Ignoring values – USA Gov Policy

The overt and extraordinary bias and partisanship on the part of far too many leaders and the media that support them has led to a form of moral blindness that has warped values.

In the comedy movie series, “Naked Gun,” an alien flying saucer lands in New York’s Time Square. Beautiful aliens emerge. Leslie Nielsen, who plays the role of a bumbling detective, stands in front of the spacecraft and tells amazed bystanders, “Move along, nothing to see here.”

That phrase could well be the motto of our era.

Much of the world has turned a blind eye to terrible assaults on human rights, particularly barbaric attacks on Christians. Open Doors recently published its World Watch 2020 report, detailing the massive international persecution that religious group currently endures. According to the data presented, 260 million Christians worldwide suffer high levels of persecution in at least 50 nations. The Beijing regime uses sophisticated technology to catch and convict what the Communist regime terms the “illegal spread of Christianity.” In Burkina Faso, Christians are fighting for their very survival. Dozens of priests have been killed. Protestant ministers face not only dire threats to themselves, but to their families as well. Open Doors notes that “In Sri Lanka, 250 people died and more than 500 were injured in attacks on Catholic and Protestant churches and hotels on [an] Easter Sunday. In Pakistan, radical Islamist groups have used so-called “blasphemy laws” to imprison Christians. Due to relentless persecution, Christianity is on the verge of completely vanishing from portions of the Middle East.

While the chattering classes vocally condemn the concentration camps that darkened Europe in the 1940’s, there is only minimal condemnation of the 21^st Century version of those nightmare establishments, those existing in China set up for the specific purpose of wiping out the Uyghur people and culture.

Over the past dozen years or so, we have been advised by Washington power brokers and media barons to ignore astounding violations of the Constitution, the law, and common decency. In affairs both foreign and domestic, on the streets of our cities, in the playing fields of our stadiums, in the boardrooms of corporations, in the courtrooms of our judicial system and most prominently in the halls of government, acts which are a clear affront to American values, traditions and statutes have been shrouded by government obfuscation, and censorship of facts self-imposed by deeply partisan news organizations.

Along with this, it also helps to improve this libido problem and develops its length and girth. cute-n-tiny.com cialis 20 mg Common adverse symptoms of Cenforce include nausea, drowsiness, muscle pain, back pain, stomach distress, stuffy discount viagra usa nose and blurred vision. One should be very careful while using these tablets. kamagra tablets does not protect you cheap levitra india from getting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. So, all the burden of cost has to bear by the known getting viagra in canada .

When the Obama Administration’s FCC representatives attempted to place federal monitors in newsrooms, the move, (fortunately defeated) didn’t get the level of aggressive response it truly warranted. When that same White House used the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service to harass organizations that differed from the President, no one was punished. When Senate Minority Leader Charles “Chuck” Schumer introduced legislation to remove First Amendment protections from paid political speech, much of the media and academia were stone quiet.

After losing the White House in 2016 a totally false narrative of “Russian collusion” was concocted to cripple the incoming Administration. Despite clear repudiation of that charge after years of intensive investigation, the perpetuators of the plot went completely unpunished.

As President Trump began to put his legitimate stamp on U.S. policy, illicit means to deny him his constitutional authority took shape. Courts on several levels, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, issued rulings in areas over which they had no Constitutional authority in an effort to stop the lawful exercise of Executive Branch power. Most Lawyers’ associations and legal academic institutions and journals chose to side with these judicial usurpers.

Now, we are told that while there were some irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, it’s not enough to change the outcome or to be concerned about.

Move along, there’s nothing to see here.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.