Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

No Country for Old Men

The President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., who is 79 years old and suffering from senile dementia at the end of a long life of bullying, lying, boasting, conniving, grifting, grafting, and living off the public tit to an extent indecent even by Washington standards, declared war on Russia on Friday. In the course of a typically blustering, hectoring speech, the senescent Biden went off script and interpolated the following peroration: “My God, this man cannot remain in power.”

To which the only proper response is: “My God, this man cannot remain in the Oval Office.” Joe Biden needs to be removed from the White House as soon as possible, before his failing mind, his erratic behavior, and his proven lack of character get us all killed. The question is, is there enough political will in the capital to do what needs to be done?

Biden’s blunder was immediately walked back by the few adults left in the room, called a “gaffe,” or—worse—actually defended by the neocons and other leftists as truth-telling on a heroic scale, evocative of Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “tear down this wall” speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, which two years later actually did result in the Wall coming down. But his rash words continue to ring, now matter how swiftly his handlers and apologists and even Biden himself try to make us disbelieve our own lying ears:

Mush-mouthed as usual, and delivered with all the Scrantonian sincerity of one of his typical campaign speeches, Biden’s address was not only the low-water mark of his presidency so far, but a nadir in the history of the United States and its practice of diplomacy.

Continue reading “”

No, only the proggies in Oklahoma are ‘tired’.
I think they’re tired of their losing streak.

Propaganda O’ The Day

Advocate: Oklahomans tired of lawmakers catering to gun lobby

Public Radio Tulsa | By Elizabeth Caldwell elizabeth_caldwell.jpg

(Again, nice for the author to provide positive ID for future use )

A bill allowing people to carry guns at state fairs and into government buildings is paused in the state legislature.

Don Spencer of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said he “worked” on HB 4138 and he’s very excited about it. He published a video on Saturday boasting to his club that one intent of the proposed law was to let people carry rifles into traditionally quiet places.

“The concern was that when we have this bill passed, the question was, would a person be able to carry an AR-15 rifle into a library? My answer was yes,” said Spencer.

Spencer said as a concession the bill was altered to allow concealed handguns in libraries. But he reassured his club it was just a first step.

“Remember folks, 2012, we couldn’t even see guns in Oklahoma. In ten years we’re going from not just seeing them to no license required.”

Beth Furnish of Moms Demand Action said legislators betray Oklahomans when they pass laws for lobbies instead of citizens.

“Oklahomans started paying attention to what our lawmakers were doing after they passed permitless carry, which was opposed by a strong majority of Oklahomans, even gun owners and Republicans. Oklahomans are getting tired of our lawmakers passing the wish list of the gun lobby,” said Furnish.

HB 4138 was written by Sen. Warren Hamilton of McCurtain and Rep. Sean Roberts of Hominy. A long list of coauthors has also been added.

It was not heard in the House before deadline Thursday. Neither Roberts nor Hamilton responded to requests for comment on their plans for their bill.

Der Grëtchënführër™ strikes again (as if this wasn’t expected)

Governor vetoes Theis bill protecting Second Amendment rights
Would have guaranteed issue of concealed pistol licenses during emergencies
LANSING, Mich. — Sen. Lana Theis’ legislation that would have ensured the issuance and renewal of concealed pistol licenses during declared emergencies was vetoed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Friday.

“This is a disappointing day for gun owners,” said Theis, R-Brighton. “The Second Amendment is clear that the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but that is exactly what Gov. Gretchen Whitmer did today.

“People must be able to defend their life and property even, and especially, in times of emergency. State law is clear that county clerks shall issue concealed pistol licenses to those who are qualified, and my bill would have ensured that this essential service would continue regardless of any declared emergency.

“While I am disappointed with Whitmer’s veto, I cannot say that I am shocked. She has never supported gun owners and she likely never will. I hope responsible gun owners will continue their efforts to protect this right. I certainly will.”

Theis fielded numerous complaints throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that county clerks across the state refused or delayed issuing or renewing concealed pistol licenses, infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Senate Bill 11 would have required county clerks to continue to issue and renew concealed pistol licenses regardless of any shutdown issued by executive order or public health order. County clerks and law enforcement would have also been required to continue providing the fingerprinting services necessary to obtain a new concealed pistol license.

Additionally, the bill would have enabled the Michigan State Police to provide personal identification numbers to concealed pistol license holders, so they may renew their licenses online during any declared emergency.

