” version of a defense pact worked out.
A group of 9/11 victims’ families wants something very different. For years, they have been suing the Saudi government, based on alleged contacts between Saudi officials and 9/11 hijackers. Earlier this month, the Saudi government argued that its officials had nothing to do with the attacks and motioned for the case to be thrown out. The families’ lawyers responded with a bombshell filing: They claim to have new evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were assisted by “a covert and illegal Saudi government platform” on American soil.
The families’ filing focuses on accused Saudi spy Omar Al Bayoumi, who hosted two of the future hijackers in southern California, and Saudi diplomat Fahad Al Thumairy, who allegedly sent an associate to help host them. The Saudi government argues that Bayoumi “had innocent motives: to help fellow Saudis who were new to the San Diego Muslim community and to get a referral fee from his apartment manager. Al Thumairy did not assist the hijackers at all.”
But the families cited several new pieces of evidence that have not been revealed to the public yet—including FBI memos, home videos of Al Bayoumi, and phone surveillance records—that link Al Bayoumi and Al Thumairy to the hijackers. The families also have a “smoking gun” from British police, a notebook seized from Al Bayoumi that includes “a drawing of a plane, alongside a calculation used to discern the distance at which a target on the ground will be visible from a certain altitude.”
The bureau of Liberal International stands in solidarity with Russia’s liberal party, Yabloko, and with all Russians who seek an alternative for their country grounded in the values of liberalism.
We are deeply troubled that the result, which is said to have seen Mr. Putin win close to a 90% share of the vote, will legitimise the conceit that leads to a mobilization of thousands more Russians to fight President Putin’s illegal wars abroad while sanctioning greater crackdowns at home, all the time fostering deeper confrontation with the liberal-democratic West.
We note that according to the independent Russian election monitoring movement, Golos, this presidential campaign contained more constitutional violations than any it has observed since its founding more than two decades ago. Throughout the election process, Russia’s entire state apparatus was involved in propaganda, coercion, and voter surveillance. On the last day of voting, law enforcement in some regions exerted control over voters’ will, punishing them for making “incorrect” marking on their ballots or showing up at the polling station to vote at the “wrong” time, and even demanding they reveal their vote. We are also appalled by the forcing of people in the occupied territories of Ukraine to vote.
We applaud the courage of Russians who, in these extremely difficult circumstances, followed the advice of Alexei Navalny to silently protest at numerous polling stations on 17 March, registering their dissent at Vladimir Putin’s deadly authoritarianism and reminding their country that another Russia is possible.
The bureau of Liberal International is shocked to learn that Alexei Navalny, another dissident of the regime of Vladimir Putin, has died at a penal colony outside of the Arctic Circle.
Facing 30 years of a politically-motivated prison sentence, Navalny was one of the most persistent critics of Vladimir Putin. His unwavering fight for transparency, democracy, human rights, and fight against state corruption earned him respect from the global community. Such was the influence of Mr. Navalny that he was able to shake the foundations of Putin’s dictatorial regime even from his prison cell.
We echo the concerns of Liberal International Prize for Freedom laureate, Dr Grigory Yavlinsky, that as an opponent of the regime Navalny ended up in a colony mainly for his political activities. The conditions of his detention are nothing but torture, hypocritically and cruelly committed by the authorities who stop at nothing to suppress their opponents. In the totalitarian Russia that Vladimir Putin has reinforced, we are deeply concerned about the safety of other political prisoners including our 2023 Prize for Freedom laureate, Vladimir Kara-Murza, who also has been the victim of poisoning and whose health is in danger because of the detention conditions. We reiterate our demands for the immediate release of all political prisoners and the end of the persecution of dissidents.
Like so many other liberal-democrats who have fought to be free from an authoritarian Russia, Navalny’s blood is on Putin’s hands.
At this time we offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and supporters of Alexei Navalny.
