I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a
plan for peace. So, here's one plan:
[...]
Attributed to Robin Williams
5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If
they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home ,baby.
March 14, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Origin of Species
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
andan Nilekani, C.E.O. of the Indian software giant Infosys, gave me a
tour the other day of his company's wood-paneled global conference room in
Bangalore. It looks a lot like a beautiful tiered classroom, with a massive
wall-size screen at one end and cameras in the ceiling so that Infosys can
hold a simultaneous global teleconference with its U.S. innovators, its
Indian software designers and its Asian manufacturers. "We can have our
whole global supply chain on the screen at the same time," holding a virtual
meeting, explained Mr. Nilekani. The room's eight clocks tell the story:
U.S. West, U.S. East, G.M.T., India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia.
As I looked at this, a thought popped into my head: Who else has such
a global supply chain today? Of course: Al Qaeda. Indeed, these are the two
basic responses to globalization: Infosys and Al Qaeda.
Infosys said all the walls have been blown away in the world, so now
we, an Indian software company, can use the Internet, fiber optic
telecommunications and e-mail to get superempowered and compete anywhere
that our smarts and energy can take us. And we can be part of a global
supply chain that produces profit for Indians, Americans and Asians.
Al Qaeda said all the walls have been blown away in the world, thereby
threatening our Islamic culture and religious norms and humiliating some of
our people, who feel left behind. But we can use the Internet, fiber optic
telecommunications and e-mail to develop a global supply chain of angry
people that will superempower us and allow us to hit back at the Western
civilization that's now right in our face.
"From the primordial swamps of globalization have emerged two genetic
variants," said Mr. Nilekani. "Our focus therefore has to be how we can
encourage more of the good mutations and keep out the bad."
Indeed, it is worth asking what are the spawning grounds for each.
Infosys was spawned in India, a country with few natural resources and a
terrible climate. But India has a free market, a flawed but functioning
democracy and a culture that prizes education, science and rationality,
where women are empowered. The Indian spawning ground rewards anyone with a
good idea, which is why the richest man in India is a Muslim software
innovator, Azim Premji, the thoughtful chairman of Wipro.
Al Qaeda was spawned in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
societies where there was no democracy and where fundamentalists have often
suffocated women and intellectuals who crave science, free thinking and
rationality. Indeed, all three countries produced strains of Al Qaeda,
despite Pakistan's having received billions in U.S. aid and Saudi Arabia's
having earned billions from oil. But without a context encouraging freedom
of thought, women's empowerment and innovation, neither society can tap and
nurture its people's creative potential ? so their biggest emotional export
today is anger.
India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan each spontaneously
generated centers for their young people's energies. In India they're called
"call centers," where young men and women get their first jobs and technical
skills servicing the global economy and calling the world. In Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia they're called "madrassas," where young men,
and only young men, spend their days memorizing the Koran and calling only
God. Ironically, U.S. consumers help to finance both. We finance the
madrassas by driving big cars and sending the money to Saudi Arabia, which
uses it to build the madrassas that are central to Al Qaeda's global supply
chain. And we finance the call centers by consuming modern technologies that
need backup support, which is the role Infosys plays in the global supply
chain.
Both Infosys and Al Qaeda challenge America: Infosys by competing for
U.S. jobs through outsourcing, and Al Qaeda by threatening U.S. lives
through terrorism. As Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy
professor, put it: "Our next election will be about these two challenges ?
with the Republicans focused on how we respond to Al Qaeda, and the losers
from globalization, and the Democrats focused on how we respond to Infosys,
and the winners from globalization."
Every once in a while the technology and terrorist supply chains
intersect ? like last week. Reuters quoted a Spanish official as saying
after the Madrid train bombings: "The hardest thing [for the rescue workers]
was hearing mobile phones ringing in the pockets of the bodies. They
couldn't get that out of their heads."
March 14, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Origin of Species
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
andan Nilekani, C.E.O. of the Indian software giant Infosys, gave me a
tour the other day of his company's wood-paneled global conference room in
Bangalore. It looks a lot like a beautiful tiered classroom, with a massive
wall-size screen at one end and cameras in the ceiling so that Infosys can
hold a simultaneous global teleconference with its U.S. innovators, its
Indian software designers and its Asian manufacturers. "We can have our
whole global supply chain on the screen at the same time," holding a virtual
meeting, explained Mr. Nilekani. The room's eight clocks tell the story:
U.S. West, U.S. East, G.M.T., India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia.
As I looked at this, a thought popped into my head: Who else has such
a global supply chain today? Of course: Al Qaeda. Indeed, these are the two
basic responses to globalization: Infosys and Al Qaeda.
Infosys said all the walls have been blown away in the world, so now
we, an Indian software company, can use the Internet, fiber optic
telecommunications and e-mail to get superempowered and compete anywhere
that our smarts and energy can take us. And we can be part of a global
supply chain that produces profit for Indians, Americans and Asians.
Al Qaeda said all the walls have been blown away in the world, thereby
threatening our Islamic culture and religious norms and humiliating some of
our people, who feel left behind. But we can use the Internet, fiber optic
telecommunications and e-mail to develop a global supply chain of angry
people that will superempower us and allow us to hit back at the Western
civilization that's now right in our face.
"From the primordial swamps of globalization have emerged two genetic
variants," said Mr. Nilekani. "Our focus therefore has to be how we can
encourage more of the good mutations and keep out the bad."
Indeed, it is worth asking what are the spawning grounds for each.
Infosys was spawned in India, a country with few natural resources and a
terrible climate. But India has a free market, a flawed but functioning
democracy and a culture that prizes education, science and rationality,
where women are empowered. The Indian spawning ground rewards anyone with a
good idea, which is why the richest man in India is a Muslim software
innovator, Azim Premji, the thoughtful chairman of Wipro.
Al Qaeda was spawned in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
societies where there was no democracy and where fundamentalists have often
suffocated women and intellectuals who crave science, free thinking and
rationality. Indeed, all three countries produced strains of Al Qaeda,
despite Pakistan's having received billions in U.S. aid and Saudi Arabia's
having earned billions from oil. But without a context encouraging freedom
of thought, women's empowerment and innovation, neither society can tap and
nurture its people's creative potential ? so their biggest emotional export
today is anger.
India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan each spontaneously
generated centers for their young people's energies. In India they're called
"call centers," where young men and women get their first jobs and technical
skills servicing the global economy and calling the world. In Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia they're called "madrassas," where young men,
and only young men, spend their days memorizing the Koran and calling only
God. Ironically, U.S. consumers help to finance both. We finance the
madrassas by driving big cars and sending the money to Saudi Arabia, which
uses it to build the madrassas that are central to Al Qaeda's global supply
chain. And we finance the call centers by consuming modern technologies that
need backup support, which is the role Infosys plays in the global supply
chain.
Both Infosys and Al Qaeda challenge America: Infosys by competing for
U.S. jobs through outsourcing, and Al Qaeda by threatening U.S. lives
through terrorism. As Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy
professor, put it: "Our next election will be about these two challenges ?
with the Republicans focused on how we respond to Al Qaeda, and the losers
from globalization, and the Democrats focused on how we respond to Infosys,
and the winners from globalization."
Every once in a while the technology and terrorist supply chains
intersect ? like last week. Reuters quoted a Spanish official as saying
after the Madrid train bombings: "The hardest thing [for the rescue workers]
was hearing mobile phones ringing in the pockets of the bodies. They
couldn't get that out of their heads."
Do we recall the successive litany of "you cannot win in Afghanistan/you cannot reconstruct such a mess/you cannot jumpstart democracy there"?
PS: There is a reason this thread has the word "Rant" in its name :wink:
Woof Alex:
That's pretty witty. :lol: In particular the UK, Australia, and Poland have been good friends to us in all this, with the UK being especially noteworthy. Point gladly acknowledged.
That said, there were quite a few voices out there on Afghanistan as VDH says. That you didn't notice them speaks well of you :) so may I offer that his words be taken as a matter of "If the shoe fits, wear it"?
CD
Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.
(1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqu?s, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
....
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice
That's also an interesting twisting of the facts to attack the Euros. FYI WWII started in 1939 when France and Britain declared war on Germany in support of their ally, Poland. The US entered the war in 1941 only after being attacked by both Germany and Japan and with a formal declaration of war from both.
Maybe the US should feel guilty for having "hesitated too long".
Or perhaps American meddling merely demonstrates we are parochial dunces before the feces hits the fan, and hesitant fools if we wait for the sh*t storm to reach our shores.
Sheesh. . . .
Or perhaps American meddling merely demonstrates we are parochial dunces before the feces hits the fan,
Woof, I agree. Bush did take the blame on the Federal level. The head
of Fema (Brown) stepped down. Is that what you had in mind Rog?
I wouldn't say the disaster is all Bush's fault, but I think he
appointed "Brownie" and all these other unqualified hacks to FEMA
positions as a reward for their past service in one or both of his
election campiagns, figuring they'd never actually have to do anything
and if some real emergency did come up, he could simply replace them
with people who actually knew what they were doing.
Whatever one's opinion on the abortion issue, the right to privacy does not supersede however the right to life; we may not murder someone in the privacy of our home for example.
The right-wingers sure do get defensive when anybody makes the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam.
We would never have gotten through (and won) WW1 and WW2 if the American public weren't willing to deal with wars that drag on for years and involve massive casualties. The "lesson of Vietnam" is that the public must be convinced that the cause is worth the price in order for them to support the war. Even if the public is willing to swallow a bunch of BS to justify a war, they're only going to do it for so long.
Buzz, I like your posts so at least give me some recent history. Quoting facts from the 1910-1930's about the ACLU and the Communist menace really don't mean much. I may not agree with the ACLU but negative press from the '30s ain't gonna cut it.
"First you find out that Cindy Sheehan was a paid shill of the Kerry campaign all along, that she dabbles in the darker side of the internet, and you dab at a reflexive tear at that news."
I missed this.? Would someone fill me in please?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/12/video-nancy-pelosi-addresses-the-nation-on-snl/
GM:?
I'm getting that this is no longer available.
Also, pretty please with a cherry on top, give a description of URLS and articles that you post.
Marc
It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all.
This says it all. It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all.
Bush criticized visits by Pelosi and other lawmakers saying they sent "mixed messages" to the region and undermined U.S. policy.
Are all the crat candidates laywers?
TWISTING INTEL
DEMS DISTORT TERROR REPORT
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
TWISTING INTEL
DEMS DISTORT TERROR REPORT
Source for this article?QuoteSen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Yeah, unlike those brave, selfless college Republicans who are happy to provide "support" (which as far as I can see amounts to harassing Muslim groups and getting Ann Coulter to come give speeches on their campuses) back here but strangely can't be bothered to join up themselves.
Scolding of Crafty aside, I found this source/link: Ralph Peters, NY Sun, http://www.nypost.com/seven/07192007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/twisting_intel_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
The political point goes both ways regarding military service. I find it petty when used in that context. Maybe the author is having some fun or getting revenge with the people who tortured Bush who did serve
Obviously it is not a prerequisite for Democrats as none of the front runners served nor for Republicans. I agree. I believe in civilian rule of the country and our military. I wish the cheapshot artists would check the candidates for competence on economic issues as closely as they check for military service.
Woof GM, So then are you saying we are NOT winning the war on global Jihad?
Surley your not advocating for your last post of nuking Mecca?
What is the goal of the global war on Jihad anyway? In other words......How is it won?
I personally feel that we are by no means serious about this "war on terror" When 6 years after 9/11 we still are not going after the number one terrorist in the world with serious intent. (Bin Laden)
All that smoke we are blowing about....not taking going into Pakistan "off the table" Is pure BS, and anyone with half a brain knows Musharrif(sp) is playing us like a cheap guitar.
Hes been playing both sides for years.
In my opinon the whole things a farce........yet in the mean time weve some how managed to mess up Iraq and get a pretty good Jihad started there.......
In all honesty Sadaam Husein was messed up.......but there was a certain amount of stability in that country, after years and billions we can not say that today......
TG
IF the Iraqi people choose to not live in a free and democratic society and want to live under Islamic rule and law should they not have the right to do so?
Were we training 110,000 terrorists or not.
Because the American and British people understood what was at stake and because they believed there was a larger strategy for victory, they were prepared to endure defeats, frustrations and casualties to get to victory.
QuoteBecause the American and British people understood what was at stake and because they believed there was a larger strategy for victory, they were prepared to endure defeats, frustrations and casualties to get to victory.
Unfortunately, one of the biggest failures of this administration has been its inability to make its own citizens understand what is at stake.
No one that I can think of...
GM, why do you think that it's been so hard to rally support for defense against Islamic militants? Are we as a country that blind to danger? Or is it just not politically correct to identify danger anymore?
Way to misrepresent my position there, snookums. I consider a US "victory" to be the worst possible outcome because the war itself is a criminal enterprise which, whether you agree with it or not, is a defensible position. There's a big difference between that and and simply hating America (or some such juvenile BS), which you imply.
**It is a defensible position, for an enemy of America.
I believe i've asked you in the past and you couldn't answer what law you allege has been violated.
So what exactly do you do?
**I'm a cop.**
Carried over from the "Why we fight" thread.QuoteWay to misrepresent my position there, snookums. I consider a US "victory" to be the worst possible outcome because the war itself is a criminal enterprise which, whether you agree with it or not, is a defensible position. There's a big difference between that and and simply hating America (or some such juvenile BS), which you imply.
**It is a defensible position, for an enemy of America.
It's unfortunate that you see it this way. I guess if "America" is basically a thug with the right to do whatever the hell it wants because it's got the muscle, then yes, I'm an enemy.
**Just like it thuggishly threw it's weight around in asia and europe in the 40's? Flexing it's muscles to end the 3rd. Reich....and it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor right? "FDR lied, Nazis died".**QuoteI believe i've asked you in the past and you couldn't answer what law you allege has been violated.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, international law is very clear about "aggressive war" (attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked you) being a big no-no. We either accept the authority of international law or we don't, but I don't see it as even debatable that we violated it.
**As usual, your bumper sticker grasp of geopolitics doesn't begin to approach reality. The Gulf War was ended by a cease fire agreement which Saddam violated flagrantly. President Clinton was also faced with Saddam's violations and mostly resorted to letters and sticking to economic sanctions that only starved Iraqi children while the Saddam palace construction initiative surged forward aside from the token and ineffectual military strikes he did. Was President Clinton violating international law when he launched "Operation Desert Fox"?
Saddam was killing Kurds, Shiites and anyone he suspected of disloyalty. Read one of Clinton's letters here: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/w960708.htm
Read this article from 7/2000. http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm
Post 9/11, President Bush had the following options:
1. Keep the toothless sanctions in place while Saddam funded terrorists and potentially developed WMD that could be passed on to terrorists.
2. Drop the toothless sanctions and ignore the above listed potential threats. Cross his fingers and hope the next attack on an American city wasn't with something made in Iraq.
3. Risk his easy re-election, go before congress and get the authorization to remove Saddam, which he did. Here is PUBLIC LAW 107–243.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdfQuoteSo what exactly do you do?
**I'm a cop.**
I have to admit that I often get a little nervous around cops (especially if they're pulling up behind me), but with very few exceptions the cops I've actually spoken with were perfectly nice guys just trying to do their jobs like professionals.
I get the feeling that your image of "the left" is some absurd caricature.
**Aside from reading leading left blogs and periodicals (I was reading "Mother Jones" back in the 80's, when I was young and gullible actually believed that garbage) and my time brushing up against academia (I'll someday post my paper "The American Male, Threat or Menace?" written for the professor that announced she was a lesbian-feminist and taught the Dworkin "rape-culture" theory in my class on sex crimes) I had an ex-girlfriend who was a model for current academic thought. She's teaching at a ivy league school the last I heard from her. So I know today's left very well from firsthand experience, not distant stereotypes.**
I live in Oakland, CA, and there are plenty of hippie types (mostly in Berkeley) that annoy the living *&@% out of me. But most of the people around here who would probably identify as "the left" are just decent, hard working people who want see America work harder towards making it's people's lives better, and they'd rather see the troops back here living their lives than off fighting a senseless war. It's pretty tough to argue that these are bad things to want.