Law profs claim lack of gun control fueling “small arms race”

Generally speaking, I really love my job. I get to talk to interesting people, cover an issue that I’m passionate about, and can maybe even make a difference every once in awhile in terms of keeping bad laws off the books and putting good laws in place.

One of the few downsides, however, is having to subject myself to a lot of the dumb arguments made by the gun control lobby and their allies in the media and academia. The latest? A new paper by two law professors at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Houston who claim that a lack of gun control laws is fueling what they call a “small arms race” across the country.

On November 19, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide charges stemming from his killing of two people—Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum—at a protest of police violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse had armed himself and traveled to the protest, purportedly to defend Kenoshans’ property against looting.

The acquittal sparked substantial public outrage about the state of gun laws and about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system more generally.

In a similar case, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan were charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia. There, the defendants believed that Arbery was engaged in criminal activity and pursued him with a gun.

When Arbery took action to protect himself, Travis McMichael shot and killed him. Here too, many were concerned that an acquittal would lead to greater vigilantism. And while the jury ultimately convicted, Georgia law would have also allowed acquittal in a similar or even identical  case.

Such cases have raised public concern that certain states’ gun-use and self-defense laws effectively invite malicious individuals—including vigilantes and white supremacists—to kill with impunity.

Funny how both the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse and the conviction of the McMichaels and William Bryan are both evidence of the need for more gun control laws, according to the professors. I’m particularly amused by the statement that Georgia law could have led to an acquittal, because that’s how the law works in virtually every criminal case that goes to trial. Juries have the option of finding defendants guilty or not guilty, and the fact that they choose between those verdicts based on the evidence presented isn’t in and of itself a sign that we need more or less laws.

Continue reading “”

1 I think Putin believed his own propaganda.
2 From this performance, it begs the question if the Russian military ever really was the threat we always believed it was, and spent so much time, effort and money on defending against it. Well, the military/industrial complex sure made a fortune.

BLUF:
Russia—whose economy before the invasion was about the size of Italy’s—may have spread its efforts too thinly and the modernization effort also appears to have been undermined by fraud and corruption, said analysts including Michael Clarke, a former director of the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank, and now associate director of the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute, citing estimates that some 25% of the invading force are conscripts.

Weapons systems haven’t performed well and commanders pretended they had capabilities that weren’t there, Mr. Clarke said. Of Russia’s effort to create a “large, modern army,” he said: “The part which is modern is not large, and the part which is large is not modern.”

How Russia’s Revamped Military Fumbled the Invasion of Ukraine
Moscow spent years upgrading its capabilities, only to see the armed forces fail their first major test, confounding earlier Western assessments and giving Ukraine a boost

For over a decade, Russia spent hundreds of billions of dollars restructuring its military into a smaller, better equipped and more-professional force that could face off against the West.
Three weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its first big test, the armed forces have floundered. Western intelligence estimated last week that 5,000 to 6,000 Russian troops had been killed, some of them poorly trained conscripts.
The dead included four Russian generals—one-fifth of the number estimated to be in Ukraine—along with other senior commanders, according to a Western official and Ukrainian military reports. The generals were close to the front lines, some Western officials said, a sign that lower ranks in forward units were likely unable to make decisions or fearful of advancing.
Russian troops turned to using open telephone and analog radios following the failure of encrypted communications systems, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has said, making them vulnerable to intercept or jamming. Russian officers were likely targeted after their positions were exposed by their use of open communications, Western military analysts said.
In the strategically located town of Voznesensk, Ukrainian forces comprising local volunteers and the professional military drove off an attack early this month, in one of the most comprehensive routs Russian forces have suffered since invading Ukraine.
Russia’s failings appear to trace to factors ranging from the Kremlin’s wrong assumptions about Ukrainian resistance to the use of poorly motivated conscript soldiers. They suggest that Russia and the West overestimated Moscow’s overhauls of its armed forces, which some military analysts say appear to have been undermined by graft and misreporting.
The military’s previous outings in staged maneuvers and smaller operations in Syria didn’t prepare it for a multipronged attack into a country with a military fiercely defending its homeland, said Michael Kofman, director of Russia studies at CNA, a nonprofit research organization based in Arlington, Va.
“The failures that we’re seeing now is them having to work with a larger force than they’ve ever employed in real combat conditions as opposed to an exercise,” he said. “These exercises that we’ve been shown over the years are very scripted events and closer to theater than anything else.”

