Cuba-North Korea Arms Smuggling?

Council on Foreign Relations Caught Lying about Cuba-North Korea Arms Smuggling

by Humberto Fontova

Back in July a North Korean ship trying to sneak military contraband through the Panama Canal after leaving Havana was stopped by Panamanian authorities on a tip it was carrying illegal drugs.

Instead the ship, named the Chon-Chon Gang, was found to be crammed with missiles, MIGS and mucho military contraband from terror-sponsoring Cuba en route to North Korea. Nuke-rattling North Korea, by the way, has been under a UN arms embargo since 2006.

At first, Cuban terror-sponsoring dictator Raul Castro tried threatening the Panamanian authorities behind the scenes to keep the issue mum, or at least parrot their version of the scam. But Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli scoffed at the blatant blackmail and made the truth known.

..........

Read more: www.frontpagemag.com

“Imperial Russia never left, to be blunt,” Stephen Blank, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council said as quoted in Deutsche Welle. “What they’re looking for in Latin America is great-power influence, they have never forsaken that quest”

Russia’s Threat in the Americas

by Joseph Klein

President Obama dismissed Russia as no more than a “regional power” in remarks he made to the press in The Hague on March 25th, where he was attending a summit meeting on nuclear security. “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength, but out of weakness,” he said.

True, the Russian Federation is a shadow of the Soviet empire in its heyday. And Russia is not driven by a global Communist ideology that it seeks to spread to every part of the world in opposition to the capitalist democratic model, as the Soviet Union tried to do. But that does not make Russia a weak neighborhood bully posing little threat beyond its “immediate neighbors,” as President Obama seems to think. Mitt Romney was right when he said during the 2012 presidential campaign that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe.”
................

Russia is also on the march far from its immediate neighborhood and much closer to the United States. According to Gen. James Kelly, commander of U.S. Southern Command, who discussed his concerns regarding the increased presence of Russia in Latin America at a Senate hearing earlier this month, there has been a “noticeable uptick in Russian power projection and security force personnel. It has been over three decades since we last saw this type of high-profile Russian military presence.”

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced last month plans to build military bases in such countries as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, as well as outside of Latin America including Vietnam, the Seychelles, and Singapore. “The talks are under way, and we are close to signing the relevant documents,” Shoigu said. Russia is also on the lookout for refueling sites for Russian strategic bombers on patrol.

Russia is already a major arms supplier to Venezuela, whose navy has conducted joint maneuvers with Russian ships. At least four Russian Navy ships visited Venezuela last August, the Venezuelan daily El Universal reported.

.................

Read more: www.frontpagemag.com

Locke is remarkably silent regarding the moral and political implications of our common humanity, or the natural law...

What Can a Modern Philosopher 

Teach Us About Natural Law?

by S. Adam Seagrave

As a philosopher, Locke was both historically great and uniquely ambivalent. This combination provides extraordinarily fertile ground for uniting modern and pre-modern insights that seem opposed.

At the close of my previous essay, I suggested that the moderns, despite their mistaken rejection of the objective contexts within which the individual exists, might have an important insight to contribute to our thinking about the non-religious foundations of morality: namely, that the individual as an individual contains one such foundation within himself, a foundation termed “natural rights” and explained most completely and persuasively by John Locke. 

By recognizing this insight and effectively integrating it into a broader framework informed by sound pre-modern approaches, we can accomplish three important tasks.

1. First, we can build new bridges between the broad Maritainian and Straussian lines of conservative thought, uniting this historically divided opposition to the reigning modern secular liberalism. 
2. Second, we can smooth the sharp disjunction between the individualist/subjectivist perspective of modern secular liberalism and the communitarian/objectivist perspective of pre-modern and/or religious conservatism, enhancing the possibility of dialogue and persuasion in contemporary public discourse. 
3. Third and most importantly, we can reach a truer understanding of human nature as a foundation for morality.

A promising starting point for all of this lies in recovering a proper understanding of John Locke’s political philosophy. In an important sense, the modern Aristotelian-Thomist should also be a Lockean. 

This is not to deny the significant departures from pre-modern philosophy that are clearly present in Locke’s thought. Locke was indeed a “modern,” but he, unlike most other moderns, was noticeably uneasy in his modernism. 

This uneasiness led to a unique coexistence of modern and pre-modern principles within Locke’s political philosophy: secularism and Christianity, the individual and the community, subjectivism and objectivism, and natural rights and the natural law all play crucial roles in the Second Treatise. 

As a philosopher, Locke was both historically great and uniquely ambivalent, a combination that provides extraordinarily fertile ground for uniting modern and pre-modern insights that generally seem opposed.

