Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Shadow government shenanigans

Dirty, through and through.

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 44 pages of records from the State Department through court-ordered discovery revealing that the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records concerning then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.

“Tracking” them? They were ignoring them. Actually, defying them. The long of it is here. The short of it?

The short of this is that Hillary kept all her official emails on her personal server. When outside parties would make requests, they would only search her unused official accounts and then respond back that no records existed. All the while, they knew Hillary was doing business outside of official channels in a way that clearly subverted FOIA laws.

What we are seeing here is a pattern of continual lying by the Obama administration and its officials about Clinton’s use of a private email server. Furthermore, they did so to directly avoid FOIA requests which were lawfully supposed to be fulfilled.

You are not allowed to simply say “whoops, that’s on my personal account so that’s not subject to FOIA” for obvious reasons. It would allow widespread corruption.

Clinton is bulletproof so nothing will come of this, but it’s just another in the long list of bad, possibly illegal behavior by her and the Obama administration. This entire thing deserves a real investigation and not the whitewashing it got under James Comey. Anyone that opposes that is only doing so for partisan reasons.

Precisely so. Separate, but very much related:

The nature of the government’s surveillance on me and my family is forensically proven and not subject to legitimate question. Yet, unlike with the discoveries about James Rosen and AP, the government has yet to issue its mea culpa. And there’s a reason.

As bad as they were, the other known instances of journalists being spied upon happened under cover of court orders, albeit ones issued in secrecy. But the government spying on me was not done under the authority of a court warrant. That’s why my case is even more dangerous than the others. It implies that the scope of government improperly turning its intel tools on its own citizens, including journalists and political enemies, could be far more extensive than anyone realizes.

How do I know there was no warrant in my case? Not only did inside sources tell me this, but it was also confirmed to me by the Department of Justice inspector general. With no warrant, it means I was perhaps caught up in so-called “incidental” spying upon other figures. Intel sources have told me that when aggressive government agents want to listen in on somebody but know they cannot justify a warrant, they simply find a target around that person and capture their communications in the incidental spying.

Long before the 2016 presidential campaign, confidential sources had alerted me to longstanding misuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court system and the erosion of protections when it came obtaining permission for wiretaps and other surveillance methods. So, the election debacle came of no surprise. I saw it as an extension of years of improper manipulation. It now appears to me as though the effort to target those surrounding Donald Trump had more to do with intel officials’ concern that a President Trump  might dig into these longstanding surveillance abuses with the help of none other than Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

It was no secret in the intel community that Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, was not only aware of long-standing intel agency surveillance excesses, but was also planning to clean house. In the end, Flynn was unable to do the job because he got wrapped up in the Trump-Russia allegations. Funny, that.

Ain’t it. Ain’t it just.

So since the DoJ won’t do its job, I’m left to self-fund my own pursuit of justice in civil court. As I have learned in the process, the fight is much bigger than my own. If the government isn’t held responsible for its unwarranted intrusions in my case, according to my lawyers and a dissenting appellate who just sided with us, the government will have a precedent that provides it with a free pass to spy on any U.S. citizen for any reason with no fear of punishment.

Sadly, the orcs roosting in Morder On The Potomac care not a whit for precedent, permission, or propriety. They do whatever they want, and worry about the flimsy rationalizations for their rampant illegalities when they must. Attkisson is by no means wrong in seeking justice for herself and her colleagues victimized by the rogue, tyrannical abomination now (mis)ruling us all. Nor is she wrong on both the law and the principles underpinning it, which have been flung down and danced upon. But her naivete concerning where all this is likely to go is touching at best. And her apparent belief that our conscienceless Deep State masters consider themselves constrained by legality, the Constitution, decency, or any other damned thing is beyond naive; it’s foolish, if not downright delusional.

Share

TINVOWOOT

And TINTOWOut, either.

It’s certainly wonderful to think that “all we need to do is find ways to constructively disagree with each other,” and think that this would solve most, if not all, of our problems. But there’s a tremendous difficulty with applying this to the modern ideological divide between Right and Left, the “reactionary” (true or otherwise) and the progressive. The difficulties lie in that this line of thinking implies that there are two sides which actually want rational discussion and a settling of differences rationally. Yet, there are not.

Indeed, what the Left wants is precisely the opposite of this. The progressive Left has not, does not, and never will seek some sort of accommodation with its ideological enemies. Instead, the Left seeks to acquire for itself the institutional and social power to silence its enemies. Ultimately, this proclivity stems from the very nature of what drives the “progressive idea,” which is that the “arc of history” is always bending towards the advancement of what the Left believes is “progress.” Since this trend is inexorable, there is no need, ultimately, to compromise with the Right, merely find various ways to outlast them and hasten their demise. This sort of thinking is responsible for everything from doxxing to the gulags and explains why progressivism is the single greatest evil that this world has ever seen.

At the risk of sounding like a progressive myself, one of the overarching problems with the modern world – which includes the worldview of the “classically liberal, libertarian” soft centre – is that it still holds onto essentially bourgeois attitudes about social and civic participation. These attitudes include notions of fair play, the “marketplace of ideas,” approaching consensus through reasonable discussion and the free and open exchange of ideas, and so forth. To the average American and Westerner, these all sound like pretty straightforward goals.

But they are not goals which the progressive Left shares. Indeed, the Left has absolutely no desire to see a “free and open exchange of ideas” because when that happens, they lose. When stacked against virtually any alternative, progressivism has a horrible track record, and deep down inside they know this. This is why they spend so much effort using institutional power to suppressed dissenters from their orthodoxy.  It’s why when they do appear to be engaging with ideological competitors, it nearly always takes the form of screaming about “fascism,” “racism,” or some other slur designed to signal to their fellows the presence of an enemy, much like the moaning of a brain-dead zombie in a horror movie.

From the progressive Left/SJW perspective, there is literally NO advantage to actually having open and honest dialogue with those on the Right about any topic, and especially not with the genuine-but-currently-dissident Right. They know that when they engage us in the “marketplace of ideas,” they lose. All that can happen for them is to see defections from their ranks and to lose their grip on institutional power. So why would they ever accede to an open exchange build about “rules of fairness,” if they don’t have to?

The short answer is, “they won’t.” So why would we ever expect them to?

The short answer is: we shouldn’t. The longer answer is: we MUSTN’T. Rather, we should concern ourselves exclusively and entirely with smiting them, crushing them, defeating them utterly. At each and every opportunity we can find or contrive. No quarter, no mercy, no remorse. Nothing less can suffice. What they intend for us is neither benign nor tolerable, and no stratagem or tactic is beyond them in the pursuit of their sinister goal. Full stop, end of story.

Via Gerard, who appends a Tweet that fleshes the whole thing out quite nicely.

Share

Pardons a-poppin’

Good on ya, Mr President.

President Donald Trump issued a full pardon Monday to former Army First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, who served five years in prison after being convicted of murdering a suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist.

In May 2008, Behenna was questioning Ali Mansur Mohamed, a suspected terrorist who had allegedly been involved in an IED attack that killed two U.S. soldiers. The interrogation ended when Behenna fired two rounds into the terrorist — which the 1st Lt. claimed was in self-defense after Mansur lunged for his pistol.

A military court convicted Behenna of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone in 2009. The prosecution said Behenna was not acting in self-defense, but in retaliation for the deaths of his fellow soldiers, and killed Mansur while returning him to his hometown.

Fine with me if that’s what happened, I don’t give a shit either way. A dead Muslim terrorist is a dead Muslim terrorist, and I’m all for that. Now do this one:

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on Wednesday is planning to show interested members of Congress a video from a Navy SEAL’s helmet camera that he believes will help exonerate Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher on war crime charges he faces when his trial begins later this month.

“When other members of Congress see the video as he has seen it, that it’s going to shed light on the situation as a whole and the case that the Navy is presenting against Chief Gallagher,” Michael Harrison, a spokesman for Hunter, told Breitbart News on Sunday.

“When Congressman Hunter saw the video, his first response was that it exonerates Chief Gallagher. But his second was that as many members of Congress that can see this need to be able to see this,” he added.

Gallagher, 39, is accused of stabbing a wounded teenage Islamic State  in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighter to death during his most recent deployment to Iraq from 2017 to 2018, during the final major battle against ISIS in Mosul.

However, according to Gallagher’s wife Andrea Gallagher and his brother Sean Gallagher, the video shows that Gallagher gave medical aid to the wounded teenager, who admitted to being an ISIS fighter before he died.

Andrea and Sean have not seen the video themselves, since it is under protective order, but Parlatore has described its contents in court. According to his description in court, the roughly two-minute video shows the wounded male teenager being dragged off the hood of a humvee by Iraqi partner forces.

Chief Gallagher then is heard asking an Iraqi general about the fighter, “Is this ISIS?” The general affirms he is, and Gallagher says, “OK, I got him.” Gallagher then clears the crowd, gets out his medical kit, assesses the fighter’s wounds, and begins cutting the fighter’s pant leg to treat his most severe wounds.

“The video is 100 percent exculpatory,” Andrea said in an interview with Breitbart News on Friday.

Once again: I do not give a damp squishy fart about the means used by US soldiers to remove the enemy from this mortal coil and enroll him in the Choir Invisible. As far as I’m concerned, every ISIS or al Qaeda scumbag that assumes room temperature at the hands of one of ours is cause for applause, not prosecution, regardless of method employed. I wouldn’t dream of requiring our boys to provide the enemy with the slightest aid or comfort—a humane gesture Chief Gallagher unexpectedly found himself harrassed over—although I certainly do respect his decency and compassion.

The battlefield imposes ethics all its own, incomprehensible and sometimes even bizarre to those without experience of the scorching, all-consuming crucible of combat. Far be it from any cake-eating civilian like me to armchair-quarterback the Chief from the quiet comfort of a peaceful, secure home. That goes quintuple—at least—for pus-nutted Congresscritters looking to gain some notoriety via second-guessing men whose boots they are unfit to lick. Sans compelling evidence of real atrocity, we should all just sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let these men get the fuck on with the job we sent them into harm’s way to do.

It’s a damnable disgrace how overlawyered our soldiers now are, with every goddamned REMF JAGoff and his sister’s cat’s grandmother peering over the shoulders of the warriors actually bearing the load in these far-flung hellholes, under ROEs that reduce American fighting men to easy targets, providing far more protection to the enemy than to our own.

Who knows, maybe Trump could grant a preemptive pardon to every ground-pounder and Marine upon graduation from boot camp, then start letting them carry loaded weapons on patrol. After that, allowing the men at the pointy end to plan those patrols without JAGoff and/or Congressional interference, with an eye towards aggressively seeking the enemy, denying him all refuge and resource, pursuing and harrying him to the very ends of the Earth, and then burying him in it.

I know, I know. Crazy talk. But still.

Share

A deep dive with Buttplug

Not so deep, actually, but penetrating nonetheless. I just wanted to note that, in the highly unlikely event Buttplug actually makes any serious headway in his narcissistic quest for power he is wholly unqualified to wield, we can expect the Left to decry the abominable hate-crime of referring to him as Buttplug—uncouth, they’ll surely cry; obscene, insulting, a disgusting, sexually-loaded term which shouldn’t be used in polite circles! Enemedia will just refuse ever to utter it for any reason, no matter how widely it might come to be used.

My fellow bloggers, other shitlords one, all, and everywhere: let us hereby pledge to keep on, umm, plugging regardless. Hammer the little dweeb hard and fast with Buttplug, along with any other kind of raunchy innuendo you can come up with. If Lefty bitches annoyingly enough, we can always just toss a Teabagger or two his way, no?

Share

Can’t win playing by their rules

So stop doing it already.

Failure analysis is probably the most important component of progress in any area of human endeavor. Figuring out what went wrong, why it went wrong and then scheming how to prevent it from happening again, is how we move forward in business, science, technology and even social organization. After every election, the losing party goes through a period of self-examination in order to figure out why they lost. The old line about learning more from failure than success is true, as long as you actually learn something.

With Joe Biden launching his campaign in Charlottesville, now is a good time to examine the catastrophe of the Unite the Right rally in 2017. Now, the first thing to note that from the point of view of the Left, this was a great success. Almost two years on, it remains an emotional rallying point for all of the tribes in the fight against whiteness. It is why very old white man Joe Biden picked it for his campaign announcement. He wanted to let those tribes know that he is their man, despite his noticeable lack of vibrancy.

That is an important lesson of this event. Activism is always about rallying your side and depressing the other side. Everything else is secondary. Most of the dissident right is happy to forget about this event, while the Left has made it one of the key events in their narrative. Put the phrase “Unite the Right” into a search engine and you first get the Wikipedia page describing it as a rally by the worst people. An image search returns pics of Nazis and noble non-whites. For the Left, Charlottesville was a triumph.

