Alex Vindman Is Living, Breathing Proof That The Deep State Exists, And It Is Corrupt.
Democrats and the Deep State have elevated more policy disagreements to what amounts to an attempted coup. Just listen to Alex Vindman.

Remember the original ‘Seven Days In May’ movie with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster? A military officer let his supposed patriotism override his oath to defend the Constitution ( which makes the President the head of State and maker of Policy) because he didn’t hold with the political and policy decisions of the President and decided to do something about it. This is as close a deal as you can get in real life to what this officer did: Decide he didn’t like the President’s policy as it conflicted with what he figured policy should be.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is living, breathing, testifying proof the Deep State exists. He has shown his true colors and the agenda of the self-appointed elites who think they run this country.

Let me state categorically that I am not implying dual loyalty or questioning Vindman’s patriotism or even his devotion to duty as he sees it. I’m questioning his judgment about where that duty lies and the execution of those duties as a military officer and civil servant.

Vindman’s Testimony Gives the Game Away

But Vindman gave the game away with his prepared testimony. He believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act. So he did, as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress. From the statement: “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”

There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow. That is 100 percent the purview of the president.

November 11, 1918 11:00 Paris Time. (UTC+1) 05:00 EST

The cease fire to begin the Armistice for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of German forces to behind the Rhine took effect, for all intents ending the First World War.

Since 1954, when the name was changed from ‘Armistice Day’, we celebrate today as ‘Veterans Day’.
So, if you’re one of us who raised your right hand and swore that oath:



Navy Submarine, Missing for 75 Years, Is Found Off Okinawa

It was hidden from discovery all this time by a single errant digit.

The mystery began on Jan. 28, 1944, when the Grayback, one of the most successful American submarines of World War II, sailed out of Pearl Harbor for its 10th combat patrol. By late March it was more than three weeks overdue to return, and the Navy listed the submarine as missing and presumed lost.

After the war, the Navy tried to piece together a comprehensive history of the 52 submarines it had lost. The history, issued in 1949, gave approximate locations of where each submarine had disappeared.

The Grayback was thought to have gone down in the open ocean 100 miles east-southeast of Okinawa. But the Navy had unknowingly relied on a flawed translation of Japanese war records that got one digit wrong in the latitude and longitude of the spot where the Grayback had probably met its end.

The error went undetected until last year, when an amateur researcher, Yutaka Iwasaki, was going through the wartime records of the Imperial Japanese Navy base at Sasebo. The files included daily reports received by radio from the naval air base at Naha, Okinawa — and the entry for Feb. 27, 1944, contained a promising lead.

The report for that day said that a Nakajima B5N carrier-based bomber had dropped a 500-pound bomb on a surfaced submarine, striking just aft of the conning tower. The sub exploded and sank immediately, and there were no survivors.

“In that radio record, there is a longitude and a latitude of the attack, very clearly,” Mr. Iwasaki said. And it did not match what was in the 1949 Navy history, not by a hundred miles.

Mr. Iwasaki is a systems engineer who lives in Kobe, Japan, and who became fascinated as a teenager with the Japanese merchant ships of World War II — four-fifths of which were sunk during the war, he said. Uncovering the history of those ships necessarily brought him into contact with records on submarines. “For me, finding U.S. submarines is part of my activity to introduce the tragic story of war,” he said. “It is my hobby, and also my passion.”

His work brought him to the attention of Tim Taylor, an undersea explorer who has set out to find the wrecks of every American submarine lost in the war. In 2010 he found his first submarine, the U.S.S. R-12, off Key West, Fla., where it sank during a training exercise in 1943. He set up the privately funded Lost 52 Project to track down the rest, relying on technology that had become available only in the last 10 to 15 years.

Mr. Taylor says that of the 52 lost American submarines, 47 are considered discoverable; the other five were run aground or destroyed in known locations.

Mr. Taylor and his wife, Christine Dennison, have been searching for those 47, and have begun to focus on the ones that were probably sunk near Japan.