Early in the Second Treatise, Locke unequivocally affirms what has become known as “the workmanship argument”: the idea that human beings are “His property, whose workmanship they are.” In other words, God owns us because he created us. A few chapters later, however, one of the most striking examples of Locke’s ambivalent modernism appears as he asserts that “every man has a property in his own person.” But how can man be simultaneously God’s property and his own? If property ownership includes the notion of exclusivity—as it seems to in both Locke’s and our understanding—wouldn’t God’s ownership exclude our ownership, and vice versa?

This central issue for understanding Locke’s political philosophy is also a perfect proxy for many of the profound disagreements between modern and pre-modern approaches to understanding human nature and their consequences for morality and politics. The idea that we are not simply our own—that we are answerable as human beings to normatively binding standards above and beyond ourselves—is a tidy way of encapsulating what is common among pre-modern moral and political philosophy, traditional religious beliefs, and much of modern conservatism. By contrast, the idea that we are our own persons—that we are each authorized to direct our actions as we ourselves see fit—encapsulates significant commonalities among modern moral and political philosophy, secularism, and social liberalism. The former views the individual human being as existing within an inescapable and rich objective context defined by the existence of an intelligent Creator-God as well as natural relationships and communities, while the latter views the individual human being in relative isolation and freedom from these broader contexts.

How, then, can Locke affirm both in the Second Treatise? As the Essay Concerning Human Understanding helps us to understand, Locke means simultaneously to view the human being in two different ways. First, man is a member of “mankind,” a participant in a “community of nature” whose common capacities, faculties, or potentialities have been determined and brought into being by a Creator. Second, he is a unique individual whose singular self-consciousness separates this individual from all other human beings. In terms of the first conception, God owns us. In terms of the second, we each own ourselves. The first serves as the foundation for Locke’s understanding of the natural law, while the second serves as the foundation for Locke’s natural rights.

Although it would be difficult to argue that Locke was himself any sort of Aristotelian-Thomist, his understanding of human beings in terms of their common humanity, as well as his definition of this common humanity primarily in terms of reason, indicates significant agreement between Locke and the pre-moderns. For pre-moderns of all stripes—be they Platonists, Aristotelians, or Thomists—rationality was the defining human characteristic grounding natural morality. On this point, Locke is as clear and emphatic as could be.

..................


Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com

St. Augustine’s commentary can turn our gaze to a proper understanding of the Beatitudes as pronouncements of the perfect moral law that were hidden in the Old Testament and unveiled by Christ in the New Testament.

St. Augustine’s Commentary 

on the Sermon on the Mount

by Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

Saint Augustine once observed that the “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” In his early years as a Manichean, St. Augustine had trouble interpreting the Bible. Subsequently, he would acknowledge the role of his intellectual pride complicit in his prior difficulty with Scripture. After his conversion, he learned from St. Ambrose to interpret the Scriptures symbolically. As a guiding principle for the revelation of the Scriptures’ inner spirituality, he took the Ambrosian hermeneutic: “the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

In time, St. Augustine came to possess a consummate spiritual acumen showing remarkable originality in biblical exegesis. By the time he wrote his Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount in 393, he was adept at searching out the will of God revealed through the scriptures. He approached his work with the temperament of a child, rather than that of a scholar. Indeed, as a God fearing man, St. Augustine’s commentary possesses a clarity and depth that recommends it across the ages.

St. Augustine begins with the profound assertion that “anyone who piously and earnestly ponders the Sermon on the Mount—as we read in the Gospel according to Mathew—I believe he will find therein … the perfect standard of the Christian Life.” Imparted by the One True Teacher, the Sermon on the Mount elucidates the divine principles of justice guiding us to the narrow path that leads to communion with the Saints.

Appropriately, St. Augustine spends the greater part of this work devoted to a thorough treatment of the centerpiece of the Sermon: the Beatitudes. In this darkening age, the centrality of the Beatitudes in Catholic moral theology has faded from memory. The Beatitudes have come to be misunderstood moral platitudes. There is a modern tendency to project the Beatitudes as a type of social reform, lifting the poor and persecuted and accentuating a worldly peace, but St. Augustine turns our attention to the fact that they are intended to be directed inward. As Msgr. Ronald Knox said, “we are here to colonize heaven, not make things better on earth.”

.......................

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

In spite of difficulties, the outlook is bright for Christendom, even from a human standpoint, because there is such a need for it. Life must go on, and people carry on as best they can.

Rebuilding Catholic Society

by James Kalb

The Church is not part of the State. Nor is she simply a part of civil society set up by her members to advance their public and private goals. She is an independent society established by God to be a light to the world. As such, she has her own principles of existence, authority, and action.

