December 21, 2008

This Site is Not the Ace of Spades Site
— Ace

This is actually just a work-in-progress site.  It's half-done.  Right now it's not used, except as an emergency back-up when the main site goes down.

The actual site is at http://www.ace.mu.nu, or aceofspadeshq.com, which will redirect there.

If you're not seeing pictures on this site, it's because it's not really working yet.

If you've posted comments and no one seems to respond -- that's because most users can't see them.  Comments from the real site get posted here, but comments from here don't show up on the real site.

Basically, you should come to the real site.  It looks a little crappy right now and it breaks down a lot, but this one isn't quite ready yet.

Sorry.. should have put up this notice long ago.

Note from Pixy: Posts and comments automatically sync from the old site to this new site within 60 seconds, but some authors aren't set up on the new site, and will show up as Open Blogger.  We'll get those sorted out soon.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 AM | Comments (1411)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

July 19, 2018

Gloomy ONT
— Open Blogger

So, what kind of an evening is it going to be?

Bike jump.jpg


Oh, so it's going to be that kind of night? Fine. So be it. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:07 PM | Comments (654)
Post contains 911 words, total size 8 kb.

Judge Jeneane Pirro Thrown Off "The View" with a Bunch of "F*** You's" from Whoopi Goldberg
— Open Blogger

Ana Navarro and her stinky Barney-Rubble peasant feet was part of the lynching, of course. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:29 PM | Comments (722)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Congratulate the Soon-To-Be #3 Oil Producer in the World: Texas
— Open Blogger

Fracking amazing.

Hmm, #3 oil producer with a lot of land and a strong economy...? Why, you'd think such a small-s state could almost be its own capital-S independent State.

The future charter state of New America will pass Iran in oil production, and will be second only to Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Sexton points out that if another accounting of total US oil production is credited as right, the US is already the number 2 producer. Already.

By the way: The anti-fracking agitprop designed to stop America from becoming the world's biggest oil producer is of course funded by Russia, "interfering" in our domestic politics and influencing elections, trying to get candidates elected who would outlaw fracking.

Why doesn't CNN ever talk about that, he asked rhetorically.

I guess sometimes Russian Interference in Our Precious Democracy is a good thing. As long as it's in service of Russia's actual allies in the US, the socialist/Democrat left.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:06 PM | Comments (570)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

What? "Intelligence Community" Leaks Existence of "Top Secret" Mole in Putin's Inner Circle, Just To Throw a Minor Jibe at Trump?
— Open Blogger

Either one of two things is true:

Either the "Intelligence" community is lying, again, to advance its sectarian interests, or the "intelligence" community, which claims it is forced to violate its oaths and protocols to contain the traitor Trump, has just outed the existence of a top-level spy in the Kremlin to make minor hay about Trump.

So which is it?

The NYT piece continues:

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

Now we truly have a scandal on our hands. Someone in the intelligence community (or a former intelligence official) has apparently now revealed that the United States has a "top-secret source close to Mr. Putin." The apparent disclosure of incredibly sensitive intelligence information like this could surely put clandestine operatives' lives in jeopardy. This also sows doubt in the narrative being promulgated by the media that we must blindly trust the intelligence community's findings. If the information is to be believed, such a leak has come from someone (or multiple people) in the intelligence community who prioritized taking shots at the president over the safety and security of the American people -- and their own operatives.

Sometimes spies will lie about the nature of their information so that they can reveal the information without revealing anything about the source. There's an old story, which I think is actually true, about the US chain of command lying to air base commanders about how they knew that the Luftwaffe would be attacking this or that target this or that day.

The truth was that we had broken their codes and were simply decoding the Luftwaffe's signals traffic.

But we didn't want to expose that to base commanders, so we claimed to lower-level commanders that we had an Italian spy near a Luftwaffe air field who would peek over the fence and note when planes were leaving the base and in what direction.

The funny bit of this story is that the higher-ups were flummoxed when a base commander asked them to have the spy take a look at the Nazis' fuel stores and record how often they were filled.

So anyway, it could be that the American services have some kind of surveillance capacity that lets them know what the Russians are up to, and they're lying about having a "top-secret source close to Putin."

And yeah, that could still be inexcusable lying to the public rather than the excusable type. Because a top-secret source close to Putin sure sounds conclusive. What if the true source of the information, which is being concealed, relies upon more inferences and deductions, all subject to doubt and questioning, than a "top secret source to Putin" does?

What if, as is the wont of people who don't like having their judgment questioned, they're claiming a higher level of confidence than they really have in order to shut pesky citizens (or Presidents) up with their insolent questions?

The media spins false narratives every day, and they seem, psychologically, to be close cousins of the "intelligence" community.

So either the "intelligence" community is now burning actual highest-level codeword-clearance spies just to leak some ammunition against Trump, or, more likely, they're lying about the source of their information.

And they're not necessarily lying on the square, even. They may be once again lying in a fashion that suits their own sectarian interests.


But you should trust them because College Guys With Guns.

While the New York Times, leftist media, and NeverTrump continues insisting that it's wrong for Trump or any American citizen to ever question the "intelligence" community, former acting head of the CIA Mike Morrell, a Hillary crony and Benghazi talking points editor, actually disagrees. And he's An Expert, right?

The former acting head of the CIA, Michael Morell, decided last year that it was time to get political. Concerned about the possibility that Donald Trump would become commander in chief, Morell wrote an August 2016 New York Times op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton and calling Trump a "threat to our national security."

It sounds like he regrets it -- at least somewhat.

In a very worthwhile Q&A with Politico's Susan Glasser, Morell reflects upon the decisions made by himself and other previously nonpolitical top intelligence officials to weigh in against Trump. And he suggests that it was counterproductive in one key way.

Below is a lengthy excerpt, but it's all worth reading:

GLASSER: Okay, so, flash-forward a year [after the op-ed]. Was that a mistake?

MORELL: So, I don't think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn't think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

And one of the ways I’ve thought about that, Susan, is -- okay, how did Donald Trump see this? Right? And from -- it's very important -- one of the things we do as intelligence analysts is make sure that our guy --the president -- understands the other guy. Right?

So let's put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, "Huh, what's going on with these intelligence guys?" Right?

GLASSER: It embroiders his narrative.

MORELL: Exactly. And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security adviser, Mike Flynn.

And so this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, "What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?"

...

Then he becomes president, and he's supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn't. And within a few days, there's leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought -- right? --that, "Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?"

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it's something I didn't think about.

He might also have noted that before Trump took the oath of office, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and other leave-behinds at the DOJ undertook a conspiracy to hide from the president the nature and existence of the probe into the alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy, and lie to him about it, resulting in Comey telling him three times that there was no investigation into Trump-Russia conspiracy, while the same people would simulataneously leak to the Times and Post that there was.

Why would Trump trust what these guys told him?

Even Mike Morrell, again, former acting head of the CIA, thinks that from Trump's point of view, it's perfectly understandable why Trump wouldn't trust them.

He's The Expert, right?

And yet the people who tell us every day to Trust the Experts also tell us to ignore this Expert's thoughts on the matter.

Almost as if they're selectively toggling the Trust the Experts light on and off as it suits their political agenda for the day.



Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:52 AM | Comments (451)
Post contains 1436 words, total size 10 kb.

Trump Attacks a NATO Ally!!!
— Open Blogger

That NATO Ally? Turkey, which is currently trying an American pastor for "terrorism," which is what Erdogan calls anything he feels threatens his political position.