December 7, 1941, is etched into history as the day when the serenity of Pearl Harbor was shattered by an act of aggression, propelling the United States into World War II. This tragic event serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences that come when nations choose the path of aggression. This lesson resonates throughout history and reverberates in current global affairs.
The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was the impetus for the United States to get involved in World War II. Japan’s aggression transformed a regional conflict into a global battle and paved the way for unprecedented devastation, culminating in the use of nuclear weapons on the Japanese mainland. More than 400,000 Americans would die in the war and roughly 55 million total around the world. More than 38 million of those deaths were civilians.
Fast forward to the present day and the world is witnessing acts of aggression escalate nations into war yet again.
Russia’s 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine have killed thousands of innocent people and pushed the international community to the brink of another global conflict. Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children and relocated them into Russia. Russia has deliberately targeted civilian buildings with no military value, and destroyed power plants before winter to freeze Ukrainians. With tensions escalating and the specter of World War III looming, many countries are already involved in a proxy-war. Russia’s continuing aggression threatens to plunge nations into the abyss of warfare, endangering countless lives and destabilizing the delicate balance of global peace.
In the Middle East, the aggression of Hamas against Israel underscores a tragic pattern of escalation. In Early October acts of invasion, kidnapping and rape by Hamas haveled to measures by Israel to nullify the offensive capacity of Hamas. Because Hamas is using civilians as human shields, some of Israel’s attacks against Hamas are hitting ciivilian shields, resulting in the loss of innocent lives which Hamas will use to justify a perpetual cycle of hostility. As the world watches, the region becomes a crucible of suffering, with no clear resolution in sight.
In each of these conflicts the initial act of aggression prompted a vigorous defense and led to escalating warfare between the parties. And in each scenario, many innocent men, women, and children lives have been loss.
In the face of these conflicts – and many others throughout history where the same pattern was witnessed – it becomes imperative to advocate for an alternative approach: the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Living by the NAP means recognizing the futility of aggression as a tool of diplomacy and choosing peaceful means to resolve disputes. It is a call for individuals to embrace dialogue, cooperation, and respect for sovereignty rather than resorting to force.
Donald Trump has a new plan for his next term in office, if he wins in 2024. He will be Dictator on Day 1! Then he will give up this power after he crams his policy goals into inauguration day mandates and decrees.
Fox personality Sean Hannity interviewed Trump recently, to give him a chance to debunk allegations that the former President had plans to use the power of the Presidency to punish his enemies and perceived enemies.
According to Axios Media, Hannity asked Trump: “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Trump replied “Only on Day1!” He asserted that he wants to “…build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
“Except for day one,” Trump said. “I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
“That’s not retribution,” Hannity said.
Trump replied: “I love this guy, he says, ‘you’re not going to be a dictator are you?’ I said no, no, no, other than day one.”
Trump has since adopted his off the cuff answer as his new campaign theme. A day after the interview, Trump spoke at a campaign rally, and told his supporters that he wants “to be a dictator for one day, to build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
When I was young, there was a television show titled “Queen for a Day.” Every day, five days a week, the show would choose from several contestants a housewife, giving a profile of her life, with mentions of problems she might be facing. The chosen contestant would be crowned “Queen” for a day, and given an assortment of prizes at least partly personalized to deal with some of her problems and make her life easier. A washing machine, a new stove and similar prizes would make up her winnings.
The next day, another housewife would be chosen “Queen” with her own prizes, but no power, dictatorial or otherwise. A new Queen each day, five days a week. Rotation in office, no sore losers with window breaking supporters.
Donald Trump is no more qualified to be a housewife than he is to be President. A look at how he stores classified documents at Mar a Lago shows his unfitness for either position.
Certainly, the Donald would find the role of housewife too limited in the powers he wants, especially the power to destroy his enemies. Now it seems, Trump finds the role of President too limited in power, and he dreams of being a Dictator, if only for one day.
Presidents in the past often wanted more power than that granted them by the Constitution of the United States.
