The US Empire: rise, fall, and now what?

The US is the dominant world power.  But it has been failing, for similar reasons the Roman Empire failed, compounded by long-term plans for hegemony.  Will Donald Trump’s government result in beating back the elite establishment, ‘deep state’, financial masters, military/industrial empires and oligarchs? Current results are disappointing…..

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

Massive Russian Collusion found,   but not by Donald Trump


Massive Russian Collusion found, but not by Donald Trump  By David Kupelian, 20 June 2017

Is it just me, or is everyone missing the biggest, most mind-boggling part of the never-ending “Trump-Russia collusion” drama?

I’m talking about something more troubling than ex-FBI chief James Comey being one of the biggest leakers, or his refusing for months to inform Americans that Donald Trump was never under FBI investigation – while capitulating to Obama AG Loretta Lynch’s demand that he hide the fact that Hillary Clinton was under investigation. I’m talking about something more absurd than an investigation lasting almost a year – entirely without evidence of a crime!

Let’s set aside all the deceit, demagoguery and mass hysteria associated with the left’s ongoing campaign to overturn Trump’s election by endlessly accusing him of “colluding with the Russians,” and consider the biggest scandal of all:

For the past 100 years, it’s the left that has been continually “colluding with the Russians.”

For something like three generations this nation’s most vital institutions, from higher education to Hollywood, have been powerfully influenced, if not entirely dominated, by the Marxist-socialist worldview incubated, nurtured, celebrated, propagandized and exported primarily by Russia.

As I documented last year, today’s Democratic Party, pushed radically leftward by President Barack Obama (whom both former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and ex-New Left leader David Horowitz accurately call a “neocommunist”), has become almost indistinguishable from the Communist Party USA. In case you didn’t know, the CPUSA came into existence as a U.S.-based, Moscow-controlled-and-funded communist party, but has lost most of its influence and support since the Soviet Union collapsed, thanks to President Ronald Reagan. Today, the CPUSA no longer fields its own presidential candidates, but rather, urges voters to support Democrats, having enthusiastically endorsed John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

If you think this comparison of the Democratic Party with the Communist Party USA is hyperbolic, I suggest – as I did last year – that you “just stop reading right now and pull up the CPUSA’s website. Spend some time reading and digesting it. Try to discern any major differences between the Communist Party’s concerns, sensibilities and solutions – on issues from gay rights, to unfettered immigration, to renewable energy, to wealth redistribution, to condemning cops as racist, to universal health care – and those of today’s Democratic Party.”

Currently, includes articles supporting Obamacare, warning about global warming, advocating the impeachment of Trump, extolling Black Lives Matter, advocating for expansive immigrant rights attacking the wealthy “1 percent,” decrying racism in America and other bread-and-butter issues of today’s Democratic Party.

Remember also that the Democratic Party’s rapid leftward drift while Obama steered the American ship of state for eight years was characterized by actual “collusion with the Russians,” including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s official agreement to hand over control of one-fifth of America’s strategic uranium reserves to Russia, in return for which millions of dollars flowed from Russia to the Clinton Foundation – not to mention $500,000 to husband Bill for giving a one-hour speech in Moscow. And who can forget President Barack Obama being caught on a hot mic saying to Russian President Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” (Translation: After I’m re-elected president, I can do things Putin wants, but that the American people would never approve of.) To which comrade Medvedev replied, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

Get David Kupelian’s culture-war blockbuster books “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and his latest, “The Snapping of the American Mind” at the WND Superstore. Also available in ebook and audiobook versions.

Then of course last year during the presidential primaries we had Bernie Sanders, the “aging hippie communist” (in Rush Limbaugh’s words) who honeymooned with his bride in the Soviet Union, yet who might arguably have won the Democratic presidential nomination had the Democratic National Committee not scandalously rigged the primary contest for Hillary Clinton.

Putting aside the defamatory “collusion” allegation against Trump, as well as all the wild-eyed leftwing incantations that Russia “hacked our democracy” (a mysterious accusation no one can define because it doesn’t actually mean anything), you may reasonably wonder what to think about the broader and more basic charge that Russia tried to influence the 2016 American election.

Reality check: Everyone even modestly aware of modern geopolitical history knows Russia has been attempting to influence America and her elections for decades. In fact, most powerful nations, including America, attempt to influence other nations’ politics and elections – it’s called foreign policy.