U.S. President Donald Trump on July 19 urged his Turkish opposite Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Twitter to help release an American pastor kept behind bars in Turkey since October 2016.

"A total disgrace that Turkey will not release a respected U.S. Pastor, Andrew Brunson, from prison. He has been held hostage far too long," Trump said.

"[Turkish President] Recep Tayyip Erdoğan should do something to free this wonderful Christian husband & father. He has done nothing wrong, and his family needs him!" he added.

On July 18, a court in Turkey's Aegean province of İzmir ruled that Brunson, an American pastor being tried on terrorism and spying charges, will be kept in jail pending trial.

Flashback: Barack Obama previously hailed Erdogan as a role-model for Muslim leaders.


Was Obama a traitor? Was Obama a lover of autocrats?

Should he be arrested and tried for treason?

Just asking questions.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:12 AM | Comments (631)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Afternoon Open Thread
— Open Blogger

I'm still trying to get my brain to start working.

Cap'n Bill wants to deny the troops whose lives he's serially imperiled a parade, just to show Trump:




Ahoy, cocksucker.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:56 AM | Comments (526)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

The Morning Report 7/19/18
— Open Blogger

tedgennady.jpg

Good morning kids. Thursday is here and of course it's never a slow day for your intrepid reporter so lez-be on our way. First up is of course the continued fall out from the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit. On the periphery some are crowing about the president supposedly walking back his comments about our intelligence community but, as evidenced from the link, he justifiably pulls no punches in his criticism of Brennan, Clapper, Comey et al. As stated yesterday, all of the reactions from the Dem-Left-Media complex and the smart-set elite Coup-Cucks-Clan in the New Deal wing of the GOP is all pre-chewed meat; canned outrage to be used as yet another pretext to throw him out of office, give the Dems Congress in November and derail his agenda. Funny how the Brett Kavanaugh nomination has all but disappeared from the headlines, but I guarantee you it will not be long before the President's "treasonous" behavior in Helsinki will be the pretext by which America must live up to its values and promise and reject that nomination, as well as every subsequent nomination going forward. Remember, "that's not who we are!" (*pukes*). Speaking of which, in a not unrelated link, the President's nominee to take over at the CFPB politburo is being grilled, not on her experience and acumen in matters relating to banking and lending but on immigration and Puerto Rico. Jeez, who let Occasional-Cortex into the room (more on her later)? But I digress.

Everyone's also going crazy because the President is talking about letting Russia interrogate persons linked to longtime Putin foe and critic Bill Browder. Browder you may (or may not) recall investigated and uncovered all kinds of corruption with Putin, and one of his allies, attorney Sergey Magnitsky was imprisoned for 11 months and ultimately died in custody. And that led to what is known as the Magnitsky Act intended to punish Putin for human rights violations that led to the act's namesake's death. I believe that that is a non-starter, although it might be nice to have Peter Strzok take a little involuntary fact-finding mission to the Lubyanka which doubtless would greatly improve his attitude and mien. But I digress yet again.

At the risk of being repetitive from yesterday's commentary, say what you will about PDT's manner or the way he speaks, but his actions speak louder than his words on Russia and on every other damn thing since he rode down that escalator nearly three years ago. And I went into an entire litany of the Democrat-Left-Media Complex's alliance with the Soviet Union and indeed every other country, regime and ideology that would lay America low and bring them to power. And since everyone of that bent is suddenly rushing like made to replace their Che t-shirts with the image of Tail Gunner Joe and hurling the word "treason" at our President, let's take a little trip down memory lane and throw a spotlight on one of their heroes - and someone who can arguably be labeled the most destructive American citizen in our history: Edward M. Kennedy.

In 1983, during the height of the Cold War, Teddy Kennedy, a sitting United States Senator, secretly went to Moscow to collude, in every real sense of that word, with them to undermine President Reagan's SDI initiative before the 1984 elections. Here's an excerpt from the link, with a quote from Paul Kengor, interviewed by Jamie Glazov in 2008 (what a year that was, in context).

According to (KGB Chief) Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, "very impressed" with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan's SDI speech, which he lambasted as "misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes."

Even more interesting than Kennedy's diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan's (not the USSR's) "propaganda." If only Americans could get through Reagan's smokescreen and hear the Soviets' peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.

Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

You may also recall that Kennedy was the chief sponsor of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act which destroyed our orderly, legal immigration and naturalization process and flooded America with millions of illiterate, uneducated, third world indigents who had no interest really in assimilating but eagerly took everything and more Uncle Sugar could throw at them. All in exchange for forever more being loyal Democrat voters. And this is a major factor 50 years later in the dissolution of American identity and culture that we are witnessing and desperately fighting to this day.

Back to Ted Kennedy's actual dictionary-definition TREASON with the Soviets in 1983, when I read that article my blood was boiling. And these bastards have the f***ing unmitigated temerity to use the word "treason" agains this President?! The rest of my thoughts are redacted. In any case for the reasons sighted alone, let alone murdering Mary Jo Kopechne, I hope and pray that Teddy Kennedy is roasting in Hell.

In other news, on the immigration scene, Keith Ellison reveals the truth about the Dems, the Abolish Ice fiasco shows the Dems' true colors, if that were to happen blood would be running in the streets, immigration is the number one issue in a new Gallup Poll (stopping it for us, open borders for the terrorists), and VDH has a great take, as ever, on immigration and the grand plan of the Left.

On the political scene, the Democrat internal struggle with itself boils over as Joe-mentum Lieberman stumps for Crowley and the party establishment want to maintain control from the hardcore Maosits while Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex blasts those who call her anti-semitic as filthy Joo-occupiers, the Calexit bill gets roadblocked, and Fauxcahontas is trying to ram through a horrible casino deal so she can show off her high cheekbones and landlocked crab salad. Farbissiner goniff, that one.

On the international scene, PDT directly confronts Erdogan about a US priest being held hostage by the Turks, Nikki Haley slams the UN Human Rights Council and FBI Director Wray calls out the Chi-Coms as the greatest espionage threat here at home. Lastly, Denmark opens its eyes too late vis a vis the flood of "immigrants."

Interesting domestic news items, Maine governor LePage has vetoed a bill that bans gay-to-normal conversion counseling, a challenge to Texas fetal burial law could be a harbinger of a Roe v Wade battle at SCOTUS and the Janus ruling could really open the floodgates in kneecapping union political power.

Free speech news with the Facebook hearings, IBD not thrilled with the EU's Google fine, and in the UK muzzling the Muslim angle with Tommy Robinson and Rotherham.

From hither and yon, Dennis Rodman looks to take Kanye West to North Korea, comparing Lincoln and PDT and an SJW gets eaten by the tiger.

Anyway, links from around the world, across the nation and up your street. Have a better one and remain blessed.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:49 AM | Comments (430)
Post contains 2006 words, total size 18 kb.

July 17, 2018

Wednesday Overnight Open Thread (7/18/18 )
— Open Blogger

24-breathtaking-sunrise-photos-20170222-121.jpg

*****


The Quotes of The Day

Quote I

“It was chaos. I was just treading water; things just didn’t feel good. There were so many students, and so much going on, that it was impossible for me to reach them.” Quamiir Trice


Quote II

“One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.” Thomas Sowell

Quote III

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”Thomas Sowell
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:19 PM | Comments (552)
Post contains 1049 words, total size 10 kb.

