The establishment of a military force to go abroad and overthrow governments does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does calling for destruction of countries that do not themselves threaten America appear anywhere in Article 2, which describes the responsibilities of the President. Indeed, both Presidents George Washington and John Quincy Adams warned against the danger represented by foreign entanglements, with Adams specifically addressing what we now call democracy promotion, warning that the United States “should not go abroad to slay dragons.”

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has proven to be particularly prone to attacking other countries that have only limited capability to strike back. North Korea was the exception that proved the rule when the Chinese intervened to support its ally in 1950 to drive back and nearly destroy advancing U.S. forces. Otherwise, it has been a succession of Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, and Libya, none of which had the capability to hit back against the United States and the American people.

rogressives should figure it out. Amplifying the anti-Russia din helps to drown out the left’s core messages for economic fairness, equal rights, environmental protection, diplomacy and so much more. Echoing the racket of blaming Russia for the USA’s severe shortages of democracy plays into the hands of Republicans and corporate Democrats eager to block progressive momentum.

When riding on the “Russiagate” bandwagon, progressives unwittingly aid political forces that are eager to sideline progressive messages. And with the midterm elections now scarcely 100 days away, the torrents of hyperbolic and hypocritical claims about Russia keep diverting attention from why it’s so important to defeat Republicans.

“Stalin is too rude and this defect… becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that [Central Committee] post and appointing another man in his stead…”

These words were written in December 1922 by V.I. Lenin in what came to be known as the ailing Soviet leader’s Testament. For a third of a century Lenin’s rebuke was - along with much of the Russian Revolution’s radical legacy - suppressed as Joseph Stalin rose to absolute power in the USSR. Three years after “Uncle Joe’s” death, on February 14, 1956 at the 20th Communist Party Congress, the new Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, dared read Lenin’s Testament aloud as part of his “Secret Speech.” Later that year Lenin’s text was finally published and made public to a people who had been bamboozled, purged and disappeared for decades.

As the week’s news slaps against my consciousness like road slush, some fragments sting more than others. For instance:

“According to the DOJ’s court filing, parents who are not currently in the U.S. may not be eligible for reunification with their children.”

I can’t quite move on with my life after reading a sentence like this. A gouge of incredulity lingers. How is such a cruelly stupid rule possible? What kind of long-term ramification will it have on the entirety of the human race?

That’s as enthused as I can get. There must be a Republican in the White House. Is there? Oh yeah. Well, maybe that explains it. Or maybe the CPC is just sticking with last year’s budget despite this year’s additional insane increases in military spending and decreases most other places.