**The Kurds' lives are much, much better since Saddam's rule ended. Many other Iraqis are doing much better. Once upon a time, the American left was supposed to be about freeing the oppressed, which is what we did in Iraq. Why now does the left love and supprt monsters like Saddam today?**
It's unfortunate that you see it this way. I guess if "America" is basically a thug with the right to do whatever the hell it wants because it's got the muscle, then yes, I'm an enemy.
**Just like it thuggishly threw it's weight around in asia and europe in the 40's? Flexing it's muscles to end the 3rd. Reich....and it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor right? "FDR lied, Nazis died".**
I believe i've asked you in the past and you couldn't answer what law you allege has been violated.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, international law is very clear about "aggressive war" (attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked you) being a big no-no. We either accept the authority of international law or we don't, but I don't see it as even debatable that we violated it.
**As usual, your bumper sticker grasp of geopolitics doesn't begin to approach reality.
I get the feeling that your image of "the left" is some absurd caricature.
**Aside from reading leading left blogs and periodicals (I was reading "Mother Jones" back in the 80's, when I was young and gullible actually believed that garbage) and my time brushing up against academia (I'll someday post my paper "The American Male, Threat or Menace?" written for the professor that announced she was a lesbian-feminist and taught the Dworkin "rape-culture" theory in my class on sex crimes) I had an ex-girlfriend who was a model for current academic thought. She's teaching at a ivy league school the last I heard from her. So I know today's left very well from firsthand experience, not distant stereotypes.**
**The Kurds' lives are much, much better since Saddam's rule ended. Many other Iraqis are doing much better. Once upon a time, the American left was supposed to be about freeing the oppressed, which is what we did in Iraq. Why now does the left love and supprt monsters like Saddam today?**
IMHO there really is no coherent thing such as international law.
GM:
I'd love to read the "The American Male: Threat or Menace" piece! If you have it handy, would you be so kind as to email it to me?
It's unfortunate that you see it this way. I guess if "America" is basically a thug with the right to do whatever the hell it wants because it's got the muscle, then yes, I'm an enemy.
**Just like it thuggishly threw it's weight around in asia and europe in the 40's? Flexing it's muscles to end the 3rd. Reich....and it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor right? "FDR lied, Nazis died".**
So all of a sudden every war we get into is another WW2? They're all pretty much the same as you see it?
****No, much like WWII, we are in a fight for the survival of our nation and western civilization. Iraq is one front in that war. Why can't you see that?****
Has the US ever been in a war that wasn't justified? Or do our leaders just decide we need to go to war and that's all that matters as far as GM is concerned?
****No, unlike you I research and read source documents rather just tossing out slogans like "illegal war".****QuoteI believe i've asked you in the past and you couldn't answer what law you allege has been violated.QuoteI'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, international law is very clear about "aggressive war" (attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked you) being a big no-no. We either accept the authority of international law or we don't, but I don't see it as even debatable that we violated it.
****Again, what part of "violated the cease fire agreement" don't you understand?****
**As usual, your bumper sticker grasp of geopolitics doesn't begin to approach reality.
Spare me. Nobody in this forum bases their opinions on any kind of real political expertise, so we're all pretty much "bumper sticker politicians" here. You being a cop (what kind of cop, exactly?) makes you no more of an expert than does me being a software engineer.
****I was dealing with right wing militia groups back in the early/mid 90's, my first training on terrorism was from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force years before 9/11. After 9/11 I gave up a dream job as a District Attorney's Investigator to go to work for the USG, where I developed material used in anti-terrorism training today. I received training in Open Source Intelligence gathering, OPSEC and Improvised Explosive Devices among other things. I've written threat assessments/risk analyses for various entities and have consulted as a terrorism SME for a join federal/local task force investigating a cold case related to terrorism.****QuoteI get the feeling that your image of "the left" is some absurd caricature.
**Aside from reading leading left blogs and periodicals (I was reading "Mother Jones" back in the 80's, when I was young and gullible actually believed that garbage) and my time brushing up against academia (I'll someday post my paper "The American Male, Threat or Menace?" written for the professor that announced she was a lesbian-feminist and taught the Dworkin "rape-culture" theory in my class on sex crimes) I had an ex-girlfriend who was a model for current academic thought. She's teaching at a ivy league school the last I heard from her. So I know today's left very well from firsthand experience, not distant stereotypes.**
I agree that some of the stuff coming out of academia is pretty ridiculous (like some college in Southern California offering a class on YouTube as a social phenomenon?), but I would still argue that most of "the left" is regular working people who simply want to have a better life and some semblance of social justice.
****I'd cite California as exhibit A for the damage leftist ideas can do. "Social Justice" sounds nice, but is in fact just a marxist codeword for all sorts of bad policies that run counter to core American concepts.****Quote**The Kurds' lives are much, much better since Saddam's rule ended. Many other Iraqis are doing much better. Once upon a time, the American left was supposed to be about freeing the oppressed, which is what we did in Iraq. Why now does the left love and supprt monsters like Saddam today?**
Excuse me, but I recall that it was Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr, etc. and not "the left" that supported Saddam all throughout the 80s, most notably during the time when he was gassing Kurds and committing all the atrocities now cited as justification for our invasion. That's a simple fact.
****Lost in your simplicity is that at that time the Cold War was center stage and Saddam was a useful foil to contain Iran's expansionist shiite jihad. Still, Saddam was much more of a client state of the Soviets than he ever was of ours.****
I've never met or spoken to any war protester that loved (or even slightly liked) Saddam, but I have heard some say (as well as many Iraqis) that life in Iraq under Saddam was preferable to life in Iraq under the current US occupation. That's not love for Saddam but a simple statement of fact. According to this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Clear majorities of Iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) want an immediate withdrawal of US forces. Apparently (although I don't have a reference right now) smaller, but still pretty clear, majorities of Iraqis consider violent attacks on US forces to be justified. Maybe there are "other Iraqis" who are doing better, but I think you're exaggerating their numbers.
So all of a sudden every war we get into is another WW2? They're all pretty much the same as you see it?
****No, much like WWII, we are in a fight for the survival of our nation and western civilization. Iraq is one front in that war. Why can't you see that?****
Has the US ever been in a war that wasn't justified? Or do our leaders just decide we need to go to war and that's all that matters as far as GM is concerned?
****No, unlike you I research and read source documents rather just tossing out slogans like "illegal war".****
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, international law is very clear about "aggressive war" (attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked you) being a big no-no. We either accept the authority of international law or we don't, but I don't see it as even debatable that we violated it.
****Again, what part of "violated the cease fire agreement" don't you understand?****
Spare me. Nobody in this forum bases their opinions on any kind of real political expertise, so we're all pretty much "bumper sticker politicians" here. You being a cop (what kind of cop, exactly?) makes you no more of an expert than does me being a software engineer.
****I was dealing with right wing militia groups back in the early/mid 90's, my first training on terrorism was from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force years before 9/11. After 9/11 I gave up a dream job as a District Attorney's Investigator to go to work for the USG, where I developed material used in anti-terrorism training today. I received training in Open Source Intelligence gathering, OPSEC and Improvised Explosive Devices among other things. I've written threat assessments/risk analyses for various entities and have consulted as a terrorism SME for a join federal/local task force investigating a cold case related to terrorism.****
I agree that some of the stuff coming out of academia is pretty ridiculous (like some college in Southern California offering a class on YouTube as a social phenomenon?), but I would still argue that most of "the left" is regular working people who simply want to have a better life and some semblance of social justice.
****I'd cite California as exhibit A for the damage leftist ideas can do. "Social Justice" sounds nice, but is in fact just a marxist codeword for all sorts of bad policies that run counter to core American concepts.****
Excuse me, but I recall that it was Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr, etc. and not "the left" that supported Saddam all throughout the 80s, most notably during the time when he was gassing Kurds and committing all the atrocities now cited as justification for our invasion. That's a simple fact.
****Lost in your simplicity is that at that time the Cold War was center stage and Saddam was a useful foil to contain Iran's expansionist shiite jihad. Still, Saddam was much more of a client state of the Soviets than he ever was of ours.****
Clear majorities of Iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) want an immediate withdrawal of US forces. Apparently (although I don't have a reference right now) smaller, but still pretty clear, majorities of Iraqis consider violent attacks on US forces to be justified. Maybe there are "other Iraqis" who are doing better, but I think you're exaggerating their numbers.
****Wanting the US out is very different than wanting Saddam back.
Rog: I don't recall Bush saying we had to go to war because Saddam violated a cease-fire. I do recall him saying Iraq definitely had working WMD and was months away from having the capability to nuke us, both of which turned out to be complete BS. Clearly this doesn't matter to you.
MD Actually the failure of SH to live up to the conditions of the cease fire was exactly the point of Resolution 1441. SH, reassured by the French that they would via the UN leash us from going in and apparently to bluff Iran, pretended to have/be developing WMD. The blame for our getting it wrong is his-- not ours.
ROG: That does sound like an interesting record. I'm kind of surprised that somebody with your background seems so willing to take so many of our government's claims regarding Iraq, terrorism, etc. at face value.
MD: Will that background and your surprise cause any shift in your thinking? Why/why not?
So all of a sudden every war we get into is another WW2? They're all pretty much the same as you see it?
****No, much like WWII, we are in a fight for the survival of our nation and western civilization. Iraq is one front in that war. Why can't you see that?****
Sorry, but I don't buy this "one front" business. Either Iraq was an actual, immediate threat or it wasn't.
*****Bill Clinton believed Saddam was a threat. Lots of dems agreed. *****
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.
I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.
******So, was Nancy supporting an illegal war when she supported Clinton's military strikes?*****QuoteHas the US ever been in a war that wasn't justified? Or do our leaders just decide we need to go to war and that's all that matters as far as GM is concerned?
****No, unlike you I research and read source documents rather just tossing out slogans like "illegal war".****
Clearly you have no meaningful response, hence you resort to insults. Clearly this is SOP for GM.
******Pointing out your painful lack of knowledge isn't an insult, though if you wish to take it as one there is nothing I can do about it.*****QuoteI'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, international law is very clear about "aggressive war" (attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked you) being a big no-no. We either accept the authority of international law or we don't, but I don't see it as even debatable that we violated it.
****Again, what part of "violated the cease fire agreement" don't you understand?****
I don't recall Bush saying we had to go to war because Saddam violated a cease-fire. I do recall him saying Iraq definitely had working WMD and was months away from having the capability to nuke us, both of which turned out to be complete BS. Clearly this doesn't matter to you.
******Again, if you'll read http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf you'll see the official reasons we went into Iraq, not media soundbites.*****QuoteSpare me. Nobody in this forum bases their opinions on any kind of real political expertise, so we're all pretty much "bumper sticker politicians" here. You being a cop (what kind of cop, exactly?) makes you no more of an expert than does me being a software engineer.
****I was dealing with right wing militia groups back in the early/mid 90's, my first training on terrorism was from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force years before 9/11. After 9/11 I gave up a dream job as a District Attorney's Investigator to go to work for the USG, where I developed material used in anti-terrorism training today. I received training in Open Source Intelligence gathering, OPSEC and Improvised Explosive Devices among other things. I've written threat assessments/risk analyses for various entities and have consulted as a terrorism SME for a join federal/local task force investigating a cold case related to terrorism.****
That does sound like an interesting record. I'm kind of surprised that somebody with your background seems so willing to take so many of our government's claims regarding Iraq, terrorism, etc. at face value.
******I don't take anything at face value. I research. I can say that it's my opinion that the USG has a policy of downplaying/diminishing terror related incidents CONUS, which flies in the face of "Bush hypes terror for political gain" as he's often accused of. Again read the source documents. Read the indictment of OBL issued by the US DOJ in 1998 for interesting information concerning al Qaeda and Saddam.*****QuoteI agree that some of the stuff coming out of academia is pretty ridiculous (like some college in Southern California offering a class on YouTube as a social phenomenon?), but I would still argue that most of "the left" is regular working people who simply want to have a better life and some semblance of social justice.
****I'd cite California as exhibit A for the damage leftist ideas can do. "Social Justice" sounds nice, but is in fact just a marxist codeword for all sorts of bad policies that run counter to core American concepts.****
Depends what you consider "core American concepts" I suppose. Clearly you and I don't agree on what those are. For a state as horrible as you seem to think California is, an awful lot of people pay a lot of money to live here.
*****Funny, I live in one of those western states that was serious impacted by Californians fleeing California. My opinion is that bad policies have California heading into a socioeconomic crisis of epic scale. I guess we'll see if i'm proven correct in time.*****QuoteExcuse me, but I recall that it was Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr, etc. and not "the left" that supported Saddam all throughout the 80s, most notably during the time when he was gassing Kurds and committing all the atrocities now cited as justification for our invasion. That's a simple fact.
****Lost in your simplicity is that at that time the Cold War was center stage and Saddam was a useful foil to contain Iran's expansionist shiite jihad. Still, Saddam was much more of a client state of the Soviets than he ever was of ours.****
BS. You guys love to cite "cold war expediency" as a catch-all excuse for all kinds of unsavory, un-American things we did back then. I don't dispute that Saddam was a monster and thug, but where you and I disagree is that I think Rumsfeld, Bush Sr, etc. should also be made to answer for their crimes in supporting him. Otherwise, all we've done is impose victor's justice. But clearly that's not a problem for you. After all, you never know when another Saddam will come along somewhere else who might be useful to us for a while, right?
*****The real world requires choices between bad and worse more often than not. FDR allied himself with Stalin to beat Hitler, and Stalin was a monster. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." -Winston Churchill*****QuoteClear majorities of Iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) want an immediate withdrawal of US forces. Apparently (although I don't have a reference right now) smaller, but still pretty clear, majorities of Iraqis consider violent attacks on US forces to be justified. Maybe there are "other Iraqis" who are doing better, but I think you're exaggerating their numbers.
****Wanting the US out is very different than wanting Saddam back.
To my knowledge, nobody on "the left" has ever called for reinstating Saddam in power. Can you cite an instance of this? Regardless, I think you'll agree that the probability of this happening now is exactly 0%.
\
******So, was Nancy supporting an illegal war when she supported Clinton's military strikes?*****
As has been noted here many times, MOST intel agencies thought it probable/plausible that SH had or was working on WMD.
The Dems thought so as long ago as 1998 when regime change became the official policy of the US govt.
Its things like this that lead some to despair of serious conversation with you.
It's amazing that Republicans and objective media (an unfortunate oxymoron) can't identify the policies and the people that got us to collapse BEFORE they ask us to pay our way out. Bush, McCain et al all put a higher priority on making nice and forging deals instead of straight talk and consequences. Result: Bush takes the blame and the McCain candidacy is punished by association while the Obama political philosophy is a perfect match with the programs that already failed. So we learn nothing and move on.
America will be united only when one of them prevails over the other.
As long as we care more about Michael Phelps than our economic system, I guess we get what we deserve.
Perhaps your retired judge exemplifies that we have a legal system and not a justice system :-)
10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.
[
Tell us about the flat earth next, JDN. You're the only one who believes your swill.
GM; while I thought/hoped we were moving on...
10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.
[
ERGO - IF the owners of the mall does not object, people cannot be kept out of the mall and demonstrations are allowed.
In this instance, the owner did not call the police nor did the owner seem to object, therefore again I repeat, NO CRIME...
GM; while I thought/hoped we were moving on...
10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.
[
ERGO - IF the owners of the mall does not object, people cannot be kept out of the mall and demonstrations are allowed.
In this instance, the owner did not call the police nor did the owner seem to object, therefore again I repeat, NO CRIME...
**The Simon Wiesenthal Center would disagree, it seems.**
With no offense meant, I think the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is a bit biased. I suppose they
can take "legal action" and file a civil suit; but then anyone can sue anyone for anything. Let's see if they win.....
As for criminal action (that is the issue here) all the flyers stickers and list of products were "submitted" to the
prosecutor and a complaint "registered" based upon a law written in 1881. Want to bet that the prosecutor files that complaint in his circular file under his desk?
And do you really think a Judge in France will support that complaint? And stop the boycott? And arrest the "peaceful" protestors?
(as for the ones doing firebombing etc. they should be arrested, but the ones in this video were peaceful)
And remember, there is no complaint from the store owners? Therefore, I doubt if anyone will be arrested and I doubt if the boycott will be stopped;
wrong or right, you know that too. Sorry, no criminal crime. I think you are letting your emotions overwhelm your logic.