Continue reading “”

Below The Radar: Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act

Second Amendment supporters often have to make difficult decisions. Not in the sense of Glock vs. Colt vs. Springfield Armory, but more along the lines of how to address a given piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Take for instance the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act, known as S 3776 and HR 6997. The legislation purports to prohibit the importation, sale, or manufacture of firearms “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

On the face of it, this seems unobjectionable. Nobody wants to be sold a firearm on the basis of misrepresentation or a false promise, right? But there are red flags when Second Amendment supporters think things through some more.

For starters, the Senate bill is sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, a long-standing enemy of our Second Amendment rights. So that is a red flag right there. Her co-sponsors include Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, also committed opponents of the Second Amendment.

Aside from who sponsors it, there is one other question: Who decides what constitutes “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?”

This is a big deal on multiple fronts. Remember how the CDC is getting back into the gun-control business? They worry that it will be used to justify censorship by Silicon Valley is big, but this legislation could add another threat.

Suppose some anti-Second Amendment extremist decides that those who advertise firearms for self-defense are making ““false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?” That now becomes a new way to hit someone with a five-year jail term and a felony conviction.

This also is a way to “legalize” suits like the one brought against Remington over Sandy Hook. Never mind that the rifle used was stolen (after the shooter killed the rightful owner), the claim from the suit was centered around the advertising. In other words, prove there was “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” in the advertising, and all of the sudden, it becomes easier to sue gun manufacturers.

This is a dangerous end run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Again, we need to remember what Feinstein said so long ago on 60 Minutes. She wants an Australia-style ban, but if she can’t have it, she’ll figure out what she can get legislatively (see the Age 21 Act). Or she’ll enable other attacks outside the legislative process.

What makes it doubly hard is that this bill seems very reasonable, so Second Amendment supporters have to be very careful about the optics while opposing it. After all, nobody wants to support those who sell anything (including firearms) with “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act. Then. They need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box this November.

Rocket attack confirmed in Northern Iraq:

Multiple rockets have targeted Erbil in northern Iraq early on Sunday, the state news agency has reported quoting Erbil’s governor.

More than three explosions were heard but the city airport was not believed to be the target, Deputy Minister Hiwa Afandi said.

Lawk Ghafuri, head of Kurdistan’s Foreign Media Relations, also said more than three explosions were heard, He added that security forces are investigating the incident and updates will be available shortly.

As is consistent with previous attacks instigated by Iranian-backed militia, media channel Sabreen posted videos of the attack moments after its occurrence.

The law requires school districts to adopt procedures that “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.” It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger (that’s 5 to 8 year old kids) 

You know what that means, right? Florida parents found out that schools proggie indoctrination centers had teachers pedophile groomers teaching kindergarten through third grade students about ‘transgenderism’, homosexuality, pornography, and sexual degeneracy in the classroom, and telling the kids not to tell their parents.

and what does Peppermint Psaki have to say about it?

Florida’s parental rights bill is not a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. It is a full-throated defense of moms and dads against the state-sponsored progressive brainwashing of their kids.

On March 8, Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the Parental Rights in Education bill.

But you may know it better by the media’s smear name, ‘The Don’t Say Gay Bill.’

It’s a measure that gives parents more control over what their children are taught in public schools.

But that’s not how the White House, Democrats, Hollywood and the media portrayed it.

In fact, they completely mischaracterized it.

President Joe Biden called an early version of the bill ‘hateful.’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claimed it will increase suicides among LGBTQ+ youth.

On Tuesday’s episode of ‘Watch What Happens Live’ Bravo host Andy Cohen called the bill’s passage ‘personally disturbing,’ and told Florida Republicans that they’re pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

‘This is one big dog whistle. You’re scaring people into spewing hate and discrimination at the LGBTQ community,’ he said.

On Wednesday, the White House doubled down again.  Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the bill ‘discriminatory,’ ‘horrific,’ and ‘a form of bullying’ against LGBTQ children and families.

On the eve of the bill’s passage, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who is now expected to sign the bill into law) confronted a local reporter, who framed the legislation as anti-gay.

‘I want to ask about the Parental Rights in Education, what critics call the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill,’ said Evan Donovan.

DeSantis was having none of it, and snapped, ‘Does it say that in the bill? You are pushing false narratives…’

So does the bill prohibit teachers’ from saying the word ‘gay’?

In a word – no!

Continue reading “”

She’s a leftist political hack  – seems the most hacks are leftists doesn’t it?- who will recite any point her paymaster wants.

Is This the Dumbest Claim Jen Psaki Has Ever Made?

