Five Year Old Ukrainian Girl Sets Two Records

Despite a three year old war between Russia and Ukraine, which shows no sign of ending any time soon, a five year old girl there has not let that stop her.

On Saturday, five year old Regina Abramova from Lviv (Ukraine) became the youngest child to climb Mount Hoverla, the highest mountain in Ukraine, Ukraine News Network and New Voice of Ukraine reported. She did so in two hours and 29 minutes with no outside help.

This was the second record she has set. In April, she set a Ukrainian record for the longest inverted hang on gymnastic rings, with a hang of 5 minutes and 52 seconds. She participates in numerous gymnastics competitions and running competitions.

 

Editorial -- Things We Can’t Forget

While President Putin’s speech of Wednesday was horrifying, there are key facts to remember that led up to this mess. We didn’t get to where we are at with Russia overnight. Ray McGovern, writing in Consortium News and Antiwar.com, discusses some of these facts:

–In 2008, US Ambassador to Russia William Burns was warned by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Russia might have to intervene in Ukraine if it was made a member of NATO. This warning was delivered on February 1st, 2008. Despite this, a NATO summit, held after this warning was delivered, stated on April 3rd, 2008: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

–In 2014, the US orchestrated a coup in Kiev in which a government friendly to the US and the West took power. People like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, also one of the Neocons who called for perpetual warfare and preemptive US invasions, immediately called for Ukraine to join NATO.

—Missile defense systems deployed by the US in Romania and Poland can be easily converted to offensive systems. This would give the US the ability to strike Moscow within 7 to 10 minutes, according to Russia.

The US wanted this war just as much as President Putin did. Ukraine has some of the world’s biggest reserves of natural resources.

Editorial -- Russia’s Grievances Against the West

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, spoke at the 77th UN General Assembly in New York explaining Russia’s grievances against the West:

–In December 2021, Russia sought to make proposals to establish rules for co-existence between Russia and the West. Those proposals were “arrogantly” refused;

–Ukraine has become a mere tool for Washington to maintain its global dominance. Once they have no more use for the current government, they will throw them under the bus;

–The US and NATO are already direct participants in the Ukraine conflict given their arming of Ukraine and alleged selection of targets;

–In August 2021, President Zelensky allegedly advised everyone who feels Russian to “go to Russia” for the benefit of their children or grandchildren. The current “referendum” is merely a matter of Russia honoring President Zelensky’s wishes;

–The US acts as though it is God and strives for global domination and exceptionalism, resulting in aggressive wars and claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands. The US now allegedly acts as the messenger of God with no obligations, but only the right to act with impunity as it pleases. Should any country anger the US, it will be a target of aggression. Mr. Lavrov specifically cites Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya;

–The EU is allegedly showing the same symptoms of exceptionalism and arrogance. For instance, the European Commission allegedly threatened Italy with consequences should right-wing parties sweep to power in upcoming elections;

–Despite all this, the end of unipolar politics is coming. Mr. Lavrov concluded by saying that the question was whether the said order would be with one hegemon forcing everyone to live according to its “Rules Based International Order” or a democratic, just world without blackmail and intimidation, or what Mr. Lavrov calls “neo-Nazism” and “neocolonialism.”

Even if everything Mr. Lavrov said Saturday is 100% morally right and 100% factual, it would still not justify either the “Special Military Operation” or President Putin’s recent nuclear blackmail.

Editorial -- World Leaders Not Doing Enough to Stop War in Ukraine

Once again, when you find yourself to the right of an authoritarian nationalist like Turkish President Recep Erdogan, you have to think long and hard about your stances and values. 

The President of Turkey Thursday says he has always believed in the power of dialogue and diplomacy. He knows from first hand experience. During the conflict in Syria, a Russian plane encroached into a sliver of Turkish airspace and was shot down. There was widespread fear that World War III would be triggered and that Article 5 would be invoked, since Turkey is a member of NATO. It didn’t happen. 

In situations like this, there are always hotheaded people who want to drag the two powers into a hot war. Subsequently, a Turkish extremist shot and killed the Russian Ambassador to Turkey as he was giving a speech. But instead of dragging the two countries, and NATO, into a shooting war with Russia, it had the opposite effect. Turkey went out of its way to condemn the violence and to bring the killer to justice.

Mr. Erdogan said that, “The UN could not end the war, could not stop the bloodshed, and it could not find a solution to the energy and food crisis.” He called on other world leaders to join Turkey in its diplomatic efforts and said that his diplomacy with Ukraine and Russia, with which Turkey has close relations with, would continue.

He said there needs to be a joint effort of all world leaders, and everyone should be talking to Presidents Putin and Zelensky to open the door for diplomacy. He said that any negative approaches would not bring the result we expect, but would only bring more death and destruction.

The President of Turkey is right. In 2012, when the US passed the Magnitsky Act, allowing it to lay the groundwork for sanctions against Russia in the future, Freedom House, a human rights group, ranked Russia’s human rights record at 5.5, which was low. Now, it is ranked at 6.5, which is even lower. And if sanctions were an effective tool, we would have resolved the situation between North and South Korea a long time ago.