That is the first lesson of the event (the Unite The Right/Charlottesville cockup—M). It was a failure. Many involved have yet to come to terms with that reality. Instead, they keep working to correct the record about what happened and who was responsible. This recent live stream by Richard Spencer is a good example. The fact that they keep thinking the facts matter says they still don’t understand what happened. To the Left, the facts are unimportant. What matters is they have martyrs and they have a bloody shirt to wave around.

Therein lies another lesson. For too many in dissident politics, this obsession with applying the blue pencil to the Left’s myth-making remains a liability. Conservatives have always fallen into this trap. While the Left is performing yet another morality tale, the Right is busy editing the script for accuracy. In politics, factual accuracy is only important if it advances the narrative. What matters, what always matters, is convincing the public that your version of reality is the most pleasing. The facts are just part of the set.

Another reason the event turned into a great piece of propaganda for the Left and a disaster for the Right is the organizers made the classic error of thinking the Left would abide by its own stated rules. This never happens, as the Left sees rules, laws and principles as conveniences that further their efforts. The laws are like the New York subway system. You get on and off as necessary. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. For the Left, winning is always the end. They will never let the rules get in the way.

Conservatives have been making this mistake for as long as anyone reading this has been alive. American right-wingers always assume the Left has practical, tangible motivations and that they will abide by their own rules. After all, conservatives have practical goals and always play by the rules. You’ll notice that all of those Virginia democrats caught up in the black face scandal are still in their jobs. Even the serial attacker, Justin Fairfax, is still in his job. In the fight with the Left, there are no rules.

Precisely so—and those who insist there either are or should be RULES in a vulgar, all-out brawl have already committed themselves to fighting with both hands tied behind their backs, and should have just stayed the hell home on the sofa. They would have accomplished roughly the same thing without getting themselves all dirty, banged-up, and humiliated.

I tired long ago of the reliable old Rightblogger standby: those plaintive “if a conservative did/said/supported somedamned thing or other similar, the response would be VERY different!” post. It’s worse than a waste of time to go on and on kvetching and caviling about how loudly the Left would bitch if the shoe was ever on the other foot and how unfair it all is, because 1) none of our useless “leaders” will ever bother TRYING to shift dem shoes, and 2) the Left doesn’t give a tinker’s damn whether it’s fair or not.

Case in point: all those cautionary posts out there warning that Democrat-Socialists ought to be DEEPLY, DEEPLY CONCERNED about, say, Harry Reid’s filibuster/nuclear option maneuvering, or Ogabe’s rule-by-executive-order end-run around the Constitution, because someday—SOME DAY—Repukes would be in power and they could do the same. No, seriously, you guys, it might happen!

Except, until Trump came along, it never, ever, ever did. The Repukes had become quite comfy in their tame-opposition role, thanks, and had no intention of breaking free of the leash and responding in kind to Democrat-Socialist perfidy. It’s one reason the Cucks are so deeply offended by Trump. Why, he’s…he’s…he’s NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES! HE’S IGNORING LONG-ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT!!! Well no duh, fuckface; that’s exactly what we elected him to do.

All the fact-diddling recitatives, indignant elucidations of the Left’s boundless chutzpah and hypocrisy, and straight-up whining about the obvious and undeniable double standards in the world aren’t going to avail us a single thing, people, no matter how high-minded and elegantly phrased they might be. For the Left, this is really and truly a war, one they intend to win. And you don’t win wars by standing around harrumphing and demanding a gentlemanly regard for the rules, when your enemy already has one thumb in your eye, one hand crushing your larynx, and one knee slamming into your groin.

Update! This. Is. War.

Many among us on the right have yet to fully absorb that unpleasant fact. Many among our friends, including reporters and politicians, speak as though the leftists are reasonable, persuadable people. If only we could show them that illegal aliens really are streaming across the border; if only we could show them the horror that is abortion; if only we could show them that socialism will do to us what it did to Venezuela.

They already know that. The leaders on the Left already know that President Trump never colluded with the Russians and that he never obstructed the Mueller investigation. They already know that socialism wrecks economies. They already know that disarming law-abiding citizens will not decrease crime. And, of course, they recognize that their Green New Deal will bring about a dystopia.

So why do we try to persuade them of what they already know?

The Democrats do what they do because for them, the war is existential. They stand to lose their power. For the rest of us, unless we succeed, we stand to lose our nation.

Which makes it existential for us too. Or for our freedom, anyway.

Share

Crazy hate

Endless, boundless, frothing. Nothing else.

What do Democrats offer you, and the people like you, who work hard and play by the rules? Nothing, except hate and the demand that you give up even more of what’s yours so the lib elite can buy votes by redistributing it to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it.

Come on, what is one single Democrat policy, position or promise that increases either your prosperity or your liberty?

Well, after all, that’s really not so unreasonable. I mean, seeing as how they’re so obviously opposed to both prosperity and liberty.

Let’s see. Big Chief Warren, Crusty Commie Curmudgeon and several others want to give away “free college.” How will that help you? It won’t help me. The government did not pay for my college. I paid off my student loans, and got a shiny new law degree in return. Now, the government did pay for some of law school and my masters in Strategic Studies at the Army War College. This is because I was in the Army and went to wars. I worked for it, so it was not “free.” And you worked for yours too (paying directly or via loans), or your family helped, or you went into the military and dressed like a tree in foreign places, or you won a scholarship. You. So, the idea of paying for other people’s college too – because it’s our taxes that would pay for it and everything else these grifters promise their beggar clients – is rather unwelcome, to say the least. It’s going to decrease our prosperity.

Everything is your fault if you work hard and play by the rules. There’s global warming because you insist on driving Jeep Wranglers and eating Whoppers. Democrat union-run schools are useless because you won’t give them more money to waste. Health care is a mess not because of the Obamacare abomination they imposed upon us a decade ago but because you selfishly insist on choosing your own doctor and on people paying for their own health insurance.

You worked hard and played by the rules, and your reward is the contempt of the liberal elite (as well as of their cruise-shilling Fredocon Renfields). Has a single Democrat ever praised you for not feeding at the government trough? For defending your country against all enemies, both foreign and from Minnesota? Has a single Democrat cheered on your success now that the Trump plan has gotten the economy rolling, or are they promising a return to the bad old days of Obama/Gropey Joe? You just got a tax cut; they want to take it away so you can pay more so other people – Democrat-voting people – don’t have to work as hard.

Again: not hard at all to figure out. They’re opposed to every one of those things. Violently opposed. And yes, I do mean literally.

They want to Make America Miserable Again. And you’re America.

See what I mean? If you can demean yourself enough to think as they do, it all comes together and makes sense. For certain definitions of “sense,” anyway.

This is their plan, their program, their agenda. When you vote Democrat-Socialist, this is what you’re voting in favor of, and what you’re enabling. Full stop, end of story.

Share

It’s “complicated”

As complicated as they can possibly make it.

Let’s say a fire breaks out at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris at the start of Holy Week, and just after two of the city’s other most prominent houses of worship – St Sulpice and the Basilica of St Denis – have been attacked and vandalized.

Well, I think we can all confidently say as the first flames are beginning to lick the ceiling that it’s undoubtedly an accident. Cigarette butt. Or maybe computer glitch. Probably just an overheated smart phone. We don’t need to get in there and sift through the debris. We can just announce it.

On the other hand, when there are coordinated attacks on Easter services at several churches in Sri Lanka, it becomes a little more challenging to pass off multiple suicide-bombings killing nearly three hundred people as an electrical malfunction.

So, in contrast to the confident declarations of a week ago, on Sunday morning the media opted for a subtler narrative. Lead sentence from The Economist:

IT HAS BEEN nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

So it’s something to do with the Tamil Tigers? Their guns fell silent, but now they’ve returned with a vengeance, eh?

Let us turn to The New York Times:

Religious Minorities Across Asia Suffer Amid Surge in Sectarian Politics

Gotcha. This is all part of a general problem of various unspecified religions in unspecified countries suffering in a general sort of way. But could you be a little less general and more specific?

Okay. Opening paragraphs:

The deadly attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted how easily religious coexistence can be ripped apart in a region where secularism is weakening amid the growing appeal of a politics based on ethnic and sectarian identity.

In India, the country’s governing right-wing Hindu party is exploiting faith for votes, pushing an us-versus-them philosophy that has left Muslims fearing they will be lynched if they walk alone.

In Myanmar, the country’s Buddhist generals have orchestrated a terrifying campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Rohingya Muslims.

And in Indonesia and Bangladesh, traditionally moderate Muslim politicians are adopting harder-line stances to appeal to more conservative electorates.

So Hindus are attacking Muslims, and Buddhists are attacking Muslims, and “hard-line” Muslims are attacking moderate Muslims. Thank God for some clarity on the situation. But what were all these Muslims doing in church on Easter morning?

Well, as we said, it’s all very complex – not like “Edelweiss” being an obvious white-supremacist dog-whistle by a notorious Nazi Jew composer. Best not to think about it.

The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie. All day yesterday and into today, if you had glanced at the telly, switched on the radio or surfed the big news sites of the Internet, you would have thought the Tamil Tigers were back “with a vengeance”, as The Economist put it – even though with one exception (the 1990 police massacre) the death toll was higher than any individual attack the Tigers had ever pulled off.

Meanwhile, back in that fast shrinking space known as the real world, from the very first hours the headline of this story was completely straightforward:

Islamic Suicide Bombers Slaughter Three Hundred on Easter Morning

But apparently that can no longer be said.

Perhaps not. But try as they might to keep us in the dark, we all know it just the same. While we’re on the topic of being mushroomed by the Left (ie, kept in the dark and fed shit)…ummm, “Easter worshippers“? SRSLY?!?


Ahh, but we all know what the REAL problem is, right?


Yep, you got it: “far-right anger.” Ace says of this pathetically inept display of propagandizing and narrative-pimping:

The pace of this game has accelerated. It used to be that the media would spend a day or two at least noticing that Islamists had murdered a bunch of people again before claiming The Real Crime is any possible hypothetical speculative future side-eye a woman in a hijab might get at Wal-Mart.

Now, they start claiming that Muslims Are the Real Victims here while they’re still gathering up the limbs sheered off of the victims.

They’re now so utterly transparent they just don’t seem to care anymore whether they’re fooling anyone or not. They’re just phoning it in at this point.

HEARTBREAKER update! Poor ol’ Hils just can’t catch a break.

On a special politicians’ episode of Wheel of Fortune, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton nearly took home the grand prize. She was on the last puzzle of the regular rounds of the game, which read, CHRISTI_N. The audience began to cheer as it appeared Clinton had finally won something.

But, as is usual for Clinton, she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and shouted “Easter worshiper!” instead of the obvious answer, which was “Christian.”

I’m betting on Russian collusion as the culprit behind this latest bitter defeat for Her Herness. Nothing a fifth or two of Ol’ Popskull can’t ease the pain of, of course.

Share

Take ’em down, take ’em down, take ’em all down

ALL THE WAY down.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes has forwarded a criminal referral notification to U.S. Attorney General William Barr alleging several “potential violations” of the law perpetrated during the Russia investigation.

The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said he is prepared to brief Barr on the alleged misconduct he feels occurred during the investigation into the Trump campaign during the 2016 campaign, Fox News reported.

The letter did not detail any of the violations Nunes is talking about. But in other interviews, Nunes said he has been working on these referrals for two years but wanted to wait until the Mueller report was released before pursuing them.

The rats are starting to scurry in panic:

Appearing Wednesday on CNN, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said it was “stunning and scary” for Attorney General William Barr to testify that “spying” occurred on the 2016 Trump campaign.

Good. You and your as-yet unindicted co-conspirators ought to be scared.

Fired FBI Director James Comey claimed Thursday that he has no clue what Attorney General William Barr meant when he testified this week that federal agents “spied” on President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“I have no idea what he’s talking about so it’s hard for me to comment,” Comey replied when asked about Barr’s remark at a Hewlett Foundation conference. “I think his career has earned him a presumption that he will be one of the rare Trump Cabinet members who will stand up for truth,” he continued, adding that “language like this makes it harder.”

Hopefully you’ll have plenty of time to bone up on the matter in the prison library.

Lying Communist reprobate John Brennan was unavailable for comment, due to having locked himself in the crapper to clean out his shit-stained shorts.

Go get ’em, Devin. Leave no stone unturned in your pursuit of justice; shine the stark light of truth into even the darkest corner. For, as Aurelius Augustine said:

Consequently, if the republic is the weal of the people, and there is no people if it be not associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and if there is no right where there is no justice, then most certainly it follows that there is no republic where there is no justice.

