President Joe Biden delivered an address from the White House last night on the presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court. While pledging that he will defend the rule of law, President Biden misrepresented what that law is in the aftermath of Trump v. United States. While we have often discussed false constitutional claims by the President as well as other false statements, an address of this kind is particularly concerning in misleading citizens on the meaning of one of the most important decisions in history.
As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.
One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.”
That is not true.
The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.
Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.
It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents.
There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation.
The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder.
He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border.
In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.”
That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.
What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.”
That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution.
This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.
For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction).
While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
For many of us in the free speech community, President Biden has become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” the Biden Administration has helped fund and maintain an unprecedented censorship system in the United States.
That record is hardly supportive for a president claiming to be the defender, if not the savior, of the Constitution.
Why does a NATO member suddenly want to join BRICS?
June 29, 2024
There are benefits and drawbacks to Türkiye potentially joining the bloc of emerging economies
At the beginning of this month, news of Türkiye’s desire to join BRICS drew global media attention. The announcement was made by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan during his visit to China. “Of course, we would like to become a member of BRICS. Let’s see what we can achieve this year,” said the minister, as quoted by the South China Morning Post.
This issue was also discussed at the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in Nizhny Novgorod, attended by Türkiye’s chief diplomat, Hakan Fidan. Türkiye’s desire to join is not entirely new – during the BRICS summit of 2018, where Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a participant, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ankara could join in 2022. However, subsequent events on the world stage apparently delayed that ambition, and Ankara is only now showing renewed interest.
What is BRICS?
BRICS is an international association initially comprising five major developing economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Established to enhance cooperation and strengthen global positions, its name comes from the initial letters of member states’ names.
The concept began in 2001 when Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill coined “BRIC” for the fastest-growing major economies at the time: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The first formal meeting occurred in 2006 at the UN General Assembly. The first BRIC summit was held in Yekaterinburg in 2009. South Africa joined in 2011, making it BRICS. As of January 1, 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have also joined.
BRICS aims to promote economic growth, strengthen trade and investment, develop infrastructure, and maintain financial stability through mechanisms like the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). It seeks greater roles in international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. BRICS also focuses on scientific and technical cooperation in energy, medicine, and agriculture.
The association strengthens economic ties, contributing to mutual development and trade. By providing alternative funding sources, it reduces dependence on Western financial institutions. BRICS countries work together to defend their interests and promote a more equitable global order. They also address global challenges like climate change and pandemics.
BRICS is unique due to its diverse membership spanning different continents and cultures. Without rigid legal frameworks, it allows flexible action focused on practical cooperation and specific projects to improve citizens’ lives. This attracts more non-Western countries to join the association.
BRICS vs G7
With the confrontation between the countries of the global majority and the West growing, BRICS is considered to be emerging as an alternative to the G7. This is determined by several key reasons related to economic, political, and social aspects. The G7, comprising leading economically developed countries – the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan – has traditionally dominated the international arena, shaping the global economic and political agenda. However, the emergence and development of BRICS have changed this balance, offering an alternative view on global governance and cooperation.
BRICS unites the largest developing economies in the world, which together account for a significant share of global GDP and population. Collectively, BRICS countries possess vast resources and potential for economic growth, making them important players on the global stage.
To provide a clearer understanding, let’s compare some indicators. With its five new members, BRICS now accounts for almost 34% of the world’s land area, while the G7 accounts for 16%. BRICS countries are home to 45.2% of the world’s population, compared to just 9.7% in the G7. The combined GDP based on purchasing power parity in BRICS countries is 36.7% of the global total as of 2024, compared to 29.6% for the G7. Data on oil reserves show that BRICS countries now hold 45.8% of global volumes, while the G7 holds only 3.7%.
Thus, in many respects, BRICS surpasses the G7. The economic power of BRICS allows these countries to propose alternative models of development and economic cooperation, differing from the Western approaches represented by the G7.