Please post again when the protestors in this video have been arrested; in the interim, ... well I think we will all die of old age first. :-)
It does not, and our "democracy is being used against us to curtail traditional norms that the North Americans founded their countries on
I also disagree with your comment, "when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."
Our country was founded on immigration. My family is from Norway and Germany. And I happen to have friends from manyGenerous? Have you ever stopped to think that the reason the liberals coddle groups like CAIR and push for mass imigration is because they hate conservatives so much?????? the enemy of my enemy is my friend??? what makes me laugh is that the liberals who coddle groups like CAIR would be the first ones with their throats slit if ever sharia were instituted. some how i just dont see mohammeed chumming around with anti gun types and gays.
different backgrounds and ethnic groups. You mentioned that the "crime being committed in "this" video (it is not "my" video"; maybe Doug's video) is that
most of the people in these videos shouldn't have been allowed into France in the first place." So why were they?
Could it be that France needed workers? Like we imported Chinese labor? Immigration policies can often be directly traced to the economy;
no one cares when times are good, there are plenty of jobs, but racism raises its ugly head when the economy turns and there is unemployment.
Or could it be guilt over Algeria? Like America for many years allowed Vietnamese to easily immigrate here?
Or could it be France just had a generous heart like America truly does?
In another post you commented,The litmus test is, will the contribute to our take from society. If they can not pay for themselves why should we let them in? If you want to import an entire family from itally go ahead. Just dont ask for tax payers to foot the bill.
"the answer is mass deportations and immigration reform. A country accepting immigrants should look at applicants the same way a business interviews potential employees. Will they assimilate and fit into the culture? Do they speak the language? do they offer a skill set that is in demand? Will the country be a better place for having them?
If the answer is not yes to all of those questions they should be barred from entering."
I am against all illegal immigrants and agree that they should all (impossible) be escorted to the border (not sure if I agree they "should be set loose
into the sea"). But legal immigrants? Many of whom have become citizens here and in France? "Mass deportation? Why? Because they are of a different faith?
A different color? They don't speak English well? They have a brown eye? No skill in demand; I mean God forbid if they are an auto factory worker. I mean what is the litmus test?
You said, "do they speak the language"? Since when did that become a litmus test?
I doubt if many of our forefathers coming through Ellis Island could speak English. You fall in love with a beautiful Italian girl while on vacation. No English (you speak some Italian)
and she has no job skills. So I guess marriage and bringing her home to America is out of the question?
Actually, it is not the easy to immigrate (legally) to the United States. And my point is, it's complicated. Where do you draw the line. Your Italian wife comes home with you. Her kids from the previous marriage also come with her. She misses her mom, so she comes too. And her Dad. Now they miss their sisters and brothers; they too want to visit and marry an American. And truly adorable cousins. Where do you say "No"? And where is the line? It is not easy...Here is why i think you an apologist at best for muslims. You can object all you want but the fact is it is happening. When groups like the holy land foundation, CAIR, ISLAMVILLE etc.......... can be given tax payers money, court govt officials, be consulted on laws and operate openly what else can you say but immigrants are using our system against us. CAIR which claims to be the voice of islam in america has no opposing group of muslims the way a child molester priet is run out of town by Christians.
But I object to your comment, when foreigners use our own laws against us is that democracy has no defense mechanism to stop
muslims from VOTING in people who will give us sharia and turn us against our allies."
The bedrock of our democracy is the power of the vote. Are you truly proposing that we deny immigrants who have become citizens the right to vote if you don't agree with their politics? Or religion? That they should be denied their citizenship for not following YOUR politics and religion? On this basis Jews too could have been deported in our history. Be careful what you ask for, it may one day come back to bite you.
Or as I put it when I ran for Congress for the Libertarian Party: "They had a vote. You're paying."
TANGENT:
GM:
Your basic point is sound, but I would also point out that many women's rights groups define rape in very Orwellian terms. A few years back we had a thread here where it was reported that as they define it (working from memory here so the number could be off somewhat) some 80% of women who have been raped don't know they were raped. :? :? :?
A democracy or a republic?You always play the victim card when confronted with facts.
You are right; we were founded as a republic;
In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation.
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.What does this have to do with people voting themselves entitlements and sharia? nice little bunny trail...............
And I think we are better off allowing former slaves to vote, allowing women to vote, and allowing all adult male citizens to vote. But maybe you don't?your so petty. After my whole post filled with fact this is all you have????????? your a waste of key strokes.
PS Eloquent quote you left me with, but Alexander Tyler never wrote those words nor did he ever write a book or anything else regarding "The Fall of the Athenian Republic"Thanks, I'll make sure to remember that for the next time i use that quote. Again, you ignore the point of my mis quoted quote. Your concept of democracy is what has allowed your CIC to become the CEO of an auto maker, broker a deal on what cars FIAT can build in exchange for their 35% stake in Chrysler and what salaries bank CEO's can have regardless of whether they took tarp money or not........... all to the applause of a cheering populace....... Just wait until he names himself health care czar. you guys are going broke faster then china can sell off their U.S $ holdings. Enjoy the ride, your one of the few who deserve whats coming, atleast you got to vote for it eh?????
HussSlavery and woman voting aside, do you really think we are better off? How can you say that? Western society is on the brink of out right collapse.
:?
I conceded your point and acknowledged that you are right; we are a republic, not technically a democracy.
Then I "wasted keystrokes" and facts pointing out how we have evolved into a form of democracy
as well as being a republic. And I commented that overall I think it is for the better.
As for Chrysler, as far as I'm concerned they could/should have gone broke. On another post I am the guy who supported the bond holders; remember?I agree, i dont think there should have been any bail outs at all. Although i think the govt has no business being in business at all.
Frankly, I think a few banks should have gone broke and into bankruptcy too. And if you bought a house you can't afford, well why is that my problem?
And I too am concerned about the spending spree.
As a side note, it doesn't matter, your opinions are welcome, but are you an American citizen? I ask, because you said, you guys are going broke faster than China.....
Or if you are a citizen, maybe you mean WE are going broke ....
But I don't like the bailouts either...you may not be a liberal.......... but i think you under estimate the threat of islam and "democracy's" ability to fight off a group who wishes to vote out democracy.
We might disagree with a particular French video, but please don't paint me "liberal" in all matters. I agree, WE are going broke and something needs to be done.
I keep arguing this point to no avail.
GM said," What they and JDN don't understand is the legal concept of the elements of a crime. For an individual to be charged with a crime, you must have every element of the offense or you won't get the arrest warrant signed, or even worse have a warrantless arrest thrown out, with all the potential civil and criminal liabilities. you as the arresting officer may face."
I really do understand. That has been my point all along that "you must have every element of the offense"...
I keep arguing this point to no avail.
:-) It's the weekend and I have time. And if I dig deep enough won't I see light? :-DPick a subject. Try this as an experiment. You seem so sure that the conduct in the video is legal. Try it and show us you are correct.
And GM is starting to grow on me...
Maybe it's the beer he suggested I drink instead of wine?
Interesting posts GM; let me give it a try...
"Vandalism is typically defined as when a person knowingly causes serious physical damage to a structure or its contents."
"Serious physical harm" means physical harm to property that results in loss to the value of the property of five hundred dollars or more."
I doubt if many food items cost more than $500.00 and without a complaint, well.......
No Vandalism.
**It's total losses, not the cost per item.**
______________
Unlawful Assembly Law & Legal Definition
"such persons assemble without authority of law,..."
But the owner allowed them in, treated them as customers and therefore they were assembled with authority of law.
No unlawful assembly...
**If you entered Whole Foods and began disrupting business, as was done in the video, you soon would be contacted by the store management and law enforcement in short order. Again, your rights to assembly do not apply to private property of others. Again, try it if you think I'm wrong.**
______________
Extortion Law & Legal Definition
"A person commits the crime of extortion if he knowingly obtains by threat control over the property of another, with intent to deprive him of the property."
But they never threatened, never gained "control" over the property (it remained in the store) and there was no intent to deprive the store of any of their property.
No extortion...
**Wrong. Once the products were removed from the shelves, they were no longer available to legitimate customers. Perishable items were certainly damaged. According to additional media reports observant Jews in the area were deprived of kosher products due to the acts of this group. The video shows that at least one greenshirt exited the store with what appeared to be a shopping cart full of items.Again, try this at Whole Foods.**
______________
Theft Law & Legal Definition
"Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property"
They had permission to be in the store so it was not "unauthorized control over the property of another" and there was no intent to deprive the owner
of his or her property - they didn't take anything.
No theft...
**See above. RICO statutes have been used against groups that target merchants using similar, if not identical acts to what was seen in the video.**
_______________
NO CRIME!!! :evil:
And you know better than I know that if there is no complaint, there is no case and therefore all of the above will rarely if ever prosecuted.
As for "stepping up and walking my talk" what am I suppose to do? Stage a boycott Pepsi rally at my nearby Ralphs? Sorry, I don't do protests or boycotts,
but that doesn't mean others shouldn't if they are passionate about the subject.
I am going to read a book and maybe take Crafty's advice.
But....
No damage to items was reported by the store...
**Again, just because a victim chooses not to report a crime does not mean a crime was not committed.**
Store management had no objection to this assembly; therefore law enforcement has no valid reason to intercede on private property.
**Not true. Often crimes are reported to law enforcement by a witness that is not being directly impacted by the criminal act. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually a law enforcement officer seeing a crime committed, need no complaintant to make an arrest.**
No complaint was filed by management regarding perishable goods; no complaint, no case.
**Again, just because a victim chooses not to report a crime does not mean a crime was not committed.**
And no report of stolen goods,
**See above.**
I guess they went shopping after they finished their protest?
**Sure. That's why there are no shopping bags, just stacks of items swept off of shelves visible.**
They have RICO statutes in France? I didn't know that?
**Again, we are using US legal standards as we don't speak French and can't plumb through French statutes or legal process.**
Sorry, no chargeable crime, but I give you credit, "if you don't have the facts, dazzle them with your #$%^&*"
You know that if there was no complaint by management police would do nothing - zero.
**Wrong. Depending on the statutes, it is possible for law enforcement to pursue a case without the cooperation of a victim.**
But I am worn out so I will take Crafty's advice and move on.
No crime was committed, nonny nonny boo boo.
Often, I find I learn more from a debate or disagreement than a love-in of
like minds always agreeing. Give me the dissenting opinion anytime.
I continue to learn on this forum. I don't always agree, but I definitely learn.I would say that I have a core set of values shaped by my life's experiences that I strive to adhere to.
Often, I find I learn more from a debate or disagreement than a love-in of
like minds always agreeing. Give me the dissenting opinion anytime.
As for you, while we do not always agree, (I think we do more often than you appreciate)
I do admire the effort and passion. And the honesty; you make no bones about your
opinions and beliefs, and are willing to follow them blindly :-) I mean that as a compliment,
don't take offense.
"And on that gracious note, may I suggest we move on from this particular little discussion."
Like the best NHL hockey referees, they wait unitl the fighters are exhausted and then they break it up.
Good for President Bush; isn't that what former Presidents and Vice Presidents are suppose to do?
Didn't know about Carter's Librarian quitting; didn't care I guess.
And I don't remember Carter attacking the next administration immediately after leaving office. There was a grace period.
Nor did Clinton; if I remember correctly he wrote a book, worked on his library, and he and President George H. Bush went on their world wide tour together arm in arm. After his wife became political it is understandable that he re-entered the political arena.
Nor have most other Presidents and VP's. Best to get on your horse and go off to your ranch. And leave it for the next generation to pick up the attack. The Republicans just need to find some new talent to take the lead in my opinion. And then they will do fine.
The third decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.
Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.
In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
40% of the US population doesn't pay federal income tax. Should they be able to vote?
Maybe the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when money and property were part of the qualifications to vote! :lol:
Eventually European investors were tapped for $58m (£35m) - a paltry figure considering the project's ambition. As a result Soderbergh was forced to shoot extremely quickly to stay on budget. The two parts were filmed over 76 days, four days fewer than for his glitzy Vegas action comedy Ocean's Eleven, an $85m capitalist fat-cat of a movie in comparison with Che.
"It's hard to watch it and not to wish we'd had more time," he says of Che.
"We got crushed in South America. We came out in Spain in September of last year and it was everywhere within a matter of days. It killed it."
Che seems, in retrospect, like a glorious, sad aberration: a niche-audience epic it would be impossible to commission in these straitened times. Today, the willingness of the studios to take such a punt has all but evaporated - a fact that Soderbergh is more alive to than most.
"I'm looking at the landscape and I'm thinking, 'Hmmm, I don't know. A few more years maybe,'" says Soderbergh. "And then the stuff that I'm interested in is only going to be of interest to me.
[C]ash-for-clunkers is one example of the government actually doing something right, helpful and popular. It's the kind of pragmatic experimentation that FDR tried repeatedly. So you have a practical, targeted measure that seems to have helped abate a deeper recession in the auto industry, and the right is obsessed with the ideological abstraction of "government."
What conservatives have to do, in my view, is not demonize government, but to champion limited government. If government can do tangible practical things that help everyone, while balancing its budget, it's doing what conservatives think it should. Smart, practical initiatives that address problems that the private sector has failed at: what else is government for? The rest is ideology - and it seems to be all the Republicans have left.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/11/hurtling-down-the-road-to-serf
Reason Magazine
Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom
Do we want a culture of takers or makers?
John Stossel | February 11, 2010
Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.
F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom. The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.
Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.
At the beginning of The Road to Serfdom, Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."
This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.
I'll explore this tonight on my Fox Business show, 8 p.m. Eastern (rebroadcast Friday at 10 p.m.).
According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent.
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems to understand the threat: He worries that "more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise. This is a road that Hayek perfectly described as 'the road to serfdom.'" (Tonight I will ask Ryan why, if he understands this, he voted for TARP and the auto bailouts.)
Kurt Vonnegut understood the threat of government-imposed equality. His short story "Harrison Bergeron" portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General weighs down the strong and agile, masks the faces of the beautiful, and distracts the smart.
So far, the Handicapper General is just fantasy. But Vice President Joe Biden did shout at the Democratic National Convention: "Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you." If he meant that we're all equal in rights and before the law, fine. If he meant government shouldn't put barriers in the way of opportunity, great. But statists like Biden usually have more in mind: They want government to make results more equal.
So, BBG, what do you make of this piece?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/friends-without-benefits
Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
ShareThis
While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.
Yes, I suppose "watering the tree of liberty" is too vague a reference.
So, there is no way the "Geezers" were actually planning on murdering anyone?
So, there is no way the "Geezers" were actually planning on murdering anyone?
Something of on non-sequtur there. Think my preface to the piece conveys my feelings. Is there some part of it I need to explain for you?
Conservatives like to talk about the causes of Western Civilization’s downfall: feminism, loose morality, drug abuse, Christianity’s decline, reality TV. Blaming civilization’s downfall on lardy hagfish such as Andrea Dworkin is like a doctor diagnosing senility by an old person’s wrinkles. The fact that anyone listened to such a numskull is a symptom, not the cause, of a culture in decline. The cause of civilizational decline is dirt-simple: lack of contact with objective reality. The great banker-journalist (and founder of the original National Review) Walter Bagehot said it well almost 150 years ago:
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/never_trust_anyone_who_hasnt_been_punched_in_the_face/print#ixzz1gXgMcchx
On behalf of Crafty Dog...
(http://www.dogbrothers.com/kostas/011212.jpg)
http://www.smartercreativity.com/blog/2012/2/3/escaping-the-cult-of-the-average-the-happy-secret-to-better.html
This is a remarkable admission by an ex congressman. Perhaps it is just perception or the media but it does seem like this President is the most corrupt in my memory:
****Former Dem. Congressman Kennedy Alleges 'Quid Pro Quo' for Access to White House
8:42 AM, Apr 15, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPERS
Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.
The Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."
But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."
Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”
“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”
Related Stories
Obama Fundraises After Debut of 17-Minute Ad
Obama Tries to Rally the Base
W.H. Announces Federal Taxpayer Receipt, Complains ...
Unemployment Gap Remains
Votes per $1,000 Spent in Florida
More by Daniel Halper
Dem. Senator: 'Aim of this Bill Is Not to Lower the ...