Through his work in undersea exploration, Mr. Taylor was introduced to Don Walsh, a former Navy submariner who, as a lieutenant in 1960, reached the deepest point of any ocean on Earth, in the Mariana Trench near Guam. Mr. Walsh gave Mr. Taylor his copy of the 1949 Navy history, “U.S. Submarine Losses, World War II.”

Armed with the information in that book and Mr. Iwasaki’s discovery, Mr. Taylor and the Lost 52 team decided to make a run at finding the Grayback.

The Grayback’s last patrol was its third under the command of Lt. Cmdr. John A. Moore, who had been awarded the Navy Cross for each of the first two. His third Navy Cross would be awarded posthumously, after the submarine sent 21,594 tons of Japanese shipping to the bottom on its last mission. In all, the Grayback sank more than a dozen Japanese ships. The Navy considers submarines like the Grayback to be “still on patrol.”

Like Commander Moore did 75 years before, Mr. Taylor launched his mission to Okinawa this spring from Hawaii. When they reached Japanese waters in June, he and his team fought through mechanical and electrical problems that bedeviled their mission.

They were searching an area where the ocean was 1,400 feet deep, and their main search tool was a 14-foot-long autonomous underwater vehicle weighing thousands of pounds that Mr. Taylor likened to an underwater drone. It would dive to just a few hundred feet above the sea floor and then spend 24 hours pinging with different sonars back and forth across about 10 square nautical miles. When the drone returned to the mother ship, technicians downloaded its data, using computer software to stitch all of the sonar imagery into one coherent picture that they could quickly review.

“When you’re on these sites, you feel like you’re one breakdown away from having to go home,” Mr. Taylor said of the search area. “So every day is precious.”

On the next to last day of the expedition, the drone reported a malfunction one-third of the way through a planned 24-hour mission. As they recovered the drone, Mr. Taylor said, half of his crew started getting the ship ready to return to port, thinking that the vehicle was likely to be beyond quick repair. But Mr. Taylor began reviewing the images captured by the drone.

He quickly spotted two anomalies on the sea floor, and readied another of the ship’s remotely operated vehicles to visit the bottom. Unlike the drone, this one was steered manually from the mother ship, and had high-definition cameras.

In a matter of hours, Mr. Taylor was looking at the hull of the Grayback and, lying about 400 feet away, was the submarine’s deck gun, which had been blown off when the bomb exploded.

“We were elated,” Mr. Taylor said. “But it’s also sobering, because we just found 80 men.” The next day, Mr. Taylor and his crew held a ceremony to remember the sailors lost aboard the ship and called out their names one by one.

One of those names was John Patrick King.

His nephew John Bihn, of Wantagh, N.Y., is named after him. Mr. Bihn, who was born three years after the Grayback went down, remembers him as a constant presence in his maternal grandparents’ home, where a black-and-white photo of the submarine hung in the living room near a black frame holding Mr. King’s Purple Heart medal and citation. But in his family, the subject of his uncle’s death was “too sad to ask about,” Mr. Bihn said. “My mother would cry very often if you spoke to her about it.”

With no body to bury, Mr. Bihn’s grandparents, Patrick and Catherine King, memorialized their son on their own headstone. Under their names, Mr. Binh said, they had engraved, “John Patrick King ‘Lost in Action.’”

Mr. Bihn got a text message from his sister Katherine Taylor (no relation to Tim Taylor) two weeks ago, saying the Grayback had been found. She had gotten the news from Christine Dennison. “I was dumbfounded,” he said. “I just could not believe it.”

“I wish my parents were alive to see this, because it would certainly make them very happy,” he added.

In a video taken by the vehicle that surveyed the wreck, Mr. Binh said, the camera tilted upward at one point to show the conning tower, and a plaque reading “U.S.S. Grayback” was plain to see.

“It’s like someone wiped it clean,” Mr. Bihn said. “It’s like it wanted to be found.”

November 10, 1775, by the Second Continental Congress :

Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or insisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required: that they be insisted and commissioned to serve for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.

Happy Birthday to Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children.


Hasan the Assassin is still on death row….waiting.