July 18, 2018

Reminder: The Russians Targeted Republicans, GOP, and Trump Himself In Their Spearfishing and Hacking Schemes, Too
— Open Blogger

The media and the sillies don't like admitting this, and Mueller doesn't draw much attention to it himself in his indictment. But he does mention it on page 13.

Don't expect to see this on CNN.

Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election wasn't as one-sided as Special Counsel Robert Mueller charges in his latest indictment.

...

"RNC emails were stolen through the same spearphishing scams used against Democrats," a senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the investigation told RealClearInvestigations. "In fact, prominent Republicans were targeted and similarly victimized by the disclosure of sensitive emails during the campaign."

The indictment acknowledges this on page 13: "The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from individuals affiliated with the Republican Party."

But that is the only mention of Russian attacks against Republicans in the 29-page indictment that focuses on the targeting and victimization of key Democrats...

In fact, U.S. intelligence officials say the attackers penetrated GOP organizations at both the national and state levels, as well as the individual level, and successfully "exfiltrate" Republican emails during the 2016 election cycle. They add that Trump officials themselves were targeted by Russian intelligence late in 2016, often by phishing schemes, in which fraudulent emails seemingly from trusted sources (e.g. the government, banks or Google) are sent to gain access to personal information.

Mueller's office would not say whether the criminal breaches of GOP organizations carried out by the same bad Russian actors were investigated by his team with the same level of forensic analysis and scrutiny as the Democrat-related cybercrimes.

"We'll decline to comment beyond the indictment," Special Counsel's Office spokesman Peter Carr said.

Yeah, I'll bet you decline to comment.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:08 PM | Comments (296)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.


— Open Blogger

The basic tension in US foreign policy theorizing is between moralism and realism. Moralism is an idealistic position that urges that we bear any burden in support of liberty. Realism is a far less idealistic position that says we'll ask ourselves -- realistically -- how much of a burden we're willing to bear in support of liberty.

There is virtually no one who is a 100% moralist and virtually no one who is a 100% realist. Virtually everyone is a mix, somewhere on the spectrum between these two poles.

The disputes come not between absolute moralists, who don't exist in any large numbers, and absolute realists, who likewise don't exist in large numbers, but between those who urge a more moralistic foreign policy, and those who ure a more realistic one.

Though those urging for more moralism are still informed by realism and those urging realism are still animated by moralism.

It's a question of degree.

My diagnosis of the foreign policy establishment's and neocons' analysis of foreign policy is that they view things through an almost purely moral lens, as if it's dirty and grubby to even consider pesky little questions like "What realistically can be done to vindicate this moral right? What can reasonably be asked of the American people to vindicate this moral right?"

And I would argue that the foreign policy establishment, and the neocons who dominate the foreign policy establishment's right-hand wing, are far too devoted to a risibly moralistic concept of foreign policy that results in immoral and perverse outcomes.

Let's look at the Ukraine.

Ukraine has always been dominated by Russia. Russia colonized it. Russia annexed it. Russia suppressed Ukrainians' own language as well as its (Christian) church.

I've known some Ukranian-Americans, and they were flag-waving patriots of both America and their beloved Ukraine. They loved Reagan, because Reagan understood Soviet evil -- an evil Ukranians had been suffering under for their entire lives.

The Ukrainians have long wished for true freedom from the bullying (and worse) of their large, powerful, evil neighbor.

And they have every moral right to that freedom.

The trouble is, while they have every moral right, they do not have the physical might to be totally free of Russia's domination.

Ukraine, while formally an independent country since it broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, continued suffering under Russian domination. Technically they were independent -- but Russia acted as a cynical colonial power interfering in Ukrainian political decisions and thwarting the will of this long-oppressed people.

In 2013, the so-called Euromaidan Revolution began.

You can read up on that as you like, but the major thrust is that Ukraine wanted to join the EU. They wanted to align themselves with free Europe, and distance themselves from Russian control.

So they kicked out the Russian puppet president of Ukraine.

Russia didn't like that. And the threat of a Russian invasion loomed.

The EU and the United States had different reactions to the Ukraine's morally-righteous but politically-provocative actions.

The EU understood that it was a nation of self-interested pacifists who would not under any circumstances do much of anything -- apart from issuing communiques and the like -- to guarantee the Ukraine's political independence and territorial integrity. Basically, the EU counselled the Ukraine to go very slow and not upset too many Russian applecarts.

Cowardly? Maybe. But while they could be accused of physical cowardice they can't be accused of the cowardice of lying to themselves. They knew damn well they would not lift a finger to help Ukraine should Russia invade, and they said so pretty clearly.

So they told Ukraine to not do anything so provocative in declaring their independence from the Russian empire that the Russian empire would reassert its dominance.

They did not lie to themselves about their willingness to fight for Ukraine, and so they did not lie to the Ukraine, either.

On the other hand, there's Barack Obama. The man who would, by the very power of the charisms God granted him, cause the oceans to recede by the power of his arrogant gaze alone.

Remember Victoria Nuland's "Fuck the EU!" phone call that leaked?

Well, the "Fuck the EU" concerned the EU's cautious, go-slow urgings. The US chose to ignore misgivings about a possible Russian invasion and encouraged the Ukraine to get into a fight with Russia that they could not win.

Well, the Ukraine got into that fight -- presumably expecting help from the US, which had encouraged it to get into a fight with Russia.

And guess how much the US helped?

Almost none at all, of course. We did the same things the EU was prepared to do -- issue Stinging Rebukes and Harshly Worded Statements.

But when the Russians began sending mercenaries and special forces troops over the border to pretend to be "native Ukrainians fighting to stay aligned with their historical oppressor Russia," what did we do, beyond offering some sweet words of support?

Nothing. We sent in some medical aid and other non-military aid.

End result? Russian mercenaries and special forces operators faked an "indigenous uprising," killed a lot of Ukrainians, shot down a passenger jet, seized control centers in the Crimea, staged a "referendum" on whether Crimean wanted to stay in Ukraine or annex themselves to Russia.

Spoiler alert on how that turned out: Armed Russian mercenaries were manning the polling places. Do the math.

In the end, the Ukrainian rebellion was met with fire and slaughter and put down. Ukraine's subordinate position to the Russian empire was reinforced. And the most strategically important part of Ukraine decided to re-join Russia in a vote that was totally fair and free of coercion.

The Ukraine is in no better a position than it was before the Revolution, except that more Ukrainians are dead and that a major part of Ukraine is now Russia.

Here's a question: Between the EU response -- go slow, do not start a fight we are unwilling to help you in -- and the US response -- go fast, start a fight, we'll be with you all the way (except we won't be at all) -- which was the more "moral" response?

The EU response looks less moral at first glance. After all, they were basically telling the Ukraine to continue putting up with a substantial amount of Russian interference and domination.

The US response looks more moral, but only at first glance. We pushed for the Best of All Possible Worlds solution. Declare your independence from Russia and align yourself with the peaceful nations of Europe.

But when the perfectly-predictable happened -- when Russia invaded with professional troops pretending to be Ukrainian freedom fighters -- we let them get slaughtered and set them down a path where they actually came out of the conflict in a worse position than they had begun it.

So which was more moral? I know it must have felt super-good when Victoria Nuland said "Fuck the EU!" and urged Ukraine to fight for its independence.

But how did it feel in the months and years that followed, with Ukrainians being bombed and shot and passenger jets being shot from the sky?

A policy impulse -- I think "impulse" is the right word here, because I can't ascribe to it enough actual thinking to call it a "philosophy" -- that felt good when announced, that felt good when it cost nothing at all, actually wound up feeling not so good at all when people started getting killed and Ukraine looked to America for actual support, support that would actually cost America something, and America said, "Here's a sternly worded letter of reprimand for the Russian mercenaries murdering you."