Her mission does not normally imply direct involvement in politics. Catholics may campaign for social and political causes that they believe promote good ends, just as they may run businesses in accordance with Catholic principles. The main political contribution of the Church, though, is the view of man and the good life for which she stands.

Nonetheless, proposing that view calls for practical action that has social effects. The Church won’t be listened to unless she embodies something the world needs. To convert others we must first convert ourselves. For that reason evangelization must begin with the self-evangelization of the Christian community. That is a practical and social effort, and it means the leaders of the Church are fundamentally pastors, not philosophers, pundits, philanthropists, or outreach coordinators. The Apostle Paul preached the Gospel to the gentiles through half the Roman world, but his letters have to do with the promotion of Christian life within the Church.

The single most important practical goal of the Church is for Christians to thrive as Christians. The primary way that comes about, of course, is for them to love God and neighbor and live accordingly, and for their pastors to show them how to do so by word, sacrament, and example. There is more to it than that, though. We don’t become good simply by deciding to do so, and even the best words, sacraments, and examples are not enough for most of us. We respond to our total environment, and most of us need all the help we can get.

So we are likely to do better in a setting that is as Catholic as possible. That is especially so in times like the present, when secular society is comprehensively organized and pervasively anti-Catholic. Evil communications corrupt good manners. If Catholics go home from Mass and spend the rest of their time awash in pop culture and studying or working in settings that trivialize religious concerns and enforce perverse conceptions of right and wrong, the strong will no doubt survive. Not all of us are strong, though, and sink-or-swim cannot be the right approach for the Church to take toward her members.

In addition to the Church as a divine institution, we need a Catholic social world that includes the Church as an institution but also extends to the ordinary affairs of life. In a previous column I called that world “Christendom,” and emphasized that when it’s not established as a matter of law we still need it as a system of habits, institutions, and attachments to which we are loyal and by which we can more readily live a Catholic life.

.................




Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

C’est le « socialisme municipal » qui s’effondre, ce système à base de clientélisme qui faisait que, par-delà les aléas des scrutins intermédiaires, le Parti socialiste con servait ses bastions

La fin du socialisme municipal

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

D'Antoine Vouillazère dans Minute :

"[...] Au-delà du vote sanction contre la politique menée depuis près de deux ans par le gouvernement, c’est le « socialisme municipal » qui s’effondre, ce système à base de clientélisme qui faisait que, par-delà les aléas des scrutins intermédiaires, le Parti socialiste con servait ses bastions.

Les résultats obtenus par la droite, UMP ou FN, dans les grandes villes, où le vote est le plus politisé, masquent en effet une autre réalité, bien plus profonde. Dans les communes de moins de 10000 habitants, où 80 % des électeurs ont voté en fonction de considérations locales, la gauche a subi des revers tout aussi cinglants comme si la colère avait, enfin, pris le pas sur la peur. [...] 

Or jusque-là, sur la « politique locale » ou ce qui en tenait lieu, la gauche (socialiste et communiste) avait un avantage certain, constitué de cadeaux en tout genre pour la population la plus défavorisée (ou qui prétend l’être), de discrets règlements de factures d’électricité ou de gaz sur le budget d’aide sociale – quand ce n’est pas le remboursement d’un train de pneus pour la voiture dont le malheureux, au chômage, ne peut se passer pour trouver un emploi… –, et d’emplois dans les différentes collectivités ou organismes publics ou parapublics. 

Facile, quand on détient la majorité dans la plupart des assemblées régionales, départementales et municipales, et par voie de conséquence dans tous les syndicats mixtes des rivières, des ordures ménagères, de l’électricité, etc. de se livrer à un traitement collectif du chômage avec l’argent de ceux qui payent des impôts… 

Et bien pratique pour se constituer une clientèle de redevables d’autant plus enclins à voter pour le bienfaiteur qu’ils n’avaient qu’une peur: qu’un successeur vienne faire le ménage en sabrant dans les sureffectifs qui constituent le lot commun des municipalités de gauche. 

Cette peur-là, qui assurait depuis les années 1970 des majorités toujours plus confortables à la gauche municipale, n’est plus.

Mélange de colère devant la suffisance d’élus qui se croyaient inamovibles et de prise de conscience que la gabegie ne peut plus continuer. La gauche, totalement déconnectée du peuple au niveau national, l’est devenue aussi sur le plan municipal, au point de ne même plus faire campagne – voire de dénoncer ceux qui vont à la rencontre des habitants comme des « commerciaux »! –, au point de négliger, y compris en milieu rural ou périurbain, des quartiers périphériques où l’on n’a pas vu d’élu depuis, au mieux, la campagne électorale… de 2008.