Barack Obama, in his zeal to influence the outcome of Israel’s 2015 national election, actually spent American taxpayers’ money on a failed attempt to defeat a sitting prime minister and close ally, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Even worse, during Reagan’s first term as president, liberal Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy made secret overtures to the Soviet Union to thwart Reagan’s re-election! Yes, this actually happened! When I reached out to Reagan biographer and Russia scholar Paul Kengor, he nailed the details – and the media’s stunning hypocrisy.

“Democrats are searching desperately, frantically, hysterically, for any tangible proof that Trump or one of his aides or associates was reaching out to the Russians to influence the 2016 election,” Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College, told me. “Well, the May 1983 KGB document between Victor Chebrikov (head of the KGB at the time) and Yuri Andropov (head of the USSR at the time) details an offer from Ted Kennedy to help the Russians prior to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 election campaign.” Kennedy’s purpose: Prevent Reagan’s re-election.

“It’s an actual official Soviet document,” Kengor told me, “one that was housed in the Central Committee archives until it was discovered after the Cold War in 1992. I first published the document in full in my 2006 book on Ronald Reagan, “The Crusader.” (See the original Soviet document memorializing Sen. Edward Kennedy’s collusion with Russia, first in Russian and then translated into English.)

But wait, weren’t the “mainstream media” alarmed, once they found out, that a U.S. senator had attempted to subvert the reelection of a sitting U.S. president by “colluding with the Russians”?

As Kengor told me: “That entire time, Ted Kennedy was alive and could have been questioned about this. But the fact is that the Democrats and the liberals in the media didn’t give a damn. Why? Because Ted Kennedy was one of their darlings. They had no interest or intention in exposing any possible Ted Kennedy dealings or – worse – potential collaboration or collusion with the Russians. They could give a rip. But now, in the Trump era, the Democrats and liberals are suddenly Russia hawks.”

To put this whole issue of “Russian influence” into proper context, I reached out to someone who has more firsthand knowledge of the subject than almost anyone else alive – my good friend, Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc defector to the West during the entire Cold War. “Mike,” who now lives in the U.S. as a proud American citizen, was once a top communist spymaster in the Soviet disinformation world whose fulltime business was influencing America and her elections! (I had the honor of serving as editor of Pacepa’s epic 2013 book, “Disinformation,” co-authored with Professor Ronald Rychlak, and we have been dialoguing ever since.)

“Mike,” I emailed the other day. “How long would you say Russia has been actively trying to influence American society, politics and elections?” I explained the gist of the article I was writing about the American left’s century-long secret “collusion” with Russia.

Russia, he said, has been attempting to influence America for more than half a century, adding pointedly: “The leaders of our Democratic Party have known at least for seven decades that Russia was trying to influence the U.S. policies and her elections process – it was an open secret.” Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who wrote the “Introduction” to Pacepa’s “Disinformation” book, concurs, saying Russia has been trying to influence America’s political and electoral direction “since at least the 1940s, and possibly going back into the 30s.”

Pacepa, once director of foreign intelligence for communist Romania and a top adviser to the infamous dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, courageously defected to the U.S. in 1978. Ceausescu immediately had a nervous breakdown and put a $2 million bounty on Pacepa’s head, dispatching multiple assassination squads, including the notorious terrorist Illich Ramirez Sanchez (“Carlos the Jackal”) to the U.S. to find his former top adviser and kill him. Fortunately, all such efforts were unsuccessful.

“When I broke with my life at the top of the Soviet empire,” Mike reminded me in his email, “I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania for helping her people to stop thinking of government as a boon bestowed from on high, and to free itself from the clutches of Marxism.”

Unfortunately, added Pacepa, “Now, that ‘bubonic plague’ of Marxism has also infected my adoptive country, the United States.”

And how exactly did this Marxist “infection,” which permeates most of our university campuses and is endangering America’s very existence as a free republic, and about which Pacepa and others have been urgently warning us for decades, come about?

The history of the American left is literally a history of “Russian collusion,” from the major infiltration of Soviet agents into the U.S. government during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations to the pivotal role Soviet disinformation played in turning American public opinion – and ultimately Congress – against the Vietnam War. From subversion of America’s entertainment industry (there were close to 600 communists in Hollywood alone when Reagan stood up to them as head of the Screen Actors Guild) to the awarding of New York Times’ Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty a Pulitzer Prize for covering up Stalin’s genocidal starvation of 7 million people in Ukraine. From the creation of dozens of communist-front “antiwar” and other groups active in the U.S., to even the infiltration – as Pacepa and Rychlak document in “Disinformation” – of major Christian churches by the KGB.