Vice President Mike Pence deserves praise for not only remembering the national horror but also personally showing up and speaking out at Fort Hood, Texas, the scene of the Nov. 5, 2009, terrorist massacre that killed 13 American soldiers and citizens.

It has been a decade since that terrorist attack on U.S. soil by a self-identified Islamic terrorist and American traitor. Ten years on and only a damnable trickle of mainstream media bother to reflect on this horror. In terms of mainstream printers, TV images and internet pixels, this savage outrage has been … briefly mentioned, barely touched.

For the record, the terrorist who perpetrated the massacre is still alive, on death row in the Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, military prison.

We return to the VP’s remarks. Pence began his Oct. 29 speech by thanking the military crowd, overwhelmingly composed of active duty personnel, for its service and applauding the Fort Hood-headquartered U.S. Army III Corps for its “critical role in the global war on terror.” He commended the recent elimination of Islamic State group terrorist commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and stated what is obvious to all but the most politically, morally and propaganda-benighted humans on our planet: The fight against terrorism continues.

Honest souls will acknowledge Pence’s intro remarks were apt given the moment, the venue and the young Americans in uniform who put their life at risk on behalf of other Americans.

Pence then confronted the horror: “(T)he heroes of Fort Hood have … paid the last full measure of devotion on foreign fields of battle. And as the nation will pause to remember next week, 10 years ago, on November 5, terror struck at the heart of this base when a former Army psychiatrist opened fire inside the Soldier Readiness Center, claiming the lives of 13 extraordinary Americans. When I arrived last night, I … paid my respects at the Fort Hood November 5 Memorial. I walked by the columns dedicated … to the 13 men and women who fell that day. And I was deeply moved — moved by the tributes to all of those that were lost.”

Former Army major and psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan made Fort Hood a domestic battlefield. He killed 13 people and wounded over 30 more before a policeman wounded him. Fourteen dead is arguably a more accurate toll, since the unborn child of a pregnant victim died when she died. This is a forensic fact.

What spurred Hasan’s treason? From the get-go, non-benighted humans identified Islamic jihadi ideology as the psycho-political insanity guiding his crime. Hasan had known contact with terrorist recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. But the FBI did not investigate the warnings signaling Hasan’s Islamic conversion. An official who recommended the FBI investigate was told an interview was “politically sensitive.”

Really? Sensitive to whom?

Answer: the boss of the FBI, then-President Barack Obama. Obama initially called the Fort Hood attack “tragic events” and “violence in the workplace.” Words matter. Obama insistently ignored evidence indicating that violent Islamic dogma spurred Hasan. It took Obama six years — till 2015, well after the 2012 election — to call the massacre a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Obama decided his political survival trumped the welfare of the soldiers he commanded.

Harsh? Deserved historical judgment. In 2011, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs called Fort Hood “the deadliest terrorist attack within the United States since September 11, 2001.”

In 2017, Hasan wrote that everyone opposing the Afghan Taliban’s establishment of “Sharia (God’s) Law” as supreme law and seeking to replace it with something “like a democracy that doesn’t rule by God’s law” were “the enemies of God” and worth killing.

The global war on terror isn’t over. Obama declared in 2009 that the war on terror had become a “contingency operation.” What a fraud. President Trump despises endless wars, but wars aren’t over until the enemy is defeated.

Pence’s praise for American military members is so pertinent. “(T)he truth is,” he told Fort Hood’s soldiers, “you’ve stepped forward in a calling where you’ve decided to count our lives as more important than your own.”


What a shame Washington political and media elites couldn’t briefly halt their uncivil domestic political brawl to applaud a victory over the world’s most vicious international terrorist organization, the Islamic State group of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS……….

American aid worker Kayla Mueller belonged to an ecumenical Christian group. In 2013, ISIS captured her in Syria. She was tortured, enslaved and, in 2015, murdered. A photo sent from ISIS to her family showed her with facial bruises and wearing a black hijab.

From al-Baghdadi’s perspective. Mueller’s photo was terrifying, sexually swaggering propaganda. Then-President Barack Obama sent condolences to Mueller’s parents.

But in 2019, the Pentagon named the operation to arrest or kill al-Baghdadi Operation Kayla Mueller.