Sometimes, I wonder about Jen Psaki. How did she get picked to be White House Press Secretary? How has she kept her job? Sometimes I can’t tell if she is deliberately lying to the American people or if she living in an alternate universe and actually believes the horse manure she’s shoveling.

Case in point: In response to a question about John Bolton’s bizarre speculation that Trump might have pulled the United States out of NATO in a second term, Psaki claimed that the American people are “grateful” for Biden’s different approach to foreign relations.

“Well, I think that’s […] you know, another reason why the American people are grateful — the majority of the American people — that President Biden has not taken a page out of his predecessor’s playbook as it relates to global engagement and global leadership,” she said. “Because, certainly, we could be in a different place.”

We most certainly would be in a different place, if Biden had showed the strength and resolve that Trump did.

Of course, the premise of the question to which Psaki gave her inane answer was absurd. It’s hard to understand precisely where Bolton got the idea that Trump would have pulled us out of NATO, as the former president made robust efforts to get other NATO nations to pay their dues and make the alliance stronger. “There would be no NATO if I didn’t act strongly and swiftly,” Trump said last month. “Also, it was me that got Ukraine the very effective anti-tank busters (Javelins) when the previous Administration was sending blankets.”

But moving on from that, Psaki was utterly wrong about what Americans think. A recent poll found that 62% of voters believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still in office.

Psaki made her stunning comment the same day that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg admitted that the administration would consider buying oil from terrorists instead of increasing domestic production, and on the heels of Psaki inadvertently admitting that Putin tends to invade other countries when Democrats are in the White House.

“You know, I was at the State Department, the president was the vice-president, the last time Russia invaded Ukraine,” she said last week. “This is a pattern of horror from … President Putin and from the cronies around him.”

Does Psaki really believe that Americans are grateful for Biden’s approach to “global engagement and global leadership” when that approach allowed for Putin to invade Ukraine, gas prices to skyrocket, and our tax dollars to fund terror-sponsoring nations?

President Trump’s leadership strengthened NATO and kept Russia at bay. The only Americans who could possibly be grateful for Biden’s approach would have to be Putin apologists.

BLUF:
Peter Ambler of Giffords Law Center is unhappy that gun rights advocates are pointing out evidence that further unravels his cause, so it’s not surprising that he thinks it’s “deeply irresponsible” to do so. In other words, he wants us to stop pouncing and seizing and hammering and exploiting and feasting and gloating.

Giffords’ Ambler to 2A Supporters: Stop pouncing on Ukraine!

The history and rationale behind the Second Amendment are clear-cut. The defense of self, family, community, and country is protected in the founding documents of several states, not just the U.S. Bill of Rights. In a constitutional republic with checks and balances, with power splintered and diffused among various levels of governments, an armed citizenry is the ultimate check and balance against enemies both foreign and domestic.

The United States is approaching its 250th anniversary. That the republic has lasted so long, contributed so much to human flourishing and prosperity, spread the ideas of liberty and justice around the world, doesn’t mean that we can take the status quo for granted and forget or distort what it took to get here. The rest of the world provides periodic reminders and warnings of what could happen if America abandons its founding principles. Ukraine is the warning du jour.

Our friends in the Gun Grab Lobby, however, aren’t drawing the same lessons from Ukraine. When faced with yet another example of why an armed citizenry is good, their response is to cry foul and ask us to not cite it.

Ukraine crisis emerges as talking point in U.S. gun debate

By Barbara Goldberg and Brendan O’brien

NEW YORK, March 1 (Reuters) – Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, gun rights advocates in the United States have sought to use the crisis to bolster their position on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, injecting a new element into the heated debate.

Arguments linking the invasion to gun rights have cropped up this week across social media, in a post by the National Rifle Association and during a legislative vote in the Georgia statehouse.

“What is happening in Ukraine proves the wisdom of our founding fathers in drafting the Second Amendment,” the NRA said in a blog post on Monday, pointing to Ukrainians who have armed themselves to defend their country.

Is a newly discovered fossil a talking point in the evolution “debate” or is it yet another piece of evidence supporting evolution? Ukraine is not a mere talking point despite how the headline downplays it as one.

Anti-gun violence advocates, however, point to increasing fire-arms deaths in the United States and say tighter regulations and fewer guns are what is needed.

Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was “deeply irresponsible” for gun rights advocates to tie their “more guns everywhere” advocacy to the Ukraine crisis.

