A Broad-Based Look At The World

As we get set for an August news sabbatical, here is an overview of where things stand in the geopolitical realm, the national scene, and key upcoming elections here in Massachusetts.

I’m getting set to take the month of August off from news consumption. Part of this is pertains to what I wrote on Saturday—that I find it insulting media outlets want me to act like this is a normal election year after we’ve just had one presidential candidate nearly murdered on national television and a sitting president obviously ousted against his will by—well, who knows by who.

Another part of this pertains to the fact that…well, it is still an election year and I’m going to take a wild guess that the news cycle will get more intense, rather than less, in the fall months. So, if I want a mental break, I better do it now.

Whenever I take a break from the news, I like to do a “pull the camera back” look at what’s going on in the world—to get a baseline on where the subjects I follow the most are at, and then see how (if it all) they change while I’m on the sidelines. Here’s the rundown:

France Is A Tinderbox

The demographic situation in France has been building into a nightmare for a while. It’s not just the waves of Islamic migrants that have poured in, a consequence of the United States leveling the Middle East starting in 2003. It’s that this has resulted in whole Islamic enclaves within France, and especially Paris—untouchable by French authorities, and with their own parallel economy. Social tensions have been a problem for several years, with more than a few outbreaks of violence—notably the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral in 2019.

You can now add to that dangerously unstable demographic situation some substantial political instability. French president Emmanuel Macron is on the ropes. In the most recent parliamentary elections, Macron’s party lost the first round to nationalist challenger Marine Le Pen (the closest thing France has to a Trump-esque populist movement).

France does their elections in two rounds. Macron was able to keep Le Pen from getting a majority in the second round, but only by throwing his weight behind the Marxists. Macron then pivoted to ally with Le Pen supporters to get a favorable Prime Minister.

All of which is to say that France has a parliament completely divided against itself, and a president that is constantly trying to walk a tightrope. Macron could be pushed in a situation where he either falls off the tightrope—or tries to consolidate power by going to war, the time-honored tactic used by desperate politicians since the dawn of time. France has already been even more bellicose than the United States in wanting war with Russia. That’s not a situation that ends well for France under any circumstances—but if Macron is trying only to protect himself, he may not care.

France is a country that could use Divine Help. Naturally, they opened the Olympics with an event designed explicitly to mock The Last Supper. I’m not going to link to any photos or stories here. You’ve probably already heard about it, and if you haven’t, just consider yourself lucky.

That blasphemous display came after an ominous beginning to the Games earlier that day—a massive attack on their railway centers. As a nation, France is the equivalent of a house with gasoline poured all over the floor. It’s only a question of when someone drops a match.

Iran and Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress this past week. Neither Joe Biden or Kamala Harris attended, lest they antagonize key Muslim voting blocs in the battleground states of Michigan and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota. That, however, didn’t stop the duo from meeting with Netanyahu and giving him the U.S. blessing for increased military action against Iran and Hezbollah.

Of course, Israel doesn’t need our “blessing” to defend itself, particularly after October 7. So, we can reasonably assume that Netanyahu was assured of continued U.S. money and weapons to finance this war. And, to be blunt, this U.S. involvement in an Israel-Iran war will be backed enthusiastically by a lot of GOP leaders who otherwise talk about America First.

Thankfully, one of those leaders does not appear to be the only Republican voice who really matters on foreign policy right now. President Trump, while explicitly stating his support for Israel’s protection, also posted a letter of support he received from the president of Palestine—the tiny state that is at the heart of all this--in the aftermath of the July 13 assassination attempt.

Trump, the world’s consummate dealmaker, has studiously avoided talking himself or the U.S. into a corner in this region. And do we ever need him now. Because Israel is now openly talking about “all-out war” with Iran. This is just a few weeks after Iran talked about “total war” with Israel.

I’m going to speculate that maybe when both sides of a conflict start talking about “total war,” we should perhaps assume that’s exactly what’s coming. And this one that can very easily turn into World War 3. That’s because…

Russia

Russia has secured its connection with Iran over the past several months. Their own railway networks now connect to Iran and China. Thus, while France is getting the nerve center of their railroads blown up, Russia, China, and Iran are all working together. Russia has to be considered likely to intervene in a Middle East War on Iran’s behalf.

That’s at least in part because Russia’s other war with Ukraine seems ready to wind down. Ukraine is in the midst of a final collapse. One question left are whether the U.S. will prop Ukraine up enough to get through the November elections without a major embarrassment to Kamala Harris. But it can’t be staved off much longer than that.

The other question, as alluded to above, is whether France, England, and potentially Italy, all of whom have been rather hawkish on Ukraine, would decide to pick a more open—and quite assuredly fatal—battle with the Russian Bear. A Russian Bear, we might add, that is considerably stronger today than it was in February 2022, in spite of the propaganda that pours out in Western corporate media.