Editorial -- Putin’s Nuclear Blackmail

Over the last few months, we have had plenty of differences with the Biden Administration over their handling of the Ukraine conflict. But we have to call things as we see them. Those are just differences. We train our criticisms for the most part against the US government because we are taxpayers of the US, not the Russian Federation.

But Putin’s nuclear blackmail of Wednesday, in which he threatened to use nukes if the “territorial integrity” of Russia, whatever that means, were threatened, is too disturbing to ignore.

For starters, this increases the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons over this conflict. Previously, Russia had ruled out the use of nuclear weapons during the conflict unless nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction were used on Russia, or Russia’s national existence was in danger. They maintained this posture during the first seven months of the “Special Military Operation.”

Russia’s “Special Military Operation” was totally predictable; any Russian leader would have done what they did given the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Then, as now, Russia believed that the US was planning to plant nuclear weapons five minutes from Moscow. We don’t know if the US actually was planning on doing so, but that was what Russia believed. That doesn’t make what Russia did, either in 1979 or 2022, defensible.

But Putin’s blackmail goes well beyond the previous response. No country has used nuclear weapons in warfare since 1945, and it shows what kind of a man Putin is – a bully who has always gotten by in life by making threats against people to get his way.

What President Putin could be doing could be one of two things. He could very well be bluffing. Or, he could be serious about his threats. We tend to think that he is bluffing for the following reasons:

–He doesn’t act like a man who wants to die. He, and Russian propaganda outlets, have been constantly talking about creating a multipolar order along with countries like China, Brazil, India, South Africa, and others, purportedly based on mutual respect and the UN Charter. 

–The US and NATO have been systematically seeking to isolate Russia over the years. But if Russia were to follow through and use nuclear weapons in Ukraine or anywhere else, then that would be different. They would be isolating themselves. Countries on the fence over the Ukraine conflict like Mexico and Turkey and India would likely reconsider their willingness to continue to do business with Russia. That would undermine or destroy Russia’s own efforts to create an international multipolar world order.

–If Russia were to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, they would be putting their own soldiers and their own people at risk, given the massive radioactive fallout that would arise.

–The US will know if Russia changes its nuclear posture or if there is unusual activity where Russian nuclear silos are located or unusual troop movements. So far, the State Department said following Putin’s speech that the US has noted no changes in their nuclear posture.

So why would Putin use nuclear blackmail? For two reasons. First, his speech was intended for a domestic audience. He has constantly used the threat of US imperialism and aggression to keep his people in line. Secondly of all, as much as the US and NATO say they will support Ukraine as much as it takes for as long as it takes, it is true that they consider the likelihood of Russian retaliation when making decisions about how to support Ukraine. This is why, for instance, the US and NATO ruled out the use of troops or a no-fly zone in Ukraine.

We still agree with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, who said Thursday that the only solution to the conflict was a negotiated peace with Russia and Ukraine at the table. But all of the preceding presupposes that President Putin is a rational actor.

If we’re wrong, and President Putin follows through and uses nuclear weapons, then that would mean that President Putin is no longer a rational actor, and the rest of the world should act accordingly. 

In 1938, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, declared peace for our time after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany, in which Germany agreed not to make any more territorial demands after annexing part of Czechoslovakia. The next year, the world was at war. Perhaps President Putin would have done what he did even if the US and NATO would have followed a much more peaceful policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. But as long as there is the slightest chance to achieve world peace and stop the madness in Ukraine that is spreading around the world, we still have to try.

Editorial -- NATO Calls for Perpetual Warfare in Ukraine

On Friday, emboldened by Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive that gained them 1,000 to 2,000 square miles of territory that had been captured by the Russians, the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, called for perpetual warfare there Friday. Speaking to BBC Radio, his exact words were, “This is not the beginning of the end of the war, we have to be prepared for the long haul.” He called for flooding Ukraine with more military aid for the foreseeable future.

The problem is that nowhere does Mr. Stoltenberg offer any kind of attempt or plan to bring about an end to the conflict. The Christian Just War Theory allows for self-defense, or even sending military aid in self-defense. But if the object is perpetual warfare, then it doesn’t matter if the other side is in the wrong.

Either side could stop this war today if they wanted to. Russia could proclaim that the objectives of its “Special Military Operation” have been accomplished and that it will go home. The US and NATO could say that although Russia’s “Special Military Operation” violates every tenet of International Law, Ukraine does not meet their standards for ascension (they are one of the most corrupt nations in Europe) and their human rights record is more similar to Hungary of the Philippines. 

But neither side will budge. The US and NATO need Russia as a boogeyman to justify NATO’s existence, justify continuing to feed the gravy train known as the Military Industrial Complex, and take everyone’s focus off the fact that manmade climate change is a threat to us all. Russia needs the threat of US and NATO aggression to keep its citizens in line. 