Due to international contradictions and the destructive hegemony of Western countries led by Washington, questions about the need to transform the world order are actively arising. BRICS advocates for a multipolar world, where the balance of power is more evenly distributed among various regions and countries. While the G7 represents the interests of economically developed Western powers, BRICS focuses on the issues and interests of developing nations, which are often marginalized in global politics. This makes BRICS an important platform for countries seeking greater autonomy and independence from Western influence.
Moreover, the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) demonstrates the BRICS countries’ desire to establish alternative financial institutions capable of competing with traditional Western institutions, particularly the IMF and the World Bank. These new mechanisms allow BRICS countries and other developing nations to obtain financing on more equitable terms and with fewer political conditions.
BRICS actively develops cooperation in fields such as science and technology, education, healthcare, and the environment. These initiatives aim to improve the quality of life for citizens of member countries and address global challenges such as climate change and poverty. Unlike the G7, which focuses on issues relevant to developed countries, BRICS places particular importance on the problems faced by developing nations.
BRICS represents a broader spectrum of cultures and regions than the G7, making it a more inclusive and representative organization on the global stage. This diversity allows BRICS countries to consider different perspectives and needs, promoting a fairer and more balanced approach to solving global issues.
This explains the interest of many countries in becoming part of the association. To date, almost 30 countries have expressed a desire to become full members of the association or to gain partner status. These include Azerbaijan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Honduras, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, Syria, Thailand, Türkiye, Uganda, Chad, Sri Lanka, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, and South Sudan. However, only some countries from this list have officially applied for membership: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Thailand.
Thus, BRICS plays a significant role in modern global politics and economics, contributing to the development of multilateral cooperation and strengthening the positions of developing countries on the global stage.
Why Does Türkiye Want to Join BRICS?
Türkiye shows significant interest in joining BRICS, seeing it as an important step toward enhancing its international influence and economic potential. This aspiration is driven by several key factors related to economic, political, and geostrategic aspects.
Possessing one of the largest economies in the region, Türkiye aims to diversify its economic ties and strengthen cooperation with rapidly developing countries. Joining BRICS would give Ankara access to a vast market and opportunities to increase trade and investment with the leading economies of the developing world. This is especially important in the context of global economic challenges and uncertainties, where diversifying partners becomes a key factor for sustainable growth.
Türkiye has repeatedly faced financial difficulties and restrictions imposed by Western financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Joining BRICS would provide Türkiye with access to the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, allowing it to secure funding on more favorable terms and with fewer political commitments. This is particularly relevant for Türkiye, which seeks to maintain its economic independence and minimize external pressure.
Türkiye actively supports the idea of a multipolar world, where the balance of power is more evenly distributed among various regions and countries. BRICS, advocating for multipolarity and fair global governance, represents an attractive platform for Türkiye, which strives to enhance its political independence from Western countries and blocs such as the European Union and NATO.
In this context, it is also worth noting that Ankara views its desire to join BRICS as a gesture towards the EU, a bloc it once sought to join. This is confirmed by the words of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. During his visit to China, he noted that some European countries oppose Türkiye’s accession to the EU, and thus Turkish authorities see BRICS as an alternative platform for integration. “We cannot ignore the fact that BRICS, as an important cooperation platform, offers some other countries a good alternative. ... We see potential in BRICS,” he explained.
Türkiye’s geographic location makes it an important link between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Joining BRICS would strengthen Türkiye’s geopolitical position and enable it to effectively use its strategic location to advance its interests and strengthen ties with other member countries. This would also contribute to enhancing Türkiye’s role in regional and global security.
Membership in BRICS would significantly strengthen Türkiye’s international influence and prestige. Türkiye would be able to participate in the development of global economic and political strategies, offering its ideas and solutions to address global problems. This would bolster Türkiye’s positions on the world stage and facilitate its more active participation in international organizations and forums.
Türkiye seeks to join BRICS for several reasons, including economic development, access to alternative financial institutions, political independence, geostrategic interests, and the enhancement of international influence. Joining BRICS would open new opportunities for Türkiye, strengthen its positions on the global stage, and ensure more balanced and equitable participation in world affairs. Membership in BRICS would enable Türkiye to play a more active role in international affairs and contribute to the creation of a more balanced global system.