“The tyrannical actions of Vladimir Putin don’t erase the fact that 45,000 Americans died from gun violence in 2020, nor do they erase the urgent need for commonsense, popular gun violence prevention policies like background checks and funding for community violence intervention programs,” Ambler told Reuters.

“Anti-gun violence advocates,” better described as Anti-Second Amendment activists or gun control supporters, want fewer guns in the hands of the citizenry. A good question to ask them would be, “Can you define fewer?” We all know the answer to that, and it’s no mystery that the question was not asked by the reporters.

Peter Ambler of Giffords Law Center is unhappy that gun rights advocates are pointing out evidence that further unravels his cause, so it’s not surprising that he thinks it’s “deeply irresponsible” to do so. In other words, he wants us to stop pouncing and seizing and hammering and exploiting and feasting and gloating.

Seasoned readers and Second Amendment advocates know this already, but new readers may not, so I will also point out that the 45,000 “gun violence deaths” that Ambler is citing is vastly inflated using suicides, which are the bulk of firearm mortalities. That would be like calling suicide by hanging “rope violence” and suicide by jumping “bridge violence” or “gravity violence.” Ambler’s suggested background checks and community violence intervention programs won’t do anything to address the bulk of those mortalities.

Ukraine was among the arguments wielded by Republicans to win a 34-22 vote in the Georgia state Senate on a concealed carry bill that split down party lines on Monday.

“I would be willing to bet you today that 99 percent of the people of Ukraine would give anything that they have to have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Lindsey Tippins, a Republican state Senator, said in asking his fellow legislators to back the bill.

It’s unfortunate that it was a party-line vote, but thanks to the “arguments wielded,” the end-result is a win for our natural right of self-defense. Three cheers for pouncing on Ukraine!

Again, it’s nice when pictures are available for positive ID

BLUF:
Dr. Leonardo wants to solve the “problem of whiteness” or pose it as a problem. The real problem is that people have begun to see others as impediments to their ability to move forward in life. It actually foments racism, division, and anger. It teaches victimhood by always having someone to blame because of the color of their skin.

UC Berkeley Prof. Zeus Leonardo: Abolish Whiteness, Abolish White People

Zeus Leonardo

UC Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo believes in Critical Race Theory. In so doing, he made the statement to a class that “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people.” Is he advocating genocide?

“To abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. That’s very uncomfortable perhaps, but it asks about our definitions of what race is and what racial justice might mean.”

UC Berkeley education professor Zeus Leonardo:

Continue reading “”

“The deep commitment to an Iran nuclear deal that makes no sense has me convinced that a lot of people are either being bribed or blackmailed.”
–Prof. Reynolds

Joe Biden Spits on US Allies to Secure a Deal That Makes No Sense.

While the Biden administration has done its best to hide the ongoing negotiations, you’ve probably been made aware by now that a new JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran is in the works.

Guess who’s at the forefront of helping secure that deal? That would be none other than Vladimir Putin, who the United States is ostensibly at economic war with over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. About now, you are probably asking how that makes any sense at all. But stick around, because I promise you that it gets even worse.

Recently, I wrote two articles noting the seeming subservience of the Biden administration to Russia (see here and here), even as Biden himself has trotted out the tough-guy talk for a gullible public. Yet, behind the scenes, it appears that a deal with Iran has taken priority, even as Putin continues to bomb cities in Ukraine.

But hang on, I told you things would get worse. According to Kenneth Vogul, the Biden administration is now looking to normalize relations with the communist Maduro regime in Venezuela. How does that connect with the Iran deal? We’ll get to that in a moment.

 

Ostensibly, this action is being taken to help separate Venezuela from Russia. But anyone who is able to critically think and possesses a modicum of knowledge regarding international relations will quickly realize how dumb that contention is. Venezuela and Russia are allies, to the point where the latter held nuclear exercises there back in 2018. Russia has also been a supplier of commodities and materials to Venezuela as the South American nation has suffered under Western sanctions.

Now, does anyone think a quick visit from the Biden administration is going to “drive a wedge” between Venezuela and Russia given the relationship that exists between the two nations? In short, the Times’ spin on the matter, no doubt meant to protect the White House, doesn’t add up.

There is something that does add up though, and it connects to the Iran deal.

 

That makes much more sense. Russia has reportedly been making demands as part of its role in negotiating the new Iran deal. Putin having one of its chief allies legitimized on the world stage, setting up the framework to have sanctions removed while expanding Russia’s sphere of influence, sounds like a pretty good win for the Russian leader, doesn’t it?