Meanwhile, inflation continues to go through the roof, mortgage rates are now at a 14 year high, unemployment is starting to creep up, and there is the underlying fear that this could, at some point, turn into a nuclear conflict. But the US cares more about carrying out Joe Biden’s personal vendetta against Putin than they do about ending the war against Rural America. The latest step was revealed Thursday by the Financial Times, which reported that the US and EU are claiming veto power over the ability of Turkish banks to do business with Russia. While Turkey is a NATO member, they have close relations with both Russia and Ukraine and have refused to participate in the gravy train that puts all of us at risk. When the right-wing autocratic leader of Turkey shows more sanity on this issue than Joe Biden does, the President needs to think long and hard about his assumptions about the conflict.

Editorial -- Mortgage Rates Highest Since 2008

Mortgage rates are now at their highest rate since 2008, during the Great Recession. On Thursday, Freddie Mac reported that mortgage rates jumped over 6% in the week ending September 15th, up from 5.89% the week before. Last year, it was 2.86%. The reason cited was stubbornly high inflation.

But for Joe Biden, this is just one of the many sacrifices he expects us to make as he continues his policy of sticking it to the Russians at the expense of the rest of us. Who cares if we can’t afford to buy a house? We’re sticking it to the Russians, Team Ukraine is now in the lead, and that’s all that matters.

Yes, we know that the Federal Reserve controls interest rates. But this is part of a chain reaction. Joe Biden has the brilliant idea of using the tensions in Ukraine as an excuse to stick it to the Russians. Predictably, oil prices skyrocket, since Russian oil is being taken off the market. Since it costs more now to transport goods around the world, prices of everything else goes up. The Federal Reserve, whose job it is to combat inflation, raises interest rates in response. Lenders, whose interest rates follow the prime rate, raise their rates in return. People find it much harder to buy houses. Yes, interest rates and inflation were already going up when the “Special Military Operation” started. But Joe Biden’s response only made a bad situation worse.

Even if Ukraine “wins,” at what cost will that be? Bill Clinton’s “win” in Yugoslavia, done for the purpose of “stopping genocide,” may have served its purpose, but it laid the groundwork for failed policies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In the same way, Ukraine may “win,” but Russia’s conventional military may be so decimated that it relies more and more on its nuclear arsenal, putting all of us at risk. Or the US pumps so much money into propping up Joe Biden’s “Rules Based International Order” that the inflationary costs of the next bailout dwarf the inflation we have today.

Editorial -- Joe Biden Printing More Money for Ukraine

On Thursday, the US Department of Defense announced that the US would send $675 million worth of guns and bombs to Ukraine. In the meantime, the President is expected to ask for $11.7 billion more in military assistance. As usual, the President offers no way to pay for it. He expects us to make all the sacrifices for it so that he can continue his policy of sticking it to the Russians.

Meanwhile, fertilizer costs continue to spiral out of control. Our roads and bridges are crumbling. Our rural population continues to decline. Paradoxically, the more our rural population continues to decline, the more and more dependent we become on the likes of Russia and China. Which is exactly what Joe Biden wants. The more that Russia and China act belligerently towards Ukraine and Taiwan respectively, the more than Joe Biden can use it to feed the gravy train of the Military Industrial Complex that President Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn us about. In turn, the Russians and Chinese can use the threat of US aggression to keep their citizens in line.

Not only is Joe Biden’s policy of sticking it to the Russians failing to achieve peace, it is actually raising tensions with Russia and encouraging Russian aggression. For instance, the Polish Defense Minister, Marcin Ociepa, told the Polish newspaper DGP that there is now a serious risk of war with Russia, possibly within 3 to 10 years. Latvia is considering banning Russian language instruction in its schools, which shows that this is not just an effort to stop Putin’s aggression, but a war against the Russian people as well; we could cite many more examples. Since President Putin casts himself as the big brother protector of ethnic Russians around the globe, this is the sort of move that would encourage him to make more trouble in Eastern Europe. So much for Joe Biden’s claim that his efforts to stick it to the Russians are all about human rights.

When you find yourself to the right of people like Tayyip Erdogan, the dictator of Turkey, you need to think long and hard about what you believe and why. Speaking to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, President Erdogan said, “I can clearly say that I do not find the attitude of the West towards Russia right. Because there is a West that follows a policy based on provocation. I don’t have to name names, but there are several Western countries whose approach, we think, are incorrect.” 

The following is the sort of quote you would expect to see from people like Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, or any number of Democratic politicians. But no, again, this is from the President of Turkey: “There are no winners in a war like this, but I think there are a great number of losers. People are losing their lives, and there is also the financial cost.” It’s really interesting how Democrats who believed that George Bush was the Antichrist for leading us into war with Iraq are now silent when Joe Biden is doing the escalation. The problem is, too many Democrats are OK with wars when their side is doing it. It’s only when the other side is in charge when they suddenly start thinking about the loss of life and the financial cost.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who made the announcement that Joe Biden would be printing $675 billion more in weapons to Ukraine, pledged US help “over a long period of time.” How long? 10 years? That was the length of time we spent trying to prop up the government of South Vietnam. 20 years? That is how long we spent trying to prop up the government of Afghanistan. We have no idea when this will end, and the US is not even trying to find a way to end this conflict. So much for Joe Biden being more competent than the man he replaced.