Well said, sir. Let the wheels grind on—slow, but surpassing fine.

Share

Feel-good story of the decade

The REAL Resistance.

Yes. We bullied Antifa. We punched them in the face. We took their flags. And we ate their pizza.

Anybody who can find anything to be unenthusiastic about in that prefatory statement is a fucking cuckalicious twatwaffle, not worth the effort of unzipping to piss on.

First and foremost, I want to boast that I got to punch a commie. In the defense of one of my fellow Americans that was being attacked, I actually got to punch a commie. Granted, he was a weak, noodle-y looking thing, but I got a shot in before the cops stepped in the middle of it and prevented more. I also got a souvenir from one of them. I kept offering to give it back to them if one of them was brave enough to come and take it from me; sadly, the cowards didn’t take me up on it. As I advised readers not long ago, get yourself to a protest.

I repeat my previous assertion, with bells and a big floppy bow on it. Just go read the rest; I absolutely guar-on-tee you’ll love it all to pieces. And bang, zoom, straight into Ye Olde Blogrolle goes Men Of The West.

Share

The Great Unraveling

The wheels are coming off the bus, so you can look for the space underneath it to get more and more crowded (emphasis mine throughout—M).

The recently released transcript of George Papadopoulos’s congressional testimony reveals a significant fact: Papadopoulos’s introduction to Joseph Mifsud—the source of the “Russia has Hillary’s emails” tip that purportedly prompted the FBI to launch an investigation into the Trump campaign—was arranged mere days after Papadopoulos announced he was joining the Trump campaign.

Saturday evening, Papadopoulos rocked Twitter with claims that “a woman in London, who was the FBI’s legal attaché in the U.K.” encouraged him “to meet Joseph Mifsud in Rome in March 2016.” These new revelations raise fresh concerns that, with the approval of the FBI, foreign governments were meddling in the 2016 election.

Mifsud has long been suspected of holding the key to efforts to target the Trump campaign. But Papadopoulos’s testimony and his tweet now implicate the amorphous London Centre for International Law Practice and the FBI in the plot to put Papadopoulos in contact with Mifsud. From there, Mifsud had but to groom Papadopoulos with promises of Russia connections that would allow him to shine in his new role as a foreign policy advisor to Trump.

It worked, and Mifsud’s supposed tip about the Russian hacking provided the FBI the pretext necessary to launch a full investigation into the Trump campaign for supposedly colluding with Russia.

This all raises lots of questions, chief among them this one: What did Obama know, and when did he know it? But don’t for a moment imagine that Papadopolous was the only one who had a baited Trump trap placed in his path.

For one, a series of stories that appeared in the press in early 2017 heavily implied Lokhova was a Russian agent who tried to suborn Michael Flynn at a dinner hosted at Cambridge on Feb. 28, 2014. Flynn served at the time as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A year after those stories appeared, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported Halper cozied to three Trump campaign advisers, Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. In May 2018, Halper was revealed as a longtime CIA and FBI informant, a revelation that led President Donald Trump to accuse the FBI of planting a spy in his campaign. The Republican coined the term “Spygate” to describe the alleged scandal.

And Trump was right, too. The Deep State apparat attempted to entrap Trump, with the ultimate goal of, first, rigging the 2016 election, then forcing him out of office under false pretenses after that had failed.

“ALLEGED scandal”? My lily white ass. This is nothing less than the biggest, the most heinous and damaging scandal in American history. Too-powerful Superstate bureaucracies have been exposed as thoroughly compromised by bone-deep corruption and malfeasance, from top to bottom. The entire American system—Congress, the Executive branch under Emperor Ogabe, the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the so-called “mainstream” media—has wilfully and wantonly stripped itself of any credible claim to trustworthiness or Constitutional legitimacy, perhaps never to regain it.

Every American should consider all of this absolutely intolerable. We now know that our system is rotten, and that we are being misgoverned by a Ruling Class of amoral mediocrities who are patently unfit for the positions they abuse. No matter what you might think of Trump—as a man, as a husband, as a celebrity, or as President—you should be both infuriated…and alarmed.

Both via Ace, who has more yet.

Share

John Brennan: Communist threat or Red menace?

You know the drill, folks: a fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging.

Gowdy asked Brennan directly whether the CIA had relied on the (fraudulent, phony, nothing but lies Steele) dossier.

“No,” Brennan answered. “It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community’s assessment that was done. Uh, it was, it was not.”

Just the first of many, many lies from lying liar Brennan.

Now, there are questions about Brennan’s truthfulness in that testimony. 

GEE, YA THINK?

On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted that “a high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report…Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP.”

For what, pray tell? He’s lied to you already, and plenty; it is unequivocally clear exactly what kind of “man” he is, what his word might be worth. Is there any reason whatsoever to think he’ll turn on a dime, break character completely, and start telling the truth NOW?

Balderdash, and to hell with all this pussyfooting around. If you want more testimony from this contemptible blackguard, fine. Swear him in not before some tail-chasing Congressional “blue ribbon panel,” but on the stand in front of a judge and jury in federal court. Let a prosecutor ask the questions, not some oleaginous, preening Congresscritter. Indict the bastard and arrest him via massive FBI commando raid at 3 AM, complete with assault rifles, helicopters, and at least one tank; require CNN to provide full multiple-camera live footage, under threat of grievous bodily harm if necessary, the resultant footage to be rebroadcast hourly for the enjoyment of Real Americans. Investigate Brenner’s seditious activities, try him for them—and, should we lack the fortitude and national self-respect to see him swing after conviction, then let him spend the rest of his miserable life rockin’ orange, along with his co-conspirators. ALL of them.

And I do NOT mean some swank-ass country-club lockup with tennis courts, jacuzzis, surf-n-turf for dinner prepared by professional chefs, and daily massage therapy, either. I mean fucking Marion, Sing Sing, or ADX. I mean the kind of hard-ass joint where he has to keep his baggy white ass pressed against the shower wall purely in self-defense. The kind where you get a half-hour each day to trudge a circle around the yard in manacles and leg irons, then bunged back into your cage with your psychopathic housemate for the other twenty-three and a half. Lock ’em up, throw away the key. No parole, not even a hearing. Ever. Just three hots and a cot and all the sex you can handle, forever.

Brennan’s “oops, my bad” routine doesn’t exactly square with his behavior over the past three years. He was not a bit player in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax—some suspect Brennan was one of the masterminds behind the entire operation from the start, sowing the groundwork for Russian election interference claims.

For two years, Brennan has tried to finish what he failed to do while in office: Doom the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Senator Paul should follow through on his threat to have Brennan appear before a public congressional committee as soon as possible. President Trump should authorize the immediate declassification of Brennan’s January 2017 Intelligence Community report to determine whether any of the evidence included political opposition research authored by a British operative and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Then the American people can decide who is the real traitor.

Hell with that too. Let a jury decide. And then let true justice be visited upon Benedict Brennan & his merry malefactors at long last. Questions, Rand Paul has ’em:

Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to offer an amendment to the House-passed resolution on releasing the Mueller Report that demands more information on the origins of the Obama Administration’s decisions concerning the investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign, particularly the use of the unverified and patently false Steele dossier.

“What we need to discover, and we do not yet know, was President Obama involved? Was this done for partisan purposes? Was this done to try to elect Hillary Clinton?” Sen. Paul asked on the Senate floor. 

OH, I think we all know well enough, and the answer to all of them is a flat, resounding “HELL YES.” Mo bettah:

Specifically, Dr. Paul’s amendment to H. Con. Res. 24:

  • calls for the public release of all information and communications involving James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr, or anyone else in the Obama Administration concerning the Steele dossier or investigating Donald Trump and his campaign;
  • calls for John Brennan, who allowed the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on computers of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, to testify under oath and provide to Congress all his records and communications regarding the 2016 election;
  • calls for James Clapper, who lied to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate about a secret surveillance program that was gathering all phone data of people in the United States, to testify under oath and provide to Congress all his records and communications regarding the 2016 election;
  • calls for the public release of all of President Barack Obama’s communications concerning the decision to investigate the Trump Campaign; and
  • calls for the public release of all communications or reports concerning the decision not to indict Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.

Yes indeed. Stick with it, Rand, and stick it to ’em. The crimes committed by these bilious pustules were gross, audacious, traitorous, and intolerable. They MUST NOT go unpunished. Period fucking DOT. Roger Kimball brings it on home:

The whole Russia-collusion fantasy, of which the Mueller investigation was only the desperate centerpiece, has cost the taxpayers untold millions ($30-$40 million for the Mueller investigation alone), it has destroyed the lives and careers of several people whose only “crime” was to have been in the orbit of Donald Trump, and it has gravely damaged public faith in the impartiality of our intelligence and security institutions to say nothing of what public faith remained about the media. It is imperative that people like John Brennan, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey are made to understand—and that the public can see that they have been made to understand—that the heads of the FBI or the CIA or the Office of National Intelligence do not have a veto over who gets to be the president of the United States.

John Brennan never missed an opportunity to say he regarded Donald Trump’s behavior as “treasonous.” James Comey cannot stand in a forest looking up at the sky without reminding us that he regards Donald Trump as someone who is “unfit” to be president.

But here is the catch: it doesn’t matter what they think. The awful truth is that they do not get to pick the president. We, the people, we “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” do. The president is right. There must be an accounting. Those public servants who broke the law must be investigated and, if warranted, indicted.

Those journalists who abandoned their responsibility to report the news in order to campaign for one side must be exposed and shamed. The fact that Chris Matthews fails to experience a gratifying frisson running up his leg when he contemplates Donald Trump does not relieve him of the elementary responsibility to report the news fairly and accurately. This he, along with so many of his peers, has failed to do, and they have failed spectacularly.

The president was right to call for an accounting last night. He has the power to make sure that it happens, that it happens quickly, and that it happens fairly. Now is not the time to “move on.” It is time to clean house. Then we can move on.

Damned skippy, Rog.

Share

Stop laughing? No way

Rush is wrong. Well, kinda-sorta.

It validates a hoax to applaud the fact that Mueller found nothing. There never was anything to find! There never was any collusion! There was never, ever any evidence of collusion! Therefore, there could never, ever be any evidence of obstruction of justice.

The dossier was the sole reason all of this happened, and it was created by Hillary Clinton and Robert Mueller knew it! It was paid for by Hillary Clinton. It was commissioned by Hillary Clinton. It was written by somebody paid by Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, working with a guy named Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, and it was used by the FBI, who also knew that it was total crap to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump administration.

There never has been any collusion between Trump and the Russians. And for those of you who remember the report, Mueller says, “Well, there were many, many efforts by the Russians to contact members of the Trump campaign, to infiltrate.” That’s a bunch of garbage as well. The FBI is who infiltrated the Trump campaign, not the Russians. It wasn’t FBI who put informants like Stefan Halper and Alexander Downer into the Trump campaign. It was the FBI that recruited members of the Trump campaign.

There’s no evidence of the Russians having done anything here! So cheering this validates. “Look, Mueller didn’t find anything, yay!” They wanted to find something so bad. Now, you might be saying, “Well, Rush, if it was a hoax, how come Mueller exonerated Trump?” He didn’t! In case you haven’t noticed, the media is off on a new tangent now. They’re demanding to see the whole report because Mueller said, “I can’t really clear Trump on obstruction. I can’t find any evidence, but I’m gonna have to leave this up to the attorney general.” This is not what prosecutors do! Prosecutors don’t acknowledge possibility of criminal behavior if they can’t find any.

So the media and the Democrats now have an open roadway to impeachment on the basis of obstruction. And just like this hoax, they don’t have to prove a damn thing. They just have to create media narratives, day in and day out, president obstructed, Mueller couldn’t prove it, but he couldn’t rule it out. That’s all these idiots like Schiff and Swalwell and Jerry Nadler need to keep plugging away at impeaching Trump, which they’re gonna do.

None of that is wrong exactly, at least in purely ideological and philosophical terms. So stipulated: the Mueller “investigation” shouldn’t have happened; it was a mere ploy—an underhanded, purely partisan political move to cover up criminal wrongdoing by the Obama junta, as well as an act of self-preservation on the part of the Deep State.

But all the things in the last paragraph of my excerpt, which Limbaugh asserts have been enabled by the Mueller fizzle, were going to happen anyway. And they always were—those that aren’t already happening. Anybody who thinks the Left will be given one nanosecond’s pause by their Collusion Delusion debacle is kidding themselves. They’re even now contriving their rationalizations and excuses, saying it’s “time to move on,” any kind of juggling they have to do to keep those balls in the air, no matter how preposterous or transparently calculating.