That's not moral.

Morality comes after wisdom, and wisdom can only be had if someone is honest with themselves about what burdens they're actually willing to bear -- not just the burdens they're glad to rhetorically claim they'll bear -- and what costs they're willing to pay.

People who lie to themselves about what they're willing to do are not wise, and, because they're not wise, they also can't really be moral. And their ill-wisdom can often lead to immoral outcomes, as they promiscuously make promises they've never thought very hard about and therefore feel free to shed at earliest convenience.

America has a limited appetite for war. Americans will go to war, but they do reach a point of exhaustion with war after some number of years.

It is silly to pretend this fact away in order to count oneself as "idealistic." People who ignore reality are not "idealistic;" they're just cowards afraid to face reality.

The fact is that Americans are tired of war and it is dangerous to write checks on America's war-fighting account that it might not be willing to cover.

The fact is that one of America's two main political parties is always willing to be part of a war at the Fun Part of the war -- the declaration of war part, the first-easy-victories part -- but which abandons every war it votes for when it sees any small political advantage in doing so.

Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrat Senators voted for the War in Iraq. Within three years, they were screaming that Bush "lied us into war" and that we must withdraw immediately.

It is insane to pretend this away. If you know Democrats will give you initial support for a war they'll happily vote you into, when doing so grants them political advantage, and then savagely turn on that war the moment they get political advantage from that, it is lunacy to even count them as allies in war.

By the way: The NeverTrumpers who sometimes claim "At least Hillary Clinton would have been better on foreign policy?" Yes, of course. The same Hillary Clinton who voted for the War in Iraq to show how tough she would be as a president, and then agitated to abandon troops in the field when she realized that opposing the war would boost her chances of becoming president.

Yeah, we need that kind of patriot as President, rather than the unamerican, immoral Trump.

In 2008, Obama campaigned on the idea that he would somehow both withdraw from Iraq and yet also "win" Iraq by withdrawing.

I was incensed by this; it was so obviously, transparently a lie and a dodge. He wasn't planning to "win" anything; he just wanted to bug out. I was angry at the media for never challenging his "Win by Withdrawing" claims and pissed off at Americans for believing this bullshit.

But they voted him into office anyway, and by decent margins. I realized that Americans weren't really tricked by Obama; rather, Obama told them a lie that they knew was a lie but they wanted some "out" to pretend they were honoring the sacrifice of the already-dead while also bugging out of Iraq.

So Obama pretended he would "win" the war in Iraq, and the American public pretended to believe him.

They really didn't.

But they did want out of the war, one way or the other, either stated forthrightly or crabwalked dishonestly, and they voted for Obama, and they voted for the dishonest crabwalk way of abandoning Iraq.

And it was their right to make that choice. Every people has a right to decide how much of war's burdens it's willing to bear.

But they did make that choice, and we cannot pretend that they didn't, and we cannot pretend that Americans' appetite for war is as limitless as internet bloviators' capacity for self-aggrandizement.

When we think of war, we must assume that Democrats and therefore 45% of the country will turn on that war by the next midterm or presidential election. The war must therefore be either a very short one, all wrapped up before the Democrats execute their predictable turn against it, or slightly longer, but still short enough to keep the support of 55% of the public, most Republicans and most independents too, and the length of the war must not be so long as to cause that support to flee as well.

These are the realistic limitations we face on America's war-making capacity.

Again, it is not "idealistic" or "moral" to pretend these limitations away. Running from reality is like running from any other obstacle: a sign of cowardice (moral, intellectual, and psychological in this case), and not a sign of "idealism" and certainly not a sign of "courage."

Wars are not #Hashtag campaigns, with an almost non-existent cost but a big boost of dopamine for Retweeting Justice. They are not just another venue for Virtue Signalling on Twitter.

I tweeted support of Montenegro on Twitter. Look at what a #Braveheart I am.

Wars have real costs and therefore they have real limitations. We do not do our war-fighters or our fellow Americans any favors by ignoring those limitations and refusing to know ourselves, to know, realistically, what we are willing to do and what we are not willing to do, how long we're willing to fight for and when we're likely to bug out and leave our allies or even our soldiers in the field without support.

I'm not against moralism in foreign policy, but honesty is an important part of morality, and being honest with ourselves about what we're personally willing to do, and what we believe our fellow Americans are willing to do, is a critical part of the candid thinking necessary for a moral, and realistic, foreign policy. One that doesn't start a lot of wars and leave them half-finished.

Wars can be left half-finished, but the dead they leave behind are all-the-way dead. I'd like to avoid more half-finished wars and more all-the-way dead Americans.

And I think an important part of avoiding half-finished, lost wars is admitting that the years between 2003 and 2016 did in fact happen -- they weren't just a bad dream, I assure you -- and we have to heed the lessons that those years taught us.

Or that those years should have taught us, at least.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:39 PM | Comments (497)
Post contains 2370 words, total size 14 kb.

Former Trump NSC Spokesman Michael Anton: Citizenship Should Not be a Birthright
— Open Blogger

Not a cuck.

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

Although the courts would surely rule such an EO unconstitutional, Anton seems to be proposing that Trump dare them to so rule it, and he also seems to be arguing that the President, who is a co-equal partner with the Courts, insist that his authority is just as strong as the courts', and basically take the Jacksonian position vis a vis the courts. (IIRC: "The courts have made their ruling; now let them enforce it.")

Seems a bit unlikely, but I like where his head's at.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:27 PM | Comments (266)
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

For Those Insistent That We Must Fight a Hypothetical Future War on Behalf of Montenegro, Because American Honor Demands It: You Know, It's Not Too Late to Declare War on Russia for the Ukraine
— Open Blogger

Background: Sorry for not including this. Last night, Tucker Carlson asked Trump why his (Carlson's) son should die to protect new NATO signatory Montengero. Trump expressed a lot of doubt about going to war for Montenegro.

The usual neocon suspects -- Noah Rothman, David French, etc., as well as the suddenly gung-ho-to-kill-Russkies socialist left -- are foaming about even asking serious questions about what America would actually do if Russia invaded Montenegro.

While they fulminate and salivate, I can't help noticing that Russia did in fact invade another country that the US made security guarantees to, and the US did nothing much about it, and they themselves did not advocate for War in the Ukraine. Almost as if their mouths are writing a lot of checks their asses (and political viability) can't cover.

So I do think it's fair to ask what, realistically, the US is willing to do when faced with the possibility of a war with Russia.

One big problem I have with Trump's answer is that he's talking about a country we've already made a part of NATO. Not a wise decision -- but that ship has sailed. We already made that guarantee.

However, I do think it's worth talking about this question so that we stop making guarantees to everyone in the world, and maybe get more realistic about what we'd actually do if Russia invaded a country that wasn't a part of the core original treaty group of Western Europe. Our lack of resolve in the Ukraine suggests that the American foreign policy establishment likes making guarantees it has virtually no intention of ever honoring.

...

If we're going to be serious about treaty commitments, then we have to be serious about all treaty commitments -- the commitments where there's an actual invasion going on that legally requires US action, now, and not just those more-fun-to-chat-about hypothetical future invasions.

Which are safer to discuss politically, of course, because no US troops are currently demanded for the cause.

In the meantime, the unchastened neocons choose to selectively forget that the United States made security guarantees to Ukraine, promising to protect it in case of Russian invasion, and we have chosen to ignore those obligations.