President Joe Biden loves to talk about his “Rules Based International Order” and how Russia is now a pariah state. But Joe Biden’s escalation of the conflict is actually having the opposite effect. Far from splitting Russia and China, it is driving them into each other’s arms. Trade between the two is now expected to reach $200 billion. More and more Chinese companies are now openly declaring their intentions to do business in Russia. India, despite the US and its allies claiming veto power over its sovereignty, is stepping up purchases of Russian oil. Algeria is announcing new partnerships with Russia in startups, technology, and IT. Trade between those two countries doubled in 2021 and is up to $3 billion.

So we have another round of failed policies that is only making the world a less safe place. Joe Biden’s escalation in Ukraine is driving up prices, increasing the danger of nuclear war, creating more debt, alienating allies, and driving other countries into the arms of Russia. The US is no longer the world’s policeman. It is time to take care of our own people instead of trying to solve other countries’ problems.

Editorial -- Supply Chain Disruptions

On Saturday, Radio Iowa reported that economic growth has slowed in Iowa and in the Midwest during August. Hiring has dropped, and a new poll of supply managers found that 58.6% said their biggest concern was supply chain disruptions. Labor shortage was named by 24.1%, and inflation was named by 10.4%.

While gas prices have tapered off from recent all time highs, food prices are still too high, and inflation remains at above 6%, far too high. Confidence levels in 2022 are at the worst since the 2008-2009 recession, which is a worrying sign.

But instead of taking concrete steps to stop the supply chain disruptions, addressing inflation, and rallying the country behind a common purpose, Joe Biden shows by his own actions that he doesn’t care. He’s continuing to pursue his vendetta against Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives, continuing to humor Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her vendetta against China, and he’s not doing one thing to address these issues. He’s printing the money to arm Taiwan and Ukraine instead of trying to repair critical infrastructure at home, and he’s expecting us not to notice. And then he wonders why nobody likes him.

But I suppose it’s a lot easier for politicians like Joe Biden to try and solve other countries’ problems than it is to solve our own here at home.

And if Nancy Pelosi gets her way and gets her war with China, then these supply chain disruptions will be much, much worse. Not that it matters to someone like her. People like Nancy Pelosi have gotten too powerful. That is why we need turn limits in this country.

Editorial -- Joe Biden Prints Money for Taiwan Arms

The path towards a four front war continues. On Friday, the Biden Administration formally notified Congress of their intent to sell radars, anti-ship, and anti-aircraft missiles to Taiwan worth $1.1 billion. Some of that money would have come in awfully handy for fixing our pothole infested roads here in Northwest Missouri. 

And instead of doing the hard work needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, the politicians in Washington are looking at ways of making it easier to deliver such weapons to Ukraine and Taiwan. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. In the 1980's, the US sent weapons to Afghanistan in an effort to drive the USSR out and to overthrow the government there. Those weapons were later used on us, and some of the very allies we were helping attacked our country on 9/11. But I suppose it's a lot easier for the politicians in Washington to solve other peoples' problems than it is to solve our own.

The safeguards regarding weapons deliveries to foreign entities were put in place for a reason. How do we know that the weapons that Joe Biden is printing money for won't fall into the wrong hands? How do we know that Taiwan won't suddenly become the enemy down the road, like Osama Bin Laden? How do we know that these weapons won't fall into the hands of the Chinese when we decide 20 years down the road that propping up the regime in Taiwan is no longer sustainable?

And Joe Biden offers no way to pay for these new weapons shipments. And I didn't get a bill from the IRS. So apparently, he is just going to print the money to pay for it, no questions asked. 

Editorial -- Group of 50 Begs for War With Iran

While Joe Biden continues to play nuclear chicken with Russia and escalate the conflict there, and Nancy Pelosi grandstands for war with China over Taiwan, a third group of people, 50 congresspeople led by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), is clamoring for war with Iran.

In 2018, President Donald Trump tore up the Iran Deal, one of the signature achievements of the Obama Administration, and three times brought us to the brink of war. In 2020, Joe Biden ran on a platform of returning to that deal, which he has been dragging his feet on ever since. For anyone who thinks that our belief that the US is sleepwalking into a four front war with Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea is far-fetched, Mr. Gottheimer’s letter is an eye opener. 

His logic is that Iran and paramilitary allies like the Revolutionary Guard are state sponsors of terrorism and thus can’t be trusted. But assuming that he is correct, that makes it all the more important that we have a verifiable agreement in place to ensure that Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. 

And even if Iran is supportive of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, it is not in Russia’s interest to have a nuclear armed neighbor to its south. Russia started two wars, in Afghanistan in 1979 and in Ukraine this year, based on their belief that nuclear missiles were about to be stationed on their border five minutes from Moscow. If Iran suddenly fell to a coup and a new government was hostile to Moscow, the same thing would happen. There has been plenty of unrest in Iran in recent years, so this scenario is not far fetched.

