Of course he won’t.  He’s not crazy, nor does he think Trump is some crypto-noninterventionist who will dismantle the Empire.

Activist Post.  Obama administration thought it’d be harmless to traffick guns to drug cartels and then track them somehow.  They proceeded to immediately lose track of them all.

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.”

The Economist.  Destroying the social fabric of several Middle Eastern countries, beginning with Iraq, created the perfect environment for the rise of an ISIS.

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.

A 33-year old executive order issued by President Ronald Reagan authorizes foreign spying operations by the US.  Again, Intercept.

Video here.

The Intercept.  How long of a leash do the international spies have, and what type of oversight exists?  How creative does the NSA get with interpreting the law?

Soon this will look slightly better than the bare-bones black/white I’m using now, but the layout will always look basically like this.  A few new colors here or there, a better logo, but other than that, this is basically what it will always look like.  Easy to read, easy to post.  Content is what’s important.

Trump will inherit a Middle East in flames, and will no doubt make it worse.

How the FBI’s assault on security provoked a backlash.  Feds lost the PR battle in the encryption battle, and in politics, PR is everything.  Default encryption is safer than ever.

Revisiting the “Humanitarian” Intervention in Libya: “…the U.S. and NATO repeatedly stood in the way of proposed ceasefires. Prior to the initiation of the “humanitarian” bombing campaign, Qaddafi proposed a ceasefire between his forces and the rebels, which was rejected. A second ceasefire offer, developed by the main regional stakeholder, the African Union, and supported by Qaddafi was rejected on April 10. The AU proposal called for a ceasefire, the creation of corridors for the delivery of humanitarian aid, and a dialogue to open discussions on reforming Libya’s political system. A similar proposal was again rejected on April 29.

Clearly, the protection of life was not chief among U.S. and NATO’s concerns. This is made even clearer by the U.S. and NATO’s continuous military support for the rebels even as they committed war crimes. In its March 2012 report, the International Commission of Inquiry on Libya found that the rebels committed “acts of extrajudicial executions of those perceived to be loyalists, suspected mercenaries and captured Qadhafi soldiers, particularly when towns first came under control of thuwar (anti-Qaddafi forces).” Again, thanks to the release of Clinton’s emails, we know that the Obama administration was aware that the rebels were committing crimes by as early as ten days into the bombing campaign. In a March 27, 2011 email from Blumenthal, Clinton was informed that “one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries in the fighting.”

The U.S. and NATO perpetrated a war of aggression against Libya under knowingly false “humanitarian” pretenses. Further, while conducting their war of aggression, they materially supported the armed opposition with the knowledge that the rebels were committing war crimes. That adds complicity in the rebels’ crimes to their “humanitarian” record. As if that were not enough, the U.S. and NATO, by virtue of the above, are responsible for the widespread lawlessness that consumed Libya subsequent to the intervention and that continues today.”

Military “Invisibility Cloaks” Could Violate the Geneva Conventions.  Impersonating the civilian populace, which is what the tech effectively does, is a coward’s strategy, as we are constantly reminded of when “terrorists” do the same thing in one of our many Mid-East warzones.

FEE’s Jeff Tucker is upbeat about the prospects for liberty in our time, despite outward appearances