'Excuses, Excuses'
DNC Chief Called on to Release Tax Returns
Largest Obama Super PAC Donor: 'Ann Romney Has Never ...
More on James Q. Wilson
Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.
And Kennedy admits that folks in the White House are checking out the donor records:
“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”
Translated, "quid pro quo" means "this for that." As in, if you want this from the Obama White House, then give that (e.g., cash).****
Forgive the tedium of the question BD, but I understand Rush's point to be the differing consequences with the pravdas for the various transgressions in question.
Now this is a rant!
Subject: The coming collapse of the Euro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez-88_hIrLY&feature=youtu.be
Haven't had a chance to read this yet but it comes recommended:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/hathaway3.1.1.html
I will note that in my opinion Lew Rockwell more than one has crossed the line into racism and anti-semitism. Nonetheless this piece posted on his site packs a punch on the subject of gun confiscation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350920/americas-vast-margin-error-victor-davis-hanson
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh: "It is because of this liberty and freedom that our country exists, because the Founders recognized it comes from God. It's part of the natural yearning of the human spirit. It is not granted by a government. It's not granted by Putin. It's not granted by Obama or any other human being. We are created with the natural yearning to be free, and it is other men and leaders throughout human history who have suppressed that and imprisoned people for seeking it. The U.S. is the first time in the history of the world where a government was organized with a Constitution laying out the rules, that the individual was supreme and dominant, and that is what led to the U.S. becoming the greatest country ever because it unleashed people to be the best they could be. Nothing like it had ever happened. That's American exceptionalism. Putin doesn't know what it is, Obama doesn't know what it is, and it just got trashed in the New York Times. It's just unacceptable."
http://nationalreview.com/article/368353/idol-equality-victor-davis-hanson
About the author who hails from the political left; Mondale, Gore, Clinton.
The left loves to opine, "what about the poor". I also ask what about the middle class? 70% live from paycheck to paycheck. That is more than just the poor.
And what about the remarkable advantages the wealthy have that are not available to others?
Some on the right speak we should not even focus on class. America is not about classes. We are not to be divided into such groups.
I like Galston's attempt at trying to find some common ground. But he still seems bent on what can the State do about it? For example. Today we know that a fair chance to succeed includes reaching Kindergarten with the ability to read. Is this true? ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Galston
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/117710-chess-champion-obliterates-obama-foreign-policy-blunders/
| The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric. Roughly 50 million to 60 million people died in international and civil wars. As tragic as that number is, it pales in comparison with the number of people who were killed at the hands of their own government. Recently deceased Rudolph J. Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii and author of "Death by Government," estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, governments have killed 170 million of their own citizens. Top government killers were the Soviet Union, which, between 1917 and 1987, killed 62 million of its own citizens, and the People's Republic of China, which, between 1949 and 1987, was responsible for the deaths of 35 million to 40 million of its citizens. In a distant third place were the Nazis, who murdered about 16 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others deemed misfits, such as homosexuals and the mentally ill |
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134388-freshman-shames-ivy-league-college-personal-story-white-privilege/
So I am reading this article supposedly about Robert E Lee when the author suddenly makes a left turn comparing the "fire-eaters" who were "incendiary" Southern politicians who wanted to bring back the African slave trade to expand slavery and cotton to, get this the Tea party politicians of today:
"The fire-eaters were a minority then, as the Tea Partiers (their spiritual descendants) are today, but like today’s Tea Party they promoted extremist agendas and pounded down on wedge issues that sundered the nation and very nearly destroyed it."
What in the heck does the Tea Party have to do with advocates of slavery? Answer: they are the Union soldiers fighting for freedom.
...
Amongst Carl Jung's various theories was one which said the people have four basic functions of which one is dominant: Thinking (about 10% of the population IIRC) feeling (about 60%?) sensation, and intuition and are either introverted or extroverted. This makes for 8 basic personality types, and as the theory is fleshed out it becomes 16 or 32. (The Briggs-Meyer personality test and various others are based upon this work)
From the sound of your description, you are an introvert.
(Tangent: In our hands, usually there are three major lines. Do the bottom and middle line come together or not?)
INTJ and palm reading is silly.
1) There are two methods "palmistry" and "hand reading". The two are quite distinct. I learned a fair amount of the latter from Top Dog. It was, and presumably still is, wonderful for picking up girls.
Like liberal aunt asks me when I explain why I am a Conservative, "what about the poor". My response is why cannot the poor take care of themselves. Who is stopping them?
She looked at me with an aghast look as though I am heartless. I said your answer to everything is more government more tax. Why is it my job to support those who make it a lifetime of being poor despite many programs already in place to help them?
No answer. Just left with the her thoughts that she is for the poor and I am heartless.
"What needs to come out of this is that we learn more from the failure of the policies than the failures of this man"
Well said and in my opinion the key challenge confronting those of us on the right. The left will NEVER admit to failure of policy. They will only make excuses and blame the messenger or his political adversaries as being this diabolical evil entity that fights back their glorious agenda. That is their self identity. Their narcissism. They believe in a perfect fair and equitable world. Just believing this and voting for party the deceptively pretends to champion this they think they are better, smarter, more righteous than the rest of us. It absolves them of all sins. They are GOOD. We are EVIL. They are the Democrats. The Schultz's (from my other post).
Like liberal aunt asks me when I explain why I am a Conservative, "what about the poor". My response is why cannot the poor take care of themselves. Who is stopping them?
She looked at me with an aghast look as though I am heartless. I said your answer to everything is more government more tax. Why is it my job to support those who make it a lifetime of being poor despite many programs already in place to help them?
No answer. Just left with the her thoughts that she is for the poor and I am heartless.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-hero-not-coward-did-job-job-kill-people.html
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/how-to-escape-the-age-of-mass-delusion/
A suicide-homicide is an act of ultimate rage. People who do these kinds of things feel like they’re the victims. Their acts of suicide and homicide are a way to make a point. Although they don’t live to see the results, they would probably like what they see: Millions of people not only being momentarily horrified, but agreeing with the murderer’s classification of him- or herself as a victim. Whatever the President and the Pope have to say about this, rest assured that the killer — if he were alive to hear — would be happily applauding.
https://www.facebook.com/supporttonyabbott/photos/a.543213439116244.1073741829.539741976130057/757523487685237/?type=3
She is quite attractive: :-D
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy5iEhhWDfMAKsNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Renee+Ellmers&fr=yfp-t-901
True or not how dare any Dem use this as fodder after what they did to this country with Clinton.
A Wikipedia insert from a DHS IP address is a big deal however.
Likewise, Secret Service agents looking up Chafitz file. They must all be fired. All of them except the reported few who had legitimate reasons to at his file.
These people work for us not the other way around.
Somebody has to clean up our government. What a darn mess. The crook at the Copyright Office (now head of a department there - as Mark Levin says, "that's right I said it!") seems like the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
I am sitting on the epub of Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan". I have not started yet, but here is an interesting article about the book.Apparently the book is thinly sources and full of factual errors. Four authors who have written extensively about Reagan combine to rip the book in this article. One author is Stephen Hayward.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/)
After reading BOR other "Killing" books, it does not surprise me that this book would be filled with errors as well...
I am sitting on the epub of Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan". I have not started yet, but here is an interesting article about the book.Apparently the book is thinly sources and full of factual errors. Four authors who have written extensively about Reagan combine to rip the book in this article. One author is Stephen Hayward.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/)
After reading BOR other "Killing" books, it does not surprise me that this book would be filled with errors as well...
Warning: F-bombs abound
http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck
Some of the "top" choices for a woman for the $10 dollar bill:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/women-10-dollar-bill-candidates
Every one is basically not so much a champion for America as a champion for liberal causes.
Maybe we could have bills for liberals and bills for the rest of us.
Well what else would one expect from the most leftist President and his socialist appointees?
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/386305/key-demographic-americas-wrong-information-voters-jim-geraghty
I'm less concerned about the impact of technology and far more concerned by the rise of stupidity in this country. We are becoming Idiocracy more and more every day.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/386305/key-demographic-americas-wrong-information-voters-jim-geraghty
I'm less concerned about the impact of technology and far more concerned by the rise of stupidity in this country. We are becoming Idiocracy more and more every day.
https://www.yahoo.com/music/powerball-reimbursement-fund-page-created-235504618.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb
http://www.ifc.com/shows/comedy-bang-bang/blog/2015/03/10-things-idiocracy-got-right-about-the-future
vote for an avowed communist like the Bern, just read this:
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/77757485-story
They will learn soon enough what the cost of freedom means.
Of course the (C)rats are out in force making this into a national political issue against the Republican governor. I have not heard that while 8,000 plus were "exposed" only 45 or so have tested positive elevated lead levels. I don't hear Hillary saying that Brock refused to declare a state of emergency as requested by the Governor. While this warrants and immediate reaction, cause for concern, study this is not the disaster the Dems want to make this out to. Here we go with the class actions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/01/19/michigan-flint-water-contamination/78996052/
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=9072
Maybe they have hurt Republicans, not helped:
http://www.newsweek.com/dark-money-boomerang-republican-party-434499?rx=us
IIRC Newsweek was bought for exactly ONE DOLLAR by Dick Harman of Harman Electronics and husband of my Dem congressional opponent in 1992 Jane Harman.
Social media is a bad idea, especially if you are in law enforcement.
If you are a war hero your arrested and face is all over the news. Fact is he wasn't driving. He was sleeping in his car. If you are Democrat Presidential candidate with an organized mob behind you and you repeatedly thumb your nose over national security for years it is a "right wing conspiracy" or much to do about nothing, etc.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-navy-seal-says-killed-bin-laden-charged-171750737.
"Many states, mine included consider an intoxicated person in possession of their keys in the car to be DUI."
Well in that case I understand it.
Thanks for clarification.
Just trouble shooting. If one comes out of a bar and goes in the back seat to sleep it off till next morning then that person too is DUI?
What if they have a van and go in the back to sleep?
Basically one cannot sleep in their car if under the influence even if she/he does not drive?
Well he was in parking lot on someone's else's property...........but if the owner of the property does not complain........ :|
"Many states, mine included consider an intoxicated person in possession of their keys in the car to be DUI."
Well in that case I understand it.
Thanks for clarification.
Just trouble shooting. If one comes out of a bar and goes in the back seat to sleep it off till next morning then that person too is DUI?
What if they have a van and go in the back to sleep?
Basically one cannot sleep in their car if under the influence even if she/he does not drive?
Well he was in parking lot on someone's else's property...........but if the owner of the property does not complain........ :|
The best course of action in that scenario is to lock your keys in your trunk or another locked container before going to sleep.
Elizabeth pocohantas Warren:
The Massachusetts senator and liberal firebrand went on a lengthy Twitter tirade, calling Trump’s candidacy one built on “racism, sexism, and xenophobia” and supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Ku Klux Klan.
So what should be the response to this?
AS for the KKK I don't think even a dozen people show up to their rallies so what .
Massachusetts senator and liberal firebrand went on a lengthy Twitter tirade, calling Trump’s candidacy one built on “racism, sexism, and xenophobia” and supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Ku Klux Klan.
So what should be the response ...
She was going to make that charge no matter who the nominee was. Our job was to choose someone who would make those charge false.
"The appropriate response to the left is always "fcuk you". Anything else is a waste of time."
You mean like Obama says by his actions and deeds to conservative America every day. Choooooommmmmm.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
Apparently he is now involved with globalist or one world government group as well:
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/06/10/general-david-petraeus-forming-gun-control-group-with-mark-kelly/
https://www.facebook.com/nevereveragainever/videos/vb.313210635511804/632368516929346/?type=2&theater
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439505/hillary-clinton-lies-progressives-look-other-way?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202016-08-30&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Excellent posts DDF, I'm just wanting to nip in the bud a tendency to use this as a catch all thread :-D You just happened to walk into a pre-existing situation.
The problem in the world today, isn't liberal or conservative.
It isn't even White, Black or Latino, due to the fact that even in primarily mono ethnic countries, these problems still persist.
It is the fact that doctors, lawyers, and politicians make more than farmers, construction workers, machinists, police and soldiers, and are respected more than the latter.
If anything, the latter should make more. Try living without them.
Most people want the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and there's nothing wrong with that, their political views being nothing other than their personal belief on how to achieve that for themselves or others.
Given the hard, manual labor involved with farming, machining, or construction, the financial reward should be larger than having a warm office and manicures, in order to attract people to the industries that are necessary for survival.
People have grown soft, and want the world, for having studied, but never having worked on a farm.
That is the truth of it.
second post
http://www.factsoverfeelings.org/blog/i-changed-men-to-black-people-in-an-everyday-feminism-post-and-heres-what-happened
Anyone ever heard of Charlie Sykes before this coverage in the New Duranty Times? I have not. Oh look, he's writing a book! What a coincidence!
Over time,we’dthe media succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited. **Fixed it for him
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/12/virgil-trumps-nationalist-vision-vs-gospel-globalism/
Note Fay Voshell is cited in the article
I am more interested in the before and after Presidency photos. We always hear about how much they have aged from the stress of the job. Truthfully I think that is BS and if you took photos of a lot of people over 8 yrs at those times in their lives one would see a big difference:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/18/before-and-after-obama-10-signs-of-a-diminished-america/
He was what 47 in '08 and he is 55 now. So sure he looks older.
http://www.vimooz.com/2017/01/18/courtney-moorehead-balaker-little-pink-house-athena-film-festival/
"Based on a true story, two-time Oscar® nominee Catherine Keener plays a small-town nurse Susette Kelo, who emerges as the reluctant leader of her working-class neighbors in their struggle to save their homes from political and corporate interests bent on seizing the land and handing it over to Pfizer Corporation. Susette’s battle goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London gave government officials the power to bulldoze a neighborhood for the benefit of a multibillion-dollar corporation. The decision outraged Americans across the political spectrum, and that passion fueled reforms that helped curb eminent domain abuse."
"Perhaps Bush was able to handle his reelection loss with such equanimity and show such generosity to the man who turned him out of office precisely because he had such a modest view of himself, because he trusted the many over the mighty, because he understood that voters might have seen something that he couldn’t, and because he had such faith in our institutions, even when those institutions produced outcomes not to his liking"
compare this humility to the conceit , arrogance, narcissism , braggadocio, smugness, know it all, first marxist Prez we just endured and who will surely not go away gracefully and will surely be there to annoy the Right for years to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3K1pGN-O8I
https://markmanson.net/everything-is-fucked
Connectivity, Not Primacy, Is the Way of the World
Global Affairs
March 8, 2017 | 08:56 GMT Print
Text Size
As emerging markets form more connections in all directions, they're becoming less reliant on the developed world. (EKAPHON MANEECHOT/Shutterstock)
Editor's Note: The Global Affairs column is curated by Stratfor's board of contributors, a diverse group of thinkers whose expertise inspires rigorous and innovative thought. Their opinions are their own and serve to complement and even challenge our beliefs. We welcome that challenge, and we hope our readers do too.
By Parag Khanna
http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/06/are-we-approaching-the-end-game/
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449313/trump-western-civilization-defense-left-response?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=170707_G-File&utm_term=GFile
Bezos bought Wash Post to leverage Washington. Makes sense. Interesting that the US Postal Service in actuality is subsidizing Amazon!!!!! :-o
https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2017/07/22/the-amazon-washington-post-and-why-it-needs-to-be-destroyed/
http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=504551
By George Friedman
Manners and Political Life
Restraint in public life is not a foundation of civilization. It is civilization.
I married a woman born in Australia, of that class that emulated English culture. Loving her as I did, I did not understand the British obsession with table manners. For her, eating a bowl of soup was a work of art, a complex of motions difficult for me to master, and to me incomprehensible in purpose. From the beginning of our love, dinner became for me an exercise of obscure rules governing the movement of food to my mouth. It was a time when conversation was carefully hedged by taboos and obligations. Some things were not discussed at dinner.
Meredith, my wife, grew up elegant and restrained. The enormous body of rules she called good manners rigidly shaped and controlled her passions, which were many. She followed the rules she learned as a child partly out of a desire for others to think well of her, partly because she regarded these manners as the laws of nature. Restraint and propriety were the outward sign of a decent life. The dinner table was where children learned that there were rules to a civilized life. For many, the powers of good manners crushed their souls, leaving them with little but the arrogance of having mastered the rules. For the best, manners provided the frame for a life of free will and self-confidence. Good manners allowed her to be both free and civilized, in the English manner. Her obsession with manners imposed a civility that shaped the way in which people disagreed.