Due to Beltway brawling, that name has received little notice. However, it puts a woman who’d been raped, a dead lady’s face, on the Delta Force assault and signals that the U.S. military attack on al-Baghdadi and his henchmen sought personal justice for the slaughter of an innocent human being who came to Syria to aid refugees.

This is information warfare kudos to the Pentagon and Trump administration, for at some psycho core, zealot killer creeps like al-Baghdadi think they are untouchable. Like Osama bin Laden, al-Baghdadi thought he had divine sanction. There’s a good chance he told followers that his personal survival indicated that ISIS’ loss of territorial caliphate was a temporary setback.

After Delta Force nailed al-Baghdadi, President Trump used Twitter and television to attack al-Baghdadi’s arrogance, swagger and narrative of invincibility. Trump said: “He died after running into a dead-end tunnel. … The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread.” The ghoul detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.

Trump targeted potential recruits the fanatic might inspire: “(I)t’s something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries … see how he died. … He didn’t die a hero. He died a coward — crying, whimpering, screaming.”

Overblown language, a “yuge” exaggeration? Perhaps, but useful, strategic information warfare. Trump’s global damning damages al-Baghdadi as a terrorist icon.

So, That means that -I guess soon to retire -LTC Vindman’s ‘concerns’ were personal and that means political. Which means his concerns are meaningless.

On that subject:

Lt. Col. Vindman is a tool

By Donald Sensing

I mean that Army Lt. Col. and National Security Council staffer Alexander Vindman is being used as a tool by House Democrats, not that he is trying to do so – although the evidence that he is trying is not absent, see below.

The impeachers are accusing Republicans of attacking Vindman’s service and patriotism. Funny thing is, I have not seen any such attacks, I have seen only Democrats’ accusations of them. But let’s humor them:

Pick the one, single officer whose patriotism is off limits to any possible criticism.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
Maj. Tulsi Gabbard

But back to Vindman. I have some pointed comments about him and his testimony yesterday to Congress. I will only offer my own bio as a founding for what I am writing here.

Today the AP reports, Colonel testifies he raised concerns about Ukraine, Trump. And in the first paragraph (my boldface):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying White House orders, an Army officer serving with President Donald Trump’s National Security Council testified to impeachment investigators Tuesday that he twice raised concerns over the administration’s push to have Ukraine investigate Democrats and Joe Biden.

That alone shatters his credibility with me. Officers do not get a choice of what orders they get to obey. The Supreme Court of the United States wrote in Parker v. Levy, 1974, “An army is not a deliberative body. It is an executive arm. Its law is that of obedience. No question can be left open as to the right of command in the officer, or the duty of obedience in the soldier.”

The armed forces’ Manual for Court Martial, the instruction of how to implement the statutes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, states plainly, “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

The Manual also puts a soldier’s obligation to obey this way: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.”

Yet Vindman disobeyed his order not to appear before Congress simply because he wanted to. His entire credibility is utterly shattered and his willful disobedience reveals him as a partisan hack in uniform.

This officer is being hailed as a hero because he placed country above Trump etc. etc. as required by his oath of commissioning in which swore to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” His advocates skip right over the part where he also swore, “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter….”

I took the same oath of commissioning that Vindman took, and in my view he clearly violated it in doing what he did. The “duties of the office” absolutely include obedience to the orders of the President and officers within his chain of command, unless they are clearly and unarguably illegal. Difference of opinion does not count.

According to the AP report of his testimony, not once – not. one. time. – did he raise any Constitutional issue with the phone call or ever claim  – again: not. one. time. – that Trump’s conversation ever constituted an illegal order to him that he had no choice but to refuse.

All of Vindman’s dissent with the content of the phone call is over policy.

“I was concerned by the call,” Vindman said, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”

He has no authority as a military officer or as an NSC staffer to assess whether a policy position of the president is “proper.” He has absolutely zero authority to oppose a president’s position regarding US support of Ukraine or any other nation. Foreign policy belongs solely within the White House as advised by the State Dept. The NSC has no charter – and therefore neither does Vindman – for original formulation of US foreign policy.