In short, Biden’s pursuit of a boondoggle Iran deal boils down to empowering Russia and spitting on our allies, whether we are talking about Ukraine, Israel, or Venezuela’s democratically elected government. And for what? What is the United States getting out of a deal with Iran? There is no strategic interest there, especially given Israel, which does actually have a direct strategic interest, is against the JCPOA.

Again, nothing about this makes sense, and when nothing makes sense, it’s probably time to start asking tougher questions about what lies beneath the surface. Why have the last two Democrat-led presidencies been so obsessed with making a deal with Iran? Who is gaining what here? Are there payoffs involved? Why is Russia even a part of the negotiations given its behavior in Ukraine?

It seems the Biden administration is willing to do just about anything to hand the Iranian Mullahs another big win. That shouldn’t just be extremely concerning, it should be a scandal.

I can remember back when I was a teenager that the econuts and the anti-nuclear nuts, like GreenPeace, were always considered Russian stooges.
Watermelons: “green” on the outside, “red” on the inside.

Don’t just take Crenshaw’s word for it:

Putin going to war in Ukraine risked disclosing his military’s real abilities ……and  limitations. The Russian Army isn’t a ‘paper tiger’ but it turns out to not be anything close to ‘as advertised’. Of course, that’s standard military procedure.  ‘The enemy will only tell you where he is strong.’

BLUF:
For Washington, this display of Russian military weakness should be comforting in terms of Moscow’s true military threat to Europe. At the same time though, it exposes the need for a different national security strategy, one that doesn’t imagine Russia as a military equal, and one that doesn’t push Vladimir Putin’s back against a wall.

Shocking Lessons U.S. Military Leaders Learned by Watching Putin’s Invasion.

Russia’s military is weak and backwards.
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine produced this paradigm-shifting surprise—one that should transform the West’s view of Russia’s prowess, the threat that the country represents, and the Kremlin’s future in the global arena.
russian invasion ukraine military
Ukrainian tanks move on a road before an attack in Lugansk region on February 26, 2022 .ANATOLII STEPANOV/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
After just one day of fighting, Russia’s ground force lost most of its initial momentum, undermined by shortages of fuel, ammunition and even food, but also because of a poorly trained and led force. Russia began to compensate for the weaknesses of its land army with more long-range air, missile and artillery strikes. And President Putin resorted to a nuclear threat—a reaction, U.S. military experts say, to the failure of Moscow’s conventional forces to make quick progress on the ground.
Other military observers are flabbergasted that a Russian invasion force, fully prepared and operating from Russian soil, has been able to move just tens of miles into an adjoining country. One retired U.S. Army general told Newsweek in an email: “We know that Russia has a plodding army and that Russian military force has always been a blunt instrument, but why risk the antipathy of the entire planet if you have no prospect of achieving even minimal gains.” The Army general believes that the only explanation is that the Kremlin overestimated its own forces.
“I believe that at the heart of Russian military thinking is how Marshall Zhukov marched across Eastern Europe to Berlin,” a former high-level CIA official told Newsweek in an interview. Zhukov’s orders were to “line up the artillery and … flatten everything ahead of you,” he says. “‘Then send in the peasant Army to kill or rape anyone left alive.’ Subtle the Russians are not.”
In the short term, Russia’s military failures in Ukraine increase the threat of escalation, including the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. But in the longer term, if escalation doesn’t worsen and the Ukrainian conflict can be contained, Russian conventional military weakness upends many assumptions that geopolitical strategists—even those inside the U.S. government—make about Russia as a military threat.

Continue reading “”

This Was the Most Infuriating Part of Biden’s State of the Union Speech

Well, that was painful.

The word is Joe Biden had to rewrite his State of the Union Dumpster Fire speech because of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and you could tell. It was an awkward, choppy speech that made me cringe at times.

But, perhaps the worst and most infuriating thing about the speech, aside from the blatant lies about his record, was what was missing.

Joe Biden was so desperate for a 9/11 anniversary photo op that he set an arbitrary date for withdrawing from Afghanistan, without any conditions for the Taliban, causing a disastrous evacuation that resulted thousands of Americans left behind and 13 U.S. service members dead.

Yet, not a single word about the withdrawal. Not a single word to honor those who died because of his incompetence.

“Biden should have paid tribute to the 13 fallen HEROES in Afghanistan that lost their lives,” former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted.

