Category: J. Robert Smith

A Democrat Year? Don't Count on It.



Capturing the House isn't in the cards for a power-lusting party that's gone outright fringy – and corrupt.



Source link

Jihad Rears Its Head Again, with Democrats Enabling


Tuesday in New York City, Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old Uzbek immigrant and jihadist, plowed a rented truck into bicyclists and pedestrians, killing eight and seriously injuring “numerous” others.  The response from leading New York Democrats was sickeningly rote.  It was saturated with political correctness – hence, deceptive.  Deceptive, therefore cynical.  If not stopped, Democrats’ P.C. will keep killing Americans.

Democrats enable jihad on these shores.  Their worldview, policies, and steadfast denial of the long-term war being waged by Muslim fundamentalists are costing lives – San Bernardino, Orlando, now Manhattan, to name marquee attacks.  It puts Americans across the nation at risk daily.  It does so open-endedly.

Defeating the jihad means defeating Democrats, too.  Republicans forever express a desire for bipartisan solutions.  Surely there’s a way to unite with Democrats to counter and defeat this enemy!  Surely the hope is vain. 

The way to victory is to mobilize Americans other than Democrats against the jihad.  Social media and grassroots action allow pro-security and anti-jihad forces to bypass the mainstream media.  More is being done now on social media than at the grassroots.  It is time to step up grassroots efforts.  The alternative to the Democrats’ approach: clear vision, frank talk, tough policies, and relentless condemnation of the Democrats’ evasions and failures.  President Trump is showing the way.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, declared about Saipov’s attack, per the New York Post (emphasis added):

All the evidence we have is that he was a quote unquote lone-wolf model. He has had several run-ins with the law which were basically minor vehicular traffic[.] … He is a depraved coward is what he is. He was associated with ISIS and he was radicalized domestically and he’s a depraved coward.

Cuomo suggesting that Saipov is a social misfit, petty lawbreaker, and “depraved coward” is standard fare, trotted out by Democrats and parroted by the MSM after jihadist attacks here and abroad.  Was Saipov a coward?  He may have been depraved, but he was not yellow.  That these Columbine wannabes have Islam in common is just a remarkable coincidence.  That’s called the “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The governor gives a small nod to Saipov’s link to ISIS and his “radicalization domestically.”  How does Cuomo know the latter unless Saipov has been under surveillance?  If Saipov was under watch, then how did he get to rent a truck and kill in cold blood?  The governor needs to explain.

If Saipov didn’t bring his Muslim radicalism with him from Uzbekistan and was radicalized here, then how?  At his Paterson, New Jersey mosque?  Saipov, his wife, and his two kids occupy an apartment next to the mosque. 

Jihad Watch claims that the NYPD had the mosque under surveillance – until a “feminist Sharia Law advocate & liberal activist named Linda Sarsour” pressured the department to stop. 

Was Saipov’s radicalism sparked or fueled there?  What does Governor Cuomo know about it?

Was Saipov recruited via the internet?  If through the internet, then Saipov is no “lone wolf.”  The internet is an effective recruitment tool used by ISIS and other violent Muslim groups.  It’s a means in an asymmetric – that is, highly unconventional – war on the West. 

Cuomo had good reason to suggest that Saipov was radicalized here.  

New York senator Chuck Schumer, Cuomo’s fellow Democrat, is a principal backer of the “visa lottery” that gave Saipov U.S. entry.  Anyone who wins gets in.  Cuomo’s remark about Saipov being radicalized here stinks of tail-covering for Schumer. 

The requirements for visa lottery winners are minimal – high school education, basic work experience, all of which can be falsified.  Stringent documentation isn’t a hallmark of Uzbekistan, Syria, Pakistan – pick your Muslim country.  The visa lottery is more P.C. gimcrackery – but with an underlying serious political purpose.

Remarked President Trump in a November 1 tweet:

We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).

Schumer’s support of the “Diversity Visa Lottery Program” isn’t about feel-good politics; it’s about constituency-building by Democrats.  Flooding the nation with immigrants – legal and non – is about swelling Democratic ranks – Latino, Muslim, third-world, it matters not.  Democrats’ efforts have been bolstered by establishment Republicans and business interests’ quest for cheap labor.  These interests act similarly to the Civil War’s Copperheads – Fifth Columns.

Cornered, Schumer – in a routinely shabby ploy – asserted that criticizing the visa lottery program is, in part, criticism of former president George H.W. Bush.  Bush signed a lottery measure authored by Ted Kennedy in 1990.  That was eleven years before 9/11.  Kennedy has been dead for eight years – so throw the dead Democrat under the bus.  It doesn’t absolve Schumer, who has pushed his own lottery initiative.

In light of the truck attack, Mayor Bill de Blasio voiced yet another Democrat talking point and smear, though he lacked Cuomo’s deftness. 

Once again, from the New York Post: 

The minute you start generalizing it – especially to a whole religion – then unfortunately we’re sending the exact negative message that a lot of our enemies want sent[.] … The terrorists want to affirm that this nation is somehow anti-Muslim. We’ve got to do the exact opposite.

The straw man in de Blasio’s statement is that an entire religion, Islam, is being impugned.  President Trump certainly didn’t do so.  It’s near religion among Democrats that Islam can’t possibly have any culpability in Muslim terrorist attacks.  The attackers couldn’t be acting in accord with the fundamentals of their faith.  Why, suggesting otherwise is religious bigotry – a curious assertion from increasingly secularist (godless) Democrats, whose contempt for Judeo-Christianity is barely concealed.

In the immediate aftermath of the Manhattan attack, P.J. Media’s Roger L. Simon wrote:

What most of us know – those who are even faintly honest anyway – is that Islam has a gigantic problem, the basis of which is that the so-called “radical” Islamists are actually practicing the fundamental version of their religion. What they do is approved, even required, by their holy texts.  Many of our liberals and progressives don’t know this – or don’t want to – but it’s the reality.  It is also the reason Muslim protest is so tepid and often focused on non-existent Islamophobia.

Defeating the Democrats to defeat the jihad means not being cowed by their ready accusations of bigotry.  State it boldly: Muslims – true to basic Islamic tenets – are maiming and killing innocents across the globe.

There are Muslims who recognize the need for thorough reform of Islam.  They aren’t many; many more are needed. 

Simon wrote:

Egypt’s president al-Sisi has admitted and confronted this ghastly problem, calling for reform of Islam, but our own politicians – either ignorant or pathetically politically correct – dare not say a word.  We would, they say, be interfering with Muslim nations.

Let’s take exception to Simon’s characterization of “our own politicians” being ignorant or woefully P.C.  Among Democratic Party leaders and activists, ignorance and naïve loyalty to P.C. aren’t the trouble.  The trouble is a worldview that holds Western civilization and the U.S. in contempt.  It’s cynical calculation: open borders that allow indiscriminate immigration serve Democrats’ political ends. 

The calculation goes: immigration that increases crime and terrorism is the price to pay to transform America and gain power. 

For Democrats, it’s cost versus benefits – and the benefits win. 

Tuesday in New York City, Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old Uzbek immigrant and jihadist, plowed a rented truck into bicyclists and pedestrians, killing eight and seriously injuring “numerous” others.  The response from leading New York Democrats was sickeningly rote.  It was saturated with political correctness – hence, deceptive.  Deceptive, therefore cynical.  If not stopped, Democrats’ P.C. will keep killing Americans.

Democrats enable jihad on these shores.  Their worldview, policies, and steadfast denial of the long-term war being waged by Muslim fundamentalists are costing lives – San Bernardino, Orlando, now Manhattan, to name marquee attacks.  It puts Americans across the nation at risk daily.  It does so open-endedly.

Defeating the jihad means defeating Democrats, too.  Republicans forever express a desire for bipartisan solutions.  Surely there’s a way to unite with Democrats to counter and defeat this enemy!  Surely the hope is vain. 

The way to victory is to mobilize Americans other than Democrats against the jihad.  Social media and grassroots action allow pro-security and anti-jihad forces to bypass the mainstream media.  More is being done now on social media than at the grassroots.  It is time to step up grassroots efforts.  The alternative to the Democrats’ approach: clear vision, frank talk, tough policies, and relentless condemnation of the Democrats’ evasions and failures.  President Trump is showing the way.

New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, declared about Saipov’s attack, per the New York Post (emphasis added):

All the evidence we have is that he was a quote unquote lone-wolf model. He has had several run-ins with the law which were basically minor vehicular traffic[.] … He is a depraved coward is what he is. He was associated with ISIS and he was radicalized domestically and he’s a depraved coward.

Cuomo suggesting that Saipov is a social misfit, petty lawbreaker, and “depraved coward” is standard fare, trotted out by Democrats and parroted by the MSM after jihadist attacks here and abroad.  Was Saipov a coward?  He may have been depraved, but he was not yellow.  That these Columbine wannabes have Islam in common is just a remarkable coincidence.  That’s called the “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The governor gives a small nod to Saipov’s link to ISIS and his “radicalization domestically.”  How does Cuomo know the latter unless Saipov has been under surveillance?  If Saipov was under watch, then how did he get to rent a truck and kill in cold blood?  The governor needs to explain.

If Saipov didn’t bring his Muslim radicalism with him from Uzbekistan and was radicalized here, then how?  At his Paterson, New Jersey mosque?  Saipov, his wife, and his two kids occupy an apartment next to the mosque. 

Jihad Watch claims that the NYPD had the mosque under surveillance – until a “feminist Sharia Law advocate & liberal activist named Linda Sarsour” pressured the department to stop. 

Was Saipov’s radicalism sparked or fueled there?  What does Governor Cuomo know about it?

Was Saipov recruited via the internet?  If through the internet, then Saipov is no “lone wolf.”  The internet is an effective recruitment tool used by ISIS and other violent Muslim groups.  It’s a means in an asymmetric – that is, highly unconventional – war on the West. 

Cuomo had good reason to suggest that Saipov was radicalized here.  

New York senator Chuck Schumer, Cuomo’s fellow Democrat, is a principal backer of the “visa lottery” that gave Saipov U.S. entry.  Anyone who wins gets in.  Cuomo’s remark about Saipov being radicalized here stinks of tail-covering for Schumer. 

The requirements for visa lottery winners are minimal – high school education, basic work experience, all of which can be falsified.  Stringent documentation isn’t a hallmark of Uzbekistan, Syria, Pakistan – pick your Muslim country.  The visa lottery is more P.C. gimcrackery – but with an underlying serious political purpose.

Remarked President Trump in a November 1 tweet:

We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).

Schumer’s support of the “Diversity Visa Lottery Program” isn’t about feel-good politics; it’s about constituency-building by Democrats.  Flooding the nation with immigrants – legal and non – is about swelling Democratic ranks – Latino, Muslim, third-world, it matters not.  Democrats’ efforts have been bolstered by establishment Republicans and business interests’ quest for cheap labor.  These interests act similarly to the Civil War’s Copperheads – Fifth Columns.

Cornered, Schumer – in a routinely shabby ploy – asserted that criticizing the visa lottery program is, in part, criticism of former president George H.W. Bush.  Bush signed a lottery measure authored by Ted Kennedy in 1990.  That was eleven years before 9/11.  Kennedy has been dead for eight years – so throw the dead Democrat under the bus.  It doesn’t absolve Schumer, who has pushed his own lottery initiative.

In light of the truck attack, Mayor Bill de Blasio voiced yet another Democrat talking point and smear, though he lacked Cuomo’s deftness. 

Once again, from the New York Post: 

The minute you start generalizing it – especially to a whole religion – then unfortunately we’re sending the exact negative message that a lot of our enemies want sent[.] … The terrorists want to affirm that this nation is somehow anti-Muslim. We’ve got to do the exact opposite.

The straw man in de Blasio’s statement is that an entire religion, Islam, is being impugned.  President Trump certainly didn’t do so.  It’s near religion among Democrats that Islam can’t possibly have any culpability in Muslim terrorist attacks.  The attackers couldn’t be acting in accord with the fundamentals of their faith.  Why, suggesting otherwise is religious bigotry – a curious assertion from increasingly secularist (godless) Democrats, whose contempt for Judeo-Christianity is barely concealed.

In the immediate aftermath of the Manhattan attack, P.J. Media’s Roger L. Simon wrote:

What most of us know – those who are even faintly honest anyway – is that Islam has a gigantic problem, the basis of which is that the so-called “radical” Islamists are actually practicing the fundamental version of their religion. What they do is approved, even required, by their holy texts.  Many of our liberals and progressives don’t know this – or don’t want to – but it’s the reality.  It is also the reason Muslim protest is so tepid and often focused on non-existent Islamophobia.

Defeating the Democrats to defeat the jihad means not being cowed by their ready accusations of bigotry.  State it boldly: Muslims – true to basic Islamic tenets – are maiming and killing innocents across the globe.