I grew up in the Bronx, a place of fragmented cultures, of immigrants under severe and deforming pressure. There were many cultures – few any longer authentic, all in some way at odds with each other. Meredith’s table was a place of restraint. Mine was a place of combat. The hidden message about food was to eat as much as you can as quickly as you can, because who could really know when you would eat again? The table was a place of intellectual and emotional combat, where grievances were revealed, ideas were challenged and the new world we were in was analyzed for its strangeness. The grammar of debate took precedence over digestion.
She and I appear to many to be mismatched. She has never lost her belief that one must show restraint to appear to fit in. I have never lost my belief that the world is a dangerous place that must be confronted vigorously. Yet underneath these differences we formed a bond, based on a will to live as we will, but distinguishing carefully between who we were in private and who we were in public. This distinction is the root of both sanity and civility. I learned from her that there was a time and place for everything. I learned that without manners, however arbitrary they might be, life was chaos. I learned that combat, in speech and deed, might sometimes be necessary, but that it must be bound by the rituals of civility, or everything is destroyed. I am not sure she learned much from me.
Public Life
Manners make it possible to disagree within a framework of ritual that the disagreement does not lead to unhealable breaches. They allow you to live much of your life in unthinking patterns, freeing you to devote your thoughts to matters more pressing than how to greet someone, or whether to put on a tie. A tie is an example of this. It is a pointless piece of cloth. Yet, in putting it on, the act of dressing becomes complex and focuses you on the task ahead. You are putting on a tie because what you will now do has some importance – at least for me.
I grew up in the 1960s, when manners were held to be a form of hypocrisy, the sign of a false and inauthentic time. When Mickey Mantle hit a home run, he trotted around the bases as if his excellence was incidental and required no celebration. His undoubted elation was contained within ritual. Today, success in sports has fewer limits, and success and contempt for the other side frequently merge. When I was very young, courtship and marriage rituals were ringed with things you did not do. Of course, all these things were done, but they were hidden from the gaze of others. Part of it was shame, but part of it was also respect for manners, even in their breach. It had the added and urgent dimension that the most precious parts of growing up were private things.
The argument was that honesty was the highest virtue. Manners restrained honest expression and therefore denied us our authenticity. What came of this was an assault on the distinction between what we are in private and what we are in public. The great icon of this was Woodstock, where the music was less important than the fact that things that had been ruthlessly private had become utterly public. The shame that is attached to bad manners was seen as dishonesty, and unrestrained actions as honesty. The restraint of manners became mortally wounded.
Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower had come to despise each other by the time of Eisenhower’s inauguration. They hid this in public. The press, undoubtedly aware of the tension, chose not to focus on it. The ritual that was at the heart of the republic – the peaceful transfer of power ¬– was the focus, and the personal feelings of each were hidden from view. They were dishonest in their public behavior, and in retrospect, the self-restraint with which they hid their honest feelings was their moral obligation. These were two dishonest men, honoring their nation in their dishonesty.
The press was in on the act. The press is an institution specifically mentioned in our Constitution. Implicitly it is charged with telling the truth. The press minimized the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt was disabled. The New York Times refrained from publishing that the Soviets had deployed missiles in Cuba. Reporters did not make public the rumors that Eisenhower might have been having an affair in England. All of these might have been true, but the press saw its role as that of an adversary to the state, but not an enemy.
Members of the press saw themselves as carrying out three roles: They were journalists, they were citizens, and they were well-mannered. As journalists, they published “all the news that’s fit to print.” As citizens, they wanted the U.S. to win World War II and would do nothing to hinder it. As ladies and gentlemen, they knew there were things that were true but did not warrant telling. There were always exceptions, but the prestige press, as they were then called, did not see these roles as incompatible.
It is important not to overstate the comity that existed, or neglect the exceptions, but the idea that good manners required certain behavior did matter. It is not clear to me that the republic suffered from the restraint of good manners and the ability of politicians and journalists to feel shame.
Authenticity
Today, we are surrounded by politicians who have decided that honesty requires that they show how deeply they detest each other, and a public that feels free to display its contempt for any with whom it disagrees. Our opponents have become our enemies, and our enemies have become monsters. This has become true for all political factions, and all political factions believe it is true only for their opponents. The idea that it is proper to hide and suppress our malice because not doing so is bad manners has been lost on all levels. With this has been lost the idea that it is possible to disagree on important matters, yet respect and even honor your opponent. Or, put another way, what has been lost is the obligation to appear to feel this way. Manners, after all, do not ask you to lie to yourself, but merely to the rest of the world.
The obsession with honesty over manners hides something important. Depending on who you are, depending on what you say, and depending on why you say it, honesty can be devastating. The idea that manners create inauthentic lives, lives in which true feelings are suppressed, is absolutely true. But it forgets the point that many of the things we feel ought to be suppressed, and many of the truths we know ought not to even be whispered. Indeed, the whisperer, when revealed, should feel shame. Without the ability to feel shame, humans are barbarians. It is manners, however false, that create the matrix in which shame can be felt. When we consider public life today, the inflicting of shame has changed from the subtle force of manners, to the ability to intimidate those you disagree with. As Francois de La Rochefoucauld said, “Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.” Today, vice feels little need to apologize.
I am not here speaking of issues. The issues must be debated. I am speaking of the aesthetics of debate, of restraint and respect. I am speaking of the ability to believe something deeply, yet hold open the possibility that you have much to learn from those who disagree – or at least pretend to, which is almost as good.
What I have written here would seem to have little to do with geopolitics. It has everything to do with it. A nation has as its foundation the love of one’s own. That isn’t a saccharine concept. It is the idea that we are born in or come to a country and do not merely share core values with each other, but honor each other for being our fellow citizens, that our mutual bond is the fellowship of the nation. Underneath there may be much malice, but good manners require it be hidden. The collapse of manners undermines the love of one’s own and weakens the foundation of the nation. And since nations rise and fall, this is very much a geopolitical question.
In the end, being well-mannered in the highest sense is a personal obligation. It rests on the desire to be well-thought-of as a human being, and on caring what others think of you. Many of us lack that virtue. We lack the ability to be ashamed, or we have convinced ourselves that feeling shame is a weakness. We appear on television saying things to each other that decent human beings would not reveal they feel, and our viewers applaud. There is no federal program to resurrect pride in our bearing. It flows from each of us doing it. But that requires a common code of behavior, not fully rational but fully respected, and that has been eaten away. This is the place where I should mention social media, but what more is there to say on that, so consider it said. We all know that there is a terrible problem. But most of us think it is the person we dislike who is the problem, not us.
There is a concept worth ending on, which is the principle of intellectual rectitude, the idea that one must be cautious in thought and in speech. That we should know what we know, and know what we feel, and draw a sharp line between the two. There is a place for feelings, but passion can lead to recklessness, and societies crumble over the massive assault of passion. One of the things I try to do – frequently failing – is to exercise intellectual rectitude in my writing. Restraint in public life – that life that you live with others – is not a foundation of civilization. It is civilization.
There is a time to tell the truth, and a time to withhold it. In the Bible, two books are thought to be written by Solomon. One, Ecclesiastes, is about the fact that there is a time and place for everything. It is a book of manners and of despair. Manners and despair are linked, but if you don’t know there is a time and place for everything, then you are not human. Solomon also wrote the Song of Songs. It is a poem about love and the erotic. It allows us to see that while there is a time and place for everything, and eros in the public space is unacceptable, a life without the erotic is not worth living. The Song of Songs is our solace for the rigors of Ecclesiastes.
The loss of time and place is the loss of propriety and proportion. It is the destruction of both the public and the private, of the life of duty and the life of pleasure. Pleasure cannot live without duty nor duty without pleasure. Neither can exist without good manners. And this applies to the relationship of lovers, of citizens and of nations. And the beginning of the path to it is intellectual rectitude.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23003/why-dont-media-treat-islamist-terror-attacks-white-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Hat tip to GM
http://thedeclination.com/bigotry-the-ultimate-sin/
Bigotry: The Ultimate Sin
by Thales | Nov 28, 2017 | Marxism, SJWs, Weaponized Empathy |
Bigotry is the ultimate sin in modern American Leftism. Racism and sexism are the most commonly cited varieties, of course, but other permutations exist. Homophobia, Islamophobia, fatphobia, ageism, and presumably a whole host of other possible violations.
Being the ultimate sin provides the Leftist with a moral club with which to browbeat his opponents. If one accepts the proposition that these are the worst sins of humanity, and one also accepts the proposition that all humans are biased (which is true – humans categorically cannot be fully objective), then everyone is guilty of the ultimate sin. Weaponized empathy is then applied. You are guilty, look at all the horrible things that happened in the world, which are now your fault because you’re guilty of the ultimate sin.
Redemption is only possible through the application of Progressive policies. Give up your wealth, give up your possessions. Surrender your country, vote the way the Progressive technocracy wants. And even then, the intercession through political submission is only temporary. Tomorrow you will still be a racist, and more will be required of you.
Take this Leftist example on Twitter. Admittedly, he is not exactly the brightest bulb even in the ordinarily dim Progressive world. But does a nice job of illustrating this view of the Ultimate Sin ™.
thales2
Read it very carefully. “Someone who is not racist is a better person than someone who is.” And then our intrepid Leftist attempts to escape by taking issue with my application of “a tad.” The application, of course, was very deliberate, as was my example. We’ve already had plenty of real life examples of highly intelligent, useful, inventive people being tarred and feathered because they were deemed guilty of the Ultimate Sin ™. Remember the case of Brendan Eich? Remember Tim Hunt? So a man can do something, accomplish something great, but everything is rendered null and void with even a minor violation of the Progressive narrative. You could cure cancer, but if you made a joke about “chinks” you’re now accounted as lower than every person Progressives see as not-racist.
Let me rephrase that a bit. The person Progressives deem as not-bigoted (and this is a temporary license which can be revoked at any time) is automatically a better person than some of the brightest, most accomplished people in history.
Worse, bigotry is seen as a binary state with them. You are either bigoted, or you are not. Gradations are meaningless. The man who makes a politically incorrect joke about “wetbacks” is as evil as Hitler, because both are “bigots.” This is one of the convenient tools of Antifas who see Nazis in their breakfast cereal, all Ultimate Sinners are bigots, all bigots are Fascists, all Fascists are Nazi, all Nazis are Literally Hitler. They misunderstand why Hitler was evil. He wasn’t evil because he didn’t like Jews, he was evil because he killed them by the millions. It is the physical action not the thought which rendered him evil.
Progressives lump both into the same category and call it all bigotry, but one of these is not like the other. If you have a bad thought you must feel guilty for the thought. If the badthink turns into speech, you are a Nazi, because speech is synonymous with physical action (except when they are talking, in which case it isn’t). They are like Neo in The Matrix, dodging sense and consistent definition like the protagonist dodged bullets.
Everybody has inappropriate thoughts of some kind or another. The sensible person dismisses them and does not allow them to unduly affect his life. He need not feel guilty about them. He merely needs to not act on them. Do not allow weaponized empathy to hijack your brain and make you feel guilty for bad thoughts (some of which aren’t even bad in any objective sense – they are just un-PC). Do not fall into the trap of bigotry as the Ultimate Sin ™. And certainly there is no need to submit to Progressives so that they may conduct intercession for you or grant you a temporary, revocable license as a non-bigot.
Consider the extreme endpoint of the Progressive train of thought. An equal-opportunity murderer is better than the man who cures cancer but makes a politically incorrect racial joke. The Marxist roots of this line of thinking should be evident by now. It’s the same strain of ideological madness that led to Communist regimes prioritizing political criminals over violent ones. Fidel Castro released many murderers and employed them as guards and executioners for political prisoners. After all, the murderer is better than the political opposition.
Progressives think this is getting to the root of the problem; that by attacking the thought, the bias, they are somehow curbing the action. Except that this doesn’t work. Controlling thought at this level is impossible short of deliberate brainwashing; short of making everyone functionally identical drones. The proper way of heading off bad behavior is to not act on something inappropriate. When a man gets mad at someone over something small, he may think about beating the stuffing out of that person. But should he act on the thought, or dismiss it and calm himself down?
This is part of simple human maturity. The Progressive must treat humans as children, incapable of walling off thought and action; that each thought must turn into corresponding action, so one must be constantly on the lookout for biases, wrongthink, or otherwise. Some of the smarter ones attempt to escape this trap by (truthfully) admitting that this isn’t actually possible. But then they turn around and say we must now compensate for these implicit biases; for these thoughts. They believe that the thoughts must somehow be turning into unconscious actions that are small and immeasurable as single units, but still causing a collective effect. Since clearly [insert demographic group here] are worse off than another, the Progressive might say, we must compensate for the difference, because the cause of the difference must be collective wrongthink; collective bias against [demographic group].
There is an unfounded assumption baked into that: namely, that such small, unconscious actions are the primary cause of such inequity. Many other explanations exist. With the famous “77 cents on the dollar” comparison with women, different personal career and life choices probably play a role. With regards to black people, Thomas Sowell points to the welfare state as the primary cause. He has explained that by subsidizing the destruction of the black family, the black middle class has been wiped out, and this, accordingly to him, has resulted in the inequity. Some suggest nutrition and dietary choices play a role; that people who eat like crap don’t develop as well. Others suggest general biological differences as another possibility (and not merely racial – but also sexual). Progressive brains explode into rage at the mere hint of this notion. It is considered beyond the pale to discuss. Cultural differences are also often cited, with the famous Asian stereotype being a common example (“you study to be doctor NOW!”).
Point is, whatever the reason(s), the Progressive assumption is that it must be the fault of wrongthinking bigots, and we must transfer their ill-gotten, bigoted gains to the poor, oppressed people of… whatever. Naturally, as intercessors on your behalf (and they get their cut, accordingly), you must submit to their will, or your non-bigot license will be revoked and you will be considered worse than literal murderers.
Because bigotry, you see, is the Ultimate Sin ™.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/7031/full
ccp: "... none of this means it is a good idea to call black countries shit holes especially knowing how the left will drum this into " he is a nazi , a clansman, a bigot , white racist , insensitive rich prick theme to drum the anger and voting desires of the Blacks , the Browns, the Yellows, and the Latinos.
I agree with you. I'm sick of making excuses for him.
OTOH:
- As Crafty wrote, it was a private statement (and likely misquoted)
- Documented is that some of these places are literally fecalized.
- Barack Obama said exact same thing, see media post this am.
- Cry wolf, cry wolf, then see a real wolf? The Left said the same of Mitt Romney.
- Trump's support is going up within some of these groups.
- Black unemployment at a is 14 year low?
- Unknown to all political analysts, Trump already had a relationship with black and Hispanic
- Americans: "The Apprentice drew a mass audience that pulled in an especially high proportion of
black and Hispanic viewers..." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-06/the-remaking-of-donald-trump
but weirdly interesting nonetheless:
https://medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-2018-the-calm-before-the-storm-5a0bd014ec84
Haven't had a chance to read this yet, posting it here so it does not fall between the cracks for me:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse?ocid=fbfut&fbclid=IwAR2q1DZ3hAHdB0YuRKTDHVE_Ol9zZ-TD0Ron8uVhaOUEEBCbASFzkfrsKmA
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/opinions/what-progressives-should-know-about-trump-voters-hanson/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0gyHJ6w6lqAbALJI1Ib1PZib3wRAHPdntuXQa-F6aO8Bnrsfwknevu-bM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-reverses-cryptocurrency-ban-and-now-wants-to-dominate-it_3140036.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=88480e0f28-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_11_01_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-88480e0f28-239065853
https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/11/james-comeys-war-on-america/
There's quite a bit that Peggy does not get about Trump IMHO, but there is substance here as well.
The Century of the Postheroic Presidency
Bill Clinton started the trend. By 2016 voters had given up on high standards in the White House.
By Peggy Noonan
Dec. 26, 2019 6:56 pm ET
When we think about current history we tend to be expecting or predicting something as opposed to experiencing something. But what we need to understand now is that the 21st century isn’t new. It still feels new, but it isn’t. We are entering its third decade. We have been waiting for the century to take its shape and fully become itself, but it’s already doing that.