Barriers to Türkiye’s Entry into BRICS
Although Türkiye’s entry into BRICS could bring significant benefits to Ankara, there are serious barriers that complicate this process. These barriers include domestic political realities, economic challenges, and external pressure from the West.
The domestic political situation in Türkiye creates significant obstacles to joining BRICS. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), founded by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for the first time in 22 years lost to the opposition in municipal elections held on March 31 this year. The Republican People’s Party (CHP), which traditionally supports pro-Western positions, gained control over 35 cities, while Erdoğan’s party succeeded in only 24 cities.
The CHP’s victory in the municipal elections indicates a shift in Ankara’s political direction toward the West. Even within the AKP, there are proponents of closer ties with the West, complicating the decision to join BRICS. The deputy chairman of the Turkish party VATAN (“Homeland”), Hakan Topkurulu, noted that Türkiye should join BRICS but also acknowledged the presence of a strong pro-Western group in Türkiye, connected with NATO membership since 1952. These groups are part of all political parties and exert significant influence on the government, creating an internal conflict between Atlanticist and Eurasian-leaning forces.
Türkiye has close military and economic ties with Western countries, making the question of joining BRICS even more complex. Türkiye’s decision to become a BRICS member could provoke strong pressure from Washington and its Western allies, who see BRICS as a threat to their dominance on the international stage. This could manifest as sanctions, economic restrictions, and political pressure, negatively affecting the Turkish economy and its international relations.
The economic situation in Türkiye also presents a serious barrier to joining BRICS. The country’s economy is in a dire state, and high inflation forces economic authorities to seek investments. Currently, Türkiye relies more on the West in this regard, as BRICS countries are mainly developing economies themselves and cannot offer such significant investments.
Although BRICS countries have great economic potential, they face their own internal economic problems and may not always provide the necessary financial support to Türkiye. This makes joining BRICS less attractive to Türkiye from an economic standpoint, especially in the short term.
Thus, despite the potential benefits of joining BRICS, Türkiye faces several serious barriers. Domestic political realities, including the influence of pro-Western forces and internal disagreements, create significant obstacles to the decision to join BRICS. External pressure from the West and close economic ties with Western countries further complicate this process. Finally, the economic challenges Türkiye faces make seeking investments in the West more attractive than the possibility of joining BRICS. All these factors together create a complex and multi-layered picture that hinders Türkiye’s intentions to become part of BRICS.
However, in the long term, BRICS membership opens new opportunities for Türkiye, and considering the transformation of the global order, it could allow Ankara to secure a strong position in the future. Thus, Türkiye will weigh all the pros and cons, striving to extract maximum benefit for itself. It would not be surprising if Turkish authorities decide to join BRICS, as this aligns with Erdoğan’s paradigm of conducting a sovereign foreign policy in the interest of his country.
-------------------------
Murad Sadygzade is the President of the Middle East Studies' Center in Moscow, a research institution dedicated to understanding the complexities of the Middle East.
He is a visiting Lecturer at HSE University, RANEPA, and MGIMO University (Odintsovo), ensuring future generations are informed about the region. Engaging in high-level discussions as an expert of prominent organizations like the Russian International Affairs Council, Valdai Discussion Club, and various analytical centers across the Middle East.
He provides valuable insights and guidance to both public and private organizations navigating the intricacies of the Middle East and offers his expert commentary on current events in the region through both Russian and Middle Eastern media platforms.
Insurrection-Lite: The Supreme Court Downsizes the “Insurrection” to Largely Trespassing
Below is my column in the Hill on the Supreme Court decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings. For many cases, that will leave relatively minor offenses like trespass or unlawful entry. It is only the latest blow to efforts to portray the riot as a massive conspiracy to overthrow the government. While portrayed by pundits and press in strictly ideological terms, it actually produced an interesting line up with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voting with the majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting in dissent.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid.