There are Muslims who recognize the need for thorough reform of Islam.  They aren’t many; many more are needed. 

Simon wrote:

Egypt’s president al-Sisi has admitted and confronted this ghastly problem, calling for reform of Islam, but our own politicians – either ignorant or pathetically politically correct – dare not say a word.  We would, they say, be interfering with Muslim nations.

Let’s take exception to Simon’s characterization of “our own politicians” being ignorant or woefully P.C.  Among Democratic Party leaders and activists, ignorance and naïve loyalty to P.C. aren’t the trouble.  The trouble is a worldview that holds Western civilization and the U.S. in contempt.  It’s cynical calculation: open borders that allow indiscriminate immigration serve Democrats’ political ends. 

The calculation goes: immigration that increases crime and terrorism is the price to pay to transform America and gain power. 

For Democrats, it’s cost versus benefits – and the benefits win. 



Source link

A Tale of Two Leaders: Trudeau versus Trump


The contrast couldn’t be more telling. Last November, voters elected a Hemingway man as president. Hemingway, as in Ernest. You know, the great 20th Century writer who glorified masculinity: big game hunting, deep-sea fishing, bullfighting, war. Testosterone comes standard with males, and Hemingway never apologized for it. Why should he have? That’s like saying sorry for having two feet.  

Up north, Canadians elected a party to govern — the Liberals — led by a Trump antithesis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is everything that Trump isn’t — oh, and proud of it. He declares himself a feminist. Says he’s raising his boys to be feminists.

In an October 11 essay for Marie Claire, a fretting Justin Trudeau wrote:

I want my sons to escape the pressure to be a particular kind of masculine that is so damaging to men and to the people around them. I want them to be comfortable being themselves, and being feminists — who stand up for what’s right, and who can look themselves in the eye with pride.

In other words, Trudeau wants his sons neutered like all hardcore feminists want boys and men to be. Trudeau fits that bill. He seems hatched from a PC incubator. He’s got Abercrombie & Fitch model good looks — you know, in that impish, teenage sort of way. Fey boys and men are en vogue in Western popular culture.  

Trudeau’s a lightweight in a heavyweight world. China, Russia, and India aren’t ruled by wussies. Nor is the U.S. led by one. Western Europe — sissified turf — holds Trudeau’s longing gaze.  

Trudeau tiptoes, embraces, and snuggles. He declares the Canadian house open to all those refugees and lost souls spurned by big, bad America. Hot chocolates on the stove, and wait till ragged Somalians and Syrians get a taste of Justin’s yummy cookies.  

From an October 5 Fox News report:

Advocates say it’s the contrast between the Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration vs. the welcoming image projected by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that drives many migrants to Canada — though the country does warn there is no guarantee that status will be granted.

Looks like Trudeau’s feminine-saturated compassion is running into obstacles called Canadian law and Trump brawn. Never fear, though, per the Fox News’ report, the refugees keep streaming across the Canadian border. Law matters little with a world class chump at the helm.  

Trump, no bones, is an alpha male. He surrounds himself with military. You know, notably, John Kelly and Jim Mattis. He picked a fight with the PC-entangled NFL over the flag and anthem — a fight he’s winning handily. And with the backing of millions of patriots.  

Trump doesn’t try to hide his maleness with feminine touches. The president makes no excuses for being a real guy. He was a developer and builder, both burly occupations. He spoils for a fight — no-holds-barred. He’s a self-described winner, and winning is always his aim. In Trump’s universe, put away your hankies; there aren’t any trophies for trying.

Trump has raised solid kids – sons and daughters who are hardworking achievers… suck-it-up, get-it-done sorts. He and the first lady are raising Barron the same way. And like strong men, he’s not afraid of strong women. Melania and Ivanka aren’t shrinking violets. Check, Kellyanne Conway.     

Compassion, Donald Trump has. It’s heartfelt but guy-expressed. Hurricanes devastated southeast Texas, parts of Florida, and Puerto Rico. What did the president do? He took the bull by the horns. Fixes were ready to go in the aftermath. He quickly brought to bear resources to alleviate suffering and restore order. There’s a lot more work to be done, but the president is on it. He and the first lady ventured to shattered communities, there to commiserate. But, also, to demonstrate resolve to overcome.  

Guys express themselves by problem-solving and battling. And here Trump is rebuilding the military. He’s staring down Kim Jong-un. He’s challenging the PRC in the South and East China Seas — international waters claimed by the Chinese — by asserting American warships’ right to ply those waters. He’s pulverizing ISIS with loosened rules of engagement, giving his field commanders broader latitude to “find the enemy and kill him.” 

And as of last Friday, telling Iran’s mullahs, “No deal,” on the Obama-Iran nuke agreement.  

The Trudeau and Trump contrast reflects a divergence in U.S. and Canadian worldviews. Perhaps its fairer to say that the divergence is between progressive precincts in Canada and the U.S. versus normals in both countries. Nonetheless, the momentum differs in each.      

Trudeau-led Canada is miring in feminist gooblygook. Feminism is creed – a creed that decries masculinity and males as historically bad. It’s arrogant and delusional, denying genetics and hundreds of thousands of years of evolved human nature. A premise: Locke’s and Rousseau’s debunked tabula rasa.  

Feminism embraces a vanity: that maleness can be educated and conditioned out of males. U.S. public schools have become feminist domains and laboratories. Permitting girls into the Boy Scouts is what? Another attempt to feminize boys. Or, if boys can’t be conditioned into little Trudeaus, suppress them — chide and punish them into knuckling under.

Feminism is, finally, about power — it’s pursuit and retention. It’s no mistake that modern feminism is chiefly a leftist movement.   

Trump’s election manifested an upwelling of revulsion with PC, a large part of which is driven by feminism. That revulsion wasn’t just among red-blooded men, but among red-blooded women, too. Tens of millions of men and women, living somewhere between New York and San Francisco, know instinctively that guys need to be guys and gals, gals. Males and females possess characteristics and strengths that complement.

America always had a strong masculine sensibility, from the Pilgrims to the Revolution to explorers and westward expansion to the “right stuff” to get to the moon. Railroads, ironworks, steel mills, shipyards, cattle drives, and much more… men’s work. And wars, to save the Union, and then to defeat enemies abroad. Men’s work.  

American patriotism is saturated with masculinity. Military color guards. Warplane flyovers. The anthem itself, an ode to bravery in the face of the enemy. Feminism and vapid maleness didn’t make America.    

A last take from Trudeau’s essay in Marie Claire:

It’s 2017, yet in Canada and around the world, women and girls still face violence, discrimination, stereotypes that limit them, and unequal opportunities that keep them from achieving their dreams. It is maddening to me that my brilliant, compassionate daughter will grow up in a world where, despite everything she is as a person, there will still be people who won’t take her voice seriously, who will write her off — simply because of her gender.  

For the prime minister, a century or so of progress in women’s rights in Canada — and the U.S. — all for naught. No mention of the lechers and sexual predators amongst his ilk — the Bill Clintons and Harvey Weinsteins – who appalling exploit women.

But Trudeau does hint at another real threat to females, he just doesn’t have the cojones to give it voice. 

Want to know where “women and girls still face violence, discrimination, stereotypes that limit them?” In any Muslim community, where virulent chauvinism and, not infrequently, misogyny are practiced — and have been for centuries. Where beatings, stoning, and honor killings are part of the social fabric.

Manly men aren’t afraid to say so.  

The contrast couldn’t be more telling. Last November, voters elected a Hemingway man as president. Hemingway, as in Ernest. You know, the great 20th Century writer who glorified masculinity: big game hunting, deep-sea fishing, bullfighting, war. Testosterone comes standard with males, and Hemingway never apologized for it. Why should he have? That’s like saying sorry for having two feet.  

Up north, Canadians elected a party to govern — the Liberals — led by a Trump antithesis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is everything that Trump isn’t — oh, and proud of it. He declares himself a feminist. Says he’s raising his boys to be feminists.

In an October 11 essay for Marie Claire, a fretting Justin Trudeau wrote:

I want my sons to escape the pressure to be a particular kind of masculine that is so damaging to men and to the people around them. I want them to be comfortable being themselves, and being feminists — who stand up for what’s right, and who can look themselves in the eye with pride.

In other words, Trudeau wants his sons neutered like all hardcore feminists want boys and men to be. Trudeau fits that bill. He seems hatched from a PC incubator. He’s got Abercrombie & Fitch model good looks — you know, in that impish, teenage sort of way. Fey boys and men are en vogue in Western popular culture.  

Trudeau’s a lightweight in a heavyweight world. China, Russia, and India aren’t ruled by wussies. Nor is the U.S. led by one. Western Europe — sissified turf — holds Trudeau’s longing gaze.  

Trudeau tiptoes, embraces, and snuggles. He declares the Canadian house open to all those refugees and lost souls spurned by big, bad America. Hot chocolates on the stove, and wait till ragged Somalians and Syrians get a taste of Justin’s yummy cookies.  

From an October 5 Fox News report:

Advocates say it’s the contrast between the Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration vs. the welcoming image projected by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that drives many migrants to Canada — though the country does warn there is no guarantee that status will be granted.

Looks like Trudeau’s feminine-saturated compassion is running into obstacles called Canadian law and Trump brawn. Never fear, though, per the Fox News’ report, the refugees keep streaming across the Canadian border. Law matters little with a world class chump at the helm.  

Trump, no bones, is an alpha male. He surrounds himself with military. You know, notably, John Kelly and Jim Mattis. He picked a fight with the PC-entangled NFL over the flag and anthem — a fight he’s winning handily. And with the backing of millions of patriots.  

Trump doesn’t try to hide his maleness with feminine touches. The president makes no excuses for being a real guy. He was a developer and builder, both burly occupations. He spoils for a fight — no-holds-barred. He’s a self-described winner, and winning is always his aim. In Trump’s universe, put away your hankies; there aren’t any trophies for trying.

Trump has raised solid kids – sons and daughters who are hardworking achievers… suck-it-up, get-it-done sorts. He and the first lady are raising Barron the same way. And like strong men, he’s not afraid of strong women. Melania and Ivanka aren’t shrinking violets. Check, Kellyanne Conway.     

Compassion, Donald Trump has. It’s heartfelt but guy-expressed. Hurricanes devastated southeast Texas, parts of Florida, and Puerto Rico. What did the president do? He took the bull by the horns. Fixes were ready to go in the aftermath. He quickly brought to bear resources to alleviate suffering and restore order. There’s a lot more work to be done, but the president is on it. He and the first lady ventured to shattered communities, there to commiserate. But, also, to demonstrate resolve to overcome.  

Guys express themselves by problem-solving and battling. And here Trump is rebuilding the military. He’s staring down Kim Jong-un. He’s challenging the PRC in the South and East China Seas — international waters claimed by the Chinese — by asserting American warships’ right to ply those waters. He’s pulverizing ISIS with loosened rules of engagement, giving his field commanders broader latitude to “find the enemy and kill him.” 

And as of last Friday, telling Iran’s mullahs, “No deal,” on the Obama-Iran nuke agreement.  

The Trudeau and Trump contrast reflects a divergence in U.S. and Canadian worldviews. Perhaps its fairer to say that the divergence is between progressive precincts in Canada and the U.S. versus normals in both countries. Nonetheless, the momentum differs in each.      

Trudeau-led Canada is miring in feminist gooblygook. Feminism is creed – a creed that decries masculinity and males as historically bad. It’s arrogant and delusional, denying genetics and hundreds of thousands of years of evolved human nature. A premise: Locke’s and Rousseau’s debunked tabula rasa.  

Feminism embraces a vanity: that maleness can be educated and conditioned out of males. U.S. public schools have become feminist domains and laboratories. Permitting girls into the Boy Scouts is what? Another attempt to feminize boys. Or, if boys can’t be conditioned into little Trudeaus, suppress them — chide and punish them into knuckling under.

Feminism is, finally, about power — it’s pursuit and retention. It’s no mistake that modern feminism is chiefly a leftist movement.   

Trump’s election manifested an upwelling of revulsion with PC, a large part of which is driven by feminism. That revulsion wasn’t just among red-blooded men, but among red-blooded women, too. Tens of millions of men and women, living somewhere between New York and San Francisco, know instinctively that guys need to be guys and gals, gals. Males and females possess characteristics and strengths that complement.

America always had a strong masculine sensibility, from the Pilgrims to the Revolution to explorers and westward expansion to the “right stuff” to get to the moon. Railroads, ironworks, steel mills, shipyards, cattle drives, and much more… men’s work. And wars, to save the Union, and then to defeat enemies abroad. Men’s work.  

American patriotism is saturated with masculinity. Military color guards. Warplane flyovers. The anthem itself, an ode to bravery in the face of the enemy. Feminism and vapid maleness didn’t make America.    

