Five Eyes Are Better Than One

This should be everyone's goal, the ideal. We don't really need edifices to move forward. We don't need stagnant bureaucracies to make things work. We only need mutually agreed upon goals. Five Eyes Are Better Than One https://www.wsj.com/articles/five-eyes-are-better-than-one-1509402670?mg=prod%2Faccounts-wsj&tesla=y An ad hoc Anglophone alliance is far more effective than most global institutions. PHOTO: ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES By Walter Russell Mead Oct. 30, 2017 6:31 p.m. ET 19 COMMENTS This is a trying time for international institutions, and the alphabet soup of aging bureaucracies often proves too slow, too legalistic or too corrupt to meet today’s most demanding tests. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must cope with a world in which Turkey is increasingly hostile to its values and objectives. Neither Mercosur (the South American trade bloc) nor the Organization of American States has dealt effectively with the Venezuelan crisis. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is increasingly divided in the face of Chinese maritime claims. Unesco has lost its largest donor as the U.S. pulls out, while the World Trade Organization no longer produces new global trade agreements. FIFA (the soccer federation) and the International Olympic Committee have seen their prestige collapse as corruption scandals widen. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has become less effective as the Continent’s security challenges rise. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a shadow of its former self, and the Arab League hardly exists. Even the European Union, the world’s most successful international institution, struggles against a nationalist and populist backlash. There is an important exception to the trend—an international coalition that influences global affairs but doesn’t have an official name, a headquarters, an entrenched bureaucracy, a charter or a set of bylaws. This is the group of countries in the “Five Eyes” network: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The name comes from the world of intelligence, where certain types of sensitive information are shared only among these five countries. There is no formal requirement that they act together. They have no joint decision-making process. Teams of diplomats don’t negotiate long and detailed memorandums governing their plans for common action. Nor do these countries force a consensus where one doesn’t exist. Each partner moves at its own speed, on its own path, and there is no obligation or expectation that they will agree with one another or work together on every issue. Each of the Five Eyes countries is jealous of its independence. They seek to maximize their sovereignty through cooperation rather than pooling it. Yet their cooperation is real. They share a common cultural and institutional outlook, and they are all engaged in global trade and concerned for the security of an international system that promotes the free flow of information, money and goods. Over and over since World War II, the Five Eyes countries have found themselves with similar interests and priorities. Over time, this habit of cooperation has led to deepening institutional links, but their loose association has never taken the top-down and bureaucratic form that makes most international institutions so cumbersome. As British policy makers struggle with the consequences of Brexit, some hope the Five Eyes will come riding to the rescue. In population and gross domestic product, these countries are a formidable potential trading bloc: With more than 450 million citizens and a GDP of around $24 trillion, a trading system built around the Five Eyes could offset many of the problems Britain expects to encounter once it leaves the EU. But that is not how this group works. Anyone who expects some kind of formal trade or political bloc to emerge doesn’t understand the Five Eyes’ ethos. But even without the creation of a formal trade or political bloc, membership in the Five Eyes will help Britain avoid isolation in a post-Brexit world. In the fields of trade, investment and migration, the Five Eyes countries will continue to be relatively open to one another. Their diplomats and policy makers will continue to work toward the kind of world in which Britain, and the rest of the coalition, can flourish. The Five Eyes coalition has always disappointed those who sought to turn their partnership into something more formal. But it has also disappointed those who expected it to fade away. Flexible, pragmatic and open, the world’s least organized international coalition is among its most effective. As the new century unfolds and bureaucratic, legalistic institutions struggle in an increasingly fast-paced and turbulent international environment, looser associations on the Five Eyes’ model could well play a growing role in world affairs, supplementing or in some cases replacing the legacy institutions and bureaucracies that dominated the international landscape of the late 20th century. That would be a positive development. This difficult century will require more international cooperation, not less. With legacy institutions in disarray, countries need to find new ways to cooperate across borders on problems that no single country, however powerful or rich, can solve on its own. Mr. Mead is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor of foreign affairs at Bard College. Appeared in the October 31, 2017, print edition.

The Progressive War Against the Dead

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/24/the_progressive_war_against_the_dead_134819.html

By Victor Davis Hanson
August 24, 2017

Much of the country has demanded the elimination of references to, and images of, people of the past -- from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee -- who do not meet our evolving standards of probity.

In some cases, such damnation may be understandable if done calmly and peacefully -- and democratically, by a majority vote of elected representatives.

Few probably wish to see a statue in a public park honoring Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founding members of the Ku Klux Klan, or Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the racist Dred Scott decision that set the stage for the Civil War four years later.

But cleansing the past is a dangerous business. The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the non-white population.

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion ("growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of").

Why did we ever mint a Susan B. Anthony dollar? The progressive suffragist once said, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman."

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II while he was California's attorney general.

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilson's progressive racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it.

In the current logic, Klan membership certainly should be a disqualifier of public commemoration. Why are there public buildings and roads still dedicated to the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, former "exalted cyclops" of his local Klan affiliate, who reportedly never shook his disgusting lifelong habit of using the N-word?

Why is 20th century Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, still honored as a progressive hero?