That Ukraine is falling can be seen in the actions of its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. He’s now telling China he’s ready to talk peace with Vladimir Putin. Zelensky is clearly reading tea leaves from the United States and knows it’s more likely than not that the U.S. will soon have a president who—unencumbered by family money-laundering interests in Ukraine—will be less interested in constantly sending billions of dollars into a black hole.

As part of my “pull the camera” back summary, I want to give major props to my primary source of analysis on the Russia-Ukraine War. That would be Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christofouro at The Duran over on YouTube. Based in London, they run shows nearly every day, with good insights into military capabilities and diplomatic maneuvers. They have been prescient on everything about this war. While Western corporate media was blaring out news of Putin’s inevitable demise, Mercouris and Christofouro have been constantly ahead of the curve, consistently proven right—and of course, never given credit when corporate media inevitably picks up on their narratives after they can’t be denied anymore.

The Duran has been right and conventional wisdom (at least the West’s conventional wisdom) has been wrong. And it’s not much more complicated than that. I try and synthesize and condense their commentary in this space. For anyone that wants to go deeper, their full shows (clipped up into segments) are highly recommended.

The Disabling of the United States

I don’t know if  “disabling” is too strong a word, but it seems to me that our own ability to intervene in these situations abroad, both real and potential, is rapidly declining. Our own hubris is the biggest reason—the need to finance a global empire in the post-Cold War era has the national debt spiraling out of control, most of which happened because of our reaction to 9/11. The tolerance of our population—including in this space—for constant intervention is pretty well shot. We invested our financial and political capital most dramatically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most recently, with the billions upon billions shoveled into a losing fight in Ukraine. The bill is due.

There’s the other little problem of that we don’t actually know who’s really the Commander-in-Chief right now. Maybe that will have changed by the time I return to this space in September. But for now, what many of us suspected from the outset has been confirmed and is now basically understood by all but the most hive-minded of Democrats—we have no functioning president.

Anything else? I suppose the fact that an adversary that wants to attack us doesn’t need to overthink their strategy—they can walk across the border and set off a bomb in an American city pretty much any time they’re ready to live with the political fallout. If Putin ever felt on the ropes, or we did intervene in an Israel-Iran War, we’re wide open and vulnerable by the conscious choice of our current political leaders. Can Trump just come back now?

********************************

The State of the Race

As noted above, I’m not ready to pivot to analysis of Trump vs. Kamala, but as also noted above, it is happening, so we may as well have a baseline in place.

There has been a lot of talk—including among MAGA influencers that borders on panic—about momentum for Kamala. But the hard data suggests there’s really no evidence of that. Here’s a look at how Harris stands vis-à-vis Trump now, compared to just a couple of weeks ago when her own bad polling was the only thing Biden had going for him. Keep in mind that any movement of 3 points or less is within the margin of error. As this chart shows, any movement for Kamala is tiny at best, and perhaps non-existent:

I suspect that any feeling of Harris momentum is really just a reaction to the non-stop bleeding that Democrats were going through after the June 27 debate, when the bottom fell out. Trump’s margin began escalating into landslide numbers, and light blue states that would not normally be in play were suddenly turning into major battlegrounds. In short, the polling between the June 27 debate and the July 21 coup, suggested Democrats were heading to a massive wipeout. You can make a credible argument that Harris has re-set the race to its June 26 status—one where Trump was still the favorite—but it’s hard to see more than that.

As part of giving credit to reliable sources, here’s a good place to give deserved recognition to our favorite pollster, Rich Baris, and his thrice-weekly show Inside the Numbers. As everyone in the media and on Twitter poured out speculation about who the Democratic nominee would be and offered all kinds of scenarios from “insiders” about different methods for picking one, Rich—backed up by actual knowledge of election law and procedures—dismissed it all and said Democrats had two choices—stick with Biden or go with Harris. He further added that if Barack Obama didn’t want Kamala (which, apparently, Barack didn’t) then Obama had outsmarted himself.

Thus, as a news consumer, I never wasted intellectual energy on this speculation, which included mention of most every prominent Democrat and every possible way of picking one short of a March Madness-style bracket. Any discussion of alternatives outside of Kamala were always for clicks or for fun. They were not reality-based.

This is coming off a primary season where Baris’ polling said before anyone that Ron DeSantis was headed for an epic wipeout, that the “Trump or Bust” voters far exceeded their “Never Trump” counterparts, and that Trump’s margin in the Iowa caucuses would be about 30 points—which, lo and behold, it was. Furthermore, his final 2020 general election poll had Biden (+4), which is exactly where it landed (yes, I hear you about shenanigans, but on the national scale that’s only a point or two).

All of which is to say that, as polling flies fast and furious in the coming months, some of it good, some it bad, we’ll be sticking with Inside the Numbers. Like with The Duran, we always try and synthesize for you some top-level insights. And, like with The Duran, we highly recommend it for anyone who wants to take a deeper dive.