A last take from Trudeau’s essay in Marie Claire:

It’s 2017, yet in Canada and around the world, women and girls still face violence, discrimination, stereotypes that limit them, and unequal opportunities that keep them from achieving their dreams. It is maddening to me that my brilliant, compassionate daughter will grow up in a world where, despite everything she is as a person, there will still be people who won’t take her voice seriously, who will write her off — simply because of her gender.  

For the prime minister, a century or so of progress in women’s rights in Canada — and the U.S. — all for naught. No mention of the lechers and sexual predators amongst his ilk — the Bill Clintons and Harvey Weinsteins – who appalling exploit women.

But Trudeau does hint at another real threat to females, he just doesn’t have the cojones to give it voice. 

Want to know where “women and girls still face violence, discrimination, stereotypes that limit them?” In any Muslim community, where virulent chauvinism and, not infrequently, misogyny are practiced — and have been for centuries. Where beatings, stoning, and honor killings are part of the social fabric.

Manly men aren’t afraid to say so.  



Source link

His Name Was Scout


Saturday night before last, a 21-year-old known as “Scout” Schultz was shot dead at Georgia Tech. The shooter was a campus cop. Scout, a Tech undergrad, advanced on cops with a knife. He was taunting them to shoot as he advanced. He ignored warnings to stop. A cop fired once. The bullet struck Scout’s heart. He was pronounced dead at Grady Memorial Hospital 30 minutes later. It was discovered that the pocket knife’s blade was closed. 

By all accounts, Scout was mentally ill. He was smart as a whip, per reports, and quite active in the “GT Progressive Student Alliance.” That’s code for left-wing. More to the point, Scout was an activist for campus “LGBTQIA” causes. Wonder what that is? Ready for this? Here goes: “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, and Allies.”

Scout claimed to be “intersex,” which is said to be a result of genital abnormalities. Atlanta news reports are suggesting Scout’s mental illness grew out of stresses associated with his supposed abnormality. This without documentation or sourcing about Scout’s condition other than the say-so of his mother and his own assertion.

Scout’s mother, Lynne Schultz, did claim that her son suffered on-again, off-again depression. He had a history of such dating back to his boyhood, she said. Scout, per Schultz, had used a belt to try to hang himself a couple of years before. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution report (see link below): “Diagnosed with depression at a young age, Scout’s mental health often wavered.”   

From ajc.com:

Scout Schultz, according to the mother, chose to identify as nonbinary, neither male nor female, and was classified as intersex, meaning a person has biological or physiological characteristics that aren’t necessarily fully male or female. That’s different from “transgender,” where people feel they know what their gender is and that it’s not the gender they were assigned.      

In lockstep with political correctness, ajc.com borrowed from the Associated Press guidelines when dealing with someone who’s intersex, referring to the person as “they.”  

LGBTQIA activists — with a helping hand from the Atlanta Journal Constitution — were quick to assign a reason for Scout’s mental illness, one that’s relevant to their cause and serves their political agenda. Of course, as the left and its allied grievance groups do, Georgia Tech was blamed, in part, for Scout’s death. Why?

“Scout committed suicide, and students have received inadequate help from campus mental health services,” the [GT Progressive Student Alliance] demands letter reads.    

Isn’t it Georgia Tech’s primary mission to educate? Per the demands letter, cops whose lives are at risk need training to “deescalate” confrontations. That’s a lot to ask from cops with a would-be assailant making for them, weapon in hand, at night… cops who often have to make split-second life or death decisions. Scout’s knife blade may have been shut, but cops didn’t know that in the moment. Tasers and pepper-spray may not stop an adrenalin-pumped attacker. The mentally ill can kill, too.     

It’s quite possible that Scout was troubled for reasons that didn’t originate with his supposed “intersexuality.” That, in other words, his sexual tumult might have been an outgrowth of other troubles. But that doesn’t suit the progressive narrative. A tragedy must never go to waste.

The ajc.com doesn’t explore what the many causes could be for a young boy’s depression. Was the cause(s) pedestrian, as in biochemical imbalances? Social environment (unrelated to sexuality), at home, school, or elsewhere? Or some combination? Might Scout, then a mere boy, not have been tormented in the least by sexuality?

For the ajc.com, Scout appears to be the victim of a lifetime of sexual identity stresses. Then, again, the newspaper may be unsure. A so-called expert seems so. 

One more slice from the ajc.com report:

A recent national study found that 40 percent of transgender and non-gender-conforming people attempt suicide. But Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, cautioned against jumping to conclusions.


An intersex person might or might not have greater mental health issues, because growing up intersex or transgender can carry a stigma and be highly stressful, he said. However, Graham stressed, “What‘s important for folks to recognize is there may have been some health issues involved, but mental health issues are not necessarily related to our gender identity.”

If Scout was confused by “they” sexuality, an assumed expert, Jeff Graham, sheds no light.

Note the article’s claim of a “recent national study” has no attribution. But the suicide attempt rates may well be high among intersexuals. At least, they’re reported as high among transgenders. Deeply troubled people may be more prone to try suicide, in any event — or at least contemplate it. Deeply troubled, as in minds so disturbed and emotions so jumbled that a man fancies himself a woman trapped in a man’s body — or visa versa.

What Scout’s death should be about isn’t efforts to score points for leftist politics and promote LGBTQIA causes – or whatever the cool marginalia du jour. It shouldn’t be about marching with fluttering rainbow banners – tromping down streets and sidewalks in fist-pumping righteousness. It shouldn’t be about blame-games to extract concessions from an organization and gain leverage. (Georgia Tech president, G.P. “Bud” Peterson has just created a fund for “student mental health and wellness initiatives.”) Nor should it be about faddish Associated Press guidelines referring to a man or woman as “they.”

It wasn’t, as Rolling Stone headlined, “Georgia Tech Shooting Shows Schism Between LGBTQ Community and Police.”

What happened to Scout was really about Scout, a young man with an apparent long history of mental woes, who though having reached his majority, had no business alone on Georgia Tech’s campus on a Saturday night. Who attempted suicide previously, and who evidently nursed a death wish to fruition… who, in the process, threatened cops’ lives. A young man who needed ongoing, routine mental health treatment and monitoring — which weren’t the responsibilities of an engineering school.

Yet, this troubled young man’s death becomes a prop to push political and social causes… to demand concessions and entitlements… to impose upon society an agenda at odds with time-honored norms – norms consistent with nature — the imposition of which damages the health and well-being of society.

His name was Scout. And his death wasn’t about a cause.     

Saturday night before last, a 21-year-old known as “Scout” Schultz was shot dead at Georgia Tech. The shooter was a campus cop. Scout, a Tech undergrad, advanced on cops with a knife. He was taunting them to shoot as he advanced. He ignored warnings to stop. A cop fired once. The bullet struck Scout’s heart. He was pronounced dead at Grady Memorial Hospital 30 minutes later. It was discovered that the pocket knife’s blade was closed. 

By all accounts, Scout was mentally ill. He was smart as a whip, per reports, and quite active in the “GT Progressive Student Alliance.” That’s code for left-wing. More to the point, Scout was an activist for campus “LGBTQIA” causes. Wonder what that is? Ready for this? Here goes: “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, and Allies.”

Scout claimed to be “intersex,” which is said to be a result of genital abnormalities. Atlanta news reports are suggesting Scout’s mental illness grew out of stresses associated with his supposed abnormality. This without documentation or sourcing about Scout’s condition other than the say-so of his mother and his own assertion.

Scout’s mother, Lynne Schultz, did claim that her son suffered on-again, off-again depression. He had a history of such dating back to his boyhood, she said. Scout, per Schultz, had used a belt to try to hang himself a couple of years before. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution report (see link below): “Diagnosed with depression at a young age, Scout’s mental health often wavered.”   

From ajc.com:

Scout Schultz, according to the mother, chose to identify as nonbinary, neither male nor female, and was classified as intersex, meaning a person has biological or physiological characteristics that aren’t necessarily fully male or female. That’s different from “transgender,” where people feel they know what their gender is and that it’s not the gender they were assigned.      

In lockstep with political correctness, ajc.com borrowed from the Associated Press guidelines when dealing with someone who’s intersex, referring to the person as “they.”  

LGBTQIA activists — with a helping hand from the Atlanta Journal Constitution — were quick to assign a reason for Scout’s mental illness, one that’s relevant to their cause and serves their political agenda. Of course, as the left and its allied grievance groups do, Georgia Tech was blamed, in part, for Scout’s death. Why?

“Scout committed suicide, and students have received inadequate help from campus mental health services,” the [GT Progressive Student Alliance] demands letter reads.    

Isn’t it Georgia Tech’s primary mission to educate? Per the demands letter, cops whose lives are at risk need training to “deescalate” confrontations. That’s a lot to ask from cops with a would-be assailant making for them, weapon in hand, at night… cops who often have to make split-second life or death decisions. Scout’s knife blade may have been shut, but cops didn’t know that in the moment. Tasers and pepper-spray may not stop an adrenalin-pumped attacker. The mentally ill can kill, too.     

It’s quite possible that Scout was troubled for reasons that didn’t originate with his supposed “intersexuality.” That, in other words, his sexual tumult might have been an outgrowth of other troubles. But that doesn’t suit the progressive narrative. A tragedy must never go to waste.

The ajc.com doesn’t explore what the many causes could be for a young boy’s depression. Was the cause(s) pedestrian, as in biochemical imbalances? Social environment (unrelated to sexuality), at home, school, or elsewhere? Or some combination? Might Scout, then a mere boy, not have been tormented in the least by sexuality?

For the ajc.com, Scout appears to be the victim of a lifetime of sexual identity stresses. Then, again, the newspaper may be unsure. A so-called expert seems so. 

One more slice from the ajc.com report:

A recent national study found that 40 percent of transgender and non-gender-conforming people attempt suicide. But Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, cautioned against jumping to conclusions.


An intersex person might or might not have greater mental health issues, because growing up intersex or transgender can carry a stigma and be highly stressful, he said. However, Graham stressed, “What‘s important for folks to recognize is there may have been some health issues involved, but mental health issues are not necessarily related to our gender identity.”

If Scout was confused by “they” sexuality, an assumed expert, Jeff Graham, sheds no light.

Note the article’s claim of a “recent national study” has no attribution. But the suicide attempt rates may well be high among intersexuals. At least, they’re reported as high among transgenders. Deeply troubled people may be more prone to try suicide, in any event — or at least contemplate it. Deeply troubled, as in minds so disturbed and emotions so jumbled that a man fancies himself a woman trapped in a man’s body — or visa versa.

What Scout’s death should be about isn’t efforts to score points for leftist politics and promote LGBTQIA causes – or whatever the cool marginalia du jour. It shouldn’t be about marching with fluttering rainbow banners – tromping down streets and sidewalks in fist-pumping righteousness. It shouldn’t be about blame-games to extract concessions from an organization and gain leverage. (Georgia Tech president, G.P. “Bud” Peterson has just created a fund for “student mental health and wellness initiatives.”) Nor should it be about faddish Associated Press guidelines referring to a man or woman as “they.”

It wasn’t, as Rolling Stone headlined, “Georgia Tech Shooting Shows Schism Between LGBTQ Community and Police.”

What happened to Scout was really about Scout, a young man with an apparent long history of mental woes, who though having reached his majority, had no business alone on Georgia Tech’s campus on a Saturday night. Who attempted suicide previously, and who evidently nursed a death wish to fruition… who, in the process, threatened cops’ lives. A young man who needed ongoing, routine mental health treatment and monitoring — which weren’t the responsibilities of an engineering school.

Yet, this troubled young man’s death becomes a prop to push political and social causes… to demand concessions and entitlements… to impose upon society an agenda at odds with time-honored norms – norms consistent with nature — the imposition of which damages the health and well-being of society.

His name was Scout. And his death wasn’t about a cause.     



Source link

London Update: West to Blame for Islamic Terrorism


As recently as Monday, Reuters was cryptic about the bombing’s cause and its perpetrators. Under the headline, “British police arrest second man over London train bomb,” this:

“It is inevitable that so-called Islamic State, or Daesh, will reach in and try to claim responsibility. We have no evidence to suggest that yet,” [British Interior Minister Amber] Rudd told the BBC.

But then Rudd tipped her hand:

“But as this unfolds, and as the police do their investigations, we will make sure that we find out exactly how he [the first suspect] was radicalized, if we can.” [Italics added]

The radicalized Catholic? Jew? Atheist? Ariana Grande fan?

Reuters won’t even hint at the identities of the nabbed suspects, though the first is rumored to be Iraqi. An ongoing police investigation and all that. So much for scoops.

Mentioned at Reuters, but elaborated on in Monday’s “Counter Jihad Report”, this wrinkle to Friday’s train bombing:

Last decade, Ronald and Penelope Jones were being feted for their work as foster parents. Now their suburban Surrey home was raided in an investigation into the train bombing in London.