But the biggest impact of the decision may occur elsewhere.
For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) claimed a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous.
It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry.
I have always believed that criminal charges were warranted for the riot of Jan. 6, 2021. But this week’s decision shows how the Justice Department has wrongly prosecuted hundreds of people for the obstruction crime. It was all part of what Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview, that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe…it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ …We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”
The Fischer opinion will bring an end to a minority of cases that were based entirely on the charge under 1512(c)(2). The section had been enacted after the Enron scandal in 2001 with the collapse of an energy company accused of corporate fraud. It was designed to allow criminal charges for the destruction of evidence in the form of documents and records.
The Justice Department chose to interpret that provision to broadly include any obstruction of any legal proceeding, and then used it in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. Most also included other charges, including trespass and unlawful entry. A small number involved serious offenses like violence against officers and an even smaller number involved charges for “seditious conspiracy.”
For most cases, the decision may require resentencing. Others with pending charges will go to trial without an obstruction claim.
One of those is former President Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith brought four charges in Washington, D.C.: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. The Fischer ruling means that half of the indictment would be dropped. Smith could be compelled to seek a superseding indictment.
The loss of the obstruction counts seemed to rip the wings off the plane that Smith has been trying to get off the ground before November. It was the obstruction theory that held the indictment together — the notion that Trump was directing his followers to stop the certification from occurring by charging the Congress.
The court rejected this theory and noted that that the “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Smith has been here before. He was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in his conviction of Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Notably, as with today, the court found his theory to be dangerously “boundless.”
Smith has made a trial before the election his highest priority. Judge Tanya Chutkan has been all-in on that effort with Smith, including accepting his obstruction interpretation. She may allow Smith to go forward on the two remaining counts, but that may depend on what occurs next when the Supreme Court issues its ruling on presidential immunity, including a possible remand to the trial court for further proceedings that could extend beyond the election.
The obstruction charges helped complete the insurrection narrative for many in the press and politics. I have long disagreed with that claim. As shown by polls, most citizens view January 6 as a protest that became a riot, not as an attempt to overthrow the government.
I was contributing to the coverage on January 6. I did not agree with then-President Trump’s claims to challenge the certification, and I criticized his speech while he was still giving it. But that speech was entirely protected, in my view, under the First Amendment. Importantly, it included a call to his supporters to remain peaceful.
The insurrection myth was used previously in court as Democratic secretaries of state sought to bar Trump from ballots under a meritless constitutional claim that was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Now the remaining charges are largely for trespass and unlawful entry into the Capitol. Yet, the myth will continue as a mantra in the media that this was an attempt to overthrow the government.
The disconnect is not simply with the cases. Biden continues to claim that “democracy is on the ballot,” and many have claimed that this will be our last election if Trump wins. This hyperbolic claim ignores the many safeguards in our constitutional system, the very safeguards that led to the certification of Biden’s victory in 2020.
The greatest problem is that Biden’s line about democracy is not resonating with the public, despite the virtual echo chamber in the media. According to a new poll of swing-state voters from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, over half of respondents view Biden as a threat to democracy and not its savior. Forty-four percent said that Trump would do a better job at protecting democracy compared to just 33 percent who believe Biden would be better for democracy.
Part of the problem is the array of court decisions finding that Biden has repeatedly violated the Constitution, including engaging in racial discrimination and attempting to rule by circumventing Congress.
Biden has also become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams, including the establishment of a massive censorship system described by one court as “Orwellian.” As I discuss in my new book, the Biden administration has brought together an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate and academic interests to target and silence those with opposing views.
These, combined with the weaponization of the legal system and his party’s efforts at ballot cleansing, hardly make Biden look like the defender of democracy to many citizens.
For those who have been found guilty under these unlawful charges, it is a bit late to convert the Justice Department’s “shock and awe” into a mere “aw shucks.” It can also seem just awful for many citizens who see the political rage of Jan. 6 replaced by a type of state rage. As a result, Fischer suggests for many that democracy may be on the ballot, but the threat is not exactly what the press and the pundits have suggested.