The 20th century was shaped by the events of 1914-19, the Great War and Versailles. The past two decades have been shaping the 21st.
If we limit ourselves to domestic politics it’s been a time of big change with big implications.
Both parties have been overthrowing the elites and establishments that reigned for at least half a century. In doing so, both parties are changing their essential natures. In both cases the rebellion is driven largely by a bottom-line bitterness: You didn’t care about us, and now you will be gone.
Among Democrats it is the rising left, the progressives, kicking away from the old Clintonian moderates, from old party ways and identifications. They hate Clintonism almost more than they hate conservatism. And they are hated back. In a recent conversation with a politician who was a high official in the Clinton administration, I asked: When you go talk to progressives about your differences, how does that conversation go? “I don’t speak to them,” he shot back. The new New Left—we have to find a better name—is closer to socialism or proudly socialistic. What they feel for the old party establishment: “Thanks for standing up for the little guy while your trade deals made you and your friends rich.” “Thanks for creating a tax system in which you guys become billionaires while everyone else sank.”
The left-wing millennials will rise because the young always do. It’s tempting to compare the rise of the left in the party now with the 1970s and the rise of the old New Left. Boomer leftists then were mad at America over the war, and some of them had read Marx for the first time. But they loved America, and they went on to show that love as the workhorses they were—the first to put the lights on in the office or the institution in the morning, the last to put them off at night.
The rising millennial left seems to love high abstractions—economic justice, global movements for change. But they weren’t raised in a patriotic age, they weren’t taught what in America is admirable, even noble. Do they love America? Do they love this thing we have and are part of in the same, moist-eyed way Americans have in the past? It’s unclear. But if they don’t, when they triumph we’re in trouble.
On the Republican side the rise of Donald Trump revealed the new party to itself. It is a big-government, antiwar, populist party that is conservative-leaning in its social policy. Any card-carrying Trump supporter will immediately say, after lauding the economy, that he has delivered on the courts and has aligned his administration, for all his personal New Yorkiness and indifference to social issues, with those who think conservatively.
Republicans in 2016 were to the right of party leaders, elders and professionals on essential issues—immigration, political correctness, the LGBTQ regime and the arguments it spurred in the town council about bathroom policies, and in schools over such questions as, “Are we still allowed in sports to have a girls team composed of biological girls and a boy’s team composed of biological boys? Will we be sued?”
They knew that on these questions and others the party’s establishments didn’t really care about their views or share them.
When Republicans rebel against the status quo, it’s a powerful thing. They produced in their 2016 rebellion something new: They changed the nature of the presidency itself. The pushing back against elites entailed a pushing against standards. It’s always possible a coming presidential election will look like a snap-back to the old days, a senator versus a governor, one experienced political professional against another. But we will never really go back to the old days. Anyone can become president now, anyone big and colorful and in line with prevailing public sentiment.
We have entered the age of the postheroic presidency. Certain low ways are forgiven, certain rough ways now established. Americans once asked a lot of their presidents. They had to be people not only of high competence and solid, sober backgrounds, but high character. In modern presidencies you can trace a line from, say, Harry S. Truman, who had it in abundance, to Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, who also did.
But the heroic conception of the presidency is over. Bill Clinton and his embarrassments damaged it. Two unwon wars and the great recession killed it. “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” buried it. When you deliberately lie like that, you are declaring you have no respect for the people. And the people noticed.
They would like to have someone admirable in the job, someone whose virtues move them, but they’ve decided it’s not necessary. They think: Just keep the economy growing, don’t start any new wars, and push back against the social-issues maximalists if you can.
In the last cycle we spoke of shy Trump voters—those who didn’t want to get in an argument over supporting him. I suspect this cycle we’ll call them closeted Trump voters—those who don’t want to be associated with the postheroic moment, who disapprove of it, but see no realistic alternative.
In time we’ll see you lose something when you go postheroic. Colorful characters will make things more divided, not less. They’ll entertain but not ennoble. And the world will think less of us—America has become a clownish, unserious country with clownish, unserious leaders—which will have an impact on our ability to influence events.
I close with another entity of American life that should be worried about seeming like it doesn’t care about its own country. It is what used to be called big business.
America has always been in love with the idea of success. It’s rewarded the creation of wealth, made household saints of the richest men in the world. We were proud they lived here.
But big business, especially big tech executives and bankers, should be thinking: In this century they’re coming at you left and right.
The left used to say, “You didn’t build that,” while the right said, “You did.” But now there’s a convergence, with both sides starting to think: This country made you. It made the roads you traveled; it made the expensive peace in which your imagination flourished; it created the whole world of arrangements that let you become rich.
You owe us something for that. You owe us your loyalty. And if you allow us to discern—and in this century you have been busy allowing us!—that you do not really care about America, that your first loyalty isn’t to us but to “the world” or “global markets,” then we will come down on you hard.
It isn’t only parties that can be broken up in this century, the one that isn’t coming but is here.
Another great piece from VDH that nicely summarizes quite a bit-- America hangs in the balance people!!!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-fragments-of-a-civilization/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-10-13&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
Government crimes and coverups, a corrupt media, a candidate hiding and lying to the public, and plans to undo the foundations of the republic
Piece by piece, our civilization is beginning to disassemble. And the agents of fragmentation are as obvious as the efforts to conceal them are frantic.
St. Hillary the Colluder
In nonchalant fashion, we learned last week from newly released government documents that Hillary Clinton’s campaign team cooked up the Trump-Russia collusion hoax as a way of diverting attention from her own ongoing embarrassing email scandals.
Clinton, through three firewalls, paid foreign ex-spy Christopher Steele to create a bogus smear-Trump dossier. Steele, who had no data on, or information about any such collusion, apparently drew largely on fabrications dreamed up by a former Russian spy working at the liberal Brookings Institution. The convoluted conspiracy baffled even the sneaky Russians, who were confused when they got wind of it — possibly through the direct participation of one of their own assets.
Did we then spend millions of dollars on Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation, a wild goose chase consuming millions of collective media hours hyping fantasies, and paralyzing an administration for three years — all for Hillary Clinton’s machinations, the apparent true and only Russian colluder?
John Brennan’s CIA intercepted Russian concerns over such a ruse. He even briefed President Obama on the Clinton caper. Yet the U.S. investigatory and judicial branches did not stop Clinton’s efforts to subvert a rival’s campaign. Indeed, many of the highest officials of the Obama administration shortly joined her efforts to seed the fraudulent Steele dossier throughout the Obama government and thus into the media as well — their efforts peaking in timely fashion right before the November 2016 election.
Translate all that, and the evidence grows that Hillary Clinton, in felonious fashion, paid for the Steele dossier to subvert an election and, after the election, to destroy a presidential transition and indeed a presidency itself — government efforts that historians one day will assess as the most intense effort on record to destroy a U.S. president.
These crimes were committed with the apparent cooperation of at least some in the Obama DOJ, FBI, and CIA, along with their epigones who were deeply embedded in the administrative state when Trump won the election. The tactics of such a strategy included altering federal documents, lying to a FISA court, leaking classified information, illegally surveilling American citizens, conspiring to frame top administration officials such as General Michael Flynn, unmasking names in confidential intercepts and leaking them to the media — and lying under oath about the above and more.
Hillary’s efforts constitute the most egregious scandal in American election history. And yet, shameless to the end, she continues to foam about “Trump collusion,” in the manner of a beached whale, gasping for air and twitching about on the sand.
Hackery
In nonchalant fashion, we also just learned that CrowdStrike — a company in which the Pelosis made an initial $1 million investment and that is now run by billionaire Shawn Henry, a former high official of Robert Mueller’s FBI — was given the sole proprietorship of the hacked DNC computers. Has the FBI ever allowed the victims of a felonious federal crime to conduct their own forensic investigations? The FBI outsourced the analysis even though the computer hard drives were the key evidence at the crime scene of a supposed conspiracy, allegedly cooked up by the Russians.
The scandal was not just that the FBI did not object to a private company taking over its own responsibility for the investigation. Worse still, for two years Washington insiders have known that CrowdStrike’s president had testified before Congress that he had no evidence that any Russians had hacked the DNC computers.
His secret testimony — apparently also known to Mueller’s investigators — came at a time when the nation was convulsed by the media-driven Russian hoax, much of the frenzy generated by MSNBC, where Henry himself had been an occasional “security” analyst.
We may never know how, why, or by whom the computers were hacked, only that the DNC and the Clinton campaign most certainly did not want any government agency investigating those mysteries.
If Biden wins in 2021, as surely as the sun rises, all the current investigations into the illegal weaponization of the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA will abruptly cease within days.
De-debating
In nonchalant fashion, we also belatedly learned that the moderator of the vice-presidential debate, Susan Page, a USA Today Washington News Bureau Chief, is currently writing a biography of arch-Trump antagonist Nancy Pelosi. (Would the Biden campaign have objected if a debate moderator was now writing a likely favorable biography of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?)
At about the same time, it was belatedly disclosed that the designated moderator of the now cancelled second presidential debate, Steven Scully, once worked as an intern for debate participant Joe Biden. (Would the Biden campaign have objected had the moderator once interned for the Trump organization?)
The Strangest Campaign in History?
Apparently, Scully also had mistakenly sent a message over the public Twitter airways — rather than through intended private direct messaging — seeking the advice of now prominent Trump hater and fired former Trump press secretary Anthony Scaramucci. Scully asked the “Mooch” whether to respond to Trump’s charges that he was biased — though Scaramucci is the most publicly biased of all self-described media experts. (Would the Biden campaign have objected if it learned that the debate moderator had been communicating with Kellyanne Conway for advice on how to reply to criticism from Biden?)
Is America so short of informed beltway creatures that it cannot find, if only for the purpose of appearances, a single moderator who has not either interned for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, or who is not currently writing a bio of a Trump-hating or Biden-hating public figure?
Worse still, Scully deleted his tweet, froze his account from public access, and claimed that his computer was “hacked.” “Hacked” is now the operative defense when caught in embarrassing electronic communications. To avoid responsibility for their own embarrassing actions, Joy Reid, Anderson Cooper, and Anthony Wiener also claimed, probably falsely, that their phone or social-media accounts had been hacked.
Had the debate taken place, one wonders whether Scully, much like Fox’s Chris Wallace and USA Today’s Susan Page, would have zeroed in on Trump, in similar gottcha, moralistic fashion to explain why we should not presume him to be untruthful or racist.
The morning after we saw the recent, live vice-presidential debate carried out successfully with proper social distancing and testing precautions, the Commission on Presidential Debates abruptly insisted that the second presidential debate, to be moderated by Scully, would be virtual for the first time in American history.
The commission — an ostensibly bipartisan group that nonetheless consists exclusively of Democrats and Never Trumpers — knows that Trump thrives on “reality” television while Biden has crafted a unique campaign based almost entirely on remote communications through Skype and Zoom, often with the assistance of poorly concealed teleprompters and scripted talking points. Moreover, when a candidate leads, as the mainstream polling suggests Biden now does, debates are considered unnecessary hazards, even as underdogs see them as critical chances to reboot campaign momentum.
The commission’s decision came even though the president’s doctors reported that by October 15, Trump would be medically fit to participate and virtually immune for months from reinfection. In addition, as with most asymptomatic and recovered patients with viral antibodies, Trump would be unable to pass on the virus for months, if ever.
In other words, Biden — and anyone else present — would have had far less chance of being infected by Trump in the now cancelled second debate than during the first debate.
Issues Are Bad
In nonchalant fashion, Joe Biden just announced that he will rule neither in nor out the Democratic plan to “pack” the Supreme Court to either 13 or 15 justices, should he win and the Senate flip Democratic.
As Biden put it to his questioner:
I know it’s a great question, and you all, I don’t blame you for asking, but you know the moment I answer that question, that headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than, other than focusing on what’s happening now.
Biden was only clarifying what he had said earlier in the first debate when he stonewalled with, “Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue.”
That incoherence was a further clarification of an earlier admission that the inquiry was “a legitimate question” but one that Biden was “not going to answer.”
And most recently Biden quadrupled down and insisted that voters do not “deserve” an honest answer on whether their Supreme Court will be packed — as he reverted to his bizarre earlier campaign mode of “lying, dog-faced pony soldier,” “You’re a damn liar, man” and “Look, fat, look. Here’s the deal.”
If we follow all the contorted Biden logic, he seems to now believe that the public has a reasonable interest in what he would do about enlarging the Court to nullify Trump’s conservative picks — but that the public nonetheless doesn’t deserve to know.
And Biden will not meet that “legitimate” but undeserved public interest, because, by answering, his very response would become the “issue.” That is, Biden would take a position on an issue, and therefore either delight or offend many voters. And he must avoid that at all costs.
Biden’s answer may be the most surreal response of any presidential candidate in memory.
But it is emblematic of his entire stealth campaign, in collusion with a cheerleading media — a virtual candidate who has no answers to questions that are now rarely asked.
Any reporter, debate moderator, or journalist who asked a question that Biden could not answer or that would in any way embarrass Biden would now earn lifetime ostracism and career beltway ruin for aiding and abetting the Prince of Darkness and the enemies of progressivism.
The current Democratic Party, hostage to the hard-core Left, has asserted that in victory it may seek to pack the Supreme Court and thereby end a 150-year law governing that nine-member body. It has also said it might end the 170-year-old Senate filibuster, on cue from Barack Obama, who as a senator nonetheless found the filibuster useful when he was in the minority. It claims it might do away with the 233-year-old Electoral College, a foundation of the U.S. Constitution that sought to ensure a republic rather than a democracy ruled by the 51 percent and urban centers.
Biden will no longer repeat his earlier no-fracking pandering, but his party (“I am the Democratic Party right now”) has often said it will end fracking. Fracking, remember, has helped to lower world oil prices, to the detriment of Russia and the Middle East. Fracking has helped to keep American troops out of Middle East interventions (remember the now calcified slogan “no blood for oil”?), aided middle-class commuters, created millions of well-paying jobs, and made electricity cheaper, and the air far cleaner.
On all these questions, Biden will offer no answers to voters who do not “deserve” to know. Yet he could very well seek to change the core rules by which America is governed — as part of a larger project to ensure systemic progressive dominance.
He has no answers because to answer honestly would either reveal himself to be a leftist pawn now and thus an anathema to the suburban swing voter; or, contrarily, he’d be exposed as an oath-breaker in the eyes of the AOC–Bernie Sanders socialist near majority of his own party.
So in Orwellian fashion, “issues” can no longer be issues, even if they could alter the United States in a way not seen since its founding.
Sleepwalking to the Revolution
To paraphrase Sophocles, 2020 saw many strange things and nothing stranger than peak Trump derangement syndrome, COVID-19, a self-induced recession, our first national quarantine, and riots, looting, and arson, all mostly unpunished and uncontrolled, in our major cities.
So we are in revolutionary times, even as we snooze about a recent systematic effort, hidden with great effort by our own government, to destroy a prior presidential campaign and transition, and now a presidency.
We are asked to vote for a candidate who will not reveal his position on any major issue of our age, because he feels to do so would enlighten the undeserving electorate and thereby cost him the election. So we continue to sleepwalk toward a revolution whose architects warped our institutions in 2016–2020, and they now plan to alter many of them beyond recognition in 2021.
Translated, that means that they don’t regret what they did in 2016–2019, only that they belatedly got caught for a brief time.
And so by changing the rules after 2020, they are vowing never ever to get caught again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-fragments-of-a-civilization/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-10-13&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
https://taylormarshall.com/reset?fbclid=IwAR2dfxhCpFICbcXqonYNNx3IuVm91-TlnD-5ppChMF-GC4WDP_WJ3qwusgI
First Thoughts on a National Tragedy
By: George Friedman
A physician is taught to avoid emotional involvement with patients. If he suffers with them, the pain will break him and his judgement will be impaired. He must be clinical and disinterested in order to understand what he is seeing. Avoiding emotions is necessary, but it exacts an extraordinary toll of either pain or an insensitivity to pain. Striving to understand demands distance, but that distance inevitably breaks.