The Joneses had won praise for fostering hundreds of children. But their growing interest in taking in refugees from Muslim countries turned their pleasant home with its wooden fences and green backyard into a ticking time bomb.

Seems that many of the children that the Jones’ sheltered were, in fact, young men who passed themselves off as boys. Or so goes the story. More needs to be learned about the Jones couple. Were they well-meaning dupes or somehow complicit? 

But let’s go with the story. Let’s say the Ronald and Penelope were naïve, but well-intentioned, dunderheads. As the “Counter Jihad Report” asserts:

The couple became interested in fostering “refugees” when the media barraged helpless listeners with sob stories of Syrian suffering.

There you go. A fruit of failing to name and explain the nature of Islamic militancy and its menace to the West: fuzzy-brained do-gooders facilitating terror acts from their home.  

The establishment narrative continues to dictate that the terrorist is a “lone-wolf” — a social misfit on par with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The Birmingham concert massacre could well be Columbine High. Unfortunate and criminal, but it reveals societal pathologies — not asymmetric warfare. Highly irregular warfare, the intent being to demoralize the citizenry, breaking down their will over time to not just resist Islam’s advance, but defeat it.       

But every former goatherder and his brother living in London’s Muslim neighborhoods knew the truth immediately on Friday. Every non-Muslim Brit knew it, too. Ruling PC, however, forbids public acknowledgement. Doing so means near-instant castigation. If you’re high enough up the food chain, what ensues are mockery, character assassination, ostracization – and, if the powers-that-be can get you — loss of job. In the U.K., Katie Hopkins and Nigel Farage are rare birds. Most everyone else must submit to grotesque denial and the torturing of the truth.

This decadent, truth-denying approach to the Islamic fundamentalist assault on the West isn’t a passing moment. It’s revealing. And deeply troubling. It’s the outgrowth of decades of intellectual and moral decay. The result is a spreading cultural squalor. And it’s quite intentional. It erodes, bit by bit, societal bedrock. It challenges and demeans time-tested principles. It derides virtues, common sense, enlightened self-interest (individual and communal). It slanders national interest. Protecting a society’s core beliefs and values from alien and opposing beliefs and value systems is bigoted — or “racist,” to use the all-purpose smear.

Western intellectuals and academics have been and are the driving force in this generations-long campaign to destroy Western Civilization. Islam — specifically, the millions of Muslims that now live in Western Europe — is a Trojan Horse. It’s a Trojan Horse not of an external enemy’s making, but built by Westerners who loathe their own societies.  

Post WWII, Muslims came first to Western Europe at the invitation of governments. The need was cheap labor. Two great wars had killed tens of millions of Europeans. Prior to WWI, birthrates were dropping throughout Europe’s affluent countries. They continued to do so. 

Over time, what was a practical move was seized upon by the anti-Western left. The growing masses of Muslims in Western Europe came to be regarded as a weapon.

The collection that makes up the antis — progressives, statists, atheists, nihilists, or some combination — recognized in Islam valuable hostile elements, useful in laying low the West.

The West’s own haters are responsible for Ronald and Penelope Jones — and Lord knows, countless other dupes, high and low. The facile-minded and, thus, vulnerable, who’ve bought that Western commitments to tolerance, fairness, equal rights, and inclusion mean Muslims have automatic places at the table. Not just Muslims, mind you, that reciprocate and seek true assimilation — they’re a minority. But any Muslim, because the root cause of “terrorism” can’t be an ideo-religion and its tens of millions of fervent adherents.  

That’s led to the fantasy indulgence of Western Europe’s establishments (and here, too) that given time, Muslims will assimilate into Western societies. Merkel, Macron, and May are poster children for this make-believe. Add clerics, like Pope Francis.

Decent-paying jobs, Xbox, and rubbing elbows with Hindus, Christians, and atheists in daily life will pacify Muslims. Muslim killer bees mating with Western honey bees will eventually produce drones. The affectations of Islam will remain, but harder, aggressive, deadlier aspects of the faith with vanish. Peace, love, and harmony will hold sway.

But this conviction underestimates, if not demeans, the power of religion. Materialism and godlessness may be the ways for modern Western progressives, but not for billions of people of various faiths worldwide. It certainly isn’t for Muslims, who take the tenets of their religion seriously — as in soul-savingly serious… as in heaven or hell serious.

It evades the history of Islam — right into modern times. The rationalizations can’t alter the facts. Islam has expanded through Al Hijra — conquest via migration. And, not incidentally, through the sword, through conquest. Violence, killing, and submission or death are intrinsic to Islam’s growth. Mohammed was a warrior, and not in the Salvation Army way.

Mohammed invented the rationale for the violence and bloodshed endemic through Islam’s long history… for the bloodshed committed in the name of Allah across the globe today. Ask Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia about the “Religion of Peace.” As of September, 2015, the Gatestone Institute estimated that “One Christian [is] Slaughtered Every Five Minutes” … by Muslims.        

Western Europe’s future is dark – unless clear-sighted, courageous leaders are lifted up by its peoples. Leaders with the courage to speak the truth, and the resolve to remove the menace from their midst.    

Generic terrorism struck again in London last Friday. That’s what it always is initially — an act of terrorism without specific cause. It’s the etiquette. As if London’s tube bombing could possibly have been done by a rogue Anglican. What are the Vegas odds on that?

Then ISIS took credit. But no admission by pols and elites on either side of the pond that Islamic terrorists acted to kill, obedient to their faith. The narrative must remain chaste: Islam’s basic tenets couldn’t possibly be the motivation. Maiming and killing innocents (or in the parlance, infidels) is filed under “other” causes.

As recently as Monday, Reuters was cryptic about the bombing’s cause and its perpetrators. Under the headline, “British police arrest second man over London train bomb,” this:

“It is inevitable that so-called Islamic State, or Daesh, will reach in and try to claim responsibility. We have no evidence to suggest that yet,” [British Interior Minister Amber] Rudd told the BBC.

But then Rudd tipped her hand:

“But as this unfolds, and as the police do their investigations, we will make sure that we find out exactly how he [the first suspect] was radicalized, if we can.” [Italics added]

The radicalized Catholic? Jew? Atheist? Ariana Grande fan?

Reuters won’t even hint at the identities of the nabbed suspects, though the first is rumored to be Iraqi. An ongoing police investigation and all that. So much for scoops.

Mentioned at Reuters, but elaborated on in Monday’s “Counter Jihad Report”, this wrinkle to Friday’s train bombing:

Last decade, Ronald and Penelope Jones were being feted for their work as foster parents. Now their suburban Surrey home was raided in an investigation into the train bombing in London.


The Joneses had won praise for fostering hundreds of children. But their growing interest in taking in refugees from Muslim countries turned their pleasant home with its wooden fences and green backyard into a ticking time bomb.

Seems that many of the children that the Jones’ sheltered were, in fact, young men who passed themselves off as boys. Or so goes the story. More needs to be learned about the Jones couple. Were they well-meaning dupes or somehow complicit? 

But let’s go with the story. Let’s say the Ronald and Penelope were naïve, but well-intentioned, dunderheads. As the “Counter Jihad Report” asserts:

The couple became interested in fostering “refugees” when the media barraged helpless listeners with sob stories of Syrian suffering.

There you go. A fruit of failing to name and explain the nature of Islamic militancy and its menace to the West: fuzzy-brained do-gooders facilitating terror acts from their home.  

The establishment narrative continues to dictate that the terrorist is a “lone-wolf” — a social misfit on par with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The Birmingham concert massacre could well be Columbine High. Unfortunate and criminal, but it reveals societal pathologies — not asymmetric warfare. Highly irregular warfare, the intent being to demoralize the citizenry, breaking down their will over time to not just resist Islam’s advance, but defeat it.       

But every former goatherder and his brother living in London’s Muslim neighborhoods knew the truth immediately on Friday. Every non-Muslim Brit knew it, too. Ruling PC, however, forbids public acknowledgement. Doing so means near-instant castigation. If you’re high enough up the food chain, what ensues are mockery, character assassination, ostracization – and, if the powers-that-be can get you — loss of job. In the U.K., Katie Hopkins and Nigel Farage are rare birds. Most everyone else must submit to grotesque denial and the torturing of the truth.

This decadent, truth-denying approach to the Islamic fundamentalist assault on the West isn’t a passing moment. It’s revealing. And deeply troubling. It’s the outgrowth of decades of intellectual and moral decay. The result is a spreading cultural squalor. And it’s quite intentional. It erodes, bit by bit, societal bedrock. It challenges and demeans time-tested principles. It derides virtues, common sense, enlightened self-interest (individual and communal). It slanders national interest. Protecting a society’s core beliefs and values from alien and opposing beliefs and value systems is bigoted — or “racist,” to use the all-purpose smear.

Western intellectuals and academics have been and are the driving force in this generations-long campaign to destroy Western Civilization. Islam — specifically, the millions of Muslims that now live in Western Europe — is a Trojan Horse. It’s a Trojan Horse not of an external enemy’s making, but built by Westerners who loathe their own societies.  

Post WWII, Muslims came first to Western Europe at the invitation of governments. The need was cheap labor. Two great wars had killed tens of millions of Europeans. Prior to WWI, birthrates were dropping throughout Europe’s affluent countries. They continued to do so. 

Over time, what was a practical move was seized upon by the anti-Western left. The growing masses of Muslims in Western Europe came to be regarded as a weapon.

The collection that makes up the antis — progressives, statists, atheists, nihilists, or some combination — recognized in Islam valuable hostile elements, useful in laying low the West.

The West’s own haters are responsible for Ronald and Penelope Jones — and Lord knows, countless other dupes, high and low. The facile-minded and, thus, vulnerable, who’ve bought that Western commitments to tolerance, fairness, equal rights, and inclusion mean Muslims have automatic places at the table. Not just Muslims, mind you, that reciprocate and seek true assimilation — they’re a minority. But any Muslim, because the root cause of “terrorism” can’t be an ideo-religion and its tens of millions of fervent adherents.  

That’s led to the fantasy indulgence of Western Europe’s establishments (and here, too) that given time, Muslims will assimilate into Western societies. Merkel, Macron, and May are poster children for this make-believe. Add clerics, like Pope Francis.

Decent-paying jobs, Xbox, and rubbing elbows with Hindus, Christians, and atheists in daily life will pacify Muslims. Muslim killer bees mating with Western honey bees will eventually produce drones. The affectations of Islam will remain, but harder, aggressive, deadlier aspects of the faith with vanish. Peace, love, and harmony will hold sway.

But this conviction underestimates, if not demeans, the power of religion. Materialism and godlessness may be the ways for modern Western progressives, but not for billions of people of various faiths worldwide. It certainly isn’t for Muslims, who take the tenets of their religion seriously — as in soul-savingly serious… as in heaven or hell serious.

It evades the history of Islam — right into modern times. The rationalizations can’t alter the facts. Islam has expanded through Al Hijra — conquest via migration. And, not incidentally, through the sword, through conquest. Violence, killing, and submission or death are intrinsic to Islam’s growth. Mohammed was a warrior, and not in the Salvation Army way.

Mohammed invented the rationale for the violence and bloodshed endemic through Islam’s long history… for the bloodshed committed in the name of Allah across the globe today. Ask Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia about the “Religion of Peace.” As of September, 2015, the Gatestone Institute estimated that “One Christian [is] Slaughtered Every Five Minutes” … by Muslims.        

Western Europe’s future is dark – unless clear-sighted, courageous leaders are lifted up by its peoples. Leaders with the courage to speak the truth, and the resolve to remove the menace from their midst.    



Source link

199348_5_.png

Fire Mueller


Two words describe the Russian collusion accusations and investigation of President Trump: Sham and injustice. Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, knows it. Rod Rosenstein, the Obama holdover Deputy Attorney General who appointed Mueller, knows it. Jeff Sessions, a decent man and attorney general who recused himself, knows it. 

The Democrats know it. The left knows it. The mainstream media knows it. DC-owned and spine-free Republicans know it. Paul Ryan knows it. 

Everybody knows it. But everyday Americans should really know this: the farce continues because powerful establishment interests are invested in destroying Donald Trump and his presidency.

That’s why the president should fire Mueller. It’s why Jeff Sessions needs to unrecuse himself. The president should shelve special prosecutions during his presidency. The law permits him to do so. Let U.S. district attorneys earn their keep.     

Note “…Trump and his presidency,” not “Trump’s presidency,” because the witch-hunting and attempted railroading of the president is every bit as much about destroying the man. Trump leads a counterrevolution, a rising up of Heartland Americans — Americans everywhere with Heartland blood coursing through their veins. His leadership transcends office. He poses an existential threat to interests and people deeply invested in a worldview or ways that practically benefits them somehow. The presidency is a powerful means, to be sure, and denying its powers to Trump — somehow — is critical to reasserting the establishment’s control.