So yeah, we should by God keep cheering—and heckling, deriding, pointing and laughing, rubbing their noses in it. All too soon we’ll be confronted with their next muddled, sleazy gambit, so fully enjoying any win we score over them is useful prep for the next round. The battle with the Left, the Deep State, Enemedia, and both Uniparty wings is only beginning; the question was never how low they might stoop in pursuit of our destruction, but whether Real Americans would find mettle enough to destroy them first. Smearing the Left’s faces with their own shit is a morale booster for our side, and that ain’t nothing. Name ’em, shame ’em, and never let up for one second. Like, for instance, this:

61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again
Since 2016, some big names—both inside the government and out—have peddled the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy with such vigor you’d think they invested their life savings in Reynolds Metal Company. Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed the door on such hysteria, let’s take a look back at the Most Mistaken Men and Women in America (and the world).

Remember: not ONE of these slimewads is ever going to admit error, confess culpability, or express contrition. Neither are they going to back off and slink away into quiet if disgraced retirement, their tails tucked between their legs. Believe it: even now there are those among the 61 names who are plotting the next act of this eternal shitshow, and when the curtain rises the rest will be applauding like trained seals for it. Think I’m joking? Think again, chums.:

If American institutions—public and private—are ever to regain even a modicum of trust and legitimacy, a full reckoning must occur. If it does not—if those responsible refuse to explain, fully, their culpability, their actions, their decisions, their outrageous rhetoric, their lies—then those institutions will become husks, empty shells. A fate they will deserve.

Ideally, this reckoning would proceed on two tracks: first, each affected institution would investigate itself; second, the government would use its powers to mount a comprehensive investigation of its own. The latter would examine governmental misconduct, but also—as did the 9/11 and other commissions—the misconduct of all relevant actors, public and private.

But even to make this suggestion is to laugh. We all know that none of this will ever happen. The media will spend not one nanosecond in introspection or soul-searching—neither as an industry, nor as individual organizations. It will instead—as it is already doing—pour its energies into retroactive self-justification and desperate hair-splitting to keep the dream alive. Mueller did not exonerate Trump! He only said he couldn’t “establish” that any collusion took place, not that he could prove that no collusion took place! And he explicitly declined to exonerate Trump for obstruction!

The media and their Democratic Party masters will go on like this for, roughly, ever. The massive number of unforced errors they committed during the whole fiasco—the huge catalogue of false stories they broadcast and published—they will excuse, as again they already are excusing, as examples of their righteous zeal to get “information” and “news” to the public as quickly as possible. There will be no reckoning, and no one will pay a price.

The government, or parts of it, likely will conduct quick, desultory “investigations,” the purposes of which will not be to get to the truth but to “do something” so that they can say they did. The posture will be “We investigated this, found a few process missteps, reassigned one or two people and rebuked others (we won’t say who), and you can trust us now. We cleaned our own house.” Only a fool or a true believer will believe a word of that.

So what, then, is to be done? Here’s a suggestion. A lot of money is donated and spent by the Right every year. Why not commit a couple hundred grand of that to a small team of investigative reporters and researchers to do the job that all the complicit organizations will not do? To do what the press ostensibly exists to do but will not? Granted, such an investigation—lacking subpoena and other official powers—will be far less effective than a real investigation with teeth. But since we know the latter will never happen, why make the perfect the enemy of the as-good-as-it’s-gonna-get?

Here are some of the questions I suggest they look into. This is by no means a comprehensive list, since I am far from a leading expert on SetUpGate. Therefore I further suggest that, once the money is committed and this new investigation gets rolling, those leading it immediately consult the people named above on what lines of inquiry to pursue. Or, even better, why not hire some of them?

And THAT’S the point at which some of these, umm, curious types will start dying in odd, mysterious circumstances, eventually showing up on the Clinton Body Count page in due course.

Which doesn’t mean they aren’t excellent questions, nor that we should shy from demanding answers for ’em. It’s now time to take it to ’em, without letup or surcease, precisely as one of our most capable and aggressive generals—the sainted Thomas P Jackson—would do were he still with us. Stay on their asses, relentlessly; not a moment’s peace should they know, for the rest of their miserable, worthless lives. In other words, we absolutely must keep up the skeer, people. Victory will require not one jot or tittle less of us.

Share

Dispossessed by Californication

Heritage Americans have been relieved of their country, having had it quietly, stealthily yanked out from under them by the Left. Pat Buchanan examines the process.

How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?

Let us count the ways.

In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.

Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.

Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”

In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.

Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time.

The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.

If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.

California, here we come.

As noted in this post: there can be no question that the Democrat-Socialists are going to attempt to steal the next election. The 2018 midterms, a veritable circus act of fraud and chicanery, were a successful test run for the Greatest Show On Earth in 2020. Think we’ve seen extremism, frothing lunacy, and fascist violence from Proggy creeps already? I promise you all: if they manage to swindle their way into a “win” in 2020, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet.

Share

The score

Tucker knows it.

This is what an authoritarian society looks like. It’s a place where the group in charge will tolerate no criticism at all. That’s what we’re becoming.

It was only a matter of time before they came for Fox News. Of the top dozen news networks in the United States, only Fox has an alternative view. The other channels speak with one voice. They are united on every issue, every time. They’re in almost perfect sync with the priorities of the Democratic Party.

Fox News stands apart. The opinion shows on this channel have another perspective. You might consider that valuable diversity, something different in a sea of sameness. The left does not think that. They would like Fox News shut down tomorrow. The other news channels agree. They would like that too. They are trying to do it now.

Carlson then goes on to lift the rock that crawly things like Media Matters and the SPLC wriggle around under, exposing their slimy machinations to some cleansing sunlight, before getting down to the real nut-cutting:

Even worse, you’re subsidizing it, without knowing it. Both the SPLC and Media Matters are, amazingly, tax-exempt organizations. In its original tax application to the IRS, Media Matters claimed that the American news media were dominated by a pro-Christian bias and that they were needed to balance it. Despite the obvious absurdity of this claim, the group received non-profit status. It has been violating the terms of that status ever since.

During the Obama administration, Media Matters held weekly strategy discussions with the White House about how to hurt its political enemies. Media Matters kept an “enemies list” of Republicans to destroy, including Steve King of Iowa. This is a violation of federal tax law. Tax-exempt non-profits can’t function as an arm of a political party. Media Matters clearly does.

According to a piece in the liberal magazine The New Republic, Media Matters changed its mission during the 2016 Democratic primaries to campaign for Hillary Clinton. We were “running defense for Clinton,” one Media Matters staffer said. “Defending Hillary from every blogger in their mother’s basement.” In a leaked 2015 memo from inside Clinton’s campaign, staff discussed cooperating with Media Matters to attack Republicans and accuse the press of biased coverage.

In an email from January 5, 2016, Hillary’s staff discussed working with Media Matters to counter a Vanity Fair article on Huma Abedin. “We have Media Matters and core surrogates lined up, which we can expand on tomorrow,” the email read.

This isn’t just unethical. It’s illegal. Under IRS regulations, 501(c)(3), non-profits are totally prohibited from participating in the campaigns of political candidates. Media Matters broke the law. The group has never been punished. It retains its tax-exempt status.

That means you and every other taxpayer are subsidizing attacks on their own First Amendment. Why is this? How can this be happening? Someone should call the IRS and find out.

Probably so, yeah. Then again, who among us wants to volunteer for enduring an IRS audit-proctoscopy for the next fifty years in retaliation for it? Because that’s exactly what you’d get, and we all know it. The Lefty/Deep State web is seamless, sticky, and hard to escape. And FederalGovCo Shelob is waiting…and always hungry.

Carlson’s closing suggestion isn’t a bad one on the face of it. But it’s based on a naive premise of government responsiveness to the will of its subjects that is no longer anywhere in evidence. Sorrowfully, it is becoming more and more apparent that this condition will NOT be changed, except by force. So this is where we are:

They’ve gone after Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc. You name the person on the right, this army of flying monkeys has been unleashed on them, multiple times.

Each time they are unleashed, damage is done. But no price is extracted for that damage. Conservatives never return the favor of dragging old quotes or actions into the light, they almost uniformly refuse to call for boycotts. They prefer to “take the high road.” What good is the high road if it leads to defeat? Moral victories are just a polite way to justify losing.

Liberals collect scalps, conservatives collect moral victories. This isn’t a battle for local dog catcher, it’s a fight for the future of the country; it’s time for the right to fight back the way they’re being attacked. Mutually assured destruction is the only way to stop these fascists in their tracks.

It can’t be a shotgun approach of refusing to watch CNN, no one watches CNN now. We have to pick our target carefully – one show, on one network, with one host who lies and smears people for thinking differently. That can be any of them, honestly, but everyone has to be on the same page.

Find the donors to the groups leading these charges and stop patronizing them, and let them know that’s what you’re doing.

It doesn’t matter if it makes you uncomfortable or if you think there should be more speech, not less. They’re coming for you sooner or later, no matter how high your horse. If you won’t fight back when someone on your side is under assault, why would anyone bother to fight back for you?

Tucker likely wouldn’t like this, but I don’t seek other people’s permission for my thoughts. These leftists have to be destroyed because they aren’t going to stop, and they don’t face consequences for their anti-American actions. Simply pointing out how bad they are is not enough; they don’t care, they know what they are. It’s time to learn from the success of President Trump and hit back twice as hard. Liberals have to be made to take their own medicine, it’s their own fault it’s a suppository.

Right enough as far as he takes it, but he doesn’t take it anywhere near far enough. Boycotts and the like aren’t going to impede the Left at all, nor give them a moment’s pause. Hell, the way they’re already chasing us out of their restaurants, refusing our custom in their shops, and banning us from their online establishments, it’s plain they don’t want our business anyway. CNN would prefer we NOT watch them, and they’re already sinking like a stone with an anvil tied to it anyway.

No, when we speak of “fighting” the Left, it’s plain that it will soon enough mean FIGHTING them—literally, and for keeps. I like William Gensert’s approach somewhat better; it’s a bit grittier, stouter, and more realistic, although ultimately it will fall short too:

Democrats know Donald Trump will win in 2020 and are planning to cheat to deny him victory. These new socialists are importing a new electorate through open borders and have proposed legislation to allow illegals the vote. They stole seats in the midterms using ballot harvesting and miraculously appearing boxes of “uncounted” Democrat ballots and will do the same in 2020.

The midterms were a trial run for 2020. The left is organized and prepared.

To have any chance, we must behave the way the left behaves, and that means we should take a page from the Democratic playbook. 

In 2008, there were members of the New Black Panthers stationed outside voting locations. The right needs to do the same, and have people in place to document everything. Challenge them at the polls; challenge them outside the polls; challenge them every time we see them cheat; challenge every single vote if need be. Sue them in court over every irregularity, otherwise, they’re going to deny enough ballots, harvest enough votes, or find enough in trunks of cars to win. We will need to fight for a fair 2020 election, or they will steal it.

We have allowed the Democrats using Antifa, Black Lives Matters, and SJWs dominion over the public square. We need similar tactics; there are far more of us than them, and in a battle against an army of pajama boys, we have the edge.

And we must be assertive not only vocally but physically. A group of men preventing Antifa/BLM/SJWs from pummeling dissenters will be on CNN 24/7 — they will provide the platform because they will not be able to resist portraying the right as the aggressors. So of course, we need to travel in groups and record everything. Think what the left would have done to Nicholas Sandman had there not been video exposing their lies.

Most importantly, we must never attack first; we are not them. Nietzsche said, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Never strike first, but certainly strike last; we don’t start, we finish.

Well and good, I guess, for some of us. But that sniffy “we are not them” business is part of our problem—it’s a weakness, a confession that no, we are NOT willing to do whatever it damned well takes to defeat the Left. When winning means going the last mile, to the most desperate extreme without fear or hesitation, we are not them sounds a lot like we’re going to fold instead. The Left sees that admission for what it is—a cop-out, a flinch, a loser’s weak excuse—and uses it against us.

Yes, I do get that the Enemedia can be counted on to vigorously exploit any opportunity we grant them to vilify us each and every time we can truthfully be accused of throwing the first punch, presenting us to their drooltard audience as “the bad guys.” So what? You think they aren’t doing that already, when it’s a baldfaced lie?

Anybody remember just who was declared the Bad Guy in Charlottesville, perchance? Hint: it wasn’t the AntiFa fascists who initiated the fracas. Nor was it the cops who stood aside and let them run riot, probably under orders from the governor. Afterward, when Trump dared to issue a statement reasonably if not quite accurately assigning blame to both sides, he immediately found himself tossed into the Bad Guy penalty box over it too, and is still catching crap for it so’s nobody makes any mistakes. As Gensert himself says:

The battle in the media is lost. We will never get fair and balanced coverage.