The task I have set myself is to try to understand the way the world works, and to do that, to some extent, I must not allow myself to participate in it. The world is filled with opinions about what ought to be, and the cacophony of self-certainty is a luxury from which I must imperfectly try to remove myself. As Wednesday unfolded, the opinions were overwhelming. I am a citizen of the United States, and it is at times impossible to keep my distance, much as it would be for a physician to treat his own child.
My job is to say something, but what can you say about the unthinkable? How can you speak when you are grieving? The capital of our country was invaded by a mob, some carrying weapons, who had been encouraged to do so by the president. Nothing that was said for or against Donald Trump was sufficient for the moment, and all those who claimed to have foreseen this or claimed that what we saw did not happen are merely continuing the routine chatter of political discourse. I am supposed to be able to explain what has happened, but the ordinary criticism or defense of Trump doesn’t comprehend the moment, and in any case it misses the point. It is not Trump but we ourselves who are to blame, and what we have become toward each other that has somehow been corrupted. None of this could have happened without the rancor tacitly or deliberately embraced.
I am not able to think analytically about this, nor can I pretend that my writing predicted this. I must approach this as what I am: a citizen of a nation that gave me sanctuary, to which I owe my life and which I tried to serve as best I could. I have traveled the world and seen many acts of political rage and cruelty. I have seen coups. This may have been a blundering one, but it was a coup nonetheless, carried out with the intent to change the outcome of an election. It happened in my country, and in its capital city, and in its Capitol building. That moment made us simply another country, and not the city on a hill, shedding light on the world.
I was forced into silence by grief. When something enchanting dies, it calls for a moment of silence over what was lost. Every word uttered demeans the moment. And so I was silent. Now I speak, but what is there to say? The light of the shining city on a hill must be relit, and to relight it we must begin by willing ourselves to friendship and to refuse to despise each other regardless of disagreement. That is the start. I don’t know if we have the will or the strength to do it.
This is all opinion, not carefully thought-out analysis. And much of it is cliche. But cliches carry some truth. I have tried to understand, but now I am reduced to grief. Others will say they told me so, but then they have said so much that they must at times be right.
We did not lose our country yesterday, but we received a warning that our country is in danger. And it is most in danger, I think, from the spirit of self-righteousness that has gripped our nation. Each of us seems to hold our views as unassailable. Each of us regards other views as monstrous. From this cauldron only poison will be brewed.
I have spoken for myself here, not for my method. For the moment I don’t care for the method, or for the understanding. I long for a lost world in which reasonable people could disagree over politics and still be friends. Donald Trump did not rip friendships apart. We did that to ourselves.
There is no wisdom or genius in what I have said. For now, it is what it is. I will seek to return to ironic distance soon. But my country is in danger, and now is not the time for distance nor the endless chatter of opinions passionately repeated.
I love this country. It is time for its citizens to get a grip.
"I love this country. It is time for its citizens to get a grip."
I thought I posted reply to this but I guess I didn't
my response is this
similar to GM
Ok George go ahead and get a grip,
while the Left continues to wipe out conservatives and everything we stand for
Ha ha what a joke:
This is who we really are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=982quaGZLCM
Bring the Insurrectionists to Justice
The politicians who egged them on should also be made to pay a heavy price.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 7, 2021 7:19 pm ET
A rioter carries a House podium at the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6.
PHOTO: WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES
How do we deal with all that has happened?
We remember who we are. We are a great nation and a strong one; we have, since our beginning, been a miracle in the political history of man. We have brought much good. We are also in trouble, no point not admitting it.
We regain our confidence. We’ve got through trouble before. We love this place and will keep it. We have a Constitution that’s gotten us this far and will get us further.
We lower the boom. No civilized country can accept or allow what we saw Wednesday with the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. This was an attack on democracy itself. That is not just a phrase. Rule by the people relies on adherence to law and process. The assault and siege was an attempt to stop the work of democracy by halting the peaceful transfer of presidential power, our crowning glory for more than two centuries.
This was a sin against history.
When something like this happens it tends to be repeated. It is our job to make sure it is not.
And so we should come down like a hammer on all those responsible, moving with brute dispatch against members of the mob and their instigators.
On the rioters: Find them, drag them out of their basements, and bring them to justice. Use all resources, whatever it takes, with focus and speed. We have pictures of half of them; they like to pose. They larked about taking selfies and smiling unashamed smiles as one strolled out with a House podium. They were so arrogant they were quoted by name in news reports. It is our good luck they are idiots. Capitalize on that luck.
Throw the book at them. Make it a book of commentaries on the Constitution. Throw it hard.
They have shamed and embarrassed their country in the eyes of the world, which is not only a painful fact but a dangerous one. The world, and the young—all of us—need to see them pay the price.
Now to the devil and his apprentices.
As for the chief instigator, the president of the United States, he should be removed from office by the 25th Amendment or impeachment, whichever is faster. This, with only a week and a half to go, would be a most extraordinary action, but this has been an extraordinary time. Mike Pence is a normal American political figure; he will not have to mount a new government; he appears to be sane; he will in this brief, strange interlude do fine.
The president should be removed for reasons of justice—he urged a crowd to march on Congress, and, when it turned violent, had to be dragged into telling them, equivocally, to go home—and prudence. Mitt Romney had it exactly right: “What happened here . . . was an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States.” As for prudence, Mr. Trump is a sick, bad man and therefore, as president, a dangerous one. He has grown casually bloody-minded, nattering on about force and denouncing even his own vice president as a coward for not supporting unconstitutional measures. No one seems to be certain how Mr. Trump spends his days. He doesn’t bother to do his job. The White House is in meltdown. The only thing that captures his interest is the fact that he lost, which fills him with thoughts of vengeance.
Removing him would go some distance to restoring our reputation, reinforcing our standards, and clarifying constitutional boundaries for future presidents who might need it.
READ MORE DECLARATIONS
In 2021, All the World’s a Stage December 31, 2020
A Look Back at the Pandemic Year December 24, 2020
The Monday When America Came Back December 17, 2020
Mrs. Smith’s Tips for New Lawmakers December 10, 2020
Who’ll Be 2020’s Margaret Chase Smith? December 3, 2020
As for his appointees and staff, the garbage they talk to rationalize their staying is no longer acceptable to anyone. “But my career.” Your career, in the great scheme of things, is nothing. “But my future in politics.” Your future, even if your wildest schemes are fulfilled, is a footnote to a footnote. There are ways to be a footnote honorably. “But my kids.” When they are 20 they will read the history. You want them proud of your role, not petitioning the court for a name change.
It was honorable to arrive with high hopes and idealistic commitments. It is not honorable to stay.
As for the other instigators, a side note.
True conservatives tend to have a particular understanding of the fragility of things. They understand that every human institution is, in its way, built on sand. It’s all so frail. They see how thin the veil is between civilization and chaos, and understand that we have to go through every day, each in our way, trying to make the veil thicker. And so we value the things in the phrase that others use to disparage us, “law and order.” Yes, always, the rule of law, and order so that the people of a great nation can move freely on the streets and do their work and pursue their lives.
To the devil’s apprentices, Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz. They are clever men, highly educated, well-credentialed, endlessly articulate. They see themselves as leading conservative lights, but in this drama they have proved themselves punks practicing punk politics. They are like people who know the value of nothing, who see no frailty around them, who inherited a great deal—an estate built by the work and wealth of others—and feel no responsibility for maintaining the foundation because pop gave them a strong house, right? They are careless inheritors of a nation, an institution, a party that previous generations built at some cost.
They backed a lie and held out the chimera of some possible Trump victory that couldn’t happen, and hid behind the pretense that they were just trying to be fair to all parties and investigate any suspicions of vote fraud, when what they were really doing was playing—coolly, with lawyerly sophistication—not to the base but to the sickness within the base. They should have stood up and told the truth, that democracy moves forward, that the election was imperfect as all elections are, and more so because of the pandemic rules, which need to be changed, but the fact is the voters of America chose Biden-Harris, not Trump-Pence.
Here’s to you, boys. Did you see the broken glass, the crowd roaming the halls like vandals in late Rome, the staff cowering in locked closets and barricading offices? Look on your mighty works and despair.
The price they will pay is up to their states. But the reputational cost should be harsh and high.
Again, on the president: There have been leaders before who, facing imminent downfall, decide to tear everything down with them. They want to go out surrounded by flames. Hitler, at the end, wanted to blow up Germany, its buildings and bridges. His people had let him down. Now he hated them. They must suffer.
I have resisted Nazi comparisons for five years, for the most part easily. But that is like what is happening here, the same kind of spirit, as the president departs, as he angrily channel-surfs in his bunker.
He is a bad man and not a stable one and he is dangerous. America is not safe in his hands.
It is not too late. Removal of the president would be the prudent move, not the wild one. Get rid of him. Now.
GM's "Her Name Was" post has eloquence, but climbing through the busted window of a barricaded door against LEOs with guns out defending those whom they are sworn to protect fits under the heading of "Stupid games winning stupid prizes."
Our side needs to get that a lot of rational Americans have looked at the Trump-Giuliani-Wood-Sydney Powel clown show going 0-60 in court (including Trump appointed judges) and look at Trump's proven track record (e.g. his performance in the first debate) think he lost, he's a crybaby and a bully (see e.g. attempted treatment of Pence) who is now a sore loser in denial thrashing about.
The other side has more "to get"--: the rationality of our perception of the Hillary investigation being thrown, the foulness of the attempted coup via the Russia Collusion, the Impeachment Farce, the oppression by the Tech Oligarchs, and much more-- such as realizing our actions now are a response to their hubris and lack of American integrity.
Trump Erases His Legacy
He also destroyed any chance of a political future, all on a single Wednesday afternoon.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 7, 2021 6:22 pm ET
WSJ Opinion: Trump Erases His Legacy
Potomac Watch: A politician has to work hard to destroy a legacy and a future in a single day. President Donald J. Trump managed it. Image: John Minchillo/Associated Press
A politician has to work hard to destroy a legacy and a future in a single day. President Donald J. Trump managed it.
By this Wednesday afternoon, media outlets had called both Georgia Senate runoffs for the Democratic candidates, handing Sen. Chuck Schumer the keys to that chamber. We now have a Democrat-controlled Washington. The Georgia news came as a mob of Trump supporters—egged on by the president himself—occupied the U.S. Capitol building. Now four people are dead, while aides and officials run for the exits.
It didn’t have to be this way. The president had every right—even an obligation, given the ad hoc changes to voting rules—to challenge state election results in court. But when those challenges failed (which every one did, completely), he had the opportunity to embrace his legacy, cement his accomplishments, and continue to play a powerful role in GOP politics.
Mr. Trump could have reveled in the mantle of the one-term disrupter—the man the electorate sent to Washington to deliver the message that it was tired of business as usual. He could have pointed out just how successful he was in that mission by stacking his cabinet with reformers, busting convention, and overseeing policy changes that astounded (and delighted) even many warrior conservatives.
The withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and the Iranian deal. The greatest tax simplification and reduction since Reagan. The largest deregulatory effort since—well, ever. Three Supreme Court justices and 54 appellate court judges. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. The Jerusalem embassy. Criminal-justice reform. Opportunity zones. He could have noted that the greatest proof of just how much Democrats and the establishment feared his mission were the five years of investigations, hysterical allegations and “deep state” sabotage—which he survived.
Mostly, he could have explained that all this was at considerably heightened risk if Democrats win the Senate—and invested himself fully in Georgia. Every day needed to be about fundraising, rallying the troops, making clear to his supporters that the only way to preserve this legacy was to keep the Senate in GOP hands.
That isn’t what happened. Obviously. Following court losses, Mr. Trump, in his own words, devoted “125% of my energy” to his own grievances. He declared the Georgia Senate races “illegal and invalid,” discouraging voting. He actively undercut Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler with late-game demands for $2,000 stimulus checks and with his veto of a defense authorization bill that provided pay raises and support for Georgia’s military bases. His denial of the presidential results energized Democrats and depressed Republicans. Turnout in Trump counties lagged, while turnout in some Democratic areas nearly reached that of the November election.
Mr. Trump is leaving, and thanks to his final denial of reality, Mr. Schumer will now methodically erase his policy history. Democrats need only 51 votes to eliminate the Trump tax reform, 51 to use the Congressional Review Act to undo his final deregulations; 51 to wave through liberal judges to counter Mr. Trump’s picks. And this is before Mr. Biden gets busy reversing Trump policy by executive fiat, and assuming Democrats forbear from abolishing the legislative filibuster.
So that’s his legacy, largely gone. As for his future, Mr. Trump’s role in inflaming the Capitol mob has likely put paid to that, as well. Dedicated members of his administration are resigning. Longtime supporters in Congress are turning. Millions of Americans who for years were willing to tolerate, often even celebrate, Mr. Trump’s brash behavior in the pursuit of reform or good policy, are less amused by the wreckage he has visited on party and policy. And they’ll be unwilling to go there again in 2024.
Trump loyalists may well condemn anyone who speaks honestly of all this as RINOs or spineless Beltwayers who care nothing of “election fraud.” But to quote the incoming president, “C’mon, man.” It’s one thing to scorn a Mitt Romney. But many of the senators throwing up their hands are the ones who fearlessly rooted out the false Russia collusion accusations, who defended Mr. Trump through baseless impeachment proceedings, and who understand the need for voting reform. Many of the officials resigning are bold conservatives, attracted to an administration they knew would let them break china. They too are stunned, and demoralized, by the president’s decision to tank their work.
“We signed up for making America great again. We signed up for lower taxes and less regulation. The president has a long list of successes that we can be proud of. But all of that went away yesterday.” That was Mick Mulvaney talking to CNBC Thursday. Mr. Mulvaney, the tea-party supporter, founding member of the House Freedom caucus, and the onetime Trump chief of staff. Hardly an establishment weenie.
The pity is that Mr. Trump’s conflagration will mostly burn the Americans he went to Washington to help. They will bear the higher taxes, the higher costs of regulation, the higher unemployment, the loss of freedoms. America became less great this week. And that’s fully on the guy at the top.
True that, and true that he would seem to have thrown away a goodly percentage of all the deep good he did.
".Longtime supporters in Congress are turning. Millions of Americans who for years were willing to tolerate, often even celebrate, Mr. Trump’s brash behavior in the pursuit of reform or good policy, are less amused by the wreckage he has visited on party and policy. And they’ll be unwilling to go there again in 2024."
Quite frankly I am one who is not amused by losing the Senate possibly to miscalculations in the last 2 months by Trump . He singlehandedly divided his own party with calling out Republicans in Georgia , slapping his most ardent supporter in the face (VP Pence ) at the end in desperation
he has burned endless bridges - who would want to work with him in '24?
and turning off many independents and out of no where calling for the $600 payday be raised to 2,000 dollars without thinking it through or listening to people in the party with the result was delayed longer etc.
Unless there is absolutely no one else Trump is done
for me.
By then partly thanks to him as Doug points out his legacy
is we have both houses and WH controlled by political enemies
who will surely make much of the country suffer.
And corona not withstanding what happened unexpectedly at WH
is the last memory of him as President and we all know the last memory if usually the one that stands out the most .
for immediate phony "fact check" of Justice Thomas the print their email/phone call etc responses :
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dissent-justice-thomas-election-case-223407739.html
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/27/the-narrative-the-coup-and-the-bourgeoisie/
not totally analogous to Bolshevik Russia
as I think the proletariat that Lenin was opposed
would now be defined in modern US as who we call the elites and academics
and other privileged types
and from what I remember Lenin did not give a hoot about the poor or serfs
or the victims per se
he was champion of the workers
which is opposite of today wherein the workers , or in my mind , working tax payers are the enemies
of the state
not the other way around
Workers unite ! is more phrase that Trump would use. (proletariat)
and the bourgeoisie I would think would not be the enemies of the state but the elitists and government employees and academics who support the state
I agree with this statement:
"The answer of course was that the bourgeoisie nomenclature was inherently vague, by design, and the gulag did not differentiate between its political prisoners of one social class or another. If you were there, you were an enemy of the state."