The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have drained the US treasury of trillions of dollars in reserves that could have been used to build roads and bridges, fund schools, and create energy independence from the likes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Given that Iran is three times the population, the cost of prosecuting such a war, even if the US were not already on the brink of war with Russia and China, would be astronomical. How does Mr. Gottheimer and his gang of 50 propose to pay for such a war? He won’t say, let alone what sacrifices we should be expected to make in the event that war breaks out between the US and Iran.

Editorial -- No Place for Extrajudicial Killings

The targeted killing of Russian political figure Darya Dugina, the daughter of Russian nationalist and war cheerleader Alexandr Dugin, has no place in war. 

Trial International, a human rights group, says that life is the first and most fundamental right of individuals, without which no other right can be upheld. Thus, extrajudicial executions are a violation of this right. The state has the obligation to promote and protect the right to life. Unfortunately, Ukraine has not only refused to condemn the killing, they are criticizing those who do.

Extrajudicial executions can be considered a war crime in the context of an armed conflict. They violate such treaties as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

You don’t have to like or agree with the content that Alexandr Dugin or his daughter produced. But under International Law, there are no exceptions which would allow a country to commit an extrajudicial execution just because they don’t like what the victim is saying. By that logic, the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia, would be justifiable since the Saudi authorities did not like what he wrote.

It is telling that President Joe Biden refuses to condemn this blatant act of violence, which he would have done promptly had it been Russian agents committing an extrajudicial killing against a civilian in Ukraine because they didn’t like what they were writing about Vladimir Putin. This tells me that Joe Biden is not really interested in fighting for the “Rules Based International Order” that he keeps talking about, but is just interested in carrying out a personal vendetta against Putin, using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Russia stands accused of committing numerous such executions and poisonings over the years, both when they were known as the Soviet Union and today. If we don’t take a stand and condemn it when “our” side does it, then how can we argue that we are in any way morally superior to the Russians?

Editorial -- Support for Escalating Ukraine Declining

It turns out that the longer the war in Ukraine drags on, the less support there is in the US for Joe Biden’s policy of escalation. According to a Reuters-Ipsos poll, about 51% support providing weapons to Ukraine. But that number is down from 73% in April. In April, 39% supported the US sending troops to Ukraine. That number is now down to 26%. 40% now say that the problems of Ukraine are none of our business and we should not interfere. That is up from 31% in April. Around 59% now say that given the current economic crisis, the US cannot afford to lend financial support to Ukraine.

Despite all this, Joe Biden just announced a new $3 billion military aid package to Ukraine, continuing his policy of escalating the conflict there, playing nuclear chicken with Russia, and disregarding the declining public support for the policy. Given the fact that our roads are turning into potholes, some of that $3 billion would have come in awfully handy.

Editorial -- A Deathbed Conversion?

The Inflation Reduction Act, which is a watered down version of the Build Back Better Act that the Democrats touted when they first took power, miraculously passed the Senate recently. It is expected to pass the House and be signed into law. It will create incentives to fight climate change through clean energy tax credits, a green bank, and incentives to plug methane leaks. 

There will also be healthcare reforms in the measure. Protecting human lives is always a good thing. And there will be measures in it to reduce the deficit, important since inflation, although it has eased recently, is still there and gas prices are still too high.

No, the Democrats did not just save civilization. But they finally, belatedly, woke up and realized that there was more to life than just sticking it to the Russians.

We’re all called to stewardship of God’s resources. You can’t love the creator and hate the creation. If you hate the creation, then you hate the creator who made it. Jesus’ parables made consistently clear time and time again that we would be judged based on how well we were stewards of his creation. So anything that helps prevent the planet from overheating is a good thing. 

This measure will undoubtedly help the Democrats at the polls this year. But will it help enough? 

The problem with the bill is that it doesn’t go far enough. Last year, the International Energy Agency said fossil fuel development must stop in order to meet emissions targets. The bill will allow more oil and gas lease sales on public lands and waters. This means more spills and accidents waiting to happen on fragile ecosystems that cannot afford it.

The positive side of this bill is that maybe the Biden Administration, for once, is on to something – you’re much more likely to get meaningful legislation passed by carrots and not sticks. Maybe we could apply this to other issues. On abortion, for instance, maybe we could focus on passing legislation that helps make every child a wanted child and that rewards motherhood; after all, Missouri has a near total abortion ban, but women can still go to other states to get one.

And maybe the way to conduct diplomacy is through carrots and not sticks. Ever since Russia began its “Special Military Operation” on February 24th, the US policy has been to try to stick it to the Russians. That hasn’t worked. All that has happened is that Putin has dug his heels in and is more entrenched in power than ever. If sanctions were an effective tool, we would have resolved the North Korea conflict decades ago.

You have to be careful in how you go about transitioning to a green economy. The danger is that many jobs will be lost and many families destroyed, many more women will get abortions, and many communities decimated if it is not done right. However, it turns out that, according to a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research published this month that green jobs are frequently created in counties that have high shares of employment in fossil fuel extraction. Green jobs are also created in occupations that are about 21% higher paying than average. 