And he’s right about that. So why on earth would we gift them with what amounts to a tactical advantage by agreeing that the first blow will always be delivered by them, against us? Can anybody out there think of even one successful general who thought ceding the initiative to his opponent was a sure path to victory, and fought his battles accordingly?

But even if we can prevent them from stealing the election, it won’t be over. This is a battle for the soul of the nation, and they are not only trying to win elections, they seek to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into the next socialist utopia. They are pursuing us at every opportunity because for them to win they must get rid of us.

One need only look at their policies to see what is coming. Do we want to live in a world of unlimited abortion, before, during, and after birth? Should our children live in a nation without cars, planes, meat, and affordable electricity? Do we want our grandchildren to live in a world where a president has so corrupted executive agencies under his command they try to first steal an election and then depose his successor in a coup attempt based on lies bought and paid for by the likes of Hillary Clinton? Are we willing to let Democrats give illegals the same rights and benefits as citizens? Will we allow them to force those not directly responsible to pay reparations to those who didn’t directly suffer? Can we live in a country that has taken away our 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment rights?

Obvious questions, none of which are any longer the least bit germane or compelling. We already KNOW the answers to all of them, thanks. We also know the Left gives not a single shit what we think, and will keep right on keepin’ on regardless. So the only question to be asked at this very late date is: what are we willing to do to stop them? Over to Aesop for our closer:

While we agree with the observations, we must dispute the theme.

No, it’s not “here now”.

Because they aren’t killing you on the streets, neither singly nor in batches, nor are you doing that to them.

Yet.

And that, plainly, is the only way you’ll know when we are “there now”.

But we aren’t far from it, though as yet it hides somewhere out amidst the fog. 
Which is clearly the Fog Of War.

It’s visible, but it hasn’t yet rolled in, save in small wisps.
Know what it and its arrival portends, and make the most of the time left you, however much or little that may yet be.

Neither will the aftermath be the long twilight distrust you imagine.
When the civil conflict you imagine arises, it will be a war of survival, and extinction, and there will be but one victor left standing afterwards. There will be no Marshall Plan, no Appomattox kindness and conciliatory welcome of separated brothers.

This will be Rome vs. Carthage, for all time.

One side only shall leave the field triumphant, the other side shall cease to exist for all time.
So it must be, and so it shall.

One doesn’t make peace with a cancer.

Nope. You don’t have to like it. Hell, you shouldn’t like it, not at all. But unless some unlooked-for, against-all-odds outbreak of sanity, clarity, and moderation suddenly washes over the Left entire, what you might or mightn’t like isn’t going to enter into things.

If this truly is “a battle for the soul of the nation”—and it surely is—we need to do a lot more than just “take a page from the Democratic playbook,” which is maybe a good start but still basically reactive. Much as I do like the idea of cramming Proggy’s own tactics right down his throat until he chokes on them, it won’t suffice to finish him off unless the aforementioned outbreak of sanity and forebearance miraculously appears. Instead, we need to seize the initiative, to go on offense instead of defense. Which will require tossing ALL the old playbooks, theirs and ours, and coming up with a new one.

The Left needs to know beyond all doubt that there is no extreme to which we won’t go, no line we will not cross, to get their grubby mitts off of us—that we will never allow them to force us into submission without a real and bloody fight. Until they’re convinced of that, the battle will continue, and will escalate. But first, we’re going to have to convince ourselves.

Share

Foreign…AND domestic

ESPECIALLY domestic.

Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin asserted that the sovereignty of the United States of America faces a greater threat from the modern Democratic Party than from any of her foreign enemies.

“We can deal with Red China. We can deal with Russia. We can deal with Iran. We can deal with North Korea. The problem is, when you have a cancer from within — and that’s what the Democrat party has become — that’s quite a different story. So many of the great men in our history made the point that if this country is to be destroyed, it’s going to be destroyed from within.”

Levin pointed out that not only would the agenda of the modern Democrat party eat the country from within both economically, through socialist policies, and by having open borders, but he also reminded listeners that the Democrat platform has foreign allies, too.

“Would,” Mark? Try HAS, rather. You’ll be nearer the mark.

I’ve said this in the context of fighting Muslim terrorism, but it’s gradually come to apply pretty much across the board to any conflict or confrontation we may face: if we hope to prevail against foreign adversaries, current or future, we’ll have to defeat the Democrat-Socialists first. They’re now the Main Enemy, Job One.

Share

The justice system…ain’t

You can’t fight city hall, and you better not try.

As I fight on with my computer intrusion lawsuit against the U.S. government, it seems to intersect more clearly with current events every day. And it points to an even larger story.

How widespread is improper government surveillance of journalists, politicians and other U.S. citizens in the name of the fight against terrorism? A few of us found out we were targeted only because we were lucky enough to be alerted by inside sources or other unique ways. How many others were targeted, monitored and watched by government officials but still have no idea it happened?

Who is behind the move to use government surveillance tools against innocent Americans? Do some of these officials still work inside the government? Were some of them the very same officials now implicated in alleged surveillance abuses during Campaign 2016?

Oh, I think those questions pretty much answer themselves, thanks. That we have such a high-handed, abusive government that such questions must come up at all is the deeper outrage. That we’re meek, intimidated enough little lambs to tolerate it with no more vociferous complaint than a little quiet muttering among ourselves is even worse.

This case is further complicated by the fact that the Department of Justice would normally be expected to launch a national security or criminal probe into an unlawful computer intrusion of a journalist. A civil suit wouldn’t be necessary to obtain accountability, it would be handled by government prosecutors. But in this case, the Department of Justice is also “the accused.” And they’ve shown no desire to seriously investigate themselves; quite the opposite.

When the would-be investigators are the ones who are accused, how does an alleged victim get justice?

The civil suit is a costly alternative. The person filing it is required to self-finance his own pursuit of justice.

In my case, not only are there ongoing forensics fees, as we continue to uncover evidence; and not only are there legal fees, even with lawyers providing a generous discount and donating much of their own time; but there are also arcane fees that tell their own outrageous story.

It may be interesting to look at some of the numbers.

For example, when it came time to print our brief to submit to the U.S. Court of Appeals, I figured I could have printed it at home for about a $20 cost in terms of ink and paper. I could have had it printed at a professional printing center for about $40.

But in our legal system, those aren’t options. The procedures require us to have the brief professionally printed and bound in a book format. And only certain companies may be used for this service.

So how much was it to print the briefing in the required format?

Instead of $20, it was $4,367.70.

Just to print a brief.

As for attorney’s fees, my appellate attorney was kind enough to offer a deep discount, and his law students generously donated some of their time. But the cost of the work just for the appeal alone — a few months of the four years of legal work to date — totaled over $100,000.

You can see how justice quickly becomes cost-prohibitive and simply out of reach.

Yep. That’s the whole idea. Although it’s not out of reach for all of us; the rich, influential, or connected can still buy some for themselves, as much as they need.

That’s Last Real Journalist Sharyl Attkisson recounting her process-is-the-punishment ordeal above—an ordeal which will likely bankrupt her, ruin her life, and drag on for many years. Fortunately, she’s being assisted by a group organized on her behalf by some good, dauntless folks unafraid to beard the dragon in its very lair; their GoFundMe donation page is here, so consider kicking in a little if you can. These valiant souls are fighting the good fight against a relentless foe with boundless power, resources, guile, and evil intent at its disposal, and are deserving of the support.

Share

We must destroy the industry in order to save it

Take ’em down. ALL THE WAY down.

The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.… As one of the world’s leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations … The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident…

That’s a quote from legal eagle L. Lin Wood’s lawsuit on behalf of Nick Sandmann against the WaPo to the delicious tune of 250 million smackeroos, every penny of which Sandmann of right ought to collect. And if paying up for their wilfull, malicious slander puts the WaPo out of business, hey, I’m good with that too. But Vichy GOPe pundit David Catron frets:

This incident enraged a public whose trust in the “news” media is already at an all time low and alarmed many honest journalists and scholars who fear that the increasing number of such abuses by the press will cause an overreaction by the courts resulting in undesirable restrictions on the First Amendment. Indeed, confirming the validity of such concerns, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just wrote a concurring opinion in which he suggested that NYT v. Sullivan, a landmark First Amendment ruling involving defamation cases, should be revisited…

NYT v. Sullivan is regarded as sacrosanct by the media. The general gist of the ruling is that news organizations can’t be sued for defaming public figures unless they act with “actual malice.”To clear that bar, an outlet must be shown to have published a claim about a public figure knowing that it was untrue or with reckless disregard concerning its accuracy. A good recent example involves a false story about Melania Trump published by the Daily Mail in the U.S. The First Lady sued whereupon that “news” publication was forced to pay $2.9 million in damages.

And it’s precisely what the WaPo did too: they knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth attacked somehow who in no way met the description of “public figure”, purely for political purposes. They damned well should be pay the price for it. Happily, it ain’t just the WaPo Lin is sinking his teeth into:

The list of news organizations Wood is likely to go after includes the New York Times, CNN, NPR, GQ, the Atlantic, and the Hill. Possible defendants also include individual “journalists” who participated in the slander of Sandmann. They include David Brooks, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Kurt Eichenwald, Michelle Boorstein, and Maggie Haberman. How will lawsuits against these outlets and journalists save the First Amendment? The news business is a business. And, as Mark Hemingway points out in the Federalist, bad journalism hurts the bottom line…

In other words, there’s a pretty straightforward way to improve the reputation of reporters, fend off accusations of fake news, and keep the courts from reassessing important constitutional precedents protecting freedom of the press — journalists need to start fulfilling the mission assigned to them by the authors of the First Amendment. The role of the news media in a free society is to keep all politicians honest. “The only security for all is in a free press,” as Jefferson put it. But the press isn’t “free” if a journalist may only criticize one party and remain employed.

It isn’t even “the press” as Jefferson understood it; they are propagandists, not true journalists but political operatives deceitfully promoting an ideology—aiding and abetting the Deep State/Uniparty coup against the American people and the man they elected President. Their role is not to impart factual reportage to an interested and informed public, but to mislead and misinform them. They are exactly what Trump has said they are: enemies of the people, purveyors of Fake News, dangerous vipers in liberty’s fragile nest. As such, their “freedom”—to malign, smear, and destroy—is not sacrosanct but forfeit, deserving of no 1A protection at all. Should they ever decide to get back to being honest reporters we can talk about their “rights.” Not a moment before. Until then, they have none.

The tsunami of lawsuits that is about to hit the press pursuant to the Sandmann disgrace will shake up the news industry. A lot of outlets will lose a lot of money, and a lot of journalists will lose their jobs. This is good news for those of us who believe the media have misused their constitutional protections for partisan purposes. But it is also good news for the nation if the survivors of the flood remember what a unique and precious thing we have in the First Amendment. If a 16-year-old from Kentucky gets it, maybe there’s hope for the editors of the Washington Post.

No, there is not, nor will there ever be. Not until the current crop of liars and deceivers is replaced wholesale by honest reporters with no partisan axe to grind or agenda to push there isn’t, and only a fool would think there is. It’s useless to cuddle any cozy notions of “saving” the First Amendment from them. They don’t want it saved. They oppose it along with the rest of the Constitution; its only relevance to them is when they can use it as a shield in their campaign to destroy it.

Rather than Pollyannishly blibbering on and on about “saving” things we long ago had taken from us, we ought to be destroying the Left root, branch, and bough—beginning with refusing to allow them to cower behind the protection of a Constitution they’ve shattered. And I do NOT mean talking about destroying them, either. No more cringing behind “principle” as a means of talking ourselves out of taking action; I mean rolling up our sleeves and DOING it. If we’re too effete and high-minded to fight back we can’t possibly win, and the First won’t be the only thing we shamefully fail to save.

Share

Bring her home

A moron has second thoughts.

WASHINGTON — An Alabama woman who joined the Islamic State group in Syria won’t be allowed to return to the United States with her toddler son because she is not an American citizen, the U.S. said Wednesday. Her lawyer is challenging that claim.

In a brief statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave no details as to how the administration made their determination.

“Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and will not be admitted into the United States,” he said. “She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport nor any visa to travel to the United States.”

But Hassan Shibly, a lawyer for the woman, insisted Muthana was born in the United States and had a valid passport before she joined the Islamic State in 2014. He says she has renounced the terrorist group and wants to come home to protect her 18-month-old son regardless of the legal consequences.

“She’s an American. Americans break the law,” said Shibly, a lawyer with the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “When people break the law, we have a legal system to handle those kinds of situations to hold people accountable, and that’s all she’s asking for.”

We surely do, and she should most definitely be brought home right away as she asks…and straightaway thrown into the slammer, tried for treason, and stood up against a wall in front of a fucking firing squad.

