Hillary has a Honduran coup problem

Top story at Truth Out, Foreign Policy in Focus, and other outlets.  Honduran activists are being murdered by a regime that forcibly took power in 2009, and Hillary strong-armed the State Department into looking the other way.  Not that it would be relevant to a non-interventionist country when another country’s military overthrows their elected government, but, considering the hyperinterventionist nature of our Federal gov’t, it’s almost a certainty there lies some interest or advantage in allowing the coup to take place.

Apple engineers may just quit their job if demanded by the FBI to write backdoor code

NY TimesEven if the FBI wins its court fight with Apple, they’ll still have a problem with Apple engineers, who will either refuse to write the code, or quit.  And this: “The fear of losing a paycheck may not have much of an impact on security engineers whose skills are in high demand. Indeed, hiring them could be a badge of honor among other tech companies that share Apple’s skepticism of the government’s intentions.”

Prominent American Muslim cleric condemns Drug War

Raw Story: “He argues that while Islam forbids intoxicants, it does not treat addiction as an existential threat. “The primary purpose of law in Islam is to preserve life and order in society, not to create a machine of incarceration and punishment.” According to Malik, declaring “war” on drugs is a breach of  both US constitutional and Islamic principals: “The War on Drugs and the War on Terror have both given way to legalized injustice. Using the rhetoric of ‘war’ tends to subvert constitutional safeguards in the legal system, thus eroding our commitment to democracy.”

In regards to the Prophet Mohammed, Malik believes that his law was intended to protect people and not destroy their lives: “His aim was not to punish people, but to save them from their wrong behavior.””

Matt Ridley on the case against mercantilism

Rational Optimist.  Relevant chunks:

“Frankly, we might as well be living in the 17th century, so antiquated are our current debates over trade, both here over Brexit and in America over the presidential nominations. Many current assumptions about trade were debunked more than two hundred years ago and then tested to destruction in the mid-19th century.

In the 17th and 18th centuries European governments were in thrall to “mercantilism”, the belief that the purpose of trade was (roughly) to push exports on to other countries in exchange for cash and so build up a surplus of treasure with which to pay armies to fight wars. So they sought to restrain imports with tariffs and bans, while encouraging exports with monopolies and gunboats. Britain’s Navigation Acts after 1651, and the chartering of companies such as the East India Company, were part of this policy.

Along came Adam Smith and made a different argument, that mercantilism punished consumers and the poor, while rewarding producers and the rich; that imports were a good thing because they raised people’s standard of living by giving them what they wanted at lower prices. With money to spare, consumers bought more things from producers, creating jobs and generating prosperity. If bread was cheaper, people could afford more textiles. Gradually, with the help of David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, Britain was persuaded of this and by the time Robert Peel, William Ewart Gladstone and Richard Cobden were in charge, Britain had declared unilateral free trade and dared the world to follow.”

Neocon Cruz hires Neocon crazies to foreign policy team

Antiwar.com.  Frank Gaffney, virulently anti-Muslim who believes in a plot concocted by a Muslim cabal to overtake the United States; Michael Ledeen, feeder of the forged yellowcake uranium documents to a certain ‘decider-in-chief’ that paved the way for the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and Iran-Contra facilitator Elliot Abrams.  Classy bunch, and consistent behavior from Cruz.