So, what are the proper rules of exemption for progressives when waging war against the dead?

Do they tally up the dead's good and bad behaviors to see if someone makes the 51 percent "good progressive" cutoff that exempts him? Or do some reactionary sins cancel out all the progressive good -- at least in the eyes of self-styled moral superiors to those hapless Neanderthals who came before us?

Are the supposedly oppressed exempt from charges of oppression?

Farm-labor icon Cesar Chavez once sent union thugs to the border to physically bar U.S. entry to undocumented Mexican immigrants, whom he derided as "wetbacks" in a fashion that would today surely earn Chavez progressive ostracism as a xenophobe.

Kendrick Lamar, one of the favorite rappers of former President Barack Obama, had an album cover featuring a presumably dead white judge with both of his eyes X'd out, surrounded by black men celebrating on the White House lawn. Should such a divisive racialist have been honored with a White House invitation?

What is the ultimate purpose of progressives condemning the past?

Does toppling the statue of a Confederate general -- without a referendum or a majority vote of an elected council -- improve racial relations? Does renaming a bridge or building reduce unemployment in the inner city?

Do progressives have their own logical set of selective rules and extenuating circumstances that damn or exempt particular historical figures? If so, what are they?

Does selectively warring against the illiberal past make us feel better about doing something symbolic when we cannot do something substantive? Or is it a sign of raw power and ego when activists force authorities to cave to their threats and remove images and names in the dead of night?

Does damning the dead send a flashy signal of our superior virtue?

And will toppling statues and erasing names only cease when modern progressives are forced to blot out the memories of racist progressive heroes?

(C) 2017 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Savior Generals from BloomsburyBooks. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

The best thing Chief Justice Roberts wrote this term wasn’t a Supreme Court opinion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-best-thing-chief-justice-roberts-wrote-this-term-wasnt-a-supreme-court-opinion/2017/07/02/b80a5afa-5e6e-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html

You Created Us

"US" by Paul Genova Mr. Paul Genova has been President and Chief Operating Officer of Wireless Telecom Group Inc. since June 30, 2016. I haven't said too much about this election since the start...but this is how I feel.... I'm noticing that a lot of people aren't graciously accepting the fact that their candidate lost. In fact they seem to be posting even more hateful things about those who voted for Trump. Some are apparently "triggered" because they are posting how "sick" you feel about the results. How did this happen you ask? Well here is how it happened! You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech. You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms. You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs. You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists. You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic. You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way. You created "us" when you attacked our flag You created "us" when you took God out of our schools. You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism. You created "us" when you began to emasculate men. You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft. You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals. You created "us" when you attacked our way of life. You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control. You created "us" the silent majority You created "us" when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers. You created "us" when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors. You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country. You created "us" when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn't remove your hat during our National Anthem. You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating. And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up. And we did it with ballots, not bullets. With ballots, not riots. With ballots, not looting. With ballots, not blocking traffic. With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of "us" "*YOU*" created "*US*". It really is just that simple.

Why Americans Feel Less Free Today Than 10 Years Ago

Anthony B. Kim wrote in Daily Sihttp://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/americans-feel-less-free-today-10-years-ago/?

utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRoa016WTNaV1ptT0RrdyIsInQiOiJFUmR3RDY1RDBBWktMV2JDQ3ZsUmo2ZTJpWDVPS241aUdTSDVkc2N2ZDM5TlJXa0RaSXB2eUJmdytGSGQ3TCtqQUkycjBVazlkY1FFaWhsSFI5TXZVNHdydE16aFBIXC96Z3VPc1NGd29scjNKcXM4cUhNeG05d0RJcHM1RzhxYUIifQ%3D%3Dgnal:



http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/americans-feel-less-free-today-10-years-ago/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRoa016WTNaV1ptT0RrdyIsInQiOiJFUmR3RDY1RDBBWktMV2JDQ3ZsUmo2ZTJpWDVPS241aUdTSDVkc2N2ZDM5TlJXa0RaSXB2eUJmdytGSGQ3TCtqQUkycjBVazlkY1FFaWhsSFI5TXZVNHdydE16aFBIXC96Z3VPc1NGd29scjNKcXM4cUhNeG05d0RJcHM1RzhxYUIifQ%3D%3D

Simply, Genius

SIMPLY, GENIUS!!! I took down my Rebel flag (which you can't buy on EBAY any more) and peeled the NRA sticker off my front window. I disconnected my home alarm system and quit the candy-ass Neighborhood Watch. I bought two Pakistani flags and put one at each corner of the front yard. Then I purchased the black flag of ISIS (which you CAN Buy on EBAY) and ran it up the flag pole. Now the local police, sheriff, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, Secret Service and other agencies are all watching my house 24/7. I've NEVER felt safer and I'm saving $69.95 a month that ADT used to charge me. Plus, I bought burkas for me to wear when I shop or travel. Everyone moves out of the way, and security can't pat me down. If they say I'm a male wearing a burka, I just say I'm feeling like a woman today. Hot Damn...Safe at last.

Our Government

The Conundrum
These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
And here's another one worth considering. 

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2558665-funny-how-liberals-never-get-these.html#ixzz4eRMmJcPT