And I don't hear the neocons squawking much about that. Because, to honor those obligations would require immediate US entry into a war against Russia, which would be incredibly unpopular.

So instead they jerk themselves off about fantasy future hypotheticals about Montenegro.

How about talking about the obligations we're currently in default of honoring, neocons?


The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, and the United States Of America. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Before that, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical if not operational control....

Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the US, Canada, the UK, along with other countries, stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, a Memorandum transmitted to the United Nations under the signature of Sergei Lavrov, amongst others, and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion.

Russia has interfered and has, for all practical purposes, invaded.

So why aren't the neocons demanding a declaration of war against Russia?

Oh, for the usual reasons. They're not serious people. They like talking tough but they understand that their prescriptions are wildly unpopular, so they don't really push very hard for much action; they mostly just play the weakling's favorite game talking the toughest without actually trying to get into a fight.


One trick the necons are trying right now is arguing that by making guarantees that we will fight wars on behalf of people they know damn well we will not fight on behalf of, we will somehow actually avoid fighting on behalf of the people we're not going to fight on behalf of in any situation.

First of all, this more of Obama's Red Line strategy -- and the neocons are nothing at all like Obama, they'll assure you.

Claiming you have a "Red Line" which you will go to war to defend while knowing you will not go to war to defend that Red Line projects weakness, not strength.

Second, telling people to get on board with a treaty that requires them to go to war to defend another country actually reduces the chances of having to go to war at all fails, intentionally, to prepare the country for the idea that seriously, this treaty means you have to go to war if the other state invokes its rights under the treaty.

It's like getting someone to sign a contract and agree to a contract provision against their own interest by telling them that the contract provision will never actually be enforced, and is just required to be in the contract to "satisfy shareholders."

I've heard this bullshit personally. Pro-Tip: Any contract provision adverse to you should be read as really, really real, and you should only sign if you are very comfortable having that same adverse provision applied in full against you.

Merely hoping and praying it will never be used against you is a legally ruinous strategy.

That said: If the war salesmen are telling people the treaty guarantees will not be invoked, then how can you actually try to invoke them later?

The whole point of a contract -- or a treaty -- is to have a meeting of minds on key points, actual in-fact agreement as to the terms; the neocons' hucksterism in selling Americans on treaty obligations they claim Americans will never actually be obliged to honor is dishonest -- and the American people would rightly refuse to honor such an obligation if demanded later, noting, correctly, that the people pushing on this them told them that they'd never have to actually go to war if they signed this document saying they'd go to war.

Finally -- how does making such guarantees for Montenegro reduce the chances that Russia will actually invade Montenegro when Russia has actually invaded Ukraine and we're already currently dishonoring our obligations to come to Urkaine's defense?

If we're not serious about honoring our obligations in Ukraine -- which the tough-talking neocon Chairborne Rangers are quite happy to be unserious about -- why would Montenegro assume we're any more serious?

Why would Russia assume we're serious about Montenegro if not serious about Ukraine?

So get to agitating for full war, Neocons. Your Sacred Principles demand nothing less. The only way to insure peace for Montenegro in the future is to declare war in Ukraine in the now.

Finally, a little history lesson: the other thing the unchastened, never-learn-a-thing neocons are claiming is that the only defense against war is a series of defensive treaties in which we all guarantee to go to war on each other's behalf. This will prevent war, the theory goes, because the treaty system promises such incalculably dire consequences -- a whole world at war for invading Montenegro -- that no one would actually dare to set off the spark that sets the war on fire.

This is true -- sometimes. Sometimes, the threat of the whole world going to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkans state does in fact stay everyone's hand from taking the action that will plunge us into war.

On the other hand, sometimes a complex web of treaties and defensive alliances actually causes the entire world to go to war when Russia infringes upon the territorial integrity of a small Balkans region country.

It was called the Great War. World War One. People assumed that the web of treaties in which half of Europe pledged itself to defend the tiny Balkan region state of Serbia and the other half of Europe was pledged to assist the German Central Powers and Austro-Hungary in their attempt to punish Serbia for its role (whatever that might be) in the death of the Archduke Ferdinand.

So it's not quite true to say sprawling networks of alliances always prevent catastrophically large conflagrations. It's not even true of the Balkans region, or of countries sometimes known as Yugoslavia.

Sometimes you can forestall war by making war such an unimaginably large disaster that people refrain from war.

But sometimes this doesn't work, and instead the system of alliances and ententes delivers to you the same unimaginably large disaster you were using as a chit to scare people away from a much smaller war.

One last point: They say, correctly, that when you pass a law, you should accept the fact that this law is so critical that you are willing to empower agents of the state to straight-up shoot and kill people to enforce that law.

You should not have any illusions about this; a law is, unavoidably, Force and Coercion, and when you pass a law, you must make sure that it is important enough a thing to make the killing of citizens who may disagree with that law an acceptable casualty.

The same is obviously true of treaty obligations: One must ask, before entering a war alliance, if the interests to be advanced are actually worth killing a lot of people, and sacrificing a lot of our own countrymen.

And they should be sold to our countrymen as they actually are: as formal, legal, moral guarantees that we will sacrifice our own sons for the sake of the alliance.

And people need to be told that, and have it explained to them why this alliance really is that important, to require the sacrifice of our sons.

It is unserious to present war alliances as only proofs against war. A serious and honest commentator must also tell people that this obligation to go to war for another country may very well obligate us to go to war for another country.

Selling a war alliance as a clever method of avoiding all war is the work of a dishonest swindler selling unfavorable contract terms to someone by lying about what those terms actually are.

So sure: Let's have an honest discussion about which countries we are willing to go to war for, and which we are not.

We're apparently unwilling to go to war for Ukraine. Until Trump, we weren't even willing to provide Ukraine with lethal aid with which to defend themselves; but obviously, both before Trump and after Trump, we're not willing to go to actual war for them.

Which the self-righteous, we'll-fight-our-enemies-to-the-last-man-from-the-non-political-classes neocons are perfectly fine with (given that none of them utters a peep about honoring our Sacred Obligations in Ukraine).

Which other countries are we not willing to sacrifice the last non-DC-resident-life for? Any others? Or is it just Ukraine?

More: How About Turkey? Are We Willing to Really Go to War on Behalf of the Islamist Country and NATO Member Turkey?




Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:52 AM | Comments (520)
Post contains 2063 words, total size 13 kb.

European Court Smashes Google With $5 Billion (With a B) In Fines; Also Directs Google to Stop Bundling Its Own Services in Android OS, or Face Even More Fines
— Open Blogger

Steven Green thinks the last part is the most important:

As I wrote yesterday (linked above):


That Android phone in your pocket is a virtual spy, reporting back to Menlo Park on your every click, swipe, app, data, photo, email, physical location, etc. All in the name of showing you ads, which Google sells for a LOT of money. And it doesn't matter whether your phone is a Samsung, Huawei, LG, or one of Google's own Pixel phones. Because Google controls the default apps, which is what most people use.


Apple has spent the last couple of years touting (and improving upon) iOS's privacy features. Android phonemakers like Samsung have a hard time competing on privacy, because Google's default apps are, as I described yesterday, digital spies. But now Samsung, Huawei, LG, et al, can ditch Google's apps in favor of their own, and if they choose, take on Apple directly when it comes to protecting consumer privacy.

I'm not saying they necessarily will, but now at least they have the opportunity.