Afghanistan was mentioned only twice during his speech, each time providing him with the opportunity to discuss the withdrawal and honor those who paid the ultimate price while trying to evacuate civilians at Kabul’s airport.

But he didn’t.

He did, however, mention his late son Beau Biden… because that’s what he does. He did so more than once after his botched withdrawal last year. In fact, the family of fallen Marine Rylee McCollum, who was killed at Kabul airport, said that when they met with Biden “he kept checking his watch and bringing up Beau.”

Joe Biden may not care about those who died because of his incompetence, but America does. He’ll say his son Beau’s name over and over and over, but won’t say the names of those who died because of his recklessness. Well, let’s not forget who they are. Here are their names:

  • Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Darin T. Hoover
  • Marine Corps Sgt. Johanny Rosariopichardo
  • Marine Corps Sgt. Nicole L. Gee
  • Marine Corps Cpl. Hunter Lopez
  • Marine Corps Cpl. Daegan W. Page
  • Marine Corps Cpl. Humberto A. Sanchez
  • Marine Corps Lance Cpl. David L. Espinoza
  • Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jared M. Schmitz
  • Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum
  • Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Dylan R. Merola
  • Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Kareem M. Nikoui
  • Navy Hospitalman Maxton W. Soviak
  • Army Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Knauss

Biden’s failure to honor these heroes is inexcusable.

Trudeau’s Dictatorial Crackdown on Protesters Is Popular Among One Group of US Voters

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s descent into dictatorship to rein in the Freedom Convoy protest has support from a majority of likely Democratic voters in America.

According to a survey conducted by Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action, 55 percent of likely voters disapproved of Trudeau’s handling of the demonstration, while 35 percent approved.

When broken down by party affiliation, 65 percent of Democrats backed Trudeau’s heavy-handed response compared to 17 percent who disapproved, while 87 percent of likely Republican voters opposed the prime minister’s crackdown and 8 percent approved.

One hundred percent of young voters, meanwhile, (those 25 to 35-years-old), disapproved of Trudeau’s response.

On Feb. 14, the Canadian prime minister invoked the Emergencies Act to crack down on demonstrators who had been in Ottawa since late last month protesting the country’s vaccine mandates and other Covid-19 restrictions.

The government announced they would freeze bank accounts of those even loosely attached to the protest, while Ontario’s premier threatened to revoke driver’s licenses. Protesters’ pets weren’t even off-limits.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland also said the government would be broadening its “Terrorist Financing” rules to include cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms as part of the Act.

The Canadian Parliament voted on Monday night to extend its emergency powers for another 30 days despite the blockade being over.

The survey of 1080 likely general election voters was conducted Feb. 18-20 and was provided exclusively to The Daily Wire.

Yes, I also think such could happen (anything’s possible), but 1, We’re not Canada and 2, I think that if SloJoe, or anyone else for that matter, tried to enact the sort of ’emergency measures’ martial law as Trudeau did in Canada, for anything short of global thermonuclear war, what would result is exactly what TPTB are scared to death of.