Yes, it’s that seedy. And, yes, it crosses the aisle, as they say in DC.

One’s tempted to say that the Putin-Trump collusion tinfoil hat gambit is the pinnacle of years of efforts to criminalize politics. You remember the Scooter Libby and Tom Delay railroads? But here, in the narrowest sense, there aren’t any politics to criminalize. Russian collusion is pure fiction, utter disinformation. The scheme here is to criminalize fiction; to give legal license to Mueller’s investigation based on fraudulent accusations.

There won’t be an impeachment of the president and/or prosecutions of anyone around him for colluding with the Russians. No such thing occurred. If impeachment and/or prosecutions happen, it will be for “gotcha” technicalities when under oath. That’s how the feds sandbagged Scooter Libby. Or because Mueller’s far-ranging investigations found other unrelated grounds to get Trump. 

Mueller has license to fish — as in conducting a fishing expedition. Word is that Mueller will probe Trump’s business affairs and whatever else. The president is attempting to warn off Mueller. Leviathan government, with thousands of pages of obscure rules and laws to reference, can cite any of us at any time for violations of some law or regulation. This is one of the fruits of a century of “progressive” government: its tentacles reach everywhere and are strong enough to lay low any honest citizen.        

Mueller intends to lay low a president, however. Trump enjoys massive grassroots followings that threaten the nation’s establishment as nothing has in recent memory.

Mueller is leading an inquisition. He’s the Grand Inquisitor. If permitted to continue his misbegotten enterprise, he will find something — anything — to hang around President Trump’s neck. He’ll protract his investigations if required. At minimum, ongoing investigations throw a monkey wrench into the president’s agenda. It helps cloud his initiatives and accomplishments publicly. It drives down his approval ratings. That gives cover to hostile and cowardly Republicans who oppose parts or all of Trump’s agenda.   

The unspoken charge to Mueller is to get something on Trump. Coming up empty-handed is a nonstarter. Concluding after, say, a six-month investigation that accusations against the president and his family and associates of Russian collusion are baseless isn’t what Mueller’s establishment cohorts want. Range far, snag anything to use against Trump is the mandate. The establishment wants blood, and that’s what Mueller will aim to produce.

On Monday, in a Tweet, the president suggested:

Drain the Swamp should be changed to Drain the Sewer — it’s actually much worse than anyone ever thought, and it begins with the Fake News!         

Trump is right and wrong. DC has become a sewer, but, it doesn’t begin with “Fake News.” It gives far too much credit to the MSM, which have become open propagandists for the left and Democratic Party. The latter two, in varying ways and degrees, are integral to the establishment.

It’s the establishment, with its interests and factions, who fill the DC sewer. It’s the establishment that is Trump’s greatest nemesis — and foe of the movement he leads. It’s a fight for supremacy against it. 

The president would be wise to end Mueller’s tenure and simply decline to replace him. Misusing and degrading the law needs to stop. Let President Trump set a precedent, a dramatic course change for the nation’s civic and governmental wellbeing.

Halt abuses of law — against this president and in politics, generally. Years of manipulating the law and employing the power of prosecutors as political weapons contributes to the erosion of trust in law and law enforcement (we’re not talking about beat cops). It drives good men and women away from politics and public service. Why risk reputations and loss of liberty because one champions an agenda that runs counter to powerful interests that have no compunction about criminalizing its opponents?

The Washington Post writes that there are certain grounds for firing a special prosecutor. The analysis can be found here. A takeaway from the Post article reads:

Either they’d [the president and DOJ] have to throw out the regulations binding the firing of Mueller (see Goldsmith’s post for a lot of detail on this) or they’d have to establish cause for firing him.   

President Trump should dispose of the regulations for firing Mueller. He doesn’t have to cite misconduct or conflicts of interest, etc., in sending Mueller packing. His justification: Mueller’s appointment was premised, in large part, on false accusation — a complete lie arising from malicious political intent. That position is simple to substantiate and argue for. 

Mueller’s appointment only fuels the entire squalid affair to gain politically through legal shenanigans what the establishment couldn’t gain at ballot boxes. The Russian collusion campaign — Mueller’s now center ring — has the feel of banana republic and Soviet setups of powerful opponents and dissenters. It’s flatly anti-American. 

Major political blowback awaits Trump if he fires Mueller? Is that something new for this president? Trump can’t smile and say, “Good morning,” without his enemies spinning it as sinister. Dumping Mueller would be a test of new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s mettle. It’s a test the president and he should welcome. 

Two words describe the Russian collusion accusations and investigation of President Trump: Sham and injustice. Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, knows it. Rod Rosenstein, the Obama holdover Deputy Attorney General who appointed Mueller, knows it. Jeff Sessions, a decent man and attorney general who recused himself, knows it. 

The Democrats know it. The left knows it. The mainstream media knows it. DC-owned and spine-free Republicans know it. Paul Ryan knows it. 

Everybody knows it. But everyday Americans should really know this: the farce continues because powerful establishment interests are invested in destroying Donald Trump and his presidency.

That’s why the president should fire Mueller. It’s why Jeff Sessions needs to unrecuse himself. The president should shelve special prosecutions during his presidency. The law permits him to do so. Let U.S. district attorneys earn their keep.     

Note “…Trump and his presidency,” not “Trump’s presidency,” because the witch-hunting and attempted railroading of the president is every bit as much about destroying the man. Trump leads a counterrevolution, a rising up of Heartland Americans — Americans everywhere with Heartland blood coursing through their veins. His leadership transcends office. He poses an existential threat to interests and people deeply invested in a worldview or ways that practically benefits them somehow. The presidency is a powerful means, to be sure, and denying its powers to Trump — somehow — is critical to reasserting the establishment’s control.

Yes, it’s that seedy. And, yes, it crosses the aisle, as they say in DC.

One’s tempted to say that the Putin-Trump collusion tinfoil hat gambit is the pinnacle of years of efforts to criminalize politics. You remember the Scooter Libby and Tom Delay railroads? But here, in the narrowest sense, there aren’t any politics to criminalize. Russian collusion is pure fiction, utter disinformation. The scheme here is to criminalize fiction; to give legal license to Mueller’s investigation based on fraudulent accusations.

There won’t be an impeachment of the president and/or prosecutions of anyone around him for colluding with the Russians. No such thing occurred. If impeachment and/or prosecutions happen, it will be for “gotcha” technicalities when under oath. That’s how the feds sandbagged Scooter Libby. Or because Mueller’s far-ranging investigations found other unrelated grounds to get Trump. 

Mueller has license to fish — as in conducting a fishing expedition. Word is that Mueller will probe Trump’s business affairs and whatever else. The president is attempting to warn off Mueller. Leviathan government, with thousands of pages of obscure rules and laws to reference, can cite any of us at any time for violations of some law or regulation. This is one of the fruits of a century of “progressive” government: its tentacles reach everywhere and are strong enough to lay low any honest citizen.        

Mueller intends to lay low a president, however. Trump enjoys massive grassroots followings that threaten the nation’s establishment as nothing has in recent memory.

Mueller is leading an inquisition. He’s the Grand Inquisitor. If permitted to continue his misbegotten enterprise, he will find something — anything — to hang around President Trump’s neck. He’ll protract his investigations if required. At minimum, ongoing investigations throw a monkey wrench into the president’s agenda. It helps cloud his initiatives and accomplishments publicly. It drives down his approval ratings. That gives cover to hostile and cowardly Republicans who oppose parts or all of Trump’s agenda.   

The unspoken charge to Mueller is to get something on Trump. Coming up empty-handed is a nonstarter. Concluding after, say, a six-month investigation that accusations against the president and his family and associates of Russian collusion are baseless isn’t what Mueller’s establishment cohorts want. Range far, snag anything to use against Trump is the mandate. The establishment wants blood, and that’s what Mueller will aim to produce.

On Monday, in a Tweet, the president suggested:

Drain the Swamp should be changed to Drain the Sewer — it’s actually much worse than anyone ever thought, and it begins with the Fake News!         

Trump is right and wrong. DC has become a sewer, but, it doesn’t begin with “Fake News.” It gives far too much credit to the MSM, which have become open propagandists for the left and Democratic Party. The latter two, in varying ways and degrees, are integral to the establishment.

It’s the establishment, with its interests and factions, who fill the DC sewer. It’s the establishment that is Trump’s greatest nemesis — and foe of the movement he leads. It’s a fight for supremacy against it. 

The president would be wise to end Mueller’s tenure and simply decline to replace him. Misusing and degrading the law needs to stop. Let President Trump set a precedent, a dramatic course change for the nation’s civic and governmental wellbeing.

Halt abuses of law — against this president and in politics, generally. Years of manipulating the law and employing the power of prosecutors as political weapons contributes to the erosion of trust in law and law enforcement (we’re not talking about beat cops). It drives good men and women away from politics and public service. Why risk reputations and loss of liberty because one champions an agenda that runs counter to powerful interests that have no compunction about criminalizing its opponents?

The Washington Post writes that there are certain grounds for firing a special prosecutor. The analysis can be found here. A takeaway from the Post article reads:

Either they’d [the president and DOJ] have to throw out the regulations binding the firing of Mueller (see Goldsmith’s post for a lot of detail on this) or they’d have to establish cause for firing him.   

President Trump should dispose of the regulations for firing Mueller. He doesn’t have to cite misconduct or conflicts of interest, etc., in sending Mueller packing. His justification: Mueller’s appointment was premised, in large part, on false accusation — a complete lie arising from malicious political intent. That position is simple to substantiate and argue for. 

Mueller’s appointment only fuels the entire squalid affair to gain politically through legal shenanigans what the establishment couldn’t gain at ballot boxes. The Russian collusion campaign — Mueller’s now center ring — has the feel of banana republic and Soviet setups of powerful opponents and dissenters. It’s flatly anti-American. 

Major political blowback awaits Trump if he fires Mueller? Is that something new for this president? Trump can’t smile and say, “Good morning,” without his enemies spinning it as sinister. Dumping Mueller would be a test of new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s mettle. It’s a test the president and he should welcome. 



Source link

Bleeding America?


“If they want civil war in this country, they will probably end up getting it,” Tweeted actor and conservative James Woods, last week. The “they” are an array of Democrats and leftists. Woods posted his Tweet just hours after James T. Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders’ groupie-turned-gunman, opened fire on Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and others at an Alexandria, Virginia ball field.

Radio talk show host Michael Savage commented last Tuesday, prior to the shootings:

“I don’t know how much more of this the country can take. We are at a boiling point. There’s going to be a civil war.”

Tweeted Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., last Friday in response to banners held aloft by leftist protesters that read: “Become Ungovernable” and “This is War”:

Really? It’s not what I prefer but if the left insists… time to saddle up. I didn’t help get @realDonaldTrump elected to back down now.

Could Woods and Savage, in particular, be right? The words, “Civil war,” are on more lips nowadays. Will America’s long cold civil war finally turn hot? And if war came, what sort of war would it be?

The very idea of civil war is horrific. Wars between nations are bloody and cruel enough. Wars within nations, among former kindreds, may not be bloodier but are often crueler. In some instances, it’s actually brother against brother.

For most Americans, their frame of reference is the U.S. Civil War. It was sectional rivalry — a “War Between the States.” It was generally — and neatly — defined geographically. History rarely repeats itself, so blue states lining up against red states — not for secession this go, but for national control – seems improbable.

There was more unanimity among citizens in South Carolina and Massachusetts at the time of the Civil War. While a left worldview dominates in California, and a right one does in Texas, both have populations that are hostile to the prevailing politics and ethos… substantial populations who resent the impositions of the reigning politics and cultures.  

Today, the states, though red or blue by degrees, are mixtures of communities — populations who’s worldviews clash — conflicts of politics, cultures, values, beliefs. Politics are merely an aspect, and, critically, more an endpoint for deeper divides.        

Keep in mind that many states have significant regional differences. Redder Central and Western Pennsylvania differ tellingly from Blue Philadelphia-dominated Eastern Pennsylvania. Upstate New York has little in common with New York City and its boroughs and nearby suburbs. Even in regions there are subsets at odds with surrounding communities and jurisdictions. Austin/Travis County, Atlanta/Fulton County, and Pittsburgh/Allegheny County differ from their states or regions. Birmingham, Alabama has more in common with Detroit, Michigan than the surrounding state. 

Absent colossal trigger issues or events — union or disunion; free or slave; Fort Sumter — degeneracy into multiple civil wars, played out in the states in varying degrees of intensity and duration, appears more realistic.  

ivil war in modern America could be more along the lines of “Bleeding Kansas” — times 50.