So this decision is a big win for Android OEMs, it heats up the competitive pressure on Apple (which has grown lackadaisical on some of its software quality), and gives Android owners the chance to perhaps take some of their personal privacy back from Google.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:58 AM | Comments (613)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

James Comey: All Americans Have a Sacred Duty to Vote for Democrats
— Open Blogger



Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:51 AM | Comments (638)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Mid-Morning Open Thread
— Open Blogger

Eeckhaut four officers.jpg

Four Officers Of The Amsterdam Coopers' And Wine-Rackers' Guild
Gerbrand van den Eeckhout

It just occurred to me why I enjoy the Dutch masters so much; their work exudes a warmth, not necessarily from the subjects (these guys need to relax and imbibe!), but from the colors and the contrast.

By the way, my original choice for this fine morning after the storm was an El Greco depicting Christ driving the traders from the temple. I recently saw it at The National Gallery in London, and it was spectacular. But I could not find a reproduction that did it justice. Even on the museum's own website was a poor, sad facsimile of a glorious and energetic painting.

The moral of the story is: Get thee to a museum! I'm not sure why museums get such a bad rap, although it is at least in part because many of us were dragged to them as kids and were forced to treat them as cathedrals, where one speaks in hushed tones and all must be reverent at all times, worshiping at the altar of great art.

That's crap. I have had the opportunity to wander through a large number of museums around the world, often alone (the best way!), and I have found that the best way to enjoy art is to look at the stuff that piques my interest and just glance at the stuff that doesn't. So what if you don't like what the art historians say is great. The real crap has been filtered out by history and collectors over the centuries (that's why there is so much absolute shit modern art), so it's a fair bet that most of what is in the museum is going to be at the very least a reasonably good piece.

So...what caught my eye in this piece? The little mutant bat-like dog in the lower left corner. I got a chuckle out of it, then looked at the rest of the painting and immediately thought of a cobloggers meeting just before the first bottle is opened.

Art may be great, but that doesn't mean that it has to be serious. By all means look at the weird animals and finely formed racks and weird feet and cool weapons and great sunsets and strange, six-fingered hands and....

You get the point.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:40 AM | Comments (513)
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

July 19, 2018

The Morning Rant: J.V. Edition
— Open Blogger

punk-monkey.jpg

This is idiocy on a grand scale. And cultural genocide. And part of the long game played by the Left. And there is a soupcon of marketing and virtue-signaling bullshit, since "Bonobos" is clearly not going to produce clothing that fits every "man," because that would include women who claim to be men, and that would needlessly complicate their supply chain, cutting into their profits. But mostly it is antithetical to reality and clear language.

If every man is defined as masculine, then the word will have no meaning, and that is certainly not the case. Not all men are masculine, and in fact, not all men are "men." The obvious goal here is to water down traditional roles and blur the lines between effete, cowardly, weak XY humans and those who rise to the historical (and probably genetic) role of the real man, which these fools conflate with their own dislike of masculinity, probably because they fall short of the traditional measures, and they talk like fags and their shit is all retarded.


By the way, the front page of their website has only Black men as models. That is clearly racist, with the undeniable connection between bonobos (a species of great ape) and the models. Intentional or not it is a macro-aggression that should be addressed by the resignation of the CEO. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:05 AM | Comments (593)
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.

Mid-Morning Open Thread
— Open Blogger

Pierre Roy cauliflower.jpg

Le chou-fleur
Pierre Roy

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:45 AM | Comments (402)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

July 18, 2018

The Morning Report 7/18/18
— Open Blogger

waituntil.jpg

Good morning kids. Midweek and as the dust settles from the fallout over the PDT/Putin Helsinki summit, what's coming into sharp focus (as most of you already knew as you were watching it) is that the reaction to the summit, and in particular, the press conference was staged, rehearsed, pre-digested agitprop. No matter what the President said at that presser, be it critical or conciliatory towards Mr. Putin and Russia, it would have been blasted. "But, but, but muh Pootinz!" Feh.

After a year-and-a-half witch hunt trying to prove that Russia minimally somehow rigged our 2016 presidential election and maximally did it in cahoots with President Trump to install him in the Oval Office - with absolutely ZERO proof and the reputations of our LE and intel agencies and above all their leaders in tatters - this was a shamelessly desperate gambit on the part of the Democrat-Left-Media complex to maneuver him into some sort of rhetorical trap that they could then use as proof. It failed. And in spectacular fashion. Lemme 'splain you. Actually, I'll let Limbaugh do it.

I think when Rod Rosenstein went out and announced this indictment, and then admitted that no votes were affected by this Russian meddling - that the outcome of not a single election was affected by what these Russians are alleged to do in this indictment - it caused a panic to ripple throughout the deep state, throughout the Democrat Party and the media. I think it was seen as, "Oh, my God. Mueller doesn't have the goods!" I think these people have believed...

They've gone to bed every night and they've gotten up every morning believing that Mueller has the smoking gun - that Mueller, even if he doesn't have it, that he's going to say he does. Mueller has been the singular hope in which the deep state's desire to get rid of Trump has been invested. Mueller was gonna find something. His 13 anti-Trump lawyers? They were gonna find collusion. They were gonna find something.

Here comes this indictment, and it finds nothing - and in effect, may actually signal the end of the Mueller investigation. Rosenstein made it plain: Nothing in this indictment, nothing alleged to have occurred by these defendants affected the outcome of a single election. Many people thought that the Mueller indictment announcement was yet another nail in the Trump coffin. I think it's the opposite.
I think it was a cold shock to the system that Mueller doesn't have anything, because there isn't anything speaking of evidence of collusion - and then Mueller handed this case off to a division of the Justice Department where it's never gonna be seen. This case has been tossed out.

This case... Rosenstein announced that Mueller is sending this case to the counterintelligence investigative department in the justice department. Where they do not investigate crimes!...There are no crimes in counterintelligence investigations, and that's where this case has been sent...

...And then Trump had the audacity at that press conference yesterday to ask everybody about the Democrat server? That's where the hacking took place, and that's where the collusion took place. It's all on the Democrat side. All of this is falling apart, and the chances that all these people are gonna be exposed is causing them to panic. I have very little doubt about that.

QED. Look we can talk all we want about, well, Trump shouldn't have been so conciliatory to Putin and this and that and so forth and so on. But for crying out loud, a) it's a diplomatic meeting, not a weigh-in before a boxing match where you hope someone throws a punch and b) we don't know what was said behind closed doors despite the fact that now the desperate Dems lead by the jiz-lipped Kennedy spawn wants PDT's interpreter brought before Congress and forced to cough up the conversation. Unreal (as in all-too real). Finally, it's actions that speak louder than words. PDT is strengthening our ties with former East Bloc nations that rightfully fear the bear, he's countered Obama and installed missile defense batteries inside Poland, he's scrapped the disastrous Iran nuke treaty (Iran being a key client state of Russia) and now has the regime on the ropes and our oil production has Mr. Putin virtually begging us to cut back. Yup. Donald Trump is a deep-cover Russian agent. Has been for decades. Sheesh.

And as far as the "treasonous" act of criticizing our intel community in front of the world, these are the same people who have been colluding to actually steal the election for Hillary and steal the Presidency from PDT and the American people. The decent, honorable members of that community notwithstanding (wherever they're hiding), to hell with them. They and the Democrat-Left-Media complex right here in our own nation - our fellow countrymen (spit) - are the worst threat this nation faces.