Vindman, or any other military officer, is completely free to disagree privately with administration policy or the orders he is given, I encountered that myself many times in my military career. But that means exactly bupkus. The “duties of the office” remain unchanged: to execute directives and orders and to carry out policy to the best of an officer’s ability.

He [Vindman] wrote, “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”

That is of course pure speculation. And even if entirely correct, it is irrelevant to the discharge of his duties. Let me emphasize again: Lieutenant-colonels do not set policy and absolutely have no business even considering “partisan politics” in the performance of their duties. That is literally not his problem.

BTW, I can read his ribbons, too, and this is by no means a “highly decorated” lieutenant colonel. He holds the Combat Infantry Badge, signifying that he served at least 30 days in a designated combat theater occupying an infantry personnel slot. Which one would expect since he is an infantry officer, but the CIB is awarded for being physically present in theater, not for seeing actual combat. That he also holds the Purple Heart (for IED wound in 2004, when he would have been a junior-grade officer) would indicate that he did see combat. He also was awarded the Ranger tab, which is not a decoration but an achievement (and a very difficult one, too). So his creds look good, but they are not exceptional for an infantry LTC.

The top two ribbons in his photo in the AP article are, viewer’s left to right, the Purple Heart and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. In the second row are a single Army Meritorious Service Medal, then Army Commendation Medal. After that a series of “place” ribbons, denoting service in certain deployment areas of the world, but not linked to doing anything there but getting off the plane. Literally, if you show up you will get the ribbon. (I have some of them, too.)

But there is not one combat decoration there except the Purple Heart. The MSM is not very impressive, actually. I have three myself; they are normally awarded at the end of a tour as a “thanks for being here” award, sometimes though rarely for outstanding achievement. I am sort of curious why he has only one Army MSM; the single Defense MSM would come from service on a joint-service assignment. (I have a different joint-service ribbon.)

That said, dummies do not get assigned to either joint staffs or the NSC. So he is unquestionably a smart man, but IMO he definitely went outside his lane in his reaction to the phone call. And definitely  in appearing before the committee.

Update: Here is Lt. Col. Vindman’s opening statement to the committee. IMO, it’s a nothing burger. And with the actual transcript of the call made poublic a month ago, what did Vindman tell Congress that they didn’t already know? Nuthin’.

Update: A retired officer who knows Vindman personally has some choice words.

Obama Successfully Hunted Trump Campaign Aides Instead of Terrorists.

In 2016, rather than successfully hunting down terrorists including Mueller’s captors, Obama and his top national security officials hunted down Trump campaign aides. Baghdadi’s death should be a reminder—an infuriating one at that—of how the Obama administration, particularly the CIA and FBI, squandered vital resources in service to a politically motivated investigation into Trump and his presidential campaign rather than focusing their efforts on the legitimate threats facing the country.

Trump alluded to that malfeasance in his press conference on Sunday. “When we use our intelligence correctly, what we can do is incredible,” Trump said while commending intelligence operatives who helped locate the ISIS madman. “When we waste our time with intelligence that hurts our country because we had poor leadership at the top, that’s not good.”

Trump, of course, was referring to former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey, the “Praetorian Guard” that laid the trap for Team Trump in 2016. As ISIS continued its murderous rampage in the Middle East and parts of Europe that year—including the Bastille Day truck attack in France that killed 86 people and wounded hundreds more—the most powerful intelligence professionals in the United States were surveilling Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.


  1. Who’s a good girl?
  2. Are you a good girl?
  3. Wanna go outside?
  4. Where’s the bad guy?

First Trump Gets Baghdadi, Now He Gets ISIS Spokesperson, Baghdadi’s Right Hand Man

Two huge decapitation strikes to what remains of ISIS

All the time that Democrats have been hitting President Donald Trump for his moves in Syria, as the news today demonstrates, while he may have moved 50 troop members, he still had a lot of action happening.

Not only did the Trump administration take out the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, yesterday, in an operation that had been in the works and planning for weeks, but they also took out his righthand man and spokesperson, Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir, in a different, new operation today.
Muhajir was taken out by Hellfire missile near Jarablus in Aleppo province according to Syrian Democratic Forces commander Mazloum Abdi.