On the healthcare side, there are some meaningful measures passed as well. One of the most obvious measures, one of the most common sense, and consequently, one most strenuously resisted in Washington is the notion that Medicare should be able to negotiate prescription drug prices. That measure is finally on the books. Other measures on the Inflation Reduction Act include limiting Medicare drug price growth to inflation, and limiting commercial drug price growth to inflation.

About $125 billion in taxpayer money would be raised though improving tax compliance. The IRS would be funded by $80 billion over the next ten years, which, according to the CBO, would result in an additional $204 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO estimates every dollar spent to reduce the tax gap would generate $2.50 of revenue.

On July 29th, the Penn Wharton Budget Model came out with an estimate saying that the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce non-interest cumulative deficits by $248 billion over the budget window. 

More work needs to be done. Much of the social spending in the original BBB Act that Joe Manchin tanked – child tax credits, universal pre-K, and more – would have helped with the goal of making every child a wanted child. That is well worth the price of investment and one likely to give a big return.

Editorial -- So Much for Ukraine Fighting for Freedom

It turns out, according to an Amnesty International report issued Thursday, that Ukraine is using human shields as part of its conflict with Russia. So when errant Russian shells kill civilians, that “proves” that the Russians are genocidal maniacs and that we need to enter the conflict and start World War III. Truth is the first casualty in war.

These acts do not justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks. And Amnesty notes that there are cases where Russia shelled civilian targets without evidence that there were Ukrainian forces located there. But it does undermine Joe Biden’s claim that escalating the conflict there is necessary to protect freedom. This is part of a systematic pattern of the US supporting dictatorial regimes because the ends somehow justify the means. This has happened over a period of 120+ years.

Yes, the US allied with the Soviet Union during World War II. But our national existence was in danger. In general, the US should not be in the business of supporting foreign dictators. The US should ally with nations that share its values, like the UK, Japan, or Canada, for instance. We should trade with other countries; we should open up markets for our farmers; we should maintain good diplomatic relations with them. But Ukraine is listed as “Partly Free” by Freedom House, another human rights group. They are on a par with Hungary’s Orban and Marcos’ Philippines.

The Amnesty International report found a systematic pattern of Ukrainian forces launching strikes from within populated residential areas, frequently miles away from front lines, and even when there were viable alternatives that would not endanger civilians. And the Ukrainian military never asked or assisted civilians in evacuating, which is a basic precaution.

If the Biden Administration is so concerned about human rights and about its “Rules Based International Order,” then why are they not insisting that Ukraine follow international law? International law, according to Amnesty, requires all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the maximum extent feasible, military objectives within or near densely populated areas, removing civilians from the vicinity of military objectives, and giving warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population. This is evidence that Joe Biden’s escalation of the conflict is not based on concern for human rights, but based on a personal vendetta against Russia. 

The Amnesty report describes specific examples, such as a 50 year old man whose body was ripped to shreds when a rocket hit the area. There were soldiers next door. In Lysychansk, where some of the heaviest fighting is taking place, Amnesty interviewed two people who witnessed Ukrainian forces firing from residential neighborhoods. Amnesty researchers observed Ukrainian forces using a residential building 60 feet from where a shelter was located. Researchers observed this in other cities as well.

Ukrainian forces are also using hospitals and schools. For instance, in two places, Amnesty researchers observed Ukrainian forces stationed in hospitals and firing from a hospital in another. They went to schools and found that in 22 out of 29 schools visited, Ukrainian forces had been using them for bases. 

None of this justifies the indiscriminate Russian strikes, including the use of cluster munitions, or the “Special Military Operation.” There were plenty of diplomatic alternatives available. But two wrongs do not make a right. And the Biden Administration’s escalation of the conflict is not based on any concern for human rights, but to pursue a personal vendetta by Joe Biden against Putin.

Editorial -- Nancy Pelosi Wants War With China

So apparently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now thinks she is the President. As part of a tour of Asia – something that normally presidents do – CNN reports as of Monday afternoon that she is expected to visit Taiwan, along with four other congresspeople. The Wall Street Journal reported this as well.

If Russia is the clear and present danger to Europe that Putin’s biggest critics charge, then what is Speaker Pelosi doing throwing gas on an already tense situation between the US and China, two nuclear powers, over Taiwan, a place that the US acknowledges is part of China? All this does is risk dragging the US into a two front war between the US, Russia, and China, one that they cannot win. And it could turn into a four front war if Iran and North Korea decide to take advantage of the situation. Or maybe Speaker Pelosi, who has access to classified intelligence that we don’t, knows something we don’t. Maybe the threat from Russia has been blown completely out of proportion.

Those who point to parallels between now and the late 1930’s, when Nazi Germany was threatening to unleash war, miss a key difference – the US, Russia, and China are all nuclear powers. Nobody would win such a war. We’d all burn. That is why the US and Russia, back when saner heads were in power, got together in 1987 and agreed that such a war must never be fought. Putin is a bully, but he is not suicidal.

And this illustrates the wrongheadedness of Joe Biden’s policy of sticking it to the Russians and simultaneously escalating tensions with China, Iran, and North Korea. Even if he wouldn’t personally start a war between the US and any of these countries, the next President might. For instance, Hillary Clinton (D) and John Bolton (R) never met a war they didn’t like. And there are always wanna-be presidents like Speaker Pelosi who are more than happy to escalate already high tensions between the US and China. In 1914, it took one hotheaded person to plunge Europe into war.