Speaking of our brave, fearless, incorruptible defenders of the realm and justice, is Gummy-Boo-Boo Page about to flip and rat out her "lover" Strzok? Devin Nunes is pissed that the FBI and DoJ are completely stonewalling the investigation in the hopes that the Democrats retake the House and then kill it for good, from the day-ending-in-"Y" department David Corn is a laughable hack, and Emmett Tyrrell over at the Spectator has had enough and wants PDT to declassify all the document related to this shit-show. Politically, it opens him up to obstruction of justice charges but I think it's safe to say that the base and a growing number of heretofore disinterested and/or undecideds or even disaffected Dems are now on the side of "teflon Don."

Speaking of interfering in elections, recall it was Obama who meddled in Israel's election in a bid to oust Netanyahu - and on our dime no less. Meanwhile, the question remains who was the "foreign entity" linked to Hillary in the server debacle? The world wonders...

On to politics where that living symbol of truth, justice and the American way James Comey is urging Americans to vote Democrat this November. Yup, that'll go over well in most of the nation. Meanwhile, tender comrade, Democrat-Socialite Alexandria "Loopy Velez" Occasional-Cortex is urging mostly peaceful civil unrest at non-zebra ICE stations, border crossings and airports. Although she's gone wobbly on Joo-baiting and Israel-bashing, she's cocksure Capitalism will bite the dust. And soon. Two good links on the hard left race to the bottom that the Democrat Party is undertaking, and as IBD points out, this is not a new phenomenon. We call Ocasio-Cortez a crackpot and rightly so, but this dame scares me, not in and of herself, but as a possible harbinger of things to come, especially if we do not take back the education of the next generation of American schoolchildren. I'm of two minds on her and what she indicates. Yes, I think it's a very good thing that the Dems douse themselves in rhetorical gasoline and toss a rhetorical match on themselves. When the mask slips and they expose themselves as who and what they are, the reaction is generally revulsion and repulsion. And yet, too many young people (and old enough to know better older adults) think socialism is the wave of the future despite human waste - bipedal, political and fecal - in America's cities as well as 100+ years of gulags, mass graves and gas chambers around the world. Also, what is considered extreme and unacceptable somehow within an ever-shortening span of time becomes the norm (see: homo marriage, transsexualism, etc.). I suppose the bottom line is we're in the center of it all and it's going to take a bit of time and distance to see how these sea changes, especially on the Left, are going to shake out. No matter what, the election and presidency of PDT is going to cause a sea change politically and culturally here and abroad. No doubt about it.

Circling back to immigration and amnesty, and it kind of ties in with my commentary on the nation's trajectory, while San Fran-shithole is in a mad rush to register illegal aliens to vote, deep blue Washington State will have the anti-sanctuary laws on the ballot this November. Recall California's Prop-8 marriage law which actually passed and then was rejected in the courts. Also recall the purging of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for being outed, if you will, for contributing to it. I expect doxxing galore if this thing passes. On a related note, the IRS has issued a ruling preventing the release of donor lists. Meh, I'm sure a Deep State embed "resistance fighter" will release the names and addresses, just like that NYU lecturer Lavigne did with ICE/Border Patrol agents.

Speaking of cancerous, fascistic worms destroying and destabilizing free speech and enterprise, in all the kerfuffle over Helsinki did you hear about this Twitter terrorist Matt Rivitz? Evidently he has led this anonymous mass drive to destroy Breitbart and Laura Ingraham, among others. He should only get back 10-fold what he has put out there. And whilst on the subject of socialist media, there was a hearing about regulating Facebook and social media censorship which the Dems, led by shambling sack of lipids Gerrold Nadler tried to use as a platform to bash the President. He failed. That said, an anti-Facebook group which has among others Linda "Hamas-Louse" Sarsour as its leaders, displayed propaganda posters that are right out of Nazi Germany. This is YOUR Democrat party, Lefties.

In other news, Blue States are going to sue to overturn PDT's new tax rule limiting deductions of state taxes on Federal returns, the $15 minimum wage is killing New York City's restaurant industry (shocked!), John Stossel in a short film utterly destroying the plastic straw ban insanity, Netflix's woes offer a real world lesson in the free market sure to be lost on Occasional-Cortex and lastly Mandalay Bay is preemptively suing 1,000 victims of last year's mass shooting, in order to somehow protect them from having to pay them out. I can argue with myself back and forth about liability but the optics of this, which shouldn't necessarily count, just look terrible. Ugh.

Anyway, links from around the world, across the nation and up your street. Have a better one and remain blessed.

TRUMP/PUTIN SUMMIT

  • PDT Strikes Back After Insane Criticism of Helsinki Summit with Putin
  • Levin: Trump Policies are "Head and Shoulders Over What Obama Did" with Russia
  • Rush: What's Really Behind This Deranged Hysteria (spoiler alert: it was all pre-planned no matter what Trump said - jjs)
  • "Chappaquiddick-Stick" Kennedy Among Dems Calling for Subpoena of PDT's Interpreter
  • Even Far Left Glenn Greenwald Calls Out "Reckless Lunacy" Against PDT
  • The Left's Trump-Putin Meltdown
  • Trump Charm Offensive Could Be Strategic Bid to Separate Russia from Chi-Coms

    SPYGATE, MUELLER WITCH HUNT, DEEP STATE
  • GOP Rep Says Page's Testimony Contradicts Strzok's
  • Page Turning?
  • Nunes: FBI/DoJ Obstructing Trump Probe in Hopes of Dem Congress Takeover in Midterms (then they can kill it - jjs)
  • David Corn on Russia Probe: "FBI Prosecutors All Have Political Leanings" (but they're not supposed to drive an investigation, pal - jjs)
  • Mr. President, Declassify the Documents on Russian Collusion Now

    CLINTON SCANDALS, OBAMA SCANDALS, DEMOCRAT SCANDALS
  • Obama Administration Sent Taxpayer Money to Campaign to Oust Netanyahu
  • If Not Russia, Who Is Hillary's "Foreign Entity?"

    IMMIGRATION, AMNESTY
  • Democrat-Socialite Occasional-Cortex: Occupy All ICE Offices, Borders, US Airports, "Occupy All of It"
  • Feds Reveal Suspected Serial Rapist is an Illegal Alien
  • Oregon Anti-Sanctuary Initiative Qualifies for November Ballot
  • San Francisco Begins Registering Illegal Aliens to Vote
  • Foreign Interference: Foreigners Voting in Our Elections

    POLITICS, 2018 MIDTERMS
  • Comey Meddles in 2018 Election
  • RNC Blowing Out DNC in Fundraising
  • Rick Scott Well Positioned to Beat Bill Nelson in FL Senate Race
  • Trump-Backed GOPer Roby Wins Runoff in Alabama
  • Pushed Hard Left by Their Base, Are Dems Self-Destructing?
  • Democrats' "Sudden" Hard Left Turn Has Been Years in the Making
  • Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex: "Capitalism Won't Always Exist"

    FIRST AMENDMENT, FAKE NEWS
  • Far Left "Sleeping Giants" Demands Twitter Censorship After Leader Matt Rivitz Revealed
  • Anti-Facebook Group Takes Anti-Semitic Signs to Congress (noted FGM enthusiast Sarsour in with that crowd - jjs)
  • Dems Attempt to Hijack Internet Censorship Hearing to Bash PDT, Fail
  • Greenfield: Is the Media the "Enemy of the People?"