Bleeding Kansas was a precursor to the greater national civil war. The Kansas-Nebraska Act had overturned the Compromise of 1850. Henceforth, popular sovereignty would determine a territory’s admission as a free or slave state. In Kansas territory, proslavery and antislavery forces vied for dominance. Community fought community. It wasn’t uncommon for neighbor to fight neighbor.    

Civil War buffs are quick to point out that underlying secession and slavery was, in fact, a struggle between worldviews. There were growing economic and cultural rifts. The Agrarian South versus the rapidly industrializing North. These divergences were important and stoked tensions. But the drivers were big issues, universally recognized as such, which propelled states into opposing camps.          

The prospect of civil war as a collection of degeneracies – localized conflicts – is bolstered by E.W. Jackson, in a powerful analysis for American Thinker last Saturday. Jackson wrote that the threat today is “totalitarian culture.” He stated:

In many ways this [rise of totalitarian culture] is a far more insidious development than a government dictatorship. It is more subtle, more difficult to defend against, and it is coursing its way through the cultural bloodstream of our country like a malignant cancer.

This cultural totalitarianism is pervasive, intrusive, demeaning, polarizing, threatening — and for those who step out of line — detrimental, as Jackson states. Its fueling fears and resentments — and growing hostility among tens upon tens of millions of “normals” – Americans who hold traditional values and beliefs. This insidious oppression is the tinder that needs only sparks to start fires in the states.

The militant left — the Democratic Party’s a subsidiary — is anxious to regain control of the national government. Accelerating acts of violence by the left may be the sparks that ignite fires across the republic.

The left and Democrats expected Hillary Clinton’s victory, and with it, not just consolidations of power but extensions. As was witnessed under Barack Obama, the cudgel of government power can be used to advance cultural totalitarianism. Why insinuate PC aims when law and the threat of force can hasten results?  

Frustrated and angry before November, the left and the Democrats resorted to violence to disrupt Trump events and assault his supporters. Little of this was impromptu; much was premediated black ops. After the elections, the left embraced public expressions of hate, took to the streets, destroying property and assaulting opponents. Its entertainers and artists spew hate and incite violence under the guise of free expression (Madonna, Kathy Griffin) and artistic license (the Trump assassination play). Then came James Hodgkinson.

Hodgkinson’s attempted massacre of Republicans and their aides is a watershed in a critical respect. Does it embolden other leftists to take up arms to effect change? Will thwarted attempts by the left coalition — Democrats, hardcore leftist activists, academics, entertainers, and the MSM — to overturn the 2016 elections and destroy Donald Trump serve as casus belli for militant leftists?

If Bleeding Kansas plays out in the fifty states how does it resolve? What role would the federal government play in events? The military, national, and state? What finally becomes of the U.S.? After long, bloody local struggles, can the nation reunite – somehow? Or would breakdown and disunity be the country’s fate?

It’s all guesswork now, and it’s safer to predict the unpredictable. What’s certain, though, is that the elements are in place for greater unrest, militancy, strife, and violence. It’s the stuff that made Kansas bleed.    

“If they want civil war in this country, they will probably end up getting it,” Tweeted actor and conservative James Woods, last week. The “they” are an array of Democrats and leftists. Woods posted his Tweet just hours after James T. Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders’ groupie-turned-gunman, opened fire on Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and others at an Alexandria, Virginia ball field.

Radio talk show host Michael Savage commented last Tuesday, prior to the shootings:

“I don’t know how much more of this the country can take. We are at a boiling point. There’s going to be a civil war.”

Tweeted Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., last Friday in response to banners held aloft by leftist protesters that read: “Become Ungovernable” and “This is War”:

Really? It’s not what I prefer but if the left insists… time to saddle up. I didn’t help get @realDonaldTrump elected to back down now.

Could Woods and Savage, in particular, be right? The words, “Civil war,” are on more lips nowadays. Will America’s long cold civil war finally turn hot? And if war came, what sort of war would it be?

The very idea of civil war is horrific. Wars between nations are bloody and cruel enough. Wars within nations, among former kindreds, may not be bloodier but are often crueler. In some instances, it’s actually brother against brother.

For most Americans, their frame of reference is the U.S. Civil War. It was sectional rivalry — a “War Between the States.” It was generally — and neatly — defined geographically. History rarely repeats itself, so blue states lining up against red states — not for secession this go, but for national control – seems improbable.

There was more unanimity among citizens in South Carolina and Massachusetts at the time of the Civil War. While a left worldview dominates in California, and a right one does in Texas, both have populations that are hostile to the prevailing politics and ethos… substantial populations who resent the impositions of the reigning politics and cultures.  

Today, the states, though red or blue by degrees, are mixtures of communities — populations who’s worldviews clash — conflicts of politics, cultures, values, beliefs. Politics are merely an aspect, and, critically, more an endpoint for deeper divides.        

Keep in mind that many states have significant regional differences. Redder Central and Western Pennsylvania differ tellingly from Blue Philadelphia-dominated Eastern Pennsylvania. Upstate New York has little in common with New York City and its boroughs and nearby suburbs. Even in regions there are subsets at odds with surrounding communities and jurisdictions. Austin/Travis County, Atlanta/Fulton County, and Pittsburgh/Allegheny County differ from their states or regions. Birmingham, Alabama has more in common with Detroit, Michigan than the surrounding state. 

Absent colossal trigger issues or events — union or disunion; free or slave; Fort Sumter — degeneracy into multiple civil wars, played out in the states in varying degrees of intensity and duration, appears more realistic.  

ivil war in modern America could be more along the lines of “Bleeding Kansas” — times 50.

Bleeding Kansas was a precursor to the greater national civil war. The Kansas-Nebraska Act had overturned the Compromise of 1850. Henceforth, popular sovereignty would determine a territory’s admission as a free or slave state. In Kansas territory, proslavery and antislavery forces vied for dominance. Community fought community. It wasn’t uncommon for neighbor to fight neighbor.    

Civil War buffs are quick to point out that underlying secession and slavery was, in fact, a struggle between worldviews. There were growing economic and cultural rifts. The Agrarian South versus the rapidly industrializing North. These divergences were important and stoked tensions. But the drivers were big issues, universally recognized as such, which propelled states into opposing camps.          

The prospect of civil war as a collection of degeneracies – localized conflicts – is bolstered by E.W. Jackson, in a powerful analysis for American Thinker last Saturday. Jackson wrote that the threat today is “totalitarian culture.” He stated:

In many ways this [rise of totalitarian culture] is a far more insidious development than a government dictatorship. It is more subtle, more difficult to defend against, and it is coursing its way through the cultural bloodstream of our country like a malignant cancer.

This cultural totalitarianism is pervasive, intrusive, demeaning, polarizing, threatening — and for those who step out of line — detrimental, as Jackson states. Its fueling fears and resentments — and growing hostility among tens upon tens of millions of “normals” – Americans who hold traditional values and beliefs. This insidious oppression is the tinder that needs only sparks to start fires in the states.

The militant left — the Democratic Party’s a subsidiary — is anxious to regain control of the national government. Accelerating acts of violence by the left may be the sparks that ignite fires across the republic.

The left and Democrats expected Hillary Clinton’s victory, and with it, not just consolidations of power but extensions. As was witnessed under Barack Obama, the cudgel of government power can be used to advance cultural totalitarianism. Why insinuate PC aims when law and the threat of force can hasten results?  

Frustrated and angry before November, the left and the Democrats resorted to violence to disrupt Trump events and assault his supporters. Little of this was impromptu; much was premediated black ops. After the elections, the left embraced public expressions of hate, took to the streets, destroying property and assaulting opponents. Its entertainers and artists spew hate and incite violence under the guise of free expression (Madonna, Kathy Griffin) and artistic license (the Trump assassination play). Then came James Hodgkinson.

Hodgkinson’s attempted massacre of Republicans and their aides is a watershed in a critical respect. Does it embolden other leftists to take up arms to effect change? Will thwarted attempts by the left coalition — Democrats, hardcore leftist activists, academics, entertainers, and the MSM — to overturn the 2016 elections and destroy Donald Trump serve as casus belli for militant leftists?

If Bleeding Kansas plays out in the fifty states how does it resolve? What role would the federal government play in events? The military, national, and state? What finally becomes of the U.S.? After long, bloody local struggles, can the nation reunite – somehow? Or would breakdown and disunity be the country’s fate?

It’s all guesswork now, and it’s safer to predict the unpredictable. What’s certain, though, is that the elements are in place for greater unrest, militancy, strife, and violence. It’s the stuff that made Kansas bleed.    



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Trump’s Outdated WH Media Operation Has to Go


Radio radio talk show titan Michael Savage frets that perceptions are damaging the president. The left is capitalizing. Trump should step back. He should “let all the president’s men stand up there and take the heat,” said Savage.

Trouble is the president’s men — and ladies — are overmatched. Or they’re hamstrung. The White House’s media operation reeks of Old Washington. It’s strategically stale and predictable – except for the president. And the tactics are just about what you’d expect from W’s White House.

The president deserves a communications strategy and execution as groundbreaking and bold as himself. Thematically, the president needs to move from a Washington to an “America” communications strategy and operation. The differences aren’t subtle; they’re downright huge.  

Said Savage, per INFOWARS:

“Number one, stop the impulsive tweeting. It’s unnecessary, it doesn’t help. You can make mistakes when you tweet,” Savage said, pointing to tweets about the firing of FBI Director James Comey Tuesday as an example.  

Yep, tweeting makes for mistakes, no doubt. But tens of millions of Red State patriots — and Red Staters at heart — get that. For the president, tweeting makes for raw, direct communications with millions of Deplorables across the Republic. Its underground communications gone powerfully virtual — and viral. In a nation still dominated by MSM propaganda organs, social media — along with the blogosphere and talk radio — is a critical weapon in the fight to take back America. Trump backing off would gravely damage the cause.

What the president isn’t getting is effective support in his communications outfit. Right, word is the president is fast-moving and zigzags; keeping pace with him is daunting. So he needs to scrap biplane escorts in favor of F-35s on his wings.

What does an “advanced tech” communications approach look like?

The first thing is for the White House communications operation to deemphasize the Washington press corps. Whatever happened to moving press briefings from the West Wing to the Old Executive Office Building? Whatever happened to pushing the same old MSM faces to the back of the room? Whatever happened to dramatically expanding media access at the White House to not-Washington and alternative media?

The strategy is simple: the definition of media needs to be thoroughly modernized. It needs to be greatly broadened. “Media” isn’t primarily big conventional news outlets in the BosWash Corridor and on the left coast. Media — all stripes — mostly occupies real estate between the East and West Coasts. It’s not just twenty- and thirty-somethings with journalism degrees from Columbia who draw paychecks from the Washington Post and New York Times. A revolutionary communications strategy needs to reflect crucial differences.

The White House, along with the NRC, and along with any private funding that’s permissible, should build an “across-the-nation” communications infrastructure aimed squarely at routine, direct interaction with local broadcast and print media, bloggers, radio and internet talkers, and — get this — grassroots activists who can serve as Trump communications “Minutemen.”

It’s about fusion. GR activists should be recruited to take the president’s messaging into niche communities where message penetration is less certain (say, a retirement village or a business group or union hall) or where personal communications could effectively persuade.  

The president should be made available to local media (as just defined). Why not give a sit-down to a news anchor in Orlando, for instance? Or in Cincinnati? Or Pittsburgh?  How about putting the president on with local talkers? For instance, the president guests with Milwaukee’s Mark Belling and takes callers’ questions.

Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, and the demands on the president are many and varied, but he can be made available routinely, selectively. There’s a lot of bang for the buck in this approach.

Why not regionalize press conferences and briefings? Send Sean Spicer to Atlanta to field questions from invited Southeast regional media, for example. Bring along an administration heavyweight. Do so from a different locale once weekly. Powwow with allied local and statewide bloggers. Help them generate news and messaging for the president. Tie-in local and regional angles. Provide and make news out in America.

Late last week, the president was frustrated by a dustup White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders had with the DC press corps over her “inaccuracy.” The president didn’t dispute the screwup. Here’s what he did say, though, via Tweets, as reported by the Washington Examiner:  

“As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!” Trump tweeted, justifying White House deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders’ inaccurate statements in a press briefing Wednesday as being the result of his fast-moving presidency.


“Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future ‘press briefings’ and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???”

Of course, whoever speaks for the president needs get his or her facts straight. That’s flacking 101. But what the president is keenly noting is that DC insiders love to play “gotcha!” All the more so for the venomous DC press corps. Why keep this inane dance going with a gang hell-bent on bringing down the Trump presidency? It makes for a definition of — if not insanity — futility. Go find and cultivate media in America not dedicated to administrating a death of a thousand cuts. Stop the MSM from cluttering and detracting from messaging with sideshow distractions.     