Dans la France de 2014, l’édile socialiste est devenu inaccessible. 

• Vivant en centre ville. 
• Retranchée derrière la secrétaire et les vitres teintées de sa voiture de fonction. 
• Décidant de tout sans rien connaître d’autre que les avis des services techniques départementaux. 
• Allant d’inauguration en vernissage et de réception à la préfecture en assemblée générale des associations. 
• Et paradant, comme si c’était un but en soi d’être maire, une fin, un sommet de sa carrière, et non pas une simple délégation de pouvoirs qui implique bien plus de devoirs que de droits. 

Bref, des élus qui se servent avant de servir et dont la principale caractéristique est l’inertie, les deux composantes de la rente de situation. 

[...]"

Les mobilisations LGBT et LMPT ont démontré l’effet de levier de l’engagement d’un petit nombre pour imposer une politique ou réveiller la France « bien élevée ».

Le passage à l’action d’un seul peut devenir un événement national voire mondial : 

la découverte de l’homme idoine 

est toujours décisive !

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Les mobilisations LGBT et LMPT ont démontré l’effet de levier de l’engagement d’un petit nombre pour imposer une politique ou réveiller la France « bien élevée ».

Jean Ousset dans « L’Action », (p. 53 à 118) explique l’importance d’équipes bien formées réunies par une même volonté d’agir. Une personne au bon endroit, au bon moment peut faire la différence… Extraits :


« La lutte est idéologique… si l’on entend désigner la raison, l’argument suprême … des conflits qui déchirent le monde. Ce qui est faux ... si l’on pense que les idées sont susceptibles de déclencher, commander, orienter, par elles-mêmes des réalisations telles qu’en ces affaires l’homme serait plus mû que moteur. …L’histoire prouve assez l’inefficacité d’une pareille méthode… Tant qu’une doctrine …ne dispose pas … d’un certain nombre d’hommes résolus, pour la défendre, la propager, l’appliquer, cette doctrine reste sans effet.

Non qu’on entende récuser l’influence des idées. Ce sont elles qui éclairent l’intelligence, excitent l’ingéniosité, animent la volonté.

L’avenir est aux groupes qui, … possèdent les hommes les mieux formés, les plus décidés à l’action.

Question d’intelligence, mais aussi de volonté.

« J’avais cru, en entrant dans la vie religieuse, que j’aurais surtout à conseiller la douceur et l’humilité, lit-on dans une lettre du Père de Foucauld. Avec le temps, je vois que ce qui manque le plus, c’est la dignité et la fierté ».

Suprême ressort d’une action efficace ! …Quelques hommes (déterminés). Hommes vrais. Non formules abstraites. Non individus « n’importe qui » pour la fonction « n’importe quoi ». Mais le « monsieur-qui-peut-réellement-faire-l’affaire »... C’est d’abord avec, c’est d’abord par ces quelques personnes que l’action se développera …

La recherche, le choix, la formation de ces quelques-uns, bien définis, pour des besognes non moins définies, sont particulièrement importants. …

La découverte de l’homme idoine est toujours décisive. …Pour le trouver, il n’est pas trop de traverser les fleuves et monts, alors qu’il peut être inutile, voire nuisible en certains cas, d’organiser une réunion de vingt mille personnes…

Le passage à l’action d’un seul homme peut devenir un événement national. Mondial…

En conséquence, serait-il excessif d’admettre qu’un seul homme puisse influencer l’orientation sociale et politique d’une région, d’un réseau professionnel ?

Dans combien de groupes, de mouvements avons-nous entendu dire : rien à faire dans tel coin, dans tel milieu... Jusqu’au jour où... brusque départ dans ledit milieu et ledit coin. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’on y avait enfin découvert l’homme idoine. Celui qui avait pu, su, voulu, tenu.

Il n’est pas question de sous-estimer l’importance du nombre. Il est question, seulement, de désigner la bonne manière, le plus sûr moyen d’atteindre le grand nombre, et de conserver sur lui une influence heureuse, durable, décisive.

Se peut-il que Lénine ait compris mieux que nous le sens du rapport : qualité-quantité ?

« La tâche pratique la plus urgente, lit-on dans les Œuvres Complètes de Lénine, (T. IV), est de créer une organisation révolutionnaire capable d’assurer à la lutte politique un caractère énergique, ferme, SUIVI... » (p. 506)...

« Il nous faut des hommes qui ne consacrent pas seulement à la Révolution leurs soirées libres, mais toute leur vie ». (p. 58)... »