Interestingly, Pacepa added in his email: “In 2009, the U.S. got its first Marxist president, and in March 2013, the CIA got a director, John O. Brennan, who had voted the Communist ticket.” (That’s right. In the 1976 U.S. presidential election, Brennan voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall.)

So, what does Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, one of the world’s top experts on genuine “Russian collusion,” think about the leftist Democrats and “mainstream media” daily attacking President Donald Trump for alleged “Russian collusion”?

The left, he said, specializes in fabricating fake news, history and reality, and always has. He recalled, thoughtfully: “In my other life as a Soviet bloc intelligence general, I had a banner posted in my DIE [Romania’s foreign intelligence service] office proclaiming in upper-case letters: ‘CAPITALIST ESPIONAGE REPORTS HISTORY. WE MAKE IT.’ Communist espionage was not designed to predict enemy intentions, as Western espionage services do. Our omniscient rulers knew best,” he said, indicating that communists prefer to rewrite and re-invent history, something the American left is notorious for doing.

And never more ferociously than right now.

“Now,” summarizes Pacepa, “a new generation of Democratic Party leaders who seem to have sawdust in their heads are trying to use Russia as a scarecrow in order to prevent the return of the U.S. to capitalism and freedom.”

After all, the dream of the American left, which has for all practical purposes completely swallowed up the Democratic Party, has long been socialism – including socialized medicine and a guaranteed annual income (Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, during a recent commencement speech, urged the U.S. government to provide everyone with a “universal basic income” – cradle-to-grave security guaranteed by the state).

But these are in no way American ideals, rooted in liberty, constitutionally limited government, Christian morality, the work ethic, and unlimited freedom and opportunity, which birthed the most prodigiously successful, powerful, generous and noble nation in history. It is, rather, the dream of communist Russia that mesmerized American leftist politicians, intellectuals, celebrities and activists for generations. Today it has metastasized throughout much of the nation, all the result of a hundred years of the American left “colluding,” on one level or another, “with the Russians.”

It’s doubtful I could fit any more irony and absurdity into this story without it bursting at the seams, but just consider, as a postscript, that Russia is no longer communist. Remember, as an economic system Marxism/socialism doesn’t actually work, and eventually breaks down because it so profoundly and totally violates human nature, the laws of economics and the lessons of history. It always fails. Just ask oil-rich Venezuela.

Maybe the hardcore left is angrily turning on Russia now because the motherland broke faith with their shared socialist dream. That must hurt. But America’s leftists could at least find solace in the knowledge that the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics didn’t give up on socialism willingly. It died because socialism has always been dead; its “life” is just an illusion, a seduction, a con game, a temporary something-for-nothing charade, a promise of one thing that delivers another – namely totalitarianism. It’s a living death at best. Even the Russians know this now.

Only the American left, which has spent a century lusting over a socialist utopia that can never be, still craves it.

In the meantime, the same left that demonizes America and capitalism with arguments identical to those learned at the feet of Russian communists, continues to accuse pro-American capitalist Donald Trump of “colluding with the Russians.”

That’s irony for you.


Barack Obama – the $600 billion man

Barack Obama – the $600 billion man  By Bill Bonner, Chairman, Bonner & Partners, 17 June 2017


“Think tanks” think about what they’re paid to think about.

Who pays them?

The people who have the resources to bend public policies in their direction.

Who are those people?

The elite. The insiders. The foxes. The Establishment. The Deep State.

They are the ones who own Today. And what they most fear is Tomorrow.

Fortunately for them, the feds are here to try to stop it from coming.

Fake News

We also looked at how military spending is a poor way to create jobs.

Win-lose deals never create good jobs. Instead, they draw people out of good jobs and put them into bad ones – jobs that add nothing to our wealth or satisfaction.

That describes almost all the jobs in the greater Washington, D.C., area… and most of the work done by every public employee above the lower ranks.

Teachers, firemen, policemen, and sanitation workers earn their money honestly and fruitfully. The suits are mostly time wasters.

Think tanks think of reasons why it all makes sense. The president claims he’s added “jobs, jobs, jobs.” The newspapers report it as though it were true.

Later, we discover that it was all “fake news.”

Here’s Bruce Riedel at the Brookings Institution:

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal.

Fake news? We hope so.

Because the “jobs” created by the weapons industry are little more than nuts on a barroom table: They encourage the clients to waste more time and money.

The real business of the arms dealers is moving more wealth and power from the people who earn it to themselves. And the real business of the government is helping them get away with it.

$600 Billion Man

But let’s connect a couple more dots…

Last week, amid the hundreds of items about the POTUS were two reports concerning the ex-POTUS.