Fundamentally, the White House media operation needs to be two ways. A wide-open conduit from the White House to regional communications offices and local media. Regional WH communications offices with state coordinators will significantly help facilitate outreach and interface.

The second way is a bottom-up approach, with tone-healthy communications leadership at the White House, ready to act nimbly and smartly. Planning needs to be tight and, as suggested, coordination needs to be seamless. Dissemination of messaging and gathering of feedback require wholly new and comprehensive approaches. There need to be clear measures for progress and achievement.  

The president’s time should be leveraged to have him out in America routinely. Trump’s rallies are very effective. Keep them going. But get the president out of Washington for other reasons, too. Why, in the age of high-tech communications, travel, and with plenty of other resources at hand, should President Trump be a captive of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Certainly, why should his communications operations be confined to DC?  

The days of a DC-centric White House communications strategy and operation are long past. It’s old-think by too many pros who live Inside-the-Beltway and have grown accustomed to playing by a stymieing set of rules. President Trump should expect and demand more for his presidency. The stakes are… well, huge.       

Radio radio talk show titan Michael Savage frets that perceptions are damaging the president. The left is capitalizing. Trump should step back. He should “let all the president’s men stand up there and take the heat,” said Savage.

Trouble is the president’s men — and ladies — are overmatched. Or they’re hamstrung. The White House’s media operation reeks of Old Washington. It’s strategically stale and predictable – except for the president. And the tactics are just about what you’d expect from W’s White House.

The president deserves a communications strategy and execution as groundbreaking and bold as himself. Thematically, the president needs to move from a Washington to an “America” communications strategy and operation. The differences aren’t subtle; they’re downright huge.  

Said Savage, per INFOWARS:

“Number one, stop the impulsive tweeting. It’s unnecessary, it doesn’t help. You can make mistakes when you tweet,” Savage said, pointing to tweets about the firing of FBI Director James Comey Tuesday as an example.  

Yep, tweeting makes for mistakes, no doubt. But tens of millions of Red State patriots — and Red Staters at heart — get that. For the president, tweeting makes for raw, direct communications with millions of Deplorables across the Republic. Its underground communications gone powerfully virtual — and viral. In a nation still dominated by MSM propaganda organs, social media — along with the blogosphere and talk radio — is a critical weapon in the fight to take back America. Trump backing off would gravely damage the cause.

What the president isn’t getting is effective support in his communications outfit. Right, word is the president is fast-moving and zigzags; keeping pace with him is daunting. So he needs to scrap biplane escorts in favor of F-35s on his wings.

What does an “advanced tech” communications approach look like?

The first thing is for the White House communications operation to deemphasize the Washington press corps. Whatever happened to moving press briefings from the West Wing to the Old Executive Office Building? Whatever happened to pushing the same old MSM faces to the back of the room? Whatever happened to dramatically expanding media access at the White House to not-Washington and alternative media?

The strategy is simple: the definition of media needs to be thoroughly modernized. It needs to be greatly broadened. “Media” isn’t primarily big conventional news outlets in the BosWash Corridor and on the left coast. Media — all stripes — mostly occupies real estate between the East and West Coasts. It’s not just twenty- and thirty-somethings with journalism degrees from Columbia who draw paychecks from the Washington Post and New York Times. A revolutionary communications strategy needs to reflect crucial differences.

The White House, along with the NRC, and along with any private funding that’s permissible, should build an “across-the-nation” communications infrastructure aimed squarely at routine, direct interaction with local broadcast and print media, bloggers, radio and internet talkers, and — get this — grassroots activists who can serve as Trump communications “Minutemen.”

It’s about fusion. GR activists should be recruited to take the president’s messaging into niche communities where message penetration is less certain (say, a retirement village or a business group or union hall) or where personal communications could effectively persuade.  

The president should be made available to local media (as just defined). Why not give a sit-down to a news anchor in Orlando, for instance? Or in Cincinnati? Or Pittsburgh?  How about putting the president on with local talkers? For instance, the president guests with Milwaukee’s Mark Belling and takes callers’ questions.

Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, and the demands on the president are many and varied, but he can be made available routinely, selectively. There’s a lot of bang for the buck in this approach.

Why not regionalize press conferences and briefings? Send Sean Spicer to Atlanta to field questions from invited Southeast regional media, for example. Bring along an administration heavyweight. Do so from a different locale once weekly. Powwow with allied local and statewide bloggers. Help them generate news and messaging for the president. Tie-in local and regional angles. Provide and make news out in America.

Late last week, the president was frustrated by a dustup White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders had with the DC press corps over her “inaccuracy.” The president didn’t dispute the screwup. Here’s what he did say, though, via Tweets, as reported by the Washington Examiner:  

“As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!” Trump tweeted, justifying White House deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders’ inaccurate statements in a press briefing Wednesday as being the result of his fast-moving presidency.


“Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future ‘press briefings’ and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???”

Of course, whoever speaks for the president needs get his or her facts straight. That’s flacking 101. But what the president is keenly noting is that DC insiders love to play “gotcha!” All the more so for the venomous DC press corps. Why keep this inane dance going with a gang hell-bent on bringing down the Trump presidency? It makes for a definition of — if not insanity — futility. Go find and cultivate media in America not dedicated to administrating a death of a thousand cuts. Stop the MSM from cluttering and detracting from messaging with sideshow distractions.     

Fundamentally, the White House media operation needs to be two ways. A wide-open conduit from the White House to regional communications offices and local media. Regional WH communications offices with state coordinators will significantly help facilitate outreach and interface.

The second way is a bottom-up approach, with tone-healthy communications leadership at the White House, ready to act nimbly and smartly. Planning needs to be tight and, as suggested, coordination needs to be seamless. Dissemination of messaging and gathering of feedback require wholly new and comprehensive approaches. There need to be clear measures for progress and achievement.  

The president’s time should be leveraged to have him out in America routinely. Trump’s rallies are very effective. Keep them going. But get the president out of Washington for other reasons, too. Why, in the age of high-tech communications, travel, and with plenty of other resources at hand, should President Trump be a captive of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Certainly, why should his communications operations be confined to DC?  

The days of a DC-centric White House communications strategy and operation are long past. It’s old-think by too many pros who live Inside-the-Beltway and have grown accustomed to playing by a stymieing set of rules. President Trump should expect and demand more for his presidency. The stakes are… well, huge.       



Source link

Macron’s Election: France Doubles Down on Failure


I argued on this blog that Trump’s comments about Le Pen amounted to an endorsement. He had said that she was the best candidate when it came to the most important issue: the security of her country. And he clearly suggested that her popularity was rising after the terrorist attack, a claim that in retrospect looks haphazard, at best, and foolhardy, at worst.  

Sorry, Aaron, but this merits a “Dope Alert.” Most Americans couldn’t give a hoot that the president said nice things about La Pen or even suggested her election as good. Most Americans care about their kids, jobs, and safe streets. Trump’s utterances on the subject matter only to inbreds who breathe the rarified air in DC, New York, and Boston. Or guys like you who get paychecks pulling this inanity from their rears.

Nowhere in Blake’s brilliant analysis did he mention Barack Obama’s profound embarrassment for endorsing Hillary Clinton, whose loss wasn’t predicted by the MSM or all those very smart guys and gals in coastal blue redoubts. After all, Le Pen, trailing badly in the polls, was expected to be hosed. Hillary was practically measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. Who has more egg on his face, Aaron?

Actually, it’s the French who have the most soufflé on their faces. In Le Pen’s concession speech, she acknowledged that the French voted for “continuity.” That they did, but not in any good way. Macron, who served in Hollande’s government, was repackaged and rebranded as an “independent” with a fresh take on France’s growing troubles. He’s actually just old shoes in a new box. 

The 39-year-old Macron is a quick, clever invention of France’s globalist, EU-devoted elite. No? Well, he strode to the podium on Election Eve to proclaim his victory to the EU’s anthem, “Ode to Joy.” How’s that for an “In-your-face” gesture? And get this: the guy who composed the “Ode,” Ludwig Van Beethoven, is a German, no less. We all know about the evidence-rich Trump-Putin conspiracy in our own elections. Might Macron taking the stage to a German ditty reveal Angela Merkel’s conspiracy with him in the French contest?

A big problem for France is that its economy is practically stagnant. It has been for decades (that’s correct, “decades”). But who would blame big, central, bureaucratized government for an economy’s woes? Or a bevy of entrenched interests that profit handsomely from a government-dominated economy? Not the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker.

Reported the Guardian on April 30:

There is a familiar rhythm to French politics. President gets elected amid a wave of optimism. President says root and branch reform of the economy will lead to stronger growth and falling unemployment. President fails to deliver the promised transformation. Economy continues to struggle. President gets booted out of office.


In the past 30 years, François Mitterand, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande have won elections for the mainstream parties of the centre left and centre right but France’s economic problems have not been resolved. It says something about how poor performance has been under Hollande that growth of barely more than 1% in 2016 was good by recent standards.

France’s unemployment rate hovers around 10% (higher than its pre-EU rate of 8%). Germany’s stands at about 4%. French youth unemployment — that’s under 25-year-olds — is about 25%. Germany’s is much lower. Idle minds make for the devil’s workshop. 

As the Guardian points out, the French have developed an inferiority complex vis-à-vis their German allies, who are outperforming them economically. Without getting too much into the weeds, Macron wants Frau Merkel to “reflate” the German economy and boost consumer spending. He wants monetary reform to prop-up the Euro, too. 

You’d think that Macron, an ultra-sophisticated Frenchman, would have deeper insight into the German mind and character.

Germans retain memories of what “reflation” did to the Deutschland between the great wars. Moreover, Germans are notoriously frugal. Perhaps that’s a bit overdrawn, but Germans aren’t typically about Mall-bingeing and conspicuous consumin’. They’re savers, not spenders, and they eschew debt. Go ask the Greeks about the latter.      

The Germans seem to run the EU behind the scenes, too. That must chafe the French and stoke their sense of infériorité. Not that anyone’s suggesting that the EU is a front for German dominance of Western Europe. That smacks of conspiracy, and the Messieurs and Mesdames at the Washington Post would never indulge conspiracy hokum.            

Then there’s the little matter of unassimilated Muslims in Paris and throughout France that Macron will have to address — somehow.

How many Muslims are unassimilated is a guess. In fact, it’s a guess as to how many Muslims are in France, period. In a February 20, 2017 article for the Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou provides some insights to “France’s Muslim Demographic Future.”

Notes Mamou:

France’s Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.

These figures do not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them — nobody knows how many exactly. For demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.

Continues Mamou:

In other words, if the Muslim population of France can be estimated at around 6 million today, it could grow to 12 million by 2020-2025.

That’s just in the 2020-25 window. More Muslims to come — unless vigorous policies are put in place to change the dynamic.   

As they say, “demographics are destiny.” Millions of French Muslims — or Muslims in France — cannot be ignored. Politics eventually will yield to numbers and organization. The more radical elements in most populations tend to be more assertive, more intent on imposing their worldviews and ways. Fundamentalist Muslims — true believers — have demonstrated their aggressiveness for centuries.  It’s happening in France already; unrest among swaths of Muslim habitués is routine.

Christianity — Catholicism, in particular — has been waning for decades in France. The bloodless, godless materialism of France’s non-Muslim populous is no match for the convinced beliefs of Mohammed’s followers. The rash of Muslim terror attacks on French soil is testament to the force of passionate, transcendent faith over the supposed allure of material comfort and cradle-to-grave welfare statism.

Macron is very likely no different from Hollande or their immediate predecessors. He’s surely a captive of a conceited, politically-correct ethos that’s impotent in confronting doctrinaire Islamic faith and practice. Countering and rolling back Islam in France would take a de Gaulle. Macron is no de Gaulle. He appears more a Pétain, and that’s unfortunate for France. 

In a strained bit of humorous idiocy, a flak at the Washington Post spins Emmanuel Macron’s win and Marine Le Pen’s thumping as an “embarrassment” for President Trump.

Aaron Blake, writing for “The Fix,” betrays the MSM’s obsession with pinning anything and everything negative or failed on Trump. Crows Blake:

I argued on this blog that Trump’s comments about Le Pen amounted to an endorsement. He had said that she was the best candidate when it came to the most important issue: the security of her country. And he clearly suggested that her popularity was rising after the terrorist attack, a claim that in retrospect looks haphazard, at best, and foolhardy, at worst.  

Sorry, Aaron, but this merits a “Dope Alert.” Most Americans couldn’t give a hoot that the president said nice things about La Pen or even suggested her election as good. Most Americans care about their kids, jobs, and safe streets. Trump’s utterances on the subject matter only to inbreds who breathe the rarified air in DC, New York, and Boston. Or guys like you who get paychecks pulling this inanity from their rears.