This is what US allies should learn from the Biden-Trump debate
July 1, 2024
The fallout from the American president’s addled performance shows the real nature of Washington’s “democracy” and its empire
There is very little to say about the content of the recent televised debate between the current American president, Joe Biden, and the former and likely next president, Donald Trump. That’s because the one feature that mattered was so obvious: Biden is, as those with eyes to see have known for a long time, deeply senile. That is a personal if not uncommon tragedy. Given Biden’s many sins – a lifelong record of systematic, almost compulsive lying, of policies that have, for decades, abused the weak and the poor and pandered to the rich, and, last but not least, the Gaza genocide co-perpetrated with his Zionist friends – it is impossible to feel pity for him. But given the unfortunate power of America, his mental decline is also a global scourge. Yet another one the ‘indispensable’ nation is inflicting on the rest of us on this planet.
The difference between before and after the debate is simply that now even the most mendacious Democratic Party hacks and behind-the-scenes manipulators cannot deny this fact any longer. Don’t get me wrong: Many of them are at least pretending to try, including former president Barack Obama, despite ongoing, widespread, and irrepressible speculation that Michelle Obama, his wife, might enter the fray at the last minute in the melodramatic role of – nobly reluctant – savior. And, of course, Democrats are also blaming anyone but themselves and their atrocious president. Yet their efforts are largely in vain. Even in America, with its post-truth media, the “secret” that never really was, is out, and the taboo is broken.
Panicked by the return of Donald Trump, key outlets of extreme Centrism, such as, to name only three, the very popular TV ‘news’ (really, agitation and propaganda) show Morning Joe, the de facto Democratic Party newspaper the New York Times, and The Economist, the British Pravda of the American empire, are openly and insistently calling for Biden to quit. Polls in the US indicate that the public has had enough, too: According to a CBS News poll, only 28% of registered voters think Biden should stay in the race, while 72% acknowledge the obvious: Biden is mentally unfit for the presidency.
Yet none of this is a surprise. What is more interesting now is what the political fallout of Biden’s debate fiasco reveals about the nature of two things that, unfortunately, still shape much of our world: American ‘democracy’ and American empire.
Regarding ‘democracy’, even in the US, some observers – such former President Jimmy Carter and researchers at Princeton University, have long understood that it’s silly to describe their country as a democracy. Instead, any halfway objective assessment of its real political system has to start from the fact that it is an oligarchy. But Carter and the Princeton researchers acknowledged that fact a decade ago. The question is where are we now?
Spoiler alert: Things have only gotten worse. Exhibit A – the manner in which the Biden dementia debate debacle is being handled. It is not only the fact that Democratic Party apparatchiks are engaging in Orwellian falsifications to cover Biden’s catastrophic cognitive failure that enables us to see with our own eyes. It is also the way in which Biden’s family (or would clan be a more exact term?) is still widely treated as having the apparently divine privilege to help him decide whether finally to drop out or not.
A family matter? A political system in which issues of obvious and extremely urgent public interest are up to a totally unaccountable ‘family council’ – such as whether a dementia case should have final say over almost 5,000 nuclear weapons – does not qualify as a democracy. Indeed, it does not even qualify as a republic anymore. It may, with a ginormous dose of generosity, pass as a rather rotten monarchy. Less charitable observers would class it as a form of mafia or mobster rule.
But even the resistance to Biden continuing his zombie-like shamble toward electoral defeat offers no hope for democracy. Clearly, there are only two forces inside US politics that could actually compel the obstinate octogenarian and his stubborn wife and handler ‘Dr. Jill’ to accept reality: a rebel faction within the Democratic Party elite, or within the so-called ‘donor class’ – that is, those rich enough to buy American politics by financing its stupendously expensive election campaigns.
The possibility of a rebellion from within the Democratic Party nomenklatura is of course, a very real one, and when the day comes it will probably include most of those now ostentatiously still swearing fealty to Biden. In other words, it would be a mostly silent coup, a (political) knife in the back in a dark alley echoing with whispers of Obama’s almighty phone calls.