Al-Baghdadi kill: How the daring military operation went down

The bad thing is that we had this guy in custody in Iraq back in 2003. When he was released, I figured – correctly- that he would be a problem for us and wondered why he didn’t get the Saddam Hussein treatment then.
Whatever. He’s dead Jim.

The suicide of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was preceded by a largescale U.S. Special Operations forces raid on a compound in northern Syria’s Idlib Province, where the terrorist leader was thought to be hiding.

In an address to the nation on Sunday, President Trump said that planning for the raid on al-Baghdadi’s compound began two weeks ago when the U.S. gained unspecified intelligence on al-Baghdadi’s whereabouts.


ISIS target believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed in Syria

A “high value ISIS target” believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed by U.S.-led forces in Idlib, Syria, a well-placed military source told Fox News on Saturday night.

The U.S. military cannot yet confirm the identity of the deceased target.

But at 9:23 p.m. Saturday, President Trump posted a Twitter message hinting at “very big” news.

Soon after, the White House issued a statement that major news would be announced from the White House at 9 a.m. Sunday.

Newsweek reported late Saturday that Baghdadi was killed during a special operations mission that President Trump approved about a week ago.

Lest we forget.

The Beirut Barracks Bombings (October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself ‘Islamic Jihad’ claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team – BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II’s Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II. Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died. An elderly Lebanese man, a custodian/vendor who was known to work and sleep in his concession stand next to the building, was also killed in the first blast. The explosives used were later estimated to be equivalent to as much as 9,525 kg (21,000 pounds) of TNT.

In the attack on the French barracks, the nine-story ‘Drakkar’ building, 58 paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment were killed and 15 injured by a second truck bomb. This attack occurred just minutes after the attack on the American Marines. It was France’s single worst military loss since the end of the Algerian War. The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building were also killed, and more than twenty other Lebanese civilians were injured.

These attacks eventually led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Who the Hell Do They Think They Are?
With William McRaven’s call to oust President Trump—maybe through impeachment, maybe through a coup—the military officer class joins the establishment in claiming a right to rule, regardless of the outcome of elections.

Retired Admiral William McRaven devoted the bulk of a New York Times op-ed to appropriating for himself the moral and hence political authority of generations of soldiers and sailors (pointedly, especially the female ones) who have sacrificed for America, for “the good and the right.” Then he gratuitously stated—citing no specifics, as if everyone already knows—that “President Trump seems to believe that all these qualities are unimportant or show weakness.”

McRaven concludes, “it is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent—the sooner, the better.” At the very least, McRaven called for impeachment ahead of an election, or perhaps for a coup, and pretended to do so on the military’s behalf. In fact, his was just one more voice from an establishment that has squandered the public’s trust, senses that it can no longer win elections honestly, and is pulling out all the stops.

It pretends to be trying to take down Donald Trump. In fact, it is trying to do something much bigger: Invalidate the votes of the “deplorables” who oppose them.

I suggest that the just response from self-respecting Americans to McRaven and others like him is: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

Consider the enormity of pretending to speak for past and present uniformed personnel. Given that the overwhelming majority of active-duty and retired armed service members voted for Trump in 2016, and that polls show they are likely to do so again, it’s a patent falsehood to insinuate the rank-and-file’s notion of “the good and the right” matches McRaven’s own.

Then consider a few of these notions of “good and right.” Following rules and the chain of command is high among them, especially for the military. Officers are supposed to obey superiors. That authority flows from the president. Why? Because only the president is elected by the whole people, and because the Constitution, which they are sworn to “uphold and defend,” says so. If officers cannot abide superiors, they are supposed to resign their commissions.

But McRaven and a host of senior officers do not resign. They subvert.

The Constitution prescribes all manner of procedures by which any and all who dissent from the president can counter him, including legislation, overriding vetoes, and impeachment. But McRaven’s essay merely, and dishonestly, adds to the united ruling class’s effort to attack Donald Trump outside of these constitutional procedures by feeding the media’s production of innuendos……….