********************************

Here in Massachusetts

We’ll conclude with a brief look at what yours truly will be doing in the month of August. The state of Massachusetts holds its primary for legislative offices on Tuesday, September 3, the day after Labor Day.

There are some excellent candidates, in favor of parental rights on education, along with fiscal sanity and reigning in the growing crisis we have with all of the illegal migrants that get trafficked up here. They are also strong pro-life candidates, who would, if given the chance, fulfill the opportunities given to state legislatures by President Trump’s Supreme Court:

Here are four that are very much worthy of taking a look at. I have included the towns that are in each district, so you can forward to anyone you know that may be able to vote for them. For the sake of full disclosure, I have done, or will do, at least some volunteer work for all of them:

John Gaskey – State House – 2^nd Plymouth
John is running against Susan Gifford, a very liberal Republican. While I think the phrase “RINO” can get overused, it absolutely applies to Susan Gifford. John, by contrast, is a Coast Guard veteran, an outsider, a pro-Trump America First conservative, and a good guy. He’s in the race for the right reasons—to represent his constituents for a little while, and then come home.

Carver
Wareham
part of Middleborough

Michelle Frignon – State House – 7^th Worcester
Michelle is another outsider seeking to challenge a career politician from the Republican Corporate Class. Paul Frost voted for the massive spending bill that gave money to illegals, while decreasing aid to local governments—if you face a property tax overwrite in your town anytime soon, that budget Frost (and Gifford) voted for is the reason why. Michelle, like a lot of outsiders, is underfunded and her time for campaigning is restricted because she actually has a normal life. But she would be terrific on Beacon Hill.

Auburn
Millbury
part of Charlton
part of Oxford

Both John and Michelle, because they are challenging Republican incumbents, need support for the September 3 primary. Early voting starts August 24.

Bruce Chester - State House - 2^nd Worcester
I got to know Bruce when he made a credible run for the State Senate in a special election last November. He served his country in Iraq, he’s deeply disturbed by the LGBTQ indoctrination in the schools, he’s pro-2^nd Amendment and medical freedom, and he opened his campaign last fall with the words “I’m pro-life.”

Bruce doesn’t have a primary opponent and is getting set for a general election battle against Democratic incumbent, Jonathan Zlotnick. This is a competitive district—the kind Republicans have a real chance of winning, even in the Bay State. So long as we get our vote out.

Ashburnham
Gardner
Winchendon
part of Westminster

Karla Miller – State Senate -  1^st Middlesex
Karla is a realtor in the great working-class town of Lowell. In that job, she’s seen firsthand the damaging effects inflation—and the high interest rates that always follow—are having on homebuyers, especially young people. She’s right there on all the state-level issues we talk about here—pro-life, pro-school choice, pro-family, pro-2A, pro-medical freedom, and determined to rein in the out-of-control state budget that fuels inflation.

She needs help in getting the word out. Even though she is the only Republican candidate in the field, local newspapers won’t even run her campaign announcement release. Press censorship is finding its way to the local level.

Dunstable
Groton
Lowell
Pepperell
Tyngsborough
Westford

The reason I’m able to know about these candidates is through the work of the newly formed PAC, Massachusetts Freedom Fighters. It’s headed up by Jim Lyons, a former head of the state Republican Party until he ran afoul of the Corporate Class one too many times in his fight for the grass-roots.

I’ve talked to Jim, and he’s convinced, based on everything he’s seen across the state, and within the Republican Party apparatus, that the reason we lose as badly as we do is because the GOP elite is uninterested in representing its own voters—people like you and I. He’s based this conclusion on hard data analysis of the results of issue-referendums, which indicate that there are lot of towns where the conservative side wins.

The natural conclusion is that there are voters we can reach if only we get networked and put up credible candidates—like the ones I listed above, all of whom I met through Jim. To use his own words—“Yes, this is Massachusetts. But it doesn’t mean everywhere is Cambridge.” There are a lot of places we can win.

Jim got his own start in politics because of the pro-life issue and his wife Bernadette was a sidewalk counselor. Like me, he believes we should focus on taking advantage of the opportunities we’ve gotten thanks to President Trump and the America First movement and reaching out. That means organizing and networking at the state and local levels. He’s also working on tracking everything from Select Boards to School Committees to Board of Health, and all the other offices that matter in our daily lives.

All of which is to say that if you care about these issues—pro-life, protecting parental rights in education, protecting gun rights, protecting medical freedom, fiscal sanity and reorientating the money the state does spend to the benefit of its legal citizens—than you have an ally in Massachusetts Freedom Fighters. Please consider adding your name to their e-mail list by clicking here. It’s the easiest way, in the midst of one’s busy life, to get connected. It’s a long road ahead, but we’re just getting started.

Everybody enjoy the rest of your summer!