First, it was noted that Mr. Obama had bought an $8 million house in Washington, D.C.

“Where did the former community organizer/lawyer/federal employee get the money for that kind of pad?” we wondered.

Then this from The Wall Street Journal:

As if taxes haven’t been high enough, the U.S. Government also forced Americans to spend an eye-watering $1.9 trillion in 2016 just to comply with federal regulations. That’s according to the latest annual “10,000 Commandments” report released today by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the world’s seventh-largest economy, ranking behind India and ahead of Italy,” notes Mr. Crews. He adds that our regulatory tab is nearly as large as the total pretax profits of corporations.

Mr. Crews has become one of the most hated men in Washington by tabulating the hidden costs – those not counted in the roughly $4 trillion of direct federal spending – that politicians and bureaucrats impose on the American economy. And nobody imposed more than Barack Obama. According to the Crews annual scorecards, the yearly cost of federal regulation soared by more than $700 billion in nominal dollars from 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration, through Mr. Obama’s final full year of 2016. Adjusting for inflation, you can call Mr. Obama the $600 Billion Man

This is real money, and to put it in context this column looked at the most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Based on these data, the hidden Obama tax is more than twice what American consumers spend each year on gasoline and motor oil ($249 billion) and more than three times what we spend on electricity ($186 billion). It’s more than we spend on food while dining in ($529 billion) or dining out ($400 billion). It’s also roughly nine times the $66 billion that American consumers spend on alcoholic beverages, and your humble correspondent suspects there may be a connection here.

Intentional Damage

Here at the Diary, we, too, suspect that the feds’ red tape has slowed down growth.

Remember, there are only two kinds of transactions: win-lose and win-win. You don’t have to know how every deal will turn out. You only have to know what kind of deal it is, at the beginning.

Win-win deals frequently lead to wealth and progress. Win-lose deals – forced onto people, usually by the feds – almost never do. Instead, they reduce wealth and slow growth.

From Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations:

Though the profusion of government must, undoubtedly, have retarded the natural progress of England towards wealth and improvement, it has not been able to stop it.

How do you know if a deal is win-win or win-lose?

Simple: A win-win deal is voluntaryWin-lose deals are not. Regulations are win-lose. Someone wins – usually the protected industry or the regulators themselves (and Mr. Obama, of course). And someone loses: almost everyone else.

And economic growth slows.

But we are more cynical than Mr. Crews. We’ve been watching this show for a long time. Slowing growth was not, we believe, an accident. It was not unfortunate collateral damage.

It was intentional.

Lobbyists, think tanks, big business, bureaucrats, cronies, and insiders – all the people who add to the regulatory claptrap – share the same basic motivation.

All of them are on top of the world now. And they are willing to pay Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Trump to help keep them there.

Bill Clinton is believed to be worth $80 million – not bad for a life of “public service.” Barack Obama’s fortune is “only” $40 million. But he’s just beginning to collect his debts.

Word on the street is that he’ll collect $400,000 for a single speech on medical care, for example.

Pocket change you can believe in.


Will Donald Trump go the same way as JFK?

Will Donald Trump go the same way as JFK  By Jacob G. Hornberger, Information Clearing House, 28 May 2017

May 27, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –   Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:

  1. He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
  2. He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
  3. He has subjugated America’s interests to Moscow.
  4. He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.

President Donald Trump?

No, President John F. Kennedy.

What lots of Americans don’t realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or “collusion with,” Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous “crime” of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.

They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor.

All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here.

Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That’s nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.

In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the “Peace Speech.” It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.

In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since the end of World War II.

It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America’s World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that the Cold War — and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia — would last forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy’s predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had  called the “military-industrial complex.”

Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.

Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to “national security.” After all, don’t forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader’s Patrice Lamumba’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA. It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende’s outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende’s death.

Kennedy wasn’t dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing — reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.

In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other “enemy” of America. Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to “national security.”

Kennedy didn’t stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. Yes, that’s right — they said that “national security” depended on the U.S. government’s continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today — conducting nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.

Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America’s Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to “national security” as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on the Cold War.

By this time, Kennedy’s war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.

What Kennedy didn’t know was that his “secret” negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren’t so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs.

Kennedy’s feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other “enemies” of America? In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: “We are heading into nut country today.” Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren’t located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.

For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation’s one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled “The National Security State and JFK” at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education.

This article was first published by The Future of Freedom Foundation 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.



Previous articles

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management, you don't have the right to complain! If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to .
This entry was posted in The Rise and Fall of the US Empire. Bookmark the permalink.