(Via VP)

Share

They’re coming

Believe it.

So many times, the things we thought could never happen did. If gun advocates continue to respond to these tragedies with the answer, “do nothing,” then I would not be surprised if in a very short time, guns are seen differently than they are today, and making them all illegal becomes a possibility. The NRA is strong, but even the NRA can not spin these massacres and buy-off enough politicians, when we’re dealing with an endless pile of dead children.

People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.

Making heroin and meth illegal hasn’t worked, why would it work with guns?

That feels like a silly talking point. Are guns addictive? Can high-speed, high capacity assault rifles be grown in backyards and fields like drugs? With no high level machining, manufacturing knowledge, and capital?

Comparing guns and drugs doesn’t work. It seems like this kind of “logic” is why gun owners have lost the high ground. We know that guns can be eradicated, because it’s been done before. Many countries have drastically reduced the amount of guns in the possession of both citizens and criminals, bringing death rates from gun violence to almost nothing.

“Many”? Name three, idiot. Hell, name one, for that matter.

No reason to bother fisking this tripe point-by-point, of course. She’s full of shit, we know she’s full of shit, and it ain’t like she or any of her kind will listen to a single factual, statistical, logical, or reasonable word refuting her spurious, tired, dishonest twaddle. We’ve done so countless times already, and still they go on. The facts don’t dissaude them. The Constitution certainly doesn’t. Any notion of an inborn human right to effective means of self-defense doesn’t; resistance to tyranny damned sure doesn’t, tyranny being their ultimate goal—a feature for them, not a bug.

So at this point, there’s nothing more to discuss, and no reason whatever to waste more time and effort trying. All’s any of us can do is gird our loins, stiffen our resolve, load our mags…and wait.

As WRSA says: These people are your neighbors. They are all around you—around your corner, down your block, across your street. And sooner or later, they will come.

Share

Powerful stuff

Probably the most depressing thing you’ll read today this week this year…uhh, ever.

Life in America has become a gut-wrenching, soul-sucking, misery-drenched, demoralizing existence.

We have managed to survive crackdowns, clampdowns, shutdowns, showdowns, shootdowns, standdowns, knockdowns, putdowns, breakdowns, lockdowns, takedowns, slowdowns, meltdowns, and never-ending letdowns.

We’ve been held up, stripped down, faked out, photographed, frisked, fracked, hacked, tracked, cracked, intercepted, accessed, spied on, zapped, mapped, searched, shot at, tasered, tortured, tackled, trussed up, tricked, lied to, labeled, libeled, leered at, shoved aside, saddled with debt not of our own making, sold a bill of goods about national security, tuned out by those representing us, tossed aside, and taken to the cleaners.

We’ve had our freedoms turned inside out, our democratic structure flipped upside down, and our house of cards left in a shambles.

We’ve had our children burned by flashbang grenades, our dogs shot, and our old folks hospitalized after “accidental” encounters with marauding SWAT teams. We’ve been told that as citizens we have no rights within 100 miles of our own border, now considered “Constitution-free zones.” We’ve had our faces filed in government databases, our biometrics crosschecked against criminal databanks, and our consumerist tendencies catalogued for future marketing overtures.

We’ve been sodomized, victimized, jeopardized, demoralized, traumatized, stigmatized, vandalized, demonized, polarized and terrorized, often without having done anything to justify such treatment. Blame it on a government mindset that renders us guilty before we’ve even been charged, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing. In this way, law-abiding individuals have had their homes mistakenly raided by SWAT teams that got the address wrong. One accountant found himself at the center of a misguided police standoff after surveillance devices confused his license plate with that of a drug felon.

We’ve been railroaded into believing that our votes count, that we live in a democracy, that elections make a difference, that it matters whether we vote Republican or Democrat, and that our elected officials are looking out for our best interests. Truth be told, we live in an oligarchy, politicians represent only the profit motives of the corporate state, whose leaders know all too well that there is no discernible difference between red and blue politics, because there is only one color that matters in politics—green.

A lot more grim reading here—a LOT more—with a gajillion supporting links throughout. Bleak as it all is, though, don’t anybody go lie down in the tub and open a vein just yet.

Are you depressed yet? You should be.

More than depressed, however, you should be outraged at what has been done to our country.

I’m outraged at what has been done to our freedoms.

We are no less prisoners than those who are incarcerated behind prison walls.

The prison we inhabit may not be as bleak as the soul-destroying gulags described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago, but that’s just a matter of aesthetics.

It’s time to stop waiting patiently for change to happen, stop waiting for someone to rescue you, and stage a breakout.

Get mad, get outraged, get off your duff and get out of your house, get in the streets, get in people’s faces, get down to your local city council, get over to your local school board, get your thoughts down on paper, get your objections plastered on protest signs, get your neighbors, friends and family to join their voices to yours, get your representatives to pay attention to your grievances, get your kids to know their rights, get your local police to march in lockstep with the Constitution, get your media to act as watchdogs for the people and not lapdogs for the corporate state, get your act together, and get your house in order.

Appearances to the contrary, this country does not belong exclusively to the corporations or the special interest groups or the oligarchs or the war profiteers or any particular religious, racial or economic demographic.

This country belongs to all of us: each and every one of us—“we the people”—but most especially, this country belongs to those of us who love freedom enough to stand and fight for it.

From depressing to inspiring—uplifting, even—at truly breakneck speed. I don’t have to tell you to read all of it, now do I?

(Via Wes Rhinier)

Share

“We cannot afford a lack of moral clarity in our political civil war”

Preach it, brother.

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager once made an insightful distinction between the political left and right. The right, he noted, generally sees the left as wrong but not evil, whereas the left sees the right not merely as wrong but as evil. This was a valid assessment once upon a time, but as the left has increasingly exposed itself in the Trump era as rabidly illiberal, irrational, and immoral, it is time for the right to acknowledge that the left is not merely wrong, but evil.

Actually, that’s neither a difficult nor unreasonable conclusion to reach. In fact, by now it requires way more intellectual contortion to resist it than to admit it. Post-birth abortion alone is support enough for the proposition…and it’s nothing like alone.

To be clear: evil is hardly the sole domain of the left. It can inhabit individuals of any color, sex, political persuasion, or religious belief. But as an ideology, Progressivism – the rebranding of Communism – embraces totalitarianism and absolute statist control, which always and everywhere leads to misery, corruption, and brutality, and never elevates humanity. Can anyone look objectively at the ghastly devastation wrought by Communism in the 20th century – the gulags and the mass starvation, the torture and executions, the existential fear and hopelessness, the tens of millions dead and countless more lives destroyed – and not conclude that leftism is an ideology of evil? Add to that its unholy alliance with fundamentalist Islam today to subvert the whole of Western civilization, and there can be no doubt.

At the core of the true leftist is a hatred for anyone and anything that stands in the way of his or her lust for power over others: the nuclear family, Christianity, the Constitution, Donald Trump, etc. As David Horowitz had noted on numerous occasions, during a presidential debate in October 2016, candidate Trump spoke more naked truth about leftists than any establishment Republican would ever have dared when he said that his opponent Hillary Clinton had “tremendous hate in her heart.”

Let us zero in on specific, recent examples of the left’s cruel methodology. Keep in mind that the contemporary leftist, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, has been mentored either directly or indirectly by the influential, Mephistophelean strategist Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals, whose thirteenth and final rule has transformed the left’s entire modus operandi into the politics of personal destruction: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Alinsky dedicated his book, as you may recall, to Lucifer.

Lucifer was once also known as the Father Of Lies, as it happens. And that raises the question of whether any of us can possibly persuade ourselves to regard the Left’s reflexive dishonesty as mere coincidence. Tapson goes on to cite lots more damning evidence, putting forth a lengthy but still nowhere near comprehensive litany of…yes, evil. Bruce Thornton calls it “The moral idiocy of our times“—which, while not exactly incorrect, still falls short of the bullseye:

One of the foundational myths of modernity holds that the progress of scientific knowledge and technology has been accompanied by moral progress. As wealth and knowledge increase, the old impediments to moral improvement such as poverty, religious superstition, and ignorance are being swept away, resulting in a kinder, gentler, and more pacific human nature.

Last week we were presented with evidence that this argument is woefully mistaken. In New York a bill was passed that removed restrictions on late-term abortions, allowing infants viable outside the womb to be killed “at any time” to protect the mother’s life or “health.” Worse yet, this regression into primitive custom was met with celebratory cheers and a standing ovation by the “lawmakers” who had approved it. In Virginia a similar law was proposed but rejected. It had been defended by Del. Kathy Tran and Gov. Ralph Northam (pictured above). They admitted that a baby could be killed even after the mother went into labor, or after delivery. Tran, by the way, on the same day as she introduced the bill to liberalize late-term abortions, also introduced a bill to protect gypsy moths and cankerworms.

Ironic, that—grotesquely, hideously so. If a private citizen made a habit of killing newborn puppies or kittens on his own hook and outside of animal-shelter supervision, he would be faced with a wrath far more ferocious than any you’ll ever see over murdering a human infant to safeguard “a woman’s right to choose”—to choose to have promiscuous, guilt-free sex without consequence or responsibility, that is. PETA alone would lapse into paroxysms of rage; do NOT doubt for a second that they’d be joined wholeheartedly by the rest of the howling Lefty circus entire.

Sorry, but this ain’t just “moral idiocy,” folks; it is amoral depravity. Given this swift, sharp plunge into evil and degeneracy, can “liberal” advocacy for, say, legally-sanctioned cannibalism be very much longer in coming? Back to Tapson for the closer:

The Democrat Party is the face of Moloch, the Canaanite god whom Milton called the “horrid King besmear’d with blood / Of human sacrifice.” It is a cult of criminality and death. On every political issue, Democrats take the side of chaos and destruction, crime and disorder. They hype the threat of white supremacism while whitewashing Islamic terrorism. They are actively engaged in erasing our history and undermining our rights. They support open borders over national security; sanctuary cities for criminal aliens and the abolishment of ICE over law-abiding citizens and legal immigration; infanticide over the sacredness of human life; the dismantling of Western civilization over its preservation. This is not simply wrong – this is evil.

Conservatives who believe that it is still possible to reason with the left and engage them in fair-and-square policy debates are clinging to a failed strategy, sadly.

They’re doing more than just that, I’m afraid: they’re averting their eyes from an admittedly grim and grisly reality, either for convenience’s and/or comfort’s sake or out of abject cowardice. The hard truth is nonetheless simple: one doesn’t negotiate with evil. Nor does one compromise with it. One seeks to destroy it, to remove its influence, and to undo its fetid works.

Share

Coonman and Poonman: the scandal goes wide

What, the argument now is basically “There’s too many of us guilty of these Badthink PC crimes out there, so we should be lenient” or something?

Sorry and all, but…no. HELL no.

Looking at the possibility of losing the Virginia governorship to the Republicans, a few liberals are calling for adjustments to the PC penal code. The New York Daily News, normally unforgiving in its commitment to upholding the strictures of political correctness, ran an editorial entitled: “Facing facts: Blackface is awful, but is it always and immediately disqualifying from public office?” The paper seemed to argue that the growing volume of cases argues against a zero tolerance policy:

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s admission that, as a 19-year-old in 1980, he wore what could be considered blackface, may be a blessing in disguise.

Coming just days after the revelation of a racist photo in Gov. Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook, it provides all Americans the opportunity to pause and think through what truly ought to constitute a firing offense in public life.

Former Democratic Congressman Jim Moran is also arguing for a less draconian response, telling NPR: “And, you know, these — this public shaming, I’m not sure how much it accomplishes versus looking at the longer picture. If the longer picture is, and I think should be, racial justice and conciliation and reparation, then I wonder if giving people a second chance, as well — whatever they did — might serve, in the long term, the greater interest.”

Yeah—just as long as that “second chance” is never, ever extended to a Republican, right Jim?

But who created this culture of shaming? Many of the same liberals now caught up in it, including even Joy Behar, who was one of the quickest left-wing celebrities to call Republicans racist for non-racist policies. Behar now joins Ted Danson in Hollywood’s club of blackface-performing progressives.

By defining racism so broadly — liberals routinely extend the charge to philosophical matters such as opposition to affirmative action and amnesty — liberalism created a culture that lent itself to over-accusation and political death penalties. Its tendency to put the worst possible interpretation on all things racial also puts Democrats in a corner. They can’t explain away these incidents as bad taste or bad humor; liberalism always looks for deeper and darker reasons than those. That’s why their apologies have to be so freighted with admissions of enormous guilt.

Democrats have lived by PC accusations and are now dying by them.