    SECOND AMENDMENT
  • Campaign Manager for Cyrpto-Anti-Gun Candidate Ankles in Wake of Latter's Leaked Real Position

    BRETT KAVANAUGH SCOTUS CONFIRMATION
  • Leading Latino Advocacy Group Releases Statement Supporting Kavanaugh Nomination
  • Leftist Group Behind Kavanaugh Resistance Hiding Its Funding (you know who else hid his funding? - jjs)

    FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL
  • Mainstreaming Radicals: Pakistan Army Puts Terrorist-Friendly Candidates Within Grasp of Power

    DEFENSE, MILITARY AFFAIRS
  • Space Weapons Trump Peace with Russia

    ISLAM, TERRORISM, SHARIA, DHIMMITUDE
  • History Explains Eastern European Hostility to Islam
  • Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex's Factually-Challenged Position on Israel is Embarrassing (yet all-too typical for her party - jjs)

    THE ECONOMY, STUPID
  • The $15 Minimum Wage is Wreaking Havoc on New York City Dining

    DOMESTIC POLICY, COURTS, BUREAUCRACY
  • Blue Shit-Hole States File Long-Shot Suit Against Cap on Tax Deduction
  • Conservatives Cheer IRS Rule-Change Shielding Donor Lists from Disclosure
  • Fun with Roe v. Wade Rhetoric

    EDUCATION, INDOCTRINATION
  • Middle-Income Students "Less Represented" at America's Top Colleges
  • K-12: An Insidious Inside Job

    RED-GREENS, CLIMATE CHANGE, LYSENKOISM
  • Global Warming Creates Desperate Media Lies
  • The Last Straw

    CULTURE WARS, HITHER and YON
  • Mandalay Bay Owners Sue 1,000 Victims of Mass Shooting (isn't this really the story of Socialism? - jjs)
  • Netflix Teaches Market Economics the Hard Way

    Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:20 AM | Comments (497)
    Post contains 2253 words, total size 20 kb.

  • July 17, 2018

    SCOTT WALKER IS A RUSSIAN SPY!!!
    And Open Thread

    — Open Blogger

    Yesterday the Usual Suspects -- the twitter circle-jerk Smart Set of people who have proven for years they are not terribly smart at all -- were so a-quiver over a story that alleged Russian agent Mariia Butina had met with a US presidential candidate that they nearly vibrated themselves to an adjacent alternate plane of existence.

    I wanted to write about this, but I didn't, because I'm exhausted by them. They have literally exhausted me with their daily freak-outs and Two Minute Hates.

    But what I wanted to write was the following:

    1. You seem to be convinced that because a spy attempted to make contact with a US person, that US person is therefore guilty of some crime. Are you naive enough to believe that foreign intelligence services don't routinely attempt to make contact with US citizens? Are you vicious enough to claim that any of these thousands of people so-contacted every year should be accused of being spies?

    You are aware, of course, that foreign intelligence services attempting to make some kind of low-level, preparatory contact with a target is a common event, whereas the target's agreement to become a spy or trait is a rather rare event, right?

    2. Aren't you just jumping to the conclusion that your beloved, cherished Conspiracy Theory urges you towards -- that the candidate in question must be Trump and that the Trump must be a spy because come on, All the Famous People on Twitter know he's a spy?

    If Jim Hoft or one of the deplorables you routinely mock in your daily Best Twitter Fwiendz circle-jerk were leaping to such an agrees-with-my-bias conclusion about Barack Obama, wouldn't you mock him as a true-believing zealot?

    What makes you any different, apart from your claim that you are different -- better, in fact?

    I wanted to write that, but I didn't, because they are tirelessly shrill in their denunciations and unfounded accusations, and you never know who the next person they'll accuse of being a RUSSIAN SPY might be.

    Well, it turns out the candidate that Mariia Butina contacted wasn't Trump -- it was Scott Walker. Who is not a spy, because the Daily Twitter Circle-Jerk doesn't think he's a spy, and therefore the Daily Twitter Circle-Jerk's previous "logic" -- if a Russian attempts to contact you, you must be a spy -- is now switched to the "OFF" position.



    What will you say now about Scott Walker? What if someone on the left accuses someone you support of being a RUSSIAN SPY based on such thin evidence?

    What will you say, given that you've already endorsed precisely this stupid, retarded, utterly non-elite idea that anyone contacted by a foreign national must be some kind of asset for the government of that foreign national?

    And indeed -- the left is in fact now accusing Scott Walker of "Borscht Politics:"

    In other herring-scented news, it seems that there are hundreds of very weird and wonderful photos of Mariia Butina, the Russian gun-moll whom the FBI busted Monday on criminal lobbying charges, floating around the Intertoobz. I mean, really. Check some of these out.

    ...

    Oops, sorry. That's Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage their midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin, and recently appointed midwest sales director for the Foxconn Company, grinning his fool head off with Ms. Butina. From the Capital-Times:


    Butina wrote on her Russian-language blog (translated via Google Translate) that meeting Walker "will remain in my memory forever."

    "With genuine interest and ready to ask a question on the topic of Russian-American relations, I went to him. And then something happened that I did not expect: the first words in many, many days in Russian, I heard from the future nominee in the US presidency from the Republican Party, who, having learned that I from Russia with a smile said 'Hello!', And during the conversation he remembered another word: 'Thank you!'" Butina wrote.

    "We talked about Russia, I did not hear any aggression towards our country, the president or my compatriots," Butina wrote about her conversation with Walker. "How to know, maybe such meetings are the beginning of a new dialogue between Russia and the US and back from the Cold War to the peaceful existence of the two great powers ?!"

    Confronted with this memento of the lovely time they had together, Walker had his spokescritter issue the following lame-ass statement to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

    Walker spokesman Brian Reisinger said by email that while Walker was in Tennessee, he "appeared in an atrium area while waiting to deliver his remarks, where event attendees had the chance to say hello. There were thousands of people at the convention and many of them approached the governor and asked to say hello and take a photo with him."

    Just a friendly guy, our Scottie.

    Something truly stinks of borscht in Wisconsin politics. Besides Walker, there are dozens of photos showing former Milwaukee County sheriff--and full-time Happy Meal medal recipient—David Clarke enjoying the hospitality in Moscow, and Wisconsin Senator Ron (Shreds of Freedom) Johnson was one of those senators who spent the past Fourth of July in Russia.

    That's from Esquire Magazine, by the way. Not a huge or well-respected media outfit, but a bit more important than the low-level blogs the Smart Set usually spends its time dunking on.

    Now that the Very Liberal Republican Wing has approved of precisely this sort of smear tactic when deployed against Trump -- how exactly can they argue against it when it's used against Scott Walker and Ron Johnson? ( I assume the Smart Set agrees that David Clarke IS in fact a RUSSIAN SPY, because the Smart Set doesn't like him, and anyone the Smart Set doesn't like is a RUSSIAN SPY.)

    So congrats on pouring gasoline on the Red-baiting, witch-hunting fire, Social Justice Warriors of the Nominal Right.

    So, Smart Set: are you going to actually going to be smart one of these days or is it all going to be this InfoWars-level retarded shit from you from here on out?

    The Smart Set spent all of 2003-2012 calling people unamerican for disagreeing with them on Iraq. To my discredit, I joined them in that.

    But I've learned, since then. The Smart Set is too smart to ever learn anything from anything.

    They only had one trick back then, and they only have one trick now.

    Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:03 PM | Comments (399)
    Post contains 1112 words, total size 7 kb.

    << Page 1 >>
    182kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 0.8352 seconds.
    44 queries taking 0.7693 seconds, 281 records returned.
    Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.