In the early 20th Century, Theodore Roosevelt took more power even without taking America into a war. The War Presidents – Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all worked to expand their power in war and in peace.
In the 21st Century, George W Bush combined a program of expanded federal power over education and social policy, with greater expansion of police power after 9/11 and declaration of a ” War on Terror” as well as real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican, his affinity for federal power places him in the company of his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson.
Donald Trump has on several occasions suggested that a military attack on Iran might be justified, if such a war would help him get re-elected. Just prior to November 2020, he contemplated ordering an attack on Iran in a last minute bid to defeat Joe Biden. He has exercised executive power to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and to stop US entry into the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Trump as President and as wannabe President has often promised more than he can deliver – as have other Presidents and wannabes. The promises often imply rule by decree rather than making decisions with consent of Congress. He now wants to be “Dictator” for one day – to build a wall on the border with Mexico. In the four years he held office, he could not get the wall built. Can he now get a wall built in one day?
The idea of “Dictator for a Day” implies that on Day 2, President Trump would give up the power of a Dictator. Yet it is clear that Donald Trump does not believe in term limits. When he was President, and thought he would be re-elected, he talked up the idea of dispensing with the Constitution, with that pesky amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.
When President Trump was defeated in 2020, he refused to accept defeat, as every previous President had done, and tried to refuse to tranfer power. The violent attempt at a coup on January 6, 2021 was undertaken for the purpose of keeping the defeated Donald Trump in the White House. If this is his response after four years, why would anyone think that Trump the Dictator would give up power after one day?
Who among Republicans in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, would have courage on Day 2 to suggest to Trump that he give up the power he so dearly wants?
The Constitution of the Roman Republic provided for the temporary appointment of a Dictator, to serve the Republic during wartime, or deal with civil unrest. The Dictator would serve for six months, then surrender the power. Several times, a former Consul would be called upon to hold this power, and they would accordingly surrender the power as called for in the Roman Constitution.
In 44 BCE, General Julius Caesar led his troops inside the city walls of Rome, in violation of the Constitution. Backed by his troops, he demanded power. He was made Consul for ten years – the normal term was six months – and appointed Dictator for Life.
In response, a group of Senators took action to end his term in both offices early. The Dictatorship was ended. But soon the Roman Republic came under control of the successors of Julius Caesar, who took the title of Caesar and assumed power over the Roman Empire.
The American Republic faces danger now, and now is the time to defend Republican Liberty. I don’t want to wait til January 2025 to find out if any Republican has the courage to tell Donald Trump that he is not qualified to be President, or Dictator. Is there a Republican Congressman or a member of the Republican National Committee with the courage to stand for America and tell Trump he is not qualified to lead America in any capacity? (by Gene Berkman, Editor, The California Libertarian Report)
Moscow security forces carried out raids on gay nightclubs, bars and saunas in the city center on Friday night, according to media reports, a day after Russia’s Supreme Court effectively banned the international LGBTQ+ movement in Russia, labeling it an “extremist” organization.
Police searched venues across the Russian capital, including a nightclub, a male sauna, and a bar that hosted LGBTQ+ parties, under the pretext of a drug raid, local media reported. Eyewitnesses said clubgoers’ documents were checked and photographed by the security services.
Ostorozhno Novosti Telegram news channel reported that, on the pretext of searching for drugs, police raided a club on Malaya Yakimanka where a party for the LGBT community was taking place.
“In the middle of the party, they stopped the music and [the police] started to pass into the halls,” according to the report. ”At the exit, they took passport photos without authorization to do so,” Ostorozhno Novosti wrote, citing an eyewitness.
On Friday, the European Union issued a statement in which it strongly condemned the decision of the Russian Supreme Court to outlaw the international LGBT public movement.
“Amid the decades-long crackdown on rights of LGBTIQ persons unleashed under President Putin, this decision aims at further persecuting the LGBTIQ community in Russia and aims to stifle civil society and those courageously defending human rights,” according to the statement.
California Libertarian Report 