Let ’em. In fact, we ought to be helping push them off that cliff, not offering them a lifeline. Not a single one of us ought to be willing to give them even the slightest consideration. These are the rules, shitlibs—YOUR rules, dreamed up and rigidly enforced by you and you alone. Just because you now find those rules inconvenient doesn’t obligate us to let you slide one damned inch. This is YOUR petard; now YOU get to ride it, right into fucking geosynchronous orbit. Period fucking dot.

Update! Schlichter has been telling them for a long time now that they’re going to hate their New Rules, which will be true only if we MAKE it true. Which means he’s enjoying this as much as I am.

It’s called “Alinsky Rule No. 4,” pals. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Cue the sad trombone. Somewhere, Brett Kavanaugh is laughing into his Budweiser.

I know I am, except it’s Dos Equis.

But this hilarity does bring up something serious we need to consider on the conservative side. We need to prepare for the next time some Republican gets besieged by SJW witch-burners, and be ready with our response to their unwarranted demands for his/her/xir’s head.

Our response should be, “Go pound sand.”

Now, that’s not necessarily the phraseology we should use. Mine would be more colorful, and anatomically challenging, but the point is the same. They don’t get a head for their wall. They don’t get to win. Not over silliness.

Now yes, I am advocating two different sets of standards, one for Democrats and one for the GOP. That dual-track rule thing is itself a New Rule imposed by the left, and when you see Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit in an orange jumper doing the pokey time we would all do for classified stuff shenanigans we can talk about having one set of rules again.

Let them eat their own. Perhaps they will learn through pain to be better people. Perhaps they will simply devour themselves. Hey, it’s all good.

Seconded, times eleventy-million. And if they fail to learn from the pain, well, they can just keep right on suffering it for all me. As Kurt said, it’s all good. Eat their own? We oughta be force-feeding them, cramming it right down their throats just as fast as we can spoon it up for them.

Poonman gotta Poonman update! I read years ago that sex offenders have the highest recidivism rate of all criminals. It may or may not be so, but I think we can safely say that Poonman would be Exhibit A for the case in favor of.

Meredith Watson is the second woman to accuse Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault.

Watson’s attorney released a statement Friday alleging that Watson was raped by Fairfax in 2000 while they both attended Duke University.

The lawyer says Watson shared the experience with friends but decided to come forward after Fairfax denied sexually assaulting Dr. Vanessa Tyson, a California professor who accused him of physically forcing her to perform oral sex on him while they attended the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Interestingly, Glenn adds: “I had heard rumors of a second accuser, but this isn’t the one I heard the rumors about.” And then there’s this:


Somewhere, Brett Kavanaugh must be laughing his ass off right about now. In yet more sex-offender news, there’s the Bezos dick-pic dustup, which I am not going to go into beyond noting the hilarious coincidence of his accuser being surnamed…Pecker. Ahh, if only his parents had named him Richard.

Share

Win or lose

There is no “try.”

Today a PolitiFact fact check caught my eye: “Mike Pence wrong that ISIS has been defeated.” Assigned a rating of “Mostly False” by the site, the assessment reminds us that as much as 20 percent of ratings by some fact checkers are actually “opinion checks” based on interpretation rather than indisputable fact.

The controversy over Pence’s remarks stems from a speech he gave earlier this week in which he said, “The caliphate has crumbled, and ISIS has been defeated” and that the U.S. would now “hand off the fight against ISIS in Syria to our coalition partners.”

Pence’s speech explicitly noted that “defeat” of ISIS would still entail a continued war against the insurgency.

Oh, it will require a good bit more than that. For starters, it will require an acknowledgment that “defeat ISIS” is pretty much devoid of any real value, because as soon as they dry up and blow away another group of murdering Muslim sickos is going to pop up in their place, just as ISIS supplanted al Qaeda in their own turn. The Muslim whack-a-mole game we’ve been engaged in for lo, these many years has no stopping point, no real end.

But Pence is wrong on one thing: a TRUE defeat of ISIS, involving as it would an open, straightforward acknowledgement of where the real problem lies—Islam— wouldn’t have to “entail a continued war” at all. We go all Sherman and LeMay on their ass by declaring adherents to the repugnant ideology of Islam our enemy, crushing them utterly, and killing them in job lots, leaving not one Middle Eastern brick standing upon another. Whatever is required of us to purge them of the will to fight against us for good, that’s what we do—without apology, remorse, or recrimination.

We then boot Muslim invaders from the Western countries they’ve infiltrated, and require any who might sincerely wish to enjoy whatever benefits life in modern civilization offers them to declare their allegiance to their nation, formally and explicitly renounce Islam, and pledge to desist from undermining or attacking their Western hosts on pain of either immediate deportation, imprisonment, or death should they ever be found to have relapsed into their former savagery. As the man says:

The term “defeat” has specific military meaning. The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-09 defines “defeat” as when “an enemy force has temporarily or permanently lost the physical means or the will to fight” and is embodied by “mass surrenders, abandonment of positions, equipment and supplies, or retrograde operations.”

I would take it a step further: as I’ve said many times over the years, we need to make the notion of attacking us so terrifying to them that the very thought causes them to piss themselves, and any among them who might dare to publicly advocate such a thing risks being torn apart by anybody within earshot. Sherman, among others, knew that defeating an enemy is never merely a matter of taking terroritory from him, but of humbling him—of cowing him, of subduing and disheartening him to an extreme degree. Otherwise, you’re just pissing in the wind.
S

uch a definition would certainly fit ISIS’s loss of its caliphate and its degradation from a quasi-nation-state back into a traditional federated terror organization. Indeed, the Atlantic Council has previously used the term “territorial defeat” to describe the U.S. focus in Syria and said that such “defeat” would still leave an “insurgency” on the ground.

The Council on Foreign Relations similarly clarified the “military defeat” of ISIS would still leave an insurgency that could effect and inspire attacks.

Then the real enemy hasn’t been defeated yet. ISIS may (or may not) have been, but the REAL enemy has not. And will not, until we gut up enough to at least call him by his proper name.

As for Politifact: yeah, fuck them anyhow, eight ways to Sunday. As the author notes, they’re not “fact-checking,” here or anywhere else; they’re pimping the liberal agenda, and that’s all.

Update! Well, obviously SOMEBODY has been defeated here.

Between 2007 and 2017, there were 8,686 petitions for spousal or fiancé visas for or on behalf of minors. And during that same period, 4,749 minors on spousal or fiancé visas got green cards. Even while the United States was claiming to fight sex trafficking in underage girls, our own immigration system was rewarding and promoting the sexual trafficking of girls as young as thirteen.

While the Senate report reveals that is the leading child marriage trafficking country, with 3,297 spousal visa petitions filed and 3,123 approved is Mexico, most of the countries in the top 10 list are Muslim.

580 petitions were filed and 554 approved from Nalia’s Pakistan. Another 541 filed and 509 approved from Jordan, 277 filed and 233 approved from Yemen, and 227 filed and 207 approved from Iraq.

Mexico once again tops the list of fiancé petitions with 444 filed and 338 approved, but Pakistan is once again in second place with 237 filed and 189 approved. Yemen accounts for 97 filed and 51 approved, Iraq had 94 filed and 72 approved, Jordan had 78 filed and 63 approved, Lebanon had 69 filed and 49 approved, Syria had 67 filed and 50 approved, and Afghanistan had 66 filed and 49 approved.

2,152 spousal and fiancé petitions for or on behalf of minors from Muslim countries were approved.

These numbers are extremely incomplete. No country is listed for over 3,000 of the petitions. But Muslim countries still make up 13 of the top 20 destination countries for child marriage trafficking.

Leaving Mexico aside for now, the question asks itself: WHY?!? For WHAT is our government allowing this absolutely stupefying nonsense to go on? WHO, exactly, believes it a good thing to admit more pedophile, juvie-raping Muslims into our country, their child-brides in tow? WHERE is the public clamor demanding this?

If you or I petitioned the government for official sanction to marry a 13 year old girl, what do you think the response would be?

This is nothing short of an outrage. I can’t even. I just…can’t even.

(Via Larwyn)

Share

Smarter than the average…

General?

A bipartisan consensus among the foreign policy elite holds that America needs to maintain its de facto overseas empire. This includes both preserving stability, as well as fomenting deliberate instability, including regime change in places like Syria. This consensus among elected officials, defense contractors, general officers, talking heads, and various experts is not shared by the vast majority of Americans, who elected Barack Obama and Donald Trump on their promises to end “stupid wars” and put America first.

The American people have good instincts on these matters.

Suddenly, I’m reminded of River Tam’s great quote from the great movie Serenity: “We meddle. People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.”

Just that one paragraph covers so much ground. Anyways.

In response, we hear what amounts to word salad. We need to ensure stability, protect the Kurds, shore up Israel, remain on scene for contingencies, protect Iraq’s western border (while we neglect our own), lest we “pull defeat from the jaws of victory.”

This is all unpersuasive. Wars should be fought to protect our people and further their interests. The world is too big and complicated for us either to ensure peace everywhere, or to reform the deep pathologies of the Islamic world.

Part of the reason Republicans fall over themselves in deference to generals is that they have not had an intelligent foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. On this, mainstream Republican thinking is a mash, amounting to a more unilateral and kinetic expression of the “sole superpower” concept that unites both parties.

One thing that is frustrating about the consensus of the wise men is how parochial it is. It does not ask intelligent questions about why the United States has not decisively won a war since the first Persian Gulf War, why the military was so ill-prepared to fight a counter-insurgency in 2001 (even though almost all wars since 1945 have had this feature), or how we can realistically address friction with China, Russia, the Middle East, and Latin America all at the same time.

While Mattis may be impressive, the generals and other members of the defense establishment are not, generally speaking. Consider such dim lights as Tommy Franks, who neglected to give much thought to the challenges of Iraq’s occupation, or Ricardo Sanchez, who spent most of his tenure in Iraq denying the nascent insurgency, when he wasn’t bullying his subordinates.

Almost none of the experts seems to have considered whether intervention in the Middle East advances the goal of protecting America, which is blessedly distant from this tar pit, and whose resources can be more effectively applied on shutting down the open gates through which terrorists enter to do us harm.

Of the many controversial things Trump said during the campaign, none seemed to grate more than his suggestion that he “knows more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” It turns out, that’s true.

Odd, innit? Roach’s conclusion reiterates a good point made in one of the articles I excerpted in last night’s posting on this topic, bolded below:

When we look for answers, we should look beyond our parochial and conflicted elite to the wisdom of the past. For all the study of Clausewitz in our military academies, one wonders if our strategists have forgotten his advice on the general superiority of defensive measures as a strategic matter: “What is the object of defense? To preserve. To preserve is easier than to acquire; from which follows at once that the means on both sides being supposed equal, the defensive is easier than the offensive.”

In other words, we are better off securing our border, building a wall, limiting immigrants from hostile lands, and avoiding the Middle Eastern cul de sac, than playing whack-a-mole with terrorists. Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is the most courageous and controversial manifestation of his broader promise to put America first.

To repeat the suggestion I made last night: do Afghanistan next. Far as I’m concerned, the only American military personnel who ought to even be laying eyes on the hopelessly barbaric sewer-drain that is the Middle East at all are our strategic bomber pilots, from no less than 10,000 feet AGL.

Update! Mo’ bettah backup for the proposition, from an old hand who surely knows whereof he speaks:

Unlike the bipartisan foreign policy swamp, which has been consistently proven wrong about nearly every major military decision of the last decade, President Trump has overseen a clear, steady and realist foreign policy, focused on putting America First. From re-building America’s military, destroying ISIS, ending the Iran deal, de-escalating tensions with North Korea, he has consistently proven the naysayers in the foreign policy swamp wrong.

Those who have led us down the failed and dangerous path of endless wars in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and beyond, are the last people who should be listened to in regards to Syria. In fact, many of those people attacking President Trump today over Syria, are they themselves responsible for the chaos we see currently in the Middle East.

And nobody needs look any further for a reason why that would be so: My God, man, our gravy bowls, reputations, and phony-baloney jobs are at stake! Sorry, but you’ll have to forgive me when I continue to insist that the blood of those who carry the rifles and pay the ferryman maybe ought to matter just a bit more than that, fellas.

The members of the foreign policy swamp can’t even account for why it’s in America’s national interest to keep 2000 American soldiers and intelligence officers in Syria after they’ve already completed the mission the President gave them two years ago, to destroy and defeat ISIS. Could it be that that the foreign policy swamp was never actually interested in defeating ISIS and instead want us to stay in Syria because of their misguided and dangerous fetish for more regime change in the Middle East?

They scream that there will be chaos if we leave, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the chaos we see in the Middle East is a direct result of their policies of regime change Libya and Iraq. Furthermore, do we really want to turn Syria into another Afghanistan, where we stay there for 17 years with no real purpose and no actual American interests at stake?