Regarding the donor class, its self-confident millionaires and billionaires are, as you would expect, a little more brash and louder, doing without any pious loyalty theater. Instead, as one of them has said, they are already “unanimous… that Biden needs to go.” If you want to call that ‘democracy’ – a bulldogs-under-the-carpet-like struggle (or dirty deal, as the case may be) between an unaccountable family clan and its personal retainers in the campaign on the one side, and a possible insider coup and all the money on the other – I have a special-deal Boeing 737 Max to sell to you.
What about the second thing on which the Biden cognitive catastrophe fallout can shed light? What about American empire? There we can again learn three important things: The US ‘elite’ hardly cares what its vassals think. Its vassals mostly shut up and do as they are told. And when they dare to speak up, they never challenge the real, underlying problems of systemic incompetence and irresponsibility.
Regarding Washington’s open disinterest in what its so-called allies around the world think about the fact that their leader is a wreck, just peruse American commentary. Yes, you will find some articles about international reactions to the debate debacle – for instance, in the Washington Post and Bloomberg – but you will not find any serious argument that the vassals’ opinion, anxieties, or even very timid complaints (if that’s the word) should play a role in deciding what to do next.
Imagine, if you will, the actual US political power structure as consisting of concentric rings. Right now at the center of decision-making you will find the Biden clan and a very small number of power brokers, mostly from the Democratic Party ‘elite’ (with a representative or two of AIPAC in the mix as well one way or the other). The next ring consists of the donor class, or simply put, the rich. The third one, the loyalist (or not so much anymore) media. And the fourth, perhaps, containing the Democratic Party as a whole, more or less.
Voters? No ring for you. Tell the pollsters what you feel and maybe someone who matters will be impressed enough to care. Imperial vassals? Hang in there with the voters, please.
Yet you cannot blame all of this on the Washington ‘elite’. The vassals also have themselves to blame because when they dare to make noise, it’s usually extremely muffled and deferential to a fault, with occasional exceptions. A recent one has been provided by the enfant terrible of Polish and NATO politics, Radek Sikorski. Yes, that’s the current foreign minister of Poland, who was indiscreet enough to admit (in obsequious gratitude, of course) that the US was behind the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines. Now he has compared an American president to a Roman emperor (clearly oblivious to the fact that so-called republics and ‘democracies’ should not feature autocrats). And, even worse, he has implied that Emperor Biden is messing up his “ride into the sunset” (with apologies for the mixed “Magnificent Seven” and “Gladiator” references – they are not mine).
Sikorski’s boss, Poland’s current EU proconsul and prime minister, Donald Tusk, was bold enough to state in public that the American Democrats “have a problem.” The insight! Perhaps, if given enough time, Tusk will even think his way through to pondering the problems all of us have with the Democrats and their insane choices. But that, probably, is asking too much.
In general, Bloomberg finds “consternation and handwringing” among America’s EU clients. And that is, in essence, that. A silly X post and a sigh of misplaced commiseration out of Poland. Otherwise, long faces hardly even displayed in public. If Washington were to read this non-response as at least confirming its firm grip on its transatlantic underlings, it would be right: The emperor’s decline is naked, and the Europeans maintain decorum.
In a normal US, Biden would long have been retired. Indeed, he would never have been president. In a normal Europe, there would be a pervasive, urgent, high-priority debate about what is structurally wrong with an America that can produce and keep a Biden, and how to become independent of such a bizarre hegemon as quickly as possible. And yet, on both sides of the Atlantic, we see not only the political and cultural pathology of a man like Biden in the highest office. We also see virtually no normal responses to this pathology. The US ‘elite’ and its EU-NATO vassal ‘elites’ deserve each other: they both inhabit a topsy-turvy universe of so much lying that they could not find their way back to reality even if they tried. But how do all of us, the other 99.9%, deserve them?
----------------------------------
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian and expert on international politics. He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the LSE, and a PhD in History from Princeton University. He has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey.