Even as McRaven brays for removing the president, he pretends solicitude for “the republic.” But remember: the American republic is founded on the will of the people, expressed by elections. The foremost thing to keep in mind about what is happening in Washington is that it is, above all, an attempt to subordinate the will of the people, expressed in elections, to the will of the ruling class, expressed through its control of social and political institutions.

The American people’s proper and just reaction should be to remind the ruling class that as Alexander Hamilton said, “here, the people rule,” and hence pointedly to ask our would-be rulers what they have done that we should follow them?

Civil War In Syria Is An Extension Of The Second American Civil War

Do you know how bad it’s going to get in Syria if we cut and run? I’m not terribly sure, but fail to see it as much of my problem. The numerous people who live there have a daily responsibility for maintaining at least a thin veneer of civil society in Syria. They know way more about the folkways, ways, and means of the place than I will ever claim to. Just who are these perspicacious experts on Syrian culture and policy? They’re called Syrians and they have a heck of a lot more skin in that particular game then I intend for myself to ever offer up.

But no, if Bad Orange Man were to adopt this position, regardless of whether it has merit, it must be opposed!

Democrats, with the exception of insignificant Tulsi Gabbard, all adopted the Bush position of endless wars for the sake of other nations. Keeping our word. Loyalty. Cut and run. Democracy in every beating heart of every nation or whatever. It all pretty much came up.

Yet political opportunism is only one layer of the malodorous onion. The next question becomes how is something that sucks like perpetually pointless combat, over unwanted terrain, between utterly unlikable and disreputable combatants could possibly become a political profit center. How ridiculous would you have to be in order to effectively sell this destructive nonsense to a guileless, ingenuous public? What depths would you descend to in order to sell the illusion of massive Turkish slaughter?

ABC correspondent Ian Panell reported on Sunday that the video “obtained by ABC News, appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack on the border town of Tal Abyad two nights ago.”

A tweet issued by ABC News on Monday morning reads: “CORRECTION: We’ve taken down video that aired on ‘World News Tonight’ Sunday and ‘Good Morning America’ this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy. ABC News regrets the error.”

According to National Review, the alleged error was uncovered by social media users who compared the supposed combat footage to a YouTube video of a Kentucky military show — and it appears to be identical.

To hate the idea of the US military ceasing operations in Syria, you would have to be a globalist. You would have to favor the pointless and endless wars and the rising tide of dysgenic, anti-American immigration that fills the globalist coffers. Some call themselves Democrats. Others self-identify as Republicans. They call themselves humanitarian, Conservative, Liberal, practical or maybe, if they are detestably hypocritical enough, they ascribe their motivations as idealistic. There is an easier and more accurate word to identify these people and organizations: evil. But in this case, evil has gone too far.

I appreciate that ABC News hates Donald Trump for the scarlet sin of winning an election while not running as a Democrat. I understand the butthurt. Democracy sucks when the people play Hail To The Chief and it isn’t in honor of your boy. They hated Ronald Reagan as well, but were never this blatantly over-the-top in their dishonesty. It has to be more than just Trump Derangement Syndrome. Some actual, motivated force on behalf of evil truly wants the United States to continue urinating away its youth and future into the God-Accursed sands of the hateful Middle East……………….

Like the stupid impeachment hearings that have everything except an actual vote to open impeachment hearings, this is a farce. It is a perversion of a legitimate government function in order to facilitate the ongoing political civil war that is democracy. It’s just more convenient that foreigners will end up getting slaughtered instead of the domestics. For now, at least. What Mitt Romney, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and all of the other perverted, sick bedfellows of convenience now ripping Trump for pulling US Military personnel out of harm’s way really want is to overturn the 2016 Presidential Election on behalf of Globalism.

When President Trump spoke at a recent rally, he accurately described why so much of Washington, DC wants so desperately for your children and grand children to die agonizing, pointless deaths in horrible 3rd-world countries.

“We have to fundamentally change our approach to homeland security,” he said, vowing to protect America and American borders first. “The same people pushing us to fight endless wars overseas want us to open our borders to mass migration from these war-torn and terror afflicted regions,” he said.