Editorial -- The US Superman Complex

On July 18th, Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace outlined Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objectives in the New York Times. First, to seize control of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Russia, which have a lot more Russian speakers. Secondly, to force Ukraine to capitulate, followed by what Mr. Putin calls “denazification.” Third, in Mr. Putin’s thinking, fundamental political shifts in Western countries will bring about a much friendlier environment with leaders such as Viktor Orban (Hungary), Marine Le Pen (France), and Donald Trump at the helm. 

I would add that Mr. Putin has a fourth objective – that of not allowing nuclear weapons that would only take five minutes to reach Moscow. This is an objective that has been shared by most other Russian leaders. In 1979, when a pro-US government took control in Afghanistan, it raised alarm bells in the Kremlin, which feared that the US was planning to station nuclear missiles there. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was prompted in part by the US stationing nuclear missiles in Turkey. And the final straw for Mr. Putin was when Ukraine talked openly about withdrawing from the 1994 treaty which saw it give up its nukes in return for security guarantees from the US and UK.

So how should the US respond? There was a Superman movie in which he decided to take it on himself to stop nuclear war by flying all over the world and intercept any missiles that were launched. But at the end, even Superman realized the limits of his powers and said that it was up to the peoples of the world to find out ways to live together without fear of nuclear annihilation.

This is the problem with the Biden Administration. Mr. Biden is under the delusion that he can somehow be everywhere at once. Let’s say that everything Official US Sources ™ say about Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are true and their leaders are all bad people bent on world domination. The question is, how do we prioritize? Maybe, instead of playing world policeman and driving up gas and food prices, destroying our supply chains, and taking us to the brink of nuclear war, the US should sanction the people and companies egging on Mr. Putin, focus on protecting its NATO allies, and leave the rest up to the people of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. 

Editorial -- Joe Biden’s Four Front War?

So apparently, not content with sticking it to the Russians anymore, Joe Biden is escalating tensions against even more enemies. First, he is sending arms to Taiwan, which China views as sovereign territory, and daring them to invade. There is always a threat that North Korea’s missile tests will flare into open warfare. The battle in Ukraine rages on, with both sides thinking they are winning.

Now, egged on by Israel and Saudi Arabia, Joe Biden says that the US is prepared to “use all elements of its national power” to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Yes, the same Saudi regime that chops peoples’ heads off like ISIS did, and which invades neighbors it doesn’t like, like Putin does. Yes, the same regime which produced 15 of the 19 hijackers who were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Even if none of Iran, Russia, China, or North Korea were nuclear armed powers, this would be a drastic overextension of US power. Israel is a nuclear power. If Iran is such a clear and present danger, then let Israel launch an attack on Iran and dismantle its nuclear program. The fact is that we simply can’t afford to get involved in a two front war, let alone the four front war that Joe Biden is sleepwalking us into.

And this is a simple matter of right and wrong. Mr. Biden had an opportunity to rectify his predecessor’s sabotage of the Iran Deal, one of the best achievements of the Obama Administration. But the fact that he is escalating tensions with Iran means that Mr. Biden is a lot more like Donald Trump than he cares to admit. The only things missing are the mean tweets and the mobs willing to storm the Capitol if they don’t get their way. Keeping one’s word is essential in politics or any other profession. No wonder relations between the US and countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, none of which we can afford a war with, are deteriorating. And no wonder nobody likes Mr. Biden.

Chris Hedges, a former Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times and a Pulitzer Prize winner, notes that if war were to break out between the US and Iran, 2 million Shiites throughout the Middle East would join the war against the US. Iran would use its missiles to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world’s oil, driving up oil prices to $500 to $750 a barrel, meaning gas prices could go up to as high as $20 a gallon.

And Mr. Hedges notes that the US would have a hard time winning a war against Iran alone, let alone three other powers like Russia, China, and North Korea. In 2002, the US spent $250 million to simulate a war with Iran, in which kamikaze attacks destroyed 16 US warships in under 20 minutes. They tried to change the rules so that Iran couldn’t shoot down our aircraft, while the US had access to some weapons that don’t exist, such as airborne laser weapons. The last military commander who played around with divisions and weapons that didn’t exist was named Adolf Hitler in the last days of his Third Reich. Despite their “wonder weapons,” the US still couldn’t win thanks to the guerilla tactics of the Iranians.

And none of these exercises took into account what would happen in a two front war, let alone a four front war. And they also didn’t take into account the fact that Iran has one of the biggest drone fleets in the world.

Editorial -- Biden’s Escalation in Ukraine Unconstitutional

A few weeks ago, Paul Venable, the Constitution Party candidate for US Senate, came to Worth County and talked about the 12th Amendment and the proper procedure for states to select electors. Thursday night, he came to Nodaway County and talked about the ability, under the 14th Amendment, to remove elected federal officials for treason.