BARR: A Canadian-Style ‘Emergency’ Could Easily Happen Here

On Feb. 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave Canadians a Valentine’s Day present, invoking the draconian “Emergencies Act” and suspending a wide range of civil liberties otherwise enjoyed by his countrymen.
Lest Americans conclude that our constitutional republic is safe from such facially dictatorial actions, they should know that under existing federal laws and the laws of every state, the president or a governor could take similar “emergency” action at any time they decide an “emergency” presents itself. COVID has demonstrated this is spades.
Regardless of whether a real emergency exists prior to a president or governor invoking such powers, and regardless of whether such declaration is for a statutorily limited time, consequential damage to the fabric of a free society results. At a minimum, declaring an “emergency” and suspending individual liberties serves as a “warning” to citizens that they had best be careful what they say and do in the future.
Trudeau’s actions in declaring a “national emergency” because of an irksome, but peaceful, trucker’s strike should cause Americans to pay far closer attention to “emergency powers” laws here at home. Doing so might force some of our countrymen to question the abject fear that has undergirded much of public policy in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11 — made far worse by the manner in which governments at all levels have responded to the COVID pandemic in the past biennium.
From a practical standpoint, as we see in Canada, it matters little whether the declaration of the “emergency” fits clearly within the four corners of the emergency law that is invoked. What matters is the presence of circumstances in which an elected leader is able to stoke the flames of fear and anger in a sufficiently large segment of the electorate, so that the invocation of the law seems to constitute a reasonable response.
Once an “emergency” law is on the books of the sovereign entity, whether of a state or the federal government, all it takes is a “stroke of the pen, law of the land” (to quote former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala) to unleash the awesome powers at that sovereign’s disposal. Just watch the videos emerging from Ottawa to see how quickly the nightmare unfolds once the document is signed.
The actual form of the government declaring the emergency is of little consequence. Abuse of emergency powers can happen in a representative democracy such as ours just as easily as in a Canadian parliamentary system. Moreover, Republicans often are just as likely to play the “emergency powers” card as are their Democrat counterparts. It was, after all, Republican President Donald Trump who, in March 2020, invoked the powers of at least three federal “national emergency” laws to meet a perceived COVID emergency threat.
Granted, many emergency declarations by state and federal officials are focused toward and limited to natural disasters, such as hurricanes or floods, and used primarily to free up government assistance. However,  the actual powers nestled within those laws are frighteningly expansive. For example, a U.S. president arguably could, among other actions upon declaring a “national emergency “ (not expressly defined in federal laws), seize control of the internet pursuant to a 1930s era communications law or freeze individuals’ financial accounts in reliance on 1970s era laws.
At the state level, Second Amendment supporters will recall law enforcement officers in New Orleans seizing, at times forcibly, over 1,000 lawfully owned private firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even though subsequent legal action undertaken by the NRA and other gun-rights groups successfully challenged the seizures, many firearms never were returned to their owners.
Even today, with medical and scientific evidence clearly demonstrating that lingering COVID hazards are not dire and are manageable, many government agencies, including public schools in jurisdictions across the country, are refusing to hand back all the “emergency” powers they grabbed in early 2020.
Founding Father James Madison had it right when he wrote in Federalist 57 that placing the powers of all three branches of government in the hands of one entity (whether a prime minister, a governor or a president) is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Today, 234 years later, tyranny is still tyranny, even if it is only “temporary.”
Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Putin: First Person Spoken Word

If you are only reading commentary about Russian President Putin’s speech of 21 Feb 2022 or watching short clips, you are doing yourself a disservice.

While some reporting is good, there is a lot of spin, narrative shaping, and just plain lazy reporting.

If you want to try to understand if not what is in Putin’s head, but what he wants the Russian people to think is in his head, you need to read and watch the speech yourself.

When someone tells you what they’re thinking, listen to them.

Putin isn’t trying to bring back the Soviet Union, he’s focused on something much deeper and meaningful, the Russian Empire…build back better, as it were.

You can clearly see that he is playing a very long game. Just like he did in Georgia and Crimea last decade. He will take a bite, let the short term outrage burn itself out, let the rest of Europe and the international community regress to the mean, and then take another bite…etc…etc.

As long as this process works, why change it?

If you don’t have time for a full read but want to get a boildown of foundation of the argument for all that follows, here is what got my attention.

Continue reading “”

Western Authoritarianism

The original question was: “What lies at the root of the authoritarianism that seems to be asserting itself in free societies in today’s West?”

Here’s my answer:

The same root that causes irritating busybodies to take over Home Owner Associations. Some people have a lust for power. Government is the ultimate well of power. Author Frank Herbert expressed it well:

“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”

Also:

“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong – faster and faster and faster.”

Leftism is itself a religion, complete with an Eden (Earth), an original sin (Capitalism), and a god (government – aka “power over others.”) Another quote I’m fond of by a gentleman by the name of Glenn Wishard:

“The rise and fall of the Marxist ideal is rather neatly contained in the Twentieth Century, and comprises its central political phenomenon. Fascism and democratic defeatism are its sun-dogs.
The common theme is politics as a theology of salvation, with a heroic transformation of the human condition (nothing less) promised to those who will agitate for it.
Political activity becomes the highest human vocation.
The various socialisms are only the most prominent manifestation of this delusion, which our future historian calls “politicism”.
In all its forms, it defines human beings as exclusively political animals, based on characteristics which are largely or entirely beyond human control: ethnicity, nationality, gender, and social class.
It claims universal relevance, and so divides the entire human race into heroes and enemies.
To be on the correct side of this equation is considered full moral justification in and of itself, while no courtesy or concession can be afforded to those on the other.
Therefore, politicism has no conscience whatsoever, no charity, and no mercy.”

When your quest is to drag the rest of the world, kicking and screaming, into your utopia, authoritarianism is the way to get there. Never mind that you’re enabling the most greedy, rapacious and psychopathic to grab the levers of power.

In short, it’s human nature.