I remember in Russian history classes and political science class ( I took of the former and one of the latter) no matter how hard I tried to figure out what was meant by the term " bourgeoisie" I could not grasp it.
https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/02/the-problem-with-peggy/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxEeYSusehc&t=286s
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/do-we-have-freedom-of-speech-really/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%20New%202021-10-23&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2021/10/sometimes-the-price-tag-is-just-a-distraction.html
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/31/who-eventually-won-the-cold-war/
https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-kenosha-vs-waukesha/
https://patriotpost.us/articles/82026?mailing_id=6387&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.6387&utm_campaign=all_subscribers&utm_content=body
a bit long but a lot of food for thought:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/one-year-later-examining-trumps-role-in-the-capitol-riot/#slide-1
well as a political strategy
it was doomed to fail
now the LEFT can switch topics from another Dem divider in chief and another Dem failing prez
to this.
I am not sure but was not this whole elector thing a strategy promoted by Mark Levin?
He was the first and foremost promoter of it as far as I know.
Not the riot but the formula for the elector thing (I don't recall specifics)
well as a political strategy
it was doomed to fail
now the LEFT can switch topics from another Dem divider in chief and another Dem failing prez
to this.
I am not sure but was not this whole elector thing a strategy promoted by Mark Levin?
He was the first and foremost promoter of it as far as I know.
Not the riot but the formula for the elector thing (I don't recall specifics)
If the SCOTUS had done their job, it would have made a difference.
who now work OT to destroy everything that Trump worked for
far more then they ever worked for Republicans prior:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/19/bush-alumnis-never-ending-crusade-against-trump/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db2gq4V7QVo&t=43s
https://nypost.com/2022/05/01/why-bidens-hispanic-support-has-collapsed/
not sure I believe the polls
on this
and not sure how the open borders affect this
hard to believe most Latins coming in from Mexico and Caribbean types (except some Cubans)
are going to vote for Republicans
we shall see in November ........
according to this website net worth est. $50,000,000
he must be a genius:
https://informationcradle.com/paul-pelosi-jr/
the daughters are in on it too
at least as political consultants no Nance
likely with big salaries......
msm
silent
Not a bad idea to drill down on Paul Pelosi Jr.
Quickie search so far has only turned up sites that tend to have BS click bait ads-- not good for making our case. Can we get our hands on something more presentable?
"American Oligarchs are Good!"
[democrat oligarchs are good]
musk now BAD !!!!!!!
"too much control in the hands of a billionaire"
" threat to democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
yelled throughout the land states MSM with massive loud speakers turned up to max volume.
:wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3PS2bxfWVA
"It remains for Mr. Trump to renounce his support for the evil fruits of the Warp Speed operation he presided over. He must face the fact that he was played, and he may be forgiven, considering all the evidence coming recently from the likes of Deborah Birx and others that he was lied to and manipulated. But he doesn’t have much more time to get it right, or else his political career will be over well before the 2024 election. That may be all for the better. America probably needs a clean sweep of our desecrated political landscape. All in all, Mr. Trump was a good soldier, brave and resolute under tremendous adversity, but he’s not the only one who can lead our country back to itself."
second
Have not read this yet but it looks intriguing:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
https://amgreatness.com/2022/09/04/how-old-bad-ideas-become-wonderful/
More insightful and relevant than ever. Read it all and spread it.
Giving up, giving in to these lunatics is not the right answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH7cnmGHNxw
Yup.
I would add/quibble that the correct number of illegals under Biden is five million, not three million.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fh82gpqWIAAFica?format=jpg&name=small)
One of his best-- VERY strong!
indeed maybe we will be posting AI search results on this board in the future
OTOH we may not be since all AI is from Leftist Democrat companies who will of course be biased against us...........
This analysis leaves out the rather significant part wherein Germany was backstabbing its NATO allies to the east and Ukraine too by cutting the Nord Stream deals with Russia.
GM:
Should America do as you advocate
a) What happens in Ukraine? Not our problem
b) What happens in East Europe? Not our problem
c) What is America's credibility on the world stage? :roll:
We have credibility? With whom?
d) What does China do? If we onshore our manufacturing, the PRC is pretty scroomed
e) What does Iran do? Not our problem
f) What does North Korea do? South Korea can figure it out
https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/16/are-we-the-byzantines/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pull-back-from-values-that-once-defined-u-s-wsj-norc-poll-finds-df8534cd
no mention of the progressive push as being the root cause
of course - but the rise of Donald Trump is mentioned as a cause - :roll:
WSJ as usual falls short
we have academics teaching to hate the US
were racist
not enough diversity
sexual preferences most important thing
spending so far into debt we can never get out of it
the declining value of family and religion
dividing the country into favored voting blocks
lying
CRT
DEI
trans
endless open borders with people coming here for the bucks who have no clue or concern for the Republic and its founding ideals
leaders of minorities stoking self hatred
racism
the free shit mentality
lack of responsibility for one's self
country sucks so why would any one want to protect it
ALL THIS COMES FROM THE LEFT
but WSJ does not mention
because they profit from it.
April 14, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF
Questions and Answers to the American Crisis
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
The article I published earlier this week about the intensifying crisis in the United States generated a significant number of comments that ought to be addressed and questions that ought to be answered. The most important were, in no particular order: How am I so sure the U.S. will survive? How can I be so flippant about who occupies the White House and the processes that put him or her there? Will war play a significant role in the crisis? And why am I so pessimistic?
My confidence lies in the resilience of the U.S. political system. On several occasions, taking place every 50 years or so since the nation’s founding, it was able to withstand crises that were at least as troubling and dire as the one currently underway. In the 1830s, it faced a banking crisis that upended much of the settlement system in the west. There were also allegations that John Quincy Adams stole the election. His eventual replacement, Andrew Jackson, took credit for resolving the political and economic upheaval by revamping eastern banking, but it was really the only option available.
After the civil war, there was a massive financial crisis. The problem was solved by introducing a gold standard that stabilized the system. Rutherford B. Hayes had no other choice, so he oversaw the inevitable.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the county was in the throes of a cataclysmic trade and banking crisis. FDR oversaw the refinancing of the banking system and indeed the restructuring of society. As a politician, he wanted to be reelected, so he took the course that best achieved that goal.
When Ronald Reagan was elected president, the country was undergoing a massive financial crisis characterized by high inflation and soaring banking rates. Reagan reversed the FDR strategy of increasing available cash, decreasing the money supply in general but increasing it for business investment. This provided a boost for business and contained inflation. He had no choice but to solve the problem. The public demanded a solution, and the options were severely limited.
The United States has massive economic resources, even in times of crisis. It also has a large number of people who can comprehend the issue. Finally, the problem faced requires a solution, and presidents demand them. In these stories, it was the sitting presidents who acted, but any president sufficiently desperate enough will act to find a solution. The buck stops with them, of course, but hundreds of people at least shape public demand and economic reality into a solution. And even if a president is a hopeless idiot, they have any number of institutions and advisers to keep them in check.
Things can always change, but in the examples I lay out, the president is forced to act but is constrained by reality. Presidents are not as powerful as we think they are because the system limits their options. The system forces solutions, even to very different problems, and the wealth of the United States, however carelessly handled, sees them through.
When you see a common and persistent pattern reappear, you look at the past to try to understand why the solution worked as it did. If you find a pattern, then the most conservative approach is to expect it to repeat itself. Therefore, I expected a severe economic and social crisis in the 2020s, which I wrote about some years ago and expect to see play out based on existing forces. The anomaly I see is that the intense and immediate pain of the current crisis could force the cycle to restart a few years earlier than normal. But that is neither being pessimistic nor a game changer.
The key to my argument is that I regard U.S. leaders as severely constrained. There is a tendency to regard presidents as supreme, particularly by their enemies. Donald Trump and Joe Biden are both loathed and admired. Both are constrained by history. Each wants to claim all successes were his and all failures were someone else’s. In fact, successes and failures originate in far more complex corners than the Oval Office. It is easy and comforting to see presidents as heroes or monsters. It has little to do with reality.
As for the crisis that has to be solved, there will always be a financial crisis that arises in a system such as ours that generates political stress, but the real agent of transformation will be technology, which is a foundational element of America. Fifty-year cycles in politics are linked to technological cycles. The automobile lost its dynamism 50 years after Henry Ford transformed America, which at least partly triggered the crisis of the 1970s. Now, microchip technology has lost the power to transform America, and it is time not for the disappearance of tech but for its power to drive the system.
What innovation comes next is yet unknown, but I suspect it will be linked to medicine and demography. Either way, it will drive America for 50 years, with all of us in awe until the awe is lost as financial power declines and we go on to the next cycle. The power to go on comes from all of the systems that we have – technical, economic and social – and from the extraordinary energy of rage and anger that has been an engine ever since Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with military force.
why can't the normal gays and trans be the ones we live with instead of the perverted crazed exhibitionist narcissistic clowns who get all the attention
normal gays dress and act like you and me
most trans would do the same
I am fine with that .
but instead we have the freaks trying to get in our faces everyday
and the MSM DEI mobster business uNiversities corporations celebrating the loons and force us to go along with it.
that is your opinion not mine
sounds intolerant to me.
like some who. hate Christians , or anyone white or with male genitalia
second
https://americanmind.org/salvo/burkean-nationalism/?utm_campaign=American%20Mind%20Email%20Warm%20Up&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=259836942&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9AP-mq3AvFM_AoEx3600hoft6AQDO4y5vRDHR9ftkrdGlg1BjunIg2HWsJ6n6UpoqK8P93SVDi4KvAWHkcwNNvyQTfyQ&utm_content=259836942&utm_source=hs_email
do you think Peter Thiel will continue to support those who tell him he is mentally disturbed ......?
the truth is NOT black or white .
"this is really a matter of opinions and definitions. that said I would rather have mainstream gays on my side politically then continue to make them feel like deviant outcasts and drive them ALL to the LEFT. if you were gay not by choice but because that is your reality
would you want to be categorized as mental disorder. you are dividing us more. I would rather work along side them with acceptance and tolerance. not preach to them. that said I draw the line with children and pedophilia and any of them who try to preach of prosthilytize me" or others.
Hearty concurrence from me!!!
My daughter is a fine person!!!
This phrase is key "if you were gay not by choice". Thus the question presented is what about where the outcome is NOT genetically pre-determined?
The way my mind organizes it is that our Constitutional Republic is based upon "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" via our Ninth Amendment and various writings in the Federalist Papers about Natural Law.
The First Law of Nature is "Eat, Survive, and Reproduce".
By Reproduce we have parental rights, not the State's rights over children.
In human ontogeny children are born requiring to receive guidance/culture and thus parents have the right to guide their children towards reproduction.
Loving parents should accept when the wiring is revealed to be otherwise, but it is an abomination for the State to intrude upon this process.
everything is NOT a choice
people are all different
not the same; I would like to make a billion playing basketball but I am not good at it.
And you claiming they should all live or believe like you
is your choice - but will not be mine
My sense of things Judeo-Christian is based upon my sense of what the big picture themes are.
For example, I think of the Jewish word "atonement" and how it overlaps with but is different from "forgiveness".
My rumination on "The Power of Word" begins the thread of that name.
The Ten Commandments speak of "Honoring thy Father and thy Mother". Tell me, what is the son of a gay parent to do? Is not implicit in this commandment that parents should love their children? Am I to tell my daughter to ignore who she is and not have the relationship she has?
"I try to deny my temptations, including being caustic, angry and abrasive."
Work remains there :-D :-D :-D
from Breitbart -
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/27/exclusive-rising-conservative-influencer-pedro-gonzalez-regularly-espoused-racist-and-anti-semitic-sentiments-in-private-messages/
never heard of the guy
till now
is this a Trump camp hit job
is this true
is this nip it in the bud before he brings us all down
by giving fodder to
Conservative = white supremacy = nazis = racists
it is true most Jews are progs and too many in power working for their new religion called DNC [to my dismay as a Jew] but that is where I stop and only wish they would fight as hard for us .
As for Candice Owens what is going on with this - we want her on our side not to insult her or others .
I don't and won't do twitter - too stupid for me .
"I think that when less than 3 percent of a population ends up disproportionally in positions of power in a society, and then overwhelmingly acts in a manner to destroy that society, it's going to generate some ill will, is it not?"
Even me , as a proud Jew, is disgusted with this as I previously posted .
I am shocked at how obnoxious so many of my faith are such bat crazy partisans and how low they stoop to push their ideology on the rest of us. Lying cheating bribing extorting unethical lawfare censoring propaganda is all part of the game for many .
I am sure Marc Levin feels the same.
I never heard him say it outright but have heard him bring it up in round a bout ways such as
Like they came over from Europe and brought their socialism with them............
But I do wish we be careful about discussing this.
As before , I don't hate Jews but hate the ideology and methods of so many. and I think we can make that distinction without being branded with "anti semite" etc.
by two harvard political "scientists"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Democracies_Die
Newsweek WP NYT Guardian Obama all list it with rave reviews
so you know the biased slant it sings
the anwser is TRUMP ! is how this happens.
https://dennisprager.com/column/the-left-right-divide-is-not-bridgeable?fbclid=IwAR1Xic2abA9HDf87u0ZG7UtW77LqzW1obNKH56-ZNBHAzP_9bJuQRggtBTM
Thanks BBG. This resonates with me. They say, politics of meaning. I've been saying, they're stealing our language. Good to see someone on it.
We are such sheep as a people to keep following these people with their nonsense terminology. Good examples in the article. Others: Affordable housing is anything but. Affordable Care also means subsidies. 'Smart planning', really? Pro-choice means kill someone, but make kids go to the same bad schools?
Gay means happy and rainbow is a real thing, not a symbol.
A flag flying upside down means his wife was in distress, nothing to do with being a traitor.
Election stolen is an opinion, and you can have a different one, but it isn't something "falsely claimed unless you personally tracked every vote and every tabulation.
And on it goes. Why are they always calling the shots?
Every time I hear the term “inflation reduction act” I want to box the ears of the fool emitting it….
What if it’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
It’s up to Americans to take action
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=135f19ff9d1195b688f32a0bade754fa_66742825_6d25b5f&selDate=20240620
Yahweh’s
I was taught in Hebrew School NEVER to speak that name.
Only refer to "God".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-gunman-and-the-would-be-dictator/ar-BB1pXKZO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=451607c30a604040ae097d533f127502&ei=76
"Here is Joe Biden on Trump:"
Are there some quotation marks missing in what follows?
A great piece of writing.
For the record I do disagree with his assessment of the decision to go with the early debate. I suspect it to be a deliberate play to set in place what we see now.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/britains-foxes-are-beset-by-wolves?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=330796&post_id=147555144&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQ3NTU1MTQ0LCJpYXQiOjE3MjMzODg2NDcsImV4cCI6MTcyNTk4MDY0NywiaXNzIjoicHViLTMzMDc5NiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.1qQ8g_WdYCfm8jMdpqN1BkQXsTEi-lPb7oZqP7azfUM&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=emailVery interesting piece.
For the record I ran across this in my files. Probably it is several years old.
I'm getting something about "privacy related extensions" blocking this for me.
Mongo Boomer confused , , ,
As is usually the case with Simplicius, the read engages with an unusual mix of the deeply perceptive, the glib, and . . . whatever it is that we call his final paragraph:
"In the meantime, I’ll leave you with the unconventional words of imminent economist Sergei Glazyev on today’s occasion:
Sergey Glazyev:
The ostriches are running away, Pax Americana is ending. The Leo Strauss sect, which ruled the USA and planned to establish a world dictatorship of the chosen few, is losing the election. The US deep state has no choice either - a repeat of the falsification will lead to a civil war and the collapse of the country. Pragmatists who recognize the fact of the transition to a new world economic order are coming to power in the USA. Brzezinski’s strategy of defeating Russia, destroying Iran and isolating China, as expected, only strengthened China, which has become a global leader. Together with India, it will form a new bipolar center of the new world economic system. The USA can integrate into it as another center of the world economy if it abandons imperialism and stops the global hybrid war. It is in the US national interest that Trump liberate the US from the ostrich [Straussian] sect that has saddled it. Bringing Washington’s policies in line with the US national interest will entail poisoning Europe and the fall of the anti-human traitorous regimes in Germany and France. As we predicted, the world hybrid war, started by the US power-financial elite for world domination in 2001 with the attack of the US intelligence services on the Twin Towers in New York, will end next year with the universal recognition of its defeat and the completion of the transition to a new world economic order. The world will become polycentric and polycurrency, the significance of national sovereignty and international law will be restored."
https://stevehayward.substack.com/p/justice-without-hyphens