His book 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A study of the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is about to appear, and he is currently working on a new book on the global response to the war in Ukraine. He has given interviews on various programs, including several on Rania Khlalek Dispatches, Breakthrough News.
Known as “the great conjunction,” the cyclical conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn that occurs every twenty years has been the preeminent method of demarcating historical eras in traditional astrology. When Jupiter and Saturn come together there is both the intensity of old forms dying as well as the fertility of new growth beginning to take shape. In the past century, their cycle has aligned with the transition in between decades, with the conjunctions and oppositions between Jupiter and Saturn marking the start of each decade. For example, there was a Jupiter and Saturn conjunction in 1980, an opposition in 1990, a conjunction in 2000, and an opposition in 2010. Jupiter and Saturn form their next conjunction on December 21 of 2020 in the first degree of Aquarius, and so most of 2020 took place during the end of their cycle. There has been an atmosphere of anticipation building during the year of being on the precipice of a new era, while simultaneously old issues have resurfaced in need of resolution.
Together Jupiter and Saturn combine expansive and imaginative vision with the structure and discipline needed to both manifest results as well as strip away the inessential. While Jupiter signifies generosity and fortunate opportunities, it can also lead to egoic greed and delusions of grandeur that requires the contemplative focus of Saturn to trim the excess and strengthen what is ready to ripen. At the same time, we need the inspirational revitalization of Jupiter to mediate the negative side of Saturn that can bring fear over limitations and obstacles and lead to depressive stagnation. During 2020, we have been dancing in a constant balancing act of tempering between Jupiter and Saturn, with a need to shift in between the synthesizing growth of Jupiter and the methodical reordering of Saturn.
Though the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn every twenty years is always important, their union in 2020 has special and extraordinary significance.Jupiter and Saturn have a pattern of forming their conjunctions in the same element of astrology for approximately two hundred years, such as occurring in water signs from the beginning of the fifteenth century until the beginning of the seventeenth century and in fire signs from the beginning of the seventeenth century until the beginning of the nineteenth century.Since 1802 the Saturn and Jupiter conjunctions have been occurring in earth signs, with the final one occurring on May 28 of 2000 in Taurus. After the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Aquarius in 2020, there will continue to only be conjunctions between Jupiter and Saturn in tropical air signs until 2159.
Vitally, not only will Jupiter and Saturn be uniting in Aquarius, they will also be forming a catalytic square aspect withUranus in Taurus.At this pivotal moment in our journey, the lightning bolts of Jupiter and Uranus will not only bring down old societal structures but will also impel us to release old personal dreams and drama we have been attached to.There will be new challenges and unknown potential arising as we begin a new era of Jupiter and Saturn that we will need to make space for in our lives. During 2020 ask yourself what you need to leave behind and what you truly desire to carry forward.
A message from your sponsor (I guess that's me). The square from Uranus that the author references is rather wide (6 degrees and separating). So while its influence will be felt to a point, I don't think it will be as strong an influence as the author lets on.
However there are some significant midpoints on the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 2020.
Using a 45 degree modulation (Harmonic 8 aspects), the Uranus/Pluto midpoint is a scant 3 minutes away from this conjunction. And the Mars/Uranus midpoint is just 24 minutes away. Those are significant and highly volatile midpoints.
I decided to post this now because transiting Pluto hit the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction in January of this year and is currenting retrograding back over it. It will hit this conjunction again at the end of August and one last time in November (shortly after the U.S. election). Pluto will station between those last two hits (very intense period between the end of August and mid/late November.)But of course its currently so close to that conjunction that it's influence will be felt all the way through 2024.
It's going to be a wild time for sure but I guess no one needs for me to tell them that. Pluto is saying things need to change and the changes will be permanent. But of course the institutions who run things don't want the type of change that is coming so I think things will get very eventful to put it mildly.
Astrology is an ancient symbol language which is basically a study of time and the symbols don't lie.
But one thing to keep in mind during the coming turmoil...Time is essentially an illusion because Creation is finished and I AM always with you...