We have to change our approach to securing America by putting Globalism Inc. out of business. Fake news, sleazy politics, and real evil are being put into play to prevent Donald Trump from ever moving the ball one yard towards that set of goalposts. Globalism must be fought, but that fight against globalistic hegemony begins right here. Right here in Amerika. After all: home is where the hate is.

Admiral McRaven in NYT: Remove Trump from Office ‘The Sooner, the Better’

Retired Admiral William McRaven has published an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times titled, “Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President,” urging that Trump be removed from office — “the sooner, the better.”

McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election.

The admiral, well-respected for his role in overseeing the operation to kill Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden in 2011, argues that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation.

If there are Officers who feel that way, then they should resign, immediately. I may not have the utmost regard for a profane, ill-mannered, abusive, loud mouthed, boor, but he is the elected President of the U.S. until he’s not, and he gets the respect due the position since he’s got the job.

McRaven is retired, but as a General Officer, can be recalled to Active Duty. It is imperative that the military is and will always remain subordinate to civilian control, otherwise we’ve got a military dictatorship on our hands. Especially as a General Officer, he should keep his open political views well within the bounds of propriety, or he can find himself in more than ‘hot water’ for writing  and having published what can easily be taken as a call for a coup against an elected official.
McRaven could find himself facing a General Court Martial for charges under the UCMJ of:

Article 82 – Soliciting commissions of offences:
(a)Soliciting Commission of Offenses Generally.—
Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to commit an offense under this chapter (other than an offense specified in subsection (b)) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b)Soliciting Desertion, Mutiny, Sedition, or Misbehavior Before the Enemy.—Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to violate section 885 of this title (article 85), section 894 of this title (article 94), or section 899 of this title (article 99)—
(1)if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or is committed, shall be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense; and
(2)if the offense solicited or advised is not attempted or committed, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 88 – Contempt Toward Public Officials:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 94 – Mutiny or Sedition:
(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2)with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3)fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b)A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Article 133 – Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 134 – General article
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “crimes and offenses not capital” includes any conduct engaged in outside the United States, as defined in section 5 of title 18, that would constitute a crime or offense not capital if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of title 18.

John Brown’s Raid

On October 16, 1859, John Brown led a small army of 18 men into the small town of Harper’s Ferry, (now West)Virginia. His plan was to instigate a major slave rebellion in the South. He would seize the arms and ammunition in the federal arsenal, arm slaves in the area and move south along the Appalachian Mountains, attracting slaves to his cause. He had no rations. He had no escape route. His plan was doomed from the very beginning. But it did succeed to deepen the divide between the North and South.

John Brown and his men stayed in a rented farmhouse in the days before the raid on Harper’s Ferry.
John Brown and his cohorts marched into an unsuspecting Harper’s Ferry and seized the federal complex with little resistance. It consisted of an armory, arsenal, and engine house. He then sent a patrol out into the country to contact slaves, collected several hostages, including the great grandnephew of George Washington, and sat down to wait. The slaves did not rise to his support, but local citizens and militia surrounded him, exchanging gunfire, killing two townspeople and eight of Brown’s company.

Troops under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee arrived from Washington to arrest Brown. They stormed the engine house, where Brown had withdrawn, captured him and members of his group, and turned them over to Virginia authorities to be tried for treason. He was quickly tried and sentenced to hang on December 2.

On This Day in Space Oct. 14, 1947: Chuck Yeager Breaks the Sound Barrier

I’d like to think this was like it was.

On Oct. 14, 1947, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier for the first time! Yeager was a test pilot for the U.S. Air Force who made history by flying an aircraft faster than the speed of sound.

Yeager made his historic flight in a Bell X-1 rocket plane that he named “Glamorous Glennis” after his wife. Yeager had broken two ribs the night before when he fell off a horse, but that didn’t stop him!

His aircraft was dropped from a Boeing B-29 bomber before accelerating to a speed of Mach 1.07, which is about 821 miles per hour. The speed of sound, Mach 1, is about 760 miles per hour.