Here is our own contribution to the discussion. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to declare war on another nation. This means that regardless of what one thinks of Putin’s “Special Military Operation,” it is not Joe Biden’s place to escalate that conflict, even if one thinks that Ukraine’s cause is right and just. Only Congress can declare that a state of war exists between the US and the Russian Federation. As of this writing (Friday, July 15th, 2022), Congress has not seen fit to do so.

There were only four conflicts that we ever should have gotten involved in. The Revolutionary War was a matter of throwing off a dictatorial British regime that sought to exploit us for profit and abolish our civil liberties. In the case of the Civil War along with World Wars I and II, our national existence was in danger. As for the attacks on 9/11, we should have declared war on Al-Qaeda, gone into Afghanistan, gotten Bin Laden (preferably alive), and gotten out again. 

When President Truman ordered US forces into combat in Korea, ostensibly to protect it against Communism, it created a dangerous precedent since it did not involve a formal declaration of war against North Korea. Since then, other Presidents have ordered forces into combat without a declaration of war, such as Reagan (Libya, Grenada, Lebanon), Bush I (Panama), Obama (Libya, Syria, Iraq), among other instances.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, he can order forces into combat to repel sudden attacks against the US or its allies. But in the case of the sudden Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress rushed into session that afternoon and declared war. The President can also deploy US forces in situations that do not amount to war, such as when Bush I deployed troops to Saudi Arabia after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, or any number of Presidents since 1952 deploying troops to Europe to protect NATO. But what the President cannot do is declare war on another country.

The power to declare war was given to Congress for a reason, to prevent the exact sort of situation that is happening between the US and Russia – a situation where two men with a personal grudge against each other are escalating a conflict to the point that billions of lives are in danger. 

Editorial -- As Americans are Hurting, Two Senators Call for War With Russia

As Americans are hurting, two Senators, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are calling for war with Russia. They made their remarks after a trip to Russia, where they were treated to President Zelensky begging for more and more weapons – many of which will be sold on the black market to be used on Americans at some time in the future.

On July 5th, a new Monmouth poll found that President Joe Biden’s policies were not benefiting them. For the record, preference for party control remains divided, hardly surprising given that the bipartisan grandstanding for war with Russia continues.

More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are struggling to remain there they are financially. This number has skyrocketed; this is the first time ever that the Monmouth poll in question even showed 3 out of 10. The number of people who say they are struggling has increased by 18 points since last year from 24% to 42%.

Factors cited include inflation, gas prices, the economy, and paying bills. 57% say that the actions of the federal government have hurt their families. This is the first time this sentiment has ever been in the majority. Just 23% think future government actions will help their family’s top concern, while 45% say it will hurt them. One year ago, that number was flipped.

Currently, the same poll shows that Joe Biden’s approval rating is now at 36% – a steady downward trend since April of last year. Most tellingly, just 10% think we are on the right track and 88% say we are on the wrong track. 

So what do Senators Graham and Blumenthal do? They go to Ukraine and grandstand for war in Ukraine, as though that will help anything. They want Congress to classify Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which would throw gas on the fire even if true. Mr. Graham supports the assassination of Putin, which would be an act of war. And he believes there should be no off ramp in Ukraine.

It is really interesting how so many of these politicians who want to send our troops off to die halfway around the world and risk killing billions in a nuclear conflict have never fought a war themselves and have actively sought to dodge service. Donald Trump is the most obvious example, but another is Mr. Blumenthal himself.

In 2010, the New York Times reported that Blumenthal had lied about serving in Vietnam. In March 2008, while honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, he falsely stated that he had served in Vietnam. In fact, as the Times reported, he had obtained five military deferments before landing in the Marine Reserve, a group that was not sent to Vietnam. 

In 2003, Blumenthal praised the support of the troops in Iraq while contrasting the lack of support that happened “when we returned,” again falsely implying that he served. In 2007, the Milford (CT) Mirror reported that he had again falsely implied that he had served in Vietnam.

While Mr. Blumenthal has described his military service in more accurate terms since 2008 and apologized for “misspeaking,” the US subsequently passed a law pushed by then-Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) known as the Stolen Valor Act. Signed into law in 2013 by President Barack Obama, it states that you cannot make fraudulent claims about military service with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit. That would seem to include running for office.

While he actually served in the military, Mr. Graham has just as spotty of a record. In 2015, the Washington Post reported that after he was elected to the US House, the Air Force promoted him twice even though he did little or no work. Later, they gave him a job assignment in the Air Force Reserve that he highlighted in his biography but never performed work for. He engaged in 108 hours of training between January 1995 and January 2005. Despite that, they kept awarding him promotions.

Furthermore, Mr. Graham exaggerated his service record. From 2006 to 2015, he listed himself as a senior instructor for a base at Montgomery (AL). But it turns out he never taught any courses there or even visited it during that period. In 1998, Mr. Graham falsely stated that he served in Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. In fact, while he was on active duty at the time, he was never deployed overseas.

These are the sorts of people who want to send our young people off to die in Ukraine. If they can’t be trusted to talk about their record, then why should we trust anything they say about the conflict in Ukraine?