We’ve seen that script before and it hasn’t ended well for the United States. But that matters little to the foreign policy swamp, as they don’t even pretend this is about our national interest, but rather about their impossible dream for liberal Democracy in the Middle East.

Once more with the salient point, and the real issue the Establishment types are in a lather about:

The President understands what I understand: The Middle East will never be a liberal democracy and our foreign policy should never be guided by grand ideological goals, but rather by a simple doctrine that asks: What is best for America and its people?

Bingo. And amen.

Share

Pull ’em out, bring ’em home

Do Afghanistan next.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is pulling all 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, officials announced Wednesday as the president suddenly declared victory over the Islamic State, contradicting his own experts’ assessments and sparking surprise and outrage from his party’s lawmakers who called his action rash and dangerous.

The U.S. began airstrikes in Syria in 2014, and ground troops moved in the following year to battle the Islamic State, or ISIS, and train Syrian rebels in a country torn apart by civil war. Trump abruptly declared their mission accomplished in a tweet.
“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” he said as Vice President Mike Pence met with top leaders at the Pentagon. U.S. officials said many details of the troop withdrawal had not yet been finalized, but they expect American forces to be out by mid-January.

Later Wednesday, Trump posted a video on Twitter in which he said is “heartbreaking” to have to write letters and make calls to the loved ones of those killed in battle. “Now it’s time for our troops to come back home,” he said.

It most certainly is. Naturally, the invade-the-world-invite-the-world bunch are having themselves a hissy fit:

A senior administration official, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said Trump made the decision based on his belief that U.S. troops have no role in Syria beyond combatting Islamic State, whose fighters are now believed to hold about 1 percent of the territory they did at the peak of their power.

Well, what else would their role be? Removing Assad from power and replacing him with…what, exactly? Should we countenance another disaster of a mess of a trainwreck along the lines of Obama’s and Hillary’s stupendously boneheaded move in Libya? What exactly does anybody think a mere 2000 troops are going to be able to accomplish, anyway?

You want to fight a war on Muslim terrorism, hey, I’m all for it; establish clear goals, define what victory will look like, send overwhelming force, establish reasonable ROEs that put our soldiers first and foremost, and go through the entire Middle East clusterfuck like shit through a fucking goose. Abjure not one single tool of America’s war-fighting capability: SpecWar, airmobile, armored cav, heavy artillery, strategic bombing, even tactical nukes if needed (they wouldn’t be— leave NOTHING off the table, EVERYBODY has a role. Hammer the place flat, kill people and break stuff, leave not one brick standing upon another. Make the rubble bounce.

Then get the hell out. Oh sure, we can send “humanitarian aid,” help rebuild (as long as it’s US contractors first in line for doing the job and making the money off of it), all that. But let the Muslim world know, without possibility of contradiction or doubt, that America’s days of sending its sons and daughters to bleed and die in godforsaken hellholes to piddle and diddle about in a never-ending conflict where nobody, neither military Higher nor the political “leadership,” has the vaguest clue what winning might mean and aren’t at all fussed about it anyway, are fucking-A OVER.

When we fight, we do so because the outcome matters. Because vital national interests are threatened. Because we have a serious problem with another nation that absolutely must be resolved without delay, after having tried everything else short of war without success. From now on, if we must fight wars, then we fight them to win—in terms absolutely no one can mistake or deny. When the leadership of some pipsqueak ratbag of a failed nation thinks itself feisty enough to make war on us, they must stagger away afterwards knowing for sure they’ve been kissed.

If your little pet hoped-for half-a-war doesn’t meet those terms and conditions, then you don’t get one. If your cause isn’t clearly worthy of the total commitment of this nation’s resources and the lives of its precious soldiers—if it’s another petty, half-assed, half-fought “police action” or some other sort of confusing resource-suck—then hire your own goddamned army and go have at it yourself.

Our military personnel swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath does it say a single damned word about any tail-chasing whoopjamboreehoo in far-flung lands where the Constitution is in no jeopardy from anybody, and the whole idea behind the thing is not to win it, but to just keep it going for nobody knows what reason. If we must win it, then we must fight it—totally, relentlessly, without reservation, surcease, or remorse.

No more tar babies.

The cacophonous criticism of the president’s decision within the Beltway may be the best evidence of his wisdom. Syria is not America’s war. Washington’s security interests always were minimal. The humanitarian tragedy in the country has been overwhelming, but it is beyond America’s ability to fix it.

Most directly, the president’s critics complain that the Islamic State is not yet eradicated from the earth. Wrote the New Yorker’s Robin Wright, “long-term stability is still far from guaranteed against a force that remains a powerful idea—both in war-ravaged Syria and throughout the volatile region—even as its military wing is decimated.” However, the United States can’t fix the underlying causes of radicalism. Moreover, the Islamic State’s long list of enemies—Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Gulf States, Iran, Russia—should be able to handle the aftermath. America should not do everything for everyone forever.

Congress has not authorized military action in Syria, even against the Islamic State. The authorization for the utilization of military force passed after 9/11 was directed against Al Qaeda, not new groups which did not then exist and did not participate in the attacks. That AUMF cannot be stretched to cover Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, or anyone else.

Of course, Congress had no reason to authorize force in Syria, which is not a security problem for America. The U.S. prospered for decades while a hostile and even stronger Syrian Arab Republic was allied with the Soviet Union. Would it be good if Bashar al-Assad was a warm, loyal, devoted ally like, say, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman? Sure (well, probably). But the fact that Assad is not isn’t a cause for military intervention. As a superpower, America has interests all over the world. As a superpower, most of them aren’t particularly important. Very few are worth war.

Of course, Trump’s critics play the usual rhetorical games. Withdrawing means “turning over” the country to one or more bad actors, as if Syria was America’s to give away. Those who demand a permanent presence conveniently ignore the lack of a legal basis for even temporary intervention. And objectives—such as thwarting Iranian, Russian, and Syrian misbehavior—are stated without explaining how a couple thousand Americans would achieve them. The ever-hysterical Sen. Graham complained of “devastating consequences for our nation, the region, and throughout the world.” Actually, the Mideast matters far less these days, and would diminish in importance still further if Washington did not make that dismal assembly of nations central to American foreign and military policy.

Washington’s overall objective should be to bring peace to America, not to micromanage the conflicts of other nations. Lister complained that the president “just told Iran and all of our regional allies we don’t believe in sticking it out to achieve our foreign policy objectives.” Sometimes those objectives are not worth the cost of what would essentially be a permanent war. Withdrawal from Syria would be the president’s first practical application of a true “America First” foreign policy. It has been long overdue. Once the president finishes with Syria, he should turn to Yemen and Afghanistan.

Amen, to every word of it. If after a costly seventeen-year slog we haven’t won in Afghanistan, I’d suggest we aren’t going to, and should either reexamine what we mean by winning and get busy rejiggering our strategy and tactics both, or just admit we never did know from the beginning and walk away quietly. Ours would by no means be the first empire to have broken its back on the Hindu Kush. It’s kind of a tradition, really. Plus, bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is gone and pretty much forgotten, so what the hell are we still expending ordinance over there for anyway?

And, I mean, seriously, you guys: Yemen? Fucking Yemen? What the hell is our objective, our purpose there? Do we even have one? How vital could our presumptive national interests in Yemen really BE, considering the no-doubt miniscule percentage of Americans who even know we have troops there at all? I don’t stay on top of everydamned thing, I admit, but I AM a reasonably well-informed guy, and I couldn’t tell you right off the top of my head how long we’ve had troops there, or go into any great detail as to why; I’d pretty much be limited to mumblemumble al Qaeda mumblemumble our allies the Saudis mumblemumbleAHENH, and that’s about it.

Anyways, Porter notes a scorching irony with all of this:

The first indictment of a war criminal is losing the war. Some generals understand this innately and so endeavor to keep their morality pristine by plowing over as many corpses as their infantry can burn. By this measure William Tecumseh Sherman may have been the most ethical fighter of his age. One of his most famous assertions was that War is Hell. It was a quote he strived to uphold.

Yet while war may be Hell, Hell has never been vacated by American troops. So Satan is hardly in the best position to gauge whether war or no war is the more lurid horror. Now perhaps the people of Syria can. Because according to the Carlos Slim Tumblr page Trump is planning to completely de-occupy that ravaged country. As you can imagine, the anti-war left is livid.

I suppose liberals have every right to be angry. Trump pulling out of Syria means one less American appendage stuck in the Levantine sand; it means fewer brown refugees streaming into Europe; and it means more Southern white boys having birthdays instead of funerals. You can see why they would be furious.

But not wanting to just speculate on the source of their discontent, I went straight to its expression in the combox. The performances therein featured more emoting than a production of ghetto Shakespeare. At times they were quite entertaining. Though that’s not to say they were lean, logical, or concise. Most were so blubbery from high-fructose preening that I had to jettison quotes in favor of paraphrasing, lest readers’ eyeballs expire from overuse.

Of which paraphrased rationales for irrationality my own favorite is this:

Finally, the dismount was struck with this solemn lament: we should keep our troops in Syria and get them off the US border where they don’t belong. Where do troops belong? That’s actually a fundamental question more than a political one. As such, why does a country form an armed forces? To defend foreign ethnostates? I mean, an additional foreign ethnostate? Is it foreign democracy? Foreign freedom? Foreign trade? What does the military do for us? Given the Pentagon’s $676 billion price tag, it’s a question to which many more non-foreigners should be demanding an answer.

The obvious fact is that the core function of militaries is to prevent invasion of their sponsoring nation. If they do nothing else, they have served their purpose. If they do not serve this purpose, then nothing else they do matters. Thus troops on our border is precisely where they belong. The Japanese emperor has been subdued.

Butbutbut TRUMP!!

Which, really, is what all the furor comes down to for the libtards, and at least some of the neocons too.

Update! Walsh chimes in:

This is not to denigrate the heroism of our troops, nor their skills. They may well be, as many say, the best warriors we’ve ever put in the field. But, just as in Vietnam, they’ve been allowed to fight, but not to win. Essentially, they’ve been told to play to an eternal draw, just enough to keep the lid on things over there, but not to materially affect the political structures in place. Thus, by mouthing the liberal pieties in Bush II’s second inaugural address about how the desire for freedom is the natural human condition (it plainly is not) and that America’s duty is to spread the gospel of liberty throughout the world (ditto), our rulers have obscured the lethal realities of our presence overseas.

These are not easy, or happy, conclusions to reach. But we must ask: what have we gotten from our misadventures?

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he was just one of many, especially in that part of the world. Whether he abused his own people (what tyrant doesn’t?) may have been cause for editorial-page fretting, but not for bellicosity. In effect, both Bushes made the same mistake JFK and LBJ made in Vietnam: thinking that inside every foreigner was an American yearning to get out, when even a cursory glance at the history of Southeast Asia or the Islamic ummah should instantly have disabused them of that notion.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, nothing has changed and nothing ever will change. The last outsider to have any effect on the region was Alexander the Great, and he did so at the point of his sword. Since then, Islam has come and gone and come again, the British fought two wars there, and the Soviets first signaled their systemic vulnerability by not being ruthless enough in their attempt to conquer the “country.” Had they applied the same tactics they used on Hitler’s Germany to Afghanistan we might be living in a very different world today, but they did not. And so now the Soviets have vanished while the Afghans live on in their remote and savage land.

As for Syria, the last foreign occupiers to have a positive effect on that parlous place were the Crusaders, who established the Principality of Antioch, which included Aleppo, in the late 12th century; it collapsed about a century later. Since then, Syria has been the plaything of various warring Muslim factions but offers no menace to American national security, and is far too weak seriously to threaten Israel. As in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, we have no strategic or economic interests in those areas, especially as the United States has emerged once again as the world’s leading energy producer.

The way to deal with these places, therefore, is to withdraw and leave them to their own devices. Sure, the Russians will fiddle around the edges if only to keep their hands in the game and to create an object lesson for their own restive Muslim minorities. So what? The “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia in all likelihood won’t last much longer than Bohemond’s did. As for the religious clash between Sunni and Shi’a Islam, represented on the chessboard by the Saudis and the Iranians, we can only hope that they both lose, and lose badly.

I’m down with that. The Middle East, Israel alone excepted, is a tribal, barbaric sinkhole ruled either by grubby despots, raving madmen with delusional ambitions, self-serving kleptocrats, or a distasteful combination of those qualities. It is inhabited mostly by irredeemable primordial savages inflamed to near-madness by a vicious, totalitarian, wholly destructive pseudo-religion. Very little real good has ever come of civilized peoples mucking about with the place; very little ever will.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix