Milley confirms he told China he would call ahead of US attack, claims Esper ordered calls based on intel

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley confirmed that he told his Chinese counterpart that he would “call” to warn of any potential U.S. attacks on Beijing, maintaining he had that conversation at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper after assessing intelligence suggesting heightened Chinese concerns about escalation between the two “great” powers.

Milley addressed allegations that he held “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, in October 2020 and days after the Capitol riot in January 2021, which were included in “Peril,” a book co-authored by Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

Milley has faced calls to resign since the revelations were made public earlier this month. The book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims that Milley contacted Li after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea. The book claims Milley contacted Li a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form.

On Wednesday, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee focused on the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, Milley responded to questions about the allegations.

Continue reading “”

While the ‘rifle behind every blade of grass‘ quote has little to no confirmation, what Yamamoto is noted for saying is that it would be necessary to “...march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House.” and that would be after conquering everything beforehand. He knew that anything less would not be sufficient, and also that it was an impossible task.
The Chinese commie goobermint should take his words to heart.


China’s Ominous Focus On Second Amendment

The nation of China is a fascinating place. The history and culture are among the most interesting in the world to me.

The government? Not so much.

Luckily, I don’t have to interact with what the Chinese government says or does very much. More correctly, I didn’t. However, lately, Chinese state-run media outlets have opted to pontificate about the Second Amendment and gun control.

Now, to be clear, a lot of countries voice opinions on what other nations do and permit. I actually take issue with China about their human rights record, specifically the whole “herding people into camps, taking their organs, and sterilizing them” thing.

You know, small stuff.

But China is talking about the Second Amendment, a core part of who we are as a nation, and it’s troubling. In particular, why are they so interested in American gun laws? It’s not like they’re that interested in American lives. If they were, they might have taken more care in trying to contain COVID-19. They might even be more open with the rest of the world in trying to find the origins of the pandemic.

They’re not.

So instead, China is doing this for reasons that will benefit them. We, as a nation, would do well to question why.

The most obvious answer, of course, is that they benefit from a divided United States. If we’re arguing and debating domestic matters with such vehemence, we can’t examine what they’ve done and continue to do within their own borders.

Further, by claiming our refusal to adopt gun control is a human rights issue, they’re trying to gaslight the international community to ignore the concentration camps and eugenics taking place within their own borders.

That’s the easy answer, and Occam’s Razor tells us that’s probably the right one. Yet Occam’s Razor also assumes you have all the facts. We may not in this case.

See, China and the US aren’t exactly best pals. China is an aggressive military power that is trying desperately to become a superpower. Arguably, they’re close. Plus, no one is expecting them to be a peaceful superpower.

That means the odds are that sooner or later, the United States and China will clash. If that clash becomes a war, we can’t rule out the possibility of invasion. It’s better to fight in someone else’s yard than your own. That means we must at least consider that any contingency plans include the possibility of invading the US.

After World War II, a story popped up that Japanese General Yamamoto warned his people that if they invaded the US, there would be “a rifle behind every blade of grass.” The story appears to be apocryphal, unfortunately, but the sentiment expressed is certainly valid. As an armed society, we have the means to assist our military in repelling invaders. Plus, since the popular AR-15 uses the same ammunition and magazines as the M-4/M-16, we can easily be resupplied from military stores if need be.

In light of this, China’s opposition to gun ownership in the United States takes on a frightening tone.

It’s not about discord among the American citizenry, but about hopefully pushing the United States to weaken itself so that if an invasion were to take place we would be less able to repel it.

While American gun control activists may actually agree with the sentiment expressed via China’s state-run media, even they should at least question why China is so concerned about a domestic issue. They should be concerned that Chinese interest has less to do with concerns about American lives and more with destabilizing our nation or worse.

Unfortunately, too few are interested in doing anything but echoing Chinese media whenever convenient and never questioning why they care about this at all.

If you think this is just a bunch of intellectual blowhards:

Oil Train Disaster Near Seattle May Have Been Caused By Sabotage

2nd woman convicted of railroad track sabotage in Washington

ANTIFA Sabotaged Train Rails Causing Amtrak Empire Builder 7/27 To Derail In Montana


New Yorker hosts environmental extremist calling for eco-terrorism, pipeline bombings

In the name of climate activism, The New Yorker has provided a platform for a far-left environmental extremist on its weekly podcast show.”How To Blow Up A Pipeline” author Andreas Malm, an associate senior lecturer of human ecology at Lund University, was invited on Friday’s episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour, where the professor’s impassioned calls for eco-terrorism were amplified by the establishment outlet’s radio program.
Pontificating on how to save the planet from the fossil fuel industry, The New Yorker guest implored the environmental movement to embrace violence.
Malm, who sits on the editorial board of the academic journal Historical Materialism, told The New Yorker editor and radio host David Remnick that it’s time for the climate change movement to “diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle, and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.”https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1441967305089601536

Continue reading “”

The Collapse of Biden’s World.

Despite his vow to “build back better,” China is forcing all of Joe Biden’s moves. The Asian giant’s decision to pursue its own climate policy, consisting largely of more industrialization with green trimmings, effectively kills the Paris accords, so long a part of the progressive platform.  How could it not? Beijing produces more emissions than the EU and U.S. combined.

“In 2019, China’s emissions not only eclipsed that of the US — the world’s second-largest emitter at 11% of the global total — but also, for the first time, surpassed the emissions of all developed countries combined … When added together, GHG emissions from all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as well as all 27 EU member states, reached 14,057 MMt CO2e in 2019, about 36 MMt CO2e short of China’s total.”

Not only is climate change DOA, but the post-WW2 alliance structure is in the ICU. China’s naval expansion pushed Washington to undercut the planned Australian purchase of French conventional submarines in favor of U.K.-U.S. nuclear designs. “For Mr. Macron, the [AUKUS] submarine debacle demonstrates that the NATO alliance is debilitated to the point of dysfunction through lack of trust. The glue has gone. Without transparency — and in the submarine deal there was none — alliance, in the French view, becomes an empty word.”

The “glue” that held NATO together was fear of the Soviet bear. But that once formidable bruin is mangy and supplanted by the much more formidable CCP dragon. The decline of European alliances reflects the strategic primacy of Asia. The irony was that up until Kevin Rudd became PM, Australia actually wanted to become part of Asia. But Chinese expansionism changed all that and stirred in the Aussie breast the old but not wholly forgotten memories of alliances with the English-speaking world.

Continue reading “”

Image


Purported ‘intellectuals‘ like this are the main reason we have the problems in this country we have. They’re over educated, intrusive, leftist, busybodies who happen to live in a time where society has become ‘civilized’ to the point that they’re not tarred, feathered and ridden on a rail out to the edge of town and told not to come back.

Saving Your Child From The Village

A reader comments on the “Gender Identity And Your Kids” thread:

There’s a certain kind of conservative who looks at this trend [the corruption of fandom by gender ideology obsessives — RD] and says, “Good riddance. Unplug it all. Now your lazy nerd kids can spend all day at the gym lifting weights, or learn to play a musical instrument, and won’t be wasting time on the fandom of some media-marketed TV show or book series.”

I totally understand this impulse as a utopian ideal, but I also think there’s a horrible lack of appreciation for how difficult it is to raise kids in a world where they are uncomfortable with participating (or forbidden to participate) in popular franchise fan culture. My children are homeschooled and constantly desperate for more peer interaction. When they meet other kids at the park, or the roller skating rink, or on vacation, they are bombarded with aspects of pop culture from which they are being excluded — and they know it. Last month my brother passed along a collection of books and comics that my nephew was reading, and within a few weeks my 9-year-old came to us to confess that one of the books had “the f-word” in it. It ended up featuring a protagonist who was a pre-op transgender boy. At at this point I’m not even sure if her uncle gave it to her out of ignorance, or if he knew but did it anyway as a way to subvert our overly protective parenting style. I don’t have the heart to start a confrontation over it, given the cultural and ideological stress I have with my siblings already. Do you have any idea how wretched I feel that I can no longer trust my own brother as a screen for children’s literature content?

Right now my girls are super-enthusiastic about a book series… and I know they are just a few books away from the one that introduces a lesbian character. We started watching a TV show… and I already know which season has the gay wedding. Every new property (whether it’s original or the rebooting of a Gen X classic) is simply obligated to pay out a wokeness tax now. I’ll let my children watch this stuff with my supervision sometimes, when we can talk about it along the way. But I can’t let them enjoy unsupervised spaces with peers, certainly not in virtual spaces, since those peers are not going to exercise similar discretion. I essentially have to ban my kids from having friends unless those friends are very carefully vetted and supervised, and now I feel trapped in a helicopter-parenting Defcon-alert holding pattern.

It’s hard to exaggerate how besieged the current culture makes me feel as a parent of two daughters leaving elementary school age. I have unceasing dread of a giant industry devoted to prying my children away from my world, my culture, and my values, and to convince them that I’m the sociological equivalent of the stock villains being defeated weekly in their prepackaged media products. I want to give my children the freedom to explore and discover friends without oppressive surveillance, but all of the friends they meet want to create secretive phone-driven modes of contact with them for private conversations. Am I doomed to become a CIA operative, using spyware to catch my preteen daughter having illicit chats about testosterone and top surgery? Will I be the stereotypical killjoy parent, demanding that my girls stop seeing any friends I regard as “a bad influence”? I’m staring into an abyss that has swallowed so much of my world and the things in it that I once loved already, and has designs on my girls as well.

I’ve given up on having any kind of fandom myself, except of a few retro franchises that I can pretend are “closed”. But even that no longer feels safe. What’s LGBT representation going to look like in the new Tolkien-verse show on Amazon? After feeding that fandom for years, do I suddenly have to start telling my own children to avoid interacting with anyone who acts too enthusiastic about Middle Earth? Is there any safe ground left? Will they come for Narnia next?

This devouring of a formerly apolitical childhood and adolescent culture of organic fan enthusiasm to transform it into a catechism for woke cant is an act of unspeakable cruelty to families.

Well said. This is what totalitarianism means: the infiltration of politics (cultural and otherwise) into every aspect of life. In Huxley’s Brave New World, the Savage was the only sane person there because as an exile, he had been raised ignorant of the corrupt totalitarian culture and its values. I heard the other day about a family — a conservative Christian family — that has been devastated by gender ideology wreaking havoc in the lives of their children. It sneaked up on them. Catastrophe. I mean, honest-to-God destruction of young people’s bodies and souls, and of family relationships.

It used to be that it takes a village to save a child. Now, you have to work hard to save your child from the village.

Biden Has a Plan to Create a Gestapo Force…Using an Agency That’s Already Been Engulfed in Controversy

What was the joke? We don’t have an SS-Gestapo because we already have the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Taxes are probably some of the records, if not the only records that the government is meticulous about when it comes to reporting. For years, the IRS simply did not have the resources to act like the bloodthirsty hawk it has always wanted to be. Now, Joe Biden is hoping to rebuild the IRS into a tax Gestapo force. How? Well, if the vaccine mandates were any indication, it’s the usual formula of government overreach that’s overlooked because the liberal media loves this guy.

Yes, the media were tough on Biden during the Afghanistan fiasco. A broken clock is right twice a day. And while gold stars are warranted here, it’s sort of sad — since this is the media’s job.

The Afghanistan withdrawal was shambolic. It was terrible. Now, when are the media going to hit him on how we left Americans behind in Afghanistan? When will they hit him for his lackadaisical approach to rising inflation, which is seen first and foremost by female voters who balance the budgets in America’s homes? The jobs reports are abysmal. The French are recalling their ambassador. And the border is lost. This administration is a serial failure.

Yet, I digress. How creepy is Biden’s IRS plan? Well, any account, personal or business, that has over $600 will be monitored. Yeah, you heard that right. Virtually every Americans’ bank account will be under the microscope of the IRS. Why is this being missed? Well, first, it’s buried in that monstrosity of a human infrastructure bill that comes in at a “conservative” price tag of $3.5 trillion, which is on top of the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill that comes in at $1.2 trillion. And people wonder why inflation is through the roof (via Fox Business):

Continue reading “”

BARR: Milley And Biden Together Have Crossed A Dangerous Constitutional Line

Recently disclosed actions by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley highlight a serious fraying of the civilian-military structure at the very core of our constitutional republic and also reveal a deep public misunderstanding of that relationship. Combined, these factors pose a danger the likes of which the country has not witnessed in modern times, if ever.

Our Constitution on this point is crystal clear. There is one commander-in-chief, and that person is the President of the United States. The decision to place the elected civilian leader of our country at the apex of the country’s armed forces was purposeful as a means of protecting the citizenry and the states from an overly-powerful national army that could undermine the constitutional order the Framers had so carefully constructed. Without this safeguard, the Constitution likely would not have been ratified in 1788.

Notwithstanding this constitutional clarity on military matters, inter-service rivalries and bureaucratic shenanigans have cropped up throughout our history. In modern times, these practical problems led Congress to pass two major reorganizations of the military command structure.

The first of these was the National Security Act of 1947, which clarified the chain of command from the president on down by establishing the Department of Defense headed by a cabinet-level Secretary.

Then, in 1986 to address problems that hampered the conduct of the Vietnam conflict, and serious inter-service rivalries thereafter, Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act. This law further clarified the lines of authority for military decision making, and made absolutely clear that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had no operational control or command over any military units or individuals. His responsibility is advisory only — to the president, the secretary of defense and the National Security Council.

Any action by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to make or direct operational, military decisions is directly contrary to the law; in a word, unlawful.

Yet, to Milley and those who support him, which apparently includes Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill, many major journalists and even President Biden himself, these legal restrictions are trumped by their partisan hatred of Donald Trump. Thus, in the days immediately preceding the November 3, 2020 election, and continuing through Biden’s inauguration the following January, Milley took it upon himself to brazenly violate Article II of the Constitution, the National Security Act, the Goldwater-Nichols Act and his own oath of office.

Just days before the 2020 election, reflecting his personal concerns that President Trump’s behavior might cause China’s military to respond adversely, Milley apparently called his counterpart at the Chinese People’s Liberation Army to assure him that he – Milley – would make sure no such actions by the United States took place.

Subsequently, according to published accounts that Milley has not denied, in early January he directed that subordinate officers (over who Milley has no lawful command authority) inform him if they became aware of any orders with which Milley might disagree that concerned nuclear weapons decisions by Trump, presumably so he could countermand them.

By thus placing himself directly between the president and the Secretary of Defense, which is the person to whom the president issues operational commands as commander-in-chief, Gen. Milley was acting unlawfully.

Milley has not expanded on these allegations, beyond suggesting they were approved by the Secretary of Defense (which they were not) and that they reflected historical precedent (which they do not). Milley is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill next week, but severe damage to the constitutional fabric of our country already has resulted.

In the immediate aftermath of these startling revelations, Biden not only declined to fire Milley, but actually expressed “confidence” in him.

A president who exhibits so little regard for the constitutional authority of the office he holds, not only demeans and undercuts his own presidency, but by his actions encourage further and possibly even more dangerous erosion of presidential authority by military leaders who may harbor policy disagreements with Biden’s successors. Journalists who deem such gross insubordination as practiced by Milley to be acceptable because it was predicated on action against Trump, exacerbate the constitutional divide.

Milley and Biden have opened a can of constitutional worms that truly will plague future presidents of both major political parties.

Shooting In China Illustrative Of Gun Control’s Failures

I’m not a fan of the government of China. Totalitarian dictatorships that try to gaslight the entire planet over their atrocities tend to rub me wrong for some silly reason.

Yet that’s not the only reason to dislike China. After all, they like to use their state-run media to take potshots at the Second Amendment.

I get annoyed when the Brits do it, but they’re not also herding people into concentration camps, sterilizing people, then bragging on Twitter about how they’re freeing those same people.

Then, to top it all off, it seems China doesn’t have quite the handle on guns they would prefer us to believe.

On September 13, a lawyer was killed in Wuhan by a gun-wielding man over a debt litigation suit.

According to local reports, the suspect, a 47-year-old surnamed Lei, entered the office of the lawyer, surnamed Xue, at around 10am and committed the deadly act.

Video clips circulating online show the gunman leaving the office with what appears to be a shotgun and pointing it at motorists. Phoenix news reported that Lei eventually hijacked a white BMW and fled the scene.

According to a Weibo post by Guanggu police at 12.55pm on Monday, Lei was detained at 11.50am that same day. The post also confirmed Xue’s death and said an investigation was in process.

Xue had been representing four clients in a suit at the Hongshan District People’s Court in Wuhan in May 2021 to seize RMB1.26 million in assets from Lei and his company, as cited by Shine.

Lei represented a construction company that had previously been given a court order for not fulfilling its legal obligations on time.

Of course, China isn’t a liberal democracy that respects all of its citizen’s rights by any stretch of the imagination. They tightly control pretty much everything. You can’t even fart without special permission from the government, basically.

And yet, this happened. In a country that claims that it has the right of how gun laws should work.

Then again, they also act like Tiananmen Square didn’t happen, so we shouldn’t really take anything they say with boatloads of grains of salt.

Especially since, even though gun crime might be rare, violent crime happens plenty. For example, we’ve covered a number of mass stabbings. Murder is murder, no matter how you think to frame it, and China has plenty of murders.

And that’s not counting the state-sanctioned genocide of the Uyghur people.

This shooting happened in broad daylight despite every single gun control measure you care to name. The shooter wasn’t a known member of organized crime or a terrorist group, some organization with the means and tools to smuggle guns into the country. What it suggests is that there are a lot more “illegal” guns in China than the government may care to admit.

Frankly, I hope so. I hope there are so many that soon, people will rise up and defenestrate their communist leadership from the highest buildings they can find and rejoin the world of freedom. Just look to the people in Taiwan for advice on how to do that, anyway, since they’re really the legitimate Chinese government in my not-so-humble opinion.

Maybe China’s communist leadership should reevaluate their lives.

We can hope, anyway. After all, if that happens, Tibet and Hong Kong will be free as well.

Book Review

America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism

It is no secret that American public life is fracturing. The fissures can be seen in our gladiatorial-like Supreme Court nomination hearings, the collapse of confidence in our institutions, and the mounting sense that many have that elections won’t change the country’s fundamental trajectory. These disputes are merely symptoms, however, of a broader problem, the roots of which extend back decades.

As Ronald J. Pestritto, graduate dean and professor of politics at Hillsdale College, argues in America Transformed, our present-day clashes reflect a fundamental “divide over first principles,” which he traces to the rise of the Progressive Movement in the late nineteenth century. Pestritto makes a convincing case that the Progressives—including Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey—sought to “revolutionize both the theory and practice of American government.”

The Progressives had their differences and factions: consider the fierce 1912 presidential campaign between Wilson and Roosevelt. Yet they adhered to a “coherent set of principles, with a common purpose.” They unleashed a “direct assault on the core ideas of the American founding,” openly rejecting the natural rights teachings of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson once told an audience that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface”—the same preface that contains the most concise articulation of the Founders’ political theory.

Pestritto argues that, for progressives like education reformer Dewey, the Founders’ “great sin” was to think that principles such as a natural human equality in rights and government by consent transcended “the particular circumstances of that day.” Influenced by Hegel’s philosophical idealism, they argued that historical progress had shown that what the Founders thought were universal truths were in fact simply ideas of their time. In fact, the principles of the American Founding, and the Constitution built to reflect them, actively prevented government from taking the swift action that the public now demanded.

Pestritto suggests that “native influences” had already compromised the American immune system by the time the Progressive Movement emerged. A toxic mix of Social Darwinism, pragmatism, and the rejection of social compact theory in New England and the antebellum South prepared American intellectuals and politicians to accept an alternative account of politics that seemed better able to meet the challenges of modern society. The Progressives claimed that historical progress necessitated a dynamic and perfectible human nature, an idea that the Founders rejected. James Madison’s claim in Federalist 10 that the prevention of majority tyranny would always be a problem in political life was simply false, they believed. Thus Woodrow Wilson and political scientist Frank Goodnow sharply criticized the Constitution’s separation of powers and the slow, methodical lawmaking process the Framers had put in place, which they saw as hopelessly out of step with the public will and too often stymied by a combination of political machines, big business, and other special interests.

Pestritto maintains that the progressives worked toward “democratizing and unifying national political institutions,” though they sometimes differed on the means to achieve this end. Ever the radical, Theodore Roosevelt proposed policies such as overturning judicial decisions and the recall of recalcitrant judges who resisted heavy regulation of business. Herbert Croly, a cofounder of The New Republic, wanted to eliminate political parties altogether.

To make politics fully democratic, the Progressives insisted that political leaders accountable to the people needed to find means of breaking the constitutional logjam—think of Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit.” Roosevelt and Wilson frequently enlisted (and refashioned) the memory of American statesmen such as Abraham Lincoln, John Marshall, and Daniel Webster, men who, in their rendering, had supposedly discerned history’s centralizing trends.

Pestritto argues that as the Progressives seemingly brought politics closer to the people, they simultaneously moved “policymaking power away from popular institutions,” handing it to “educated elites.” They essentially established a fourth branch of government, a vast bureaucracy that wields legislative, executive, and judicial powers—what Madison considered the very definition of tyranny—that would fully bloom during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency. What we know today as the administrative state (a phrase coined by the political scientist Dwight Waldo in the 1950s) had its genesis in the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.W. Hampton v. United States, which granted broad powers to supposedly nonideological experts insulated from the corrupting effects of electoral politics.

Pestritto notes that this new conception of government—the sharp split between politics and administration—originated in the “laboratories of democracy” of state and local governments. There, Progressive governors such as California’s Hiram Johnson and Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette pushed direct democracy: the ballot initiative, recall, referendum, the direct election of senators, and electoral primaries. Through the establishment of government by unelected commission and the rise of nonpartisan city managers, the notion of expert administration permeated state governments in Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Illinois, as well as cities such as Galveston, Cincinnati, Des Moines, and Cleveland.

The Progressives’ strong belief in the notion of historical progress also guided their foreign policy. History had demonstrated that modern democracy was the “permanent and most advanced form of government,” Wilson once wrote. To make the world safe for democracy, the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy necessitated an aggressive series of interventions in Haiti, Santo Domingo, Cuba, Mexico, and the Philippines.

History had chosen the United States to lead the “children” (as Wilson described other sovereign nations) so that they could someday reach the heights of democratic governance. And should certain “barbaric races” fail to do what they were told, Progressive historian Charles Merriam wrote in a particularly appalling passage, they “may be swept away.”

Some Progressives saw historical progress as the will of God Himself. Marshaling rhetoric that today would be regarded as extreme Christian nationalism, Roosevelt told the Progressive Party convention in 1912, “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

Adherents of the Social Gospel, the Progressive Movement’s religious wing, were liberal Protestants who worked to reconcile life “on earth as it is in heaven.” They turned away from concerns over individual salvation and other orthodox theological concerns and instead inculcated a social ethic that sought to use the modern state to equalize economic conditions. Pestritto observes that in one of his more moderate moments Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch called for the “public ownership of essential industries.” By following God’s unfolding plan, which history was revealing to mankind, human beings would someday experience the Eden that our ancestors had failed to maintain.

Pestritto concludes America Transformed by noting that, thanks to the Progressives’ handiwork, “citizens of two different regimes [are] occupying the same country.” The regime that today opposes that of the Founders is far different from what the original Progressives intended, but by uncoupling America from its natural rights foundations, they can justly be credited (or rather, blamed) for inaugurating our current crisis. Pestritto’s concise volume, the best available overview of progressive political thought and practice, will help Americans make sense of the stark divisions that confront us.

 

Trump acting Defense Secretary Miller says he ‘did not’ authorize Milley China calls, says he should resign
Christopher Miller called the reported calls an ‘unprecedented act of insubordination’

EXCLUSIVE: Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon from the period after the 2020 election through Inauguration Day, said that he “did not and would not ever authorize” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to have “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, describing the allegations as a “disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination,” and calling on him to resign “immediately.”

In a statement to Fox News, Miller said that the United States Armed Forces, from its inception, has “operated under the inviolable principle of civilian control of the military.”

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military officer whose sole role is providing military-specific advice to the president, and by law is prohibited from exercising executive authority to command forces,” Miller said. “The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense, not through the Chairman.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
It’s clear that Milley was a delusional man run amok. He had convinced himself he was standing against a coming revolution when all he was really doing was violating the constitutional order to feed his own ego. Further, it’s fairly obvious that his talks with Nancy Pelosi were to ingratiate himself so he could keep his job in the next administration. There’s a reason Milley is pushing critical race theory in the military. He’s a political actor concerned with staying in power, not with actually helping keep the military in a condition where it can perform its legal role.

Mark Milley Finally Gives His Denial but Ends up Telling on Himself

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has finally given his denial regarding the claim that he pledged to the Chinese to commit treason in order to undermine Donald Trump. As RedState previously reported, a quote from Bob Woodward’s new book showed Milley had promised a Chinese general that he would tip him off of any incoming American attack. This was part of an intricate plan pushed by Nancy Pelosi and others for Milley to essentially operate as a military dictator.

Now, after a day of letting the story simmer, Milley is personally denying the charge. Or is he? You be the judge and then we’ll dive into the details.

Continue reading “”

Retired Army Colonel Breaks Down How Bad Milley’s Actions Really Were

Retired Army Colonel Douglas McGregor appeared with Tucker Carlson last night to talk about the bombshell information about Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley. McGregor was formerly senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump.

As we previously reported, according to information in a new book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Milley spoke with his counterpart in China and assured him that he would tell him if we were going to attack them. Milley did not tell the president about this contact with the Chinese.

On top of that, as we reported, he allegedly interfered in the ability of the president to solely dictate military/nuclear action by telling senior military officials that no action should be taken without him being involved.

This all came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spoke to Milley and other senior military leaders and demanded that he do something about President Donald Trump. She was told at the time that would amount to a military coup. We reported that back on Jan. 9.

But then, according to Woodward and Costa, Milley acted on it, basically subverting the chain of command at the behest of Pelosi, basically carrying out a coup.

McGregor detailed to Tucker Carlson how wrong this all was.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day

I remember when all the best people were ready to turn America upside down over nonexistent Russian collusion claims.


Probable Chinese spies claim ‘Raycissss!’


Stanford professors ask DOJ to stop looking for Chinese spies at universities in US.

While acknowledging that is important for the U.S. to address concerns of intellectual property theft and economic espionage, the Stanford educators wrote in their letter that the program has since “deviated significantly from its claimed mission.”

The professors stated that the China Initiative is “harming the United States’ research and technology competitiveness and it is fueling biases that, in turn, raise concerns about racial profiling.”

They pointed out that the program disproportionately targets researchers with Chinese origins, choosing to investigate them not based on evidence but simply for having a connection to China.

The program was started in 2018 to combat Chinese espionage but has since been criticized for investigating Asian individuals falsely accused of committing crimes.

“In many cases the federal response seems disproportionate and inappropriate. In some cases, federal agents associated with the China Initiative have prosecuted researchers without solid evidence,” the professors wrote. “Moreover, racial profiling – even when undertaken in pursuit of justice – is both inconsistent with U.S. law and with the principles underlying our society.”

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think the idea of a compulsory covid shot enjoys as much ‘broad popularity’ as the author does. Propagandism is known for trying convince people that ‘loud’ equals ‘ alot’.


No, Biden, This Is About Freedom and Personal Choice
It’s time to stop “states of exception” that justify government overreach into more and more of our lives.

There is every reason to believe that President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for COVID-19 will not survive legal scrutiny even as compulsory vaccination for the disease enjoys broad popularity among the public. As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.)—like me, a pro-vaccine, anti-mandate libertarian—has bluntly noted, “There is no authority for this. This is a legislative action that bypasses the legislative branch.”

The courts will almost certainly strike down this executive branch overreach and the sweeping new rules that wave away longstanding distinctions between public and private spheres of activity. This is what happened to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium. It’s foundational to American life that the president is not a king who can subject citizens to his whims.

Yet the most important passage in Biden’s remarks reveals a governing philosophy that should give all Americans pause, especially in light of the massive and ongoing expansion of the federal government over the past several decades. After duly noting the “progress” made in terms of vaccinations, Biden pulled up short to say that we the people are just not doing what he wants when he wants:

This is not about freedom or personal choice. It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love.

My job as president is to protect all Americans. So tonight, I’m announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together employ over 80 million workers to ensure their work forces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.

King County (Washington) Government

Contra Biden, everything is always (or should be) about freedom and personal choice. That libertarian sentiment defines America’s ethos and can’t simply be written out of the script because it gets in the way of what this or any other president wants. There are legitimate moments when rights can be abrogated due to actual existential threats, but this is certainly not one of them.

As Jeffrey A. Singer, a surgeon and senior fellow for the Cato Institute, has noted, COVID-19 has a “0.2 percent fatality rate among people not living in institutions.” Fully 80 percent of deaths have occurred among people over 65 and just 358 children under the age of 17 had died of the disease as of July 29, 2021. We are not talking about smallpox, which affected all populations and had a fatality rate of 30 percent. COVID, argues Singer, “will not be eradicated” and will become a small-scale, endemic problem that should be minimized by targeted interventions to protect the most vulnerable. From a public health perspective, it should not become the casus belli for a radical restructuring of society and a massive expansion of presidential (or governmental) powers.

Vaccines are not only effective against getting COVID-19 in the first place, they virtually guarantee you will not die or even be hospitalized if you do contract it. Let Washington state’s King County—where the first cases of COVID presented back in early 2020—stand in for the nation as a whole. Unvaccinated people there are seven times more likely to catch COVID, 50 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 30 times as likely to die. Age-adjusted death rates show the benefits of vaccination in unmistakable terms (see chart above).

The rapid development and deployment of safe and effective vaccines—a medical miracle that could have gone months faster had the Food and Drug Administration not acted as ploddingly as a wizened old draft horse—makes possible the return to normalcy that was promised in the early days of the pandemic. We are now capable of setting and enforcing our own risk limits on what sorts of activities we want to do. The information is out there and individuals, employers, and establishments can set and are setting their own rules based on what they want. If we don’t all agree, that’s not chaos, that’s freedom in all its unregimented, varied glory. It allows comedian Patton Oswalt to cancel shows in places that won’t follow his protocols while letting other performances to take place under less-stringent conditions.

As important, the “vaccine-hesitant” are hesitant for all sorts of reasons. Poorer people tend to be less vaccinated than average, and so are blacks and Hispanics and younger people, and, weirdly, people with doctorates. A flat, imperious mandate that doesn’t speak to these groups’ differing concerns will only sharpen political and cultural divides even as Biden claims to be acting in the name of national unity. This is already happening, as individuals and groups are becoming less nuanced in their responses and simply signing up for whatever political tribe they feel bound to. Hence, a sizeable chunk of conservative Republicans are not simply anti-vaccine mandate but anti-vaccine, and the ACLU, which only a few years ago denounced most vaccine mandates, has now fully embraced them. While done in the name of protecting “all Americans,” Biden’s mandate clearly escalates ongoing culture wars.

So even as he ends the war in Afghanistan, Biden beefs up the war on COVID. It’s understandable, wanting to be a wartime president, whether the threats to the country are truly existential or mostly invented and overstated (as they certainly were in the war on terror). Being at war ushers in what the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls a “state of exception,” which allows the leaders of nominally limited governments to suspend restrictions on their power.

Heavily influenced by Michel Foucault, who like the public-choice economists argued that power is routinely expanded using medicalized “helper rhetoric,” Agamben was a leading critic of the global war on terror when Western powers, including and especially the United States, vastly expanded surveillance, police, and military actions in the wake of the 9/11 attacks—always in the name of defending a free society (go here for a video lecture I gave at Bard College on this). When his Italian government started one of the first and most draconian lockdowns related to COVID-19, he sounded the alarm again even as many of his leftist allies called him crazy. Yet over the past several decades, governments at all levels in the United States and elsewhere have squandered whatever trust and confidence we once accorded them. When it comes to the Covid-19 response, our official agencies can no longer claim the benefit of the doubt due to an ongoing series of “arbitrary, dubious, and ever-changing recommendations.”

Yet rather than use persuasion and dialogue to get his way, Biden is invoking a state of exception as the pretext for issuing a massive expansion of his power over more and more aspects of our daily lives (Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and other past presidents all did something similar, of course). We must push back not simply because of what his new order would actually do but because of the expansion of political power it continues and expands.

We want to live in a country and a world in which “freedom or personal choice” is growing, not constantly being swept aside as an obstacle to a leader’s plan.

Joe Biden Has Mandated a Vaccine for 80 Million Employees. Now Let Him Enforce It.

Joe Biden has decided to order a vaccine mandate and compel obedience to government policy after saying for months that he’d do no such thing.

But it’s difficult to resist the siren song of authoritarianism if you’re president — all that power and no one to command. So forcing people to get poked in the arm and receive the magic elixir is about all Biden can do to exercise authority

The problem is that someone forgot to tell Old Joe that he doesn’t have the power to force private-sector businesses to comply with his mandate. This is completely understandable. If you worked in the White House, would you have the guts to tell the guy you work for, “Sorry Mr. President, but the Constitution doesn’t give you the authority to boss around people who don’t directly work for you”?

I didn’t think so.

Sadly, it’s not likely the federal courts will put the kibosh on Biden’s delusions of power either. Most federal circuit courts have pretty much given up on the notion of restraining executive power and will gladly give Biden the legal cover he needs to compel vaccinations.

The president plans to enlist several federal agencies to help him in his power play. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is expected to issue rules that would force employers with more than 100 workers to compel employees to be vaccinated. There’s also the power of the federal purse, as Biden can easily withhold federal payments and federal contracts to companies that dare defy the mandate.

The only realistic way that the federal government will be able to compel citizens to take the vaccine is by segregating American society into those who have been vaccinated and those who choose not to be vaccinated. The easy way to do that is by giving everyone “papers” — or a “vaccine passport,” if you prefer.

Just to tickle the left, let’s call it the “Jim Crow Memorial Vaccine Passport.”

Whatever we call it, the people pushing it are deadly serious.

Continue reading “”