Nowhere in Blake’s brilliant analysis did he mention Barack Obama’s profound embarrassment for endorsing Hillary Clinton, whose loss wasn’t predicted by the MSM or all those very smart guys and gals in coastal blue redoubts. After all, Le Pen, trailing badly in the polls, was expected to be hosed. Hillary was practically measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. Who has more egg on his face, Aaron?

Actually, it’s the French who have the most soufflé on their faces. In Le Pen’s concession speech, she acknowledged that the French voted for “continuity.” That they did, but not in any good way. Macron, who served in Hollande’s government, was repackaged and rebranded as an “independent” with a fresh take on France’s growing troubles. He’s actually just old shoes in a new box. 

The 39-year-old Macron is a quick, clever invention of France’s globalist, EU-devoted elite. No? Well, he strode to the podium on Election Eve to proclaim his victory to the EU’s anthem, “Ode to Joy.” How’s that for an “In-your-face” gesture? And get this: the guy who composed the “Ode,” Ludwig Van Beethoven, is a German, no less. We all know about the evidence-rich Trump-Putin conspiracy in our own elections. Might Macron taking the stage to a German ditty reveal Angela Merkel’s conspiracy with him in the French contest?

A big problem for France is that its economy is practically stagnant. It has been for decades (that’s correct, “decades”). But who would blame big, central, bureaucratized government for an economy’s woes? Or a bevy of entrenched interests that profit handsomely from a government-dominated economy? Not the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker.

Reported the Guardian on April 30:

There is a familiar rhythm to French politics. President gets elected amid a wave of optimism. President says root and branch reform of the economy will lead to stronger growth and falling unemployment. President fails to deliver the promised transformation. Economy continues to struggle. President gets booted out of office.


In the past 30 years, François Mitterand, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande have won elections for the mainstream parties of the centre left and centre right but France’s economic problems have not been resolved. It says something about how poor performance has been under Hollande that growth of barely more than 1% in 2016 was good by recent standards.

France’s unemployment rate hovers around 10% (higher than its pre-EU rate of 8%). Germany’s stands at about 4%. French youth unemployment — that’s under 25-year-olds — is about 25%. Germany’s is much lower. Idle minds make for the devil’s workshop. 

As the Guardian points out, the French have developed an inferiority complex vis-à-vis their German allies, who are outperforming them economically. Without getting too much into the weeds, Macron wants Frau Merkel to “reflate” the German economy and boost consumer spending. He wants monetary reform to prop-up the Euro, too. 

You’d think that Macron, an ultra-sophisticated Frenchman, would have deeper insight into the German mind and character.

Germans retain memories of what “reflation” did to the Deutschland between the great wars. Moreover, Germans are notoriously frugal. Perhaps that’s a bit overdrawn, but Germans aren’t typically about Mall-bingeing and conspicuous consumin’. They’re savers, not spenders, and they eschew debt. Go ask the Greeks about the latter.      

The Germans seem to run the EU behind the scenes, too. That must chafe the French and stoke their sense of infériorité. Not that anyone’s suggesting that the EU is a front for German dominance of Western Europe. That smacks of conspiracy, and the Messieurs and Mesdames at the Washington Post would never indulge conspiracy hokum.            

Then there’s the little matter of unassimilated Muslims in Paris and throughout France that Macron will have to address — somehow.

How many Muslims are unassimilated is a guess. In fact, it’s a guess as to how many Muslims are in France, period. In a February 20, 2017 article for the Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou provides some insights to “France’s Muslim Demographic Future.”

Notes Mamou:

France’s Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.

These figures do not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them — nobody knows how many exactly. For demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.

Continues Mamou:

In other words, if the Muslim population of France can be estimated at around 6 million today, it could grow to 12 million by 2020-2025.

That’s just in the 2020-25 window. More Muslims to come — unless vigorous policies are put in place to change the dynamic.   

As they say, “demographics are destiny.” Millions of French Muslims — or Muslims in France — cannot be ignored. Politics eventually will yield to numbers and organization. The more radical elements in most populations tend to be more assertive, more intent on imposing their worldviews and ways. Fundamentalist Muslims — true believers — have demonstrated their aggressiveness for centuries.  It’s happening in France already; unrest among swaths of Muslim habitués is routine.

Christianity — Catholicism, in particular — has been waning for decades in France. The bloodless, godless materialism of France’s non-Muslim populous is no match for the convinced beliefs of Mohammed’s followers. The rash of Muslim terror attacks on French soil is testament to the force of passionate, transcendent faith over the supposed allure of material comfort and cradle-to-grave welfare statism.

Macron is very likely no different from Hollande or their immediate predecessors. He’s surely a captive of a conceited, politically-correct ethos that’s impotent in confronting doctrinaire Islamic faith and practice. Countering and rolling back Islam in France would take a de Gaulle. Macron is no de Gaulle. He appears more a Pétain, and that’s unfortunate for France. 



Source link

War with North Korea: the Toll


Rising tensions and possible war with North Korea have been in the news for weeks. Less reported on would be a war’s toll. War on the Korean peninsula would feature technology-juiced conventional and asymmetric fighting. Destruction and casualties would tally quickly. That’s military and civilian — U.S., Korean, and possibly Japanese. Modern warfare’s lethality needs to be understood. If a nation goes to war, it needs to go with its eyes wide open.       

Let’s establish this first. President Trump has every right to worry about Kim Jong-un’s efforts to develop ballistic missiles capability. Outgoing president Barack Obama warned Trump about the threat. Trump has clearly learned a lot more since.

Reported BBC News:

North Korea’s latest efforts appear focused on building reliable long-range missiles, which may have the potential to reach the mainland United States.


Two types of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) known as the KN-08 and KN-14, have been observed at various military parades since 2012.


Carried and launched from the back of a modified truck, the three-stage KN-08 is believed to have a range of about 11,500km.


The KN-14 appears to be a two-stage missile, with a possible range of around 10,000km.

War scenarios have the U.S. launching a preventive strike against the North. The principal aim would be to “decapitate” the Hermit Kingdom’s leadership. Simultaneously, the U.S. would go after Kim’s nuclear sites. Attacks would target the North’s military chain of command and seek to disrupt — if not shut down — communications and stymie the Korean People’s Army’s (KPA) movement. U.S. and South Korean (ROK) forces would act to neutralize KPA’s forces massed along the DMZ.

A first strike against the North would be a coordinated mix of conventional warfare (primarily cruise missiles and fighter aircraft), special forces and covert operations, and cyberattacks. It’s “shock and awe,” with more hoped-for finality. If it worked as planned, the war would practically end before it started.

It’s high stakes. A first strike is unambiguous. Short of killing Kim and the North Korean elites outright, they’d get that it was death match. War with the U.S. and the South would mean inevitable defeat for the North’s elite. That’s the makings of desperation.  

What we know about wars is that they rarely go as planned. The KPA isn’t Saddam’s army. It isn’t the Taliban. They’re generally well equipped, rigorously trained, and appear motivated – via fear and special status — to fight. (North Korea’s military is ranked 23 out of 126 by globalfirepower.com.) The North has concentrated forces and thousands of artillery pieces in the hills just north of the DMZ to strike Seoul. Seoul’s a mere 30 miles from the DMZ.

Metro Seoul’s population is 25 million. In the opening phase of a war, the North would unleash thousands of rounds of artillery fire. Or intend to. It’s speculated that much of that artillery is outdated, and munitions may be poor, too. But that’s based on documents “leaked” from the North. They may be disinformation. But it’s a numbers game, anyway. 

With thousands of artillery pieces, what portion would have to be operational to wreak havoc on Seoul? From the Washington Post:

The Second Corps of the Korean People’s Army stationed at Kaesong on the northern side of the DMZ has about 500 artillery pieces, [analyst] Bermudez said. And this is just one army corps; similar corps are on either side of it.        


All the artillery pieces in the Second Corps can reach the northern outskirts of Seoul, just 30 miles from the DMZ, but the largest projectiles could fly to the south of the capital. 

How quickly could the U.S. and ROK make headway in destroying functioning artillery? Not overnight. How much time would KPA firepower have to attack Seoul? Add to the mix the North’s chemical and biological munitions stockpile.

The North has agents deployed throughout Seoul Metro. They would act as saboteurs, yes, but they’d target leaders to kill. Soft civilian targets would be in their crosshairs too.  

The North has 180,000 commandos. Per the Washington Post:

“Strategic SOF [Special Operations Force] units dispersed across North Korea appear designed for rapid offensive operations, internal defense against foreign attacks, or limited attacks against vulnerable targets in the ROK [Republic of Korea] as part of a coercive diplomacy effort,” the report said. “They operate in specialized units, including reconnaissance, airborne and seaborne insertion, commandos, and other specialties. All emphasize speed of movement and surprise attack to accomplish their missions.”  

The U.S. has 23,500 stationed in the South. Thousands of U.S. troops are deployed along the DMZ, serving as a tripwire. In the opening days, U.S. causalities would be significant. Rolling up the KPA would mean advancing up the Peninsula toward the Chinese and Russian borders. Fighting would be fierce. Much of the Korean peninsula features hills, mountains, and valleys. It’s suitable terrain for resistance warfare.    

As for the Chinese and Russians, military intervention is unlikely, for obvious and complicated reasons. The Russians don’t have a history of direct military confrontation with the U.S. Berlin and Cuba saw tensions resolved without conflict. The Russians were glad to equip and arm the North Vietnamese communists, but not to do the fighting.

For the PRC, the early 1950s are long gone. Mao certainly tipped the balance for the North Korean communists in the Korean War. U.S. and allied forces had all but won the fight when Chinese intervention led to a stalemate.

Modern China’s economic health is tied to manufacturing and global trade, much of it with the U.S. The PRC seeks broad hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. Xi Jingping and Trump may have come to an accord over what to do about the North in hopes of avoiding war. Certainly, Pyongyang is unhappy with the Chinese, lashing out at Beijing for its “lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S.”  

War and the North’s defeat would push refugee hordes into China. Managing a refugee crisis isn’t something China wants. Nor does the PRC want U.S. and ROK troops perched on the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. For that matter, Putin wouldn’t care for the U.S. to be nearer Vladivostok. Avoiding conflict better serves China’s interests.     

There’s no question that Kim Jong-un is ruthless, but is he suicidal? Like a poker player, Kim could keep his nuke card in hand, threatening to play it to wring concessions. Kim’s father and grandfather were masters at bellicosity and exacerbating tensions to leverage aid and economic help.

A White House official is worried about nuclear blackmail, as Fox News reported:

North Korea’s nuclear weapons development could be used as “blackmail” to influence the U.S. to abandon its ally in South Korea in order to make it easier for Pyongyang to overtake its archrival, a White House official [Mark Pottinger] said Tuesday.

Would a future U.S. president abandon South Korea in the face of nuclear blackmail? Who knows if Kim’s successor would be ruthless and rational? Even rational men miscalculate. Is conventional war now, even with its high price, better than war tomorrow, with nukes in the mix?

Trump is weighing a lot. War, and its consequences, carries the greatest weight. 

Rising tensions and possible war with North Korea have been in the news for weeks. Less reported on would be a war’s toll. War on the Korean peninsula would feature technology-juiced conventional and asymmetric fighting. Destruction and casualties would tally quickly. That’s military and civilian — U.S., Korean, and possibly Japanese. Modern warfare’s lethality needs to be understood. If a nation goes to war, it needs to go with its eyes wide open.       

Let’s establish this first. President Trump has every right to worry about Kim Jong-un’s efforts to develop ballistic missiles capability. Outgoing president Barack Obama warned Trump about the threat. Trump has clearly learned a lot more since.

Reported BBC News:

North Korea’s latest efforts appear focused on building reliable long-range missiles, which may have the potential to reach the mainland United States.


Two types of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) known as the KN-08 and KN-14, have been observed at various military parades since 2012.


Carried and launched from the back of a modified truck, the three-stage KN-08 is believed to have a range of about 11,500km.


The KN-14 appears to be a two-stage missile, with a possible range of around 10,000km.

War scenarios have the U.S. launching a preventive strike against the North. The principal aim would be to “decapitate” the Hermit Kingdom’s leadership. Simultaneously, the U.S. would go after Kim’s nuclear sites. Attacks would target the North’s military chain of command and seek to disrupt — if not shut down — communications and stymie the Korean People’s Army’s (KPA) movement. U.S. and South Korean (ROK) forces would act to neutralize KPA’s forces massed along the DMZ.

A first strike against the North would be a coordinated mix of conventional warfare (primarily cruise missiles and fighter aircraft), special forces and covert operations, and cyberattacks. It’s “shock and awe,” with more hoped-for finality. If it worked as planned, the war would practically end before it started.

It’s high stakes. A first strike is unambiguous. Short of killing Kim and the North Korean elites outright, they’d get that it was death match. War with the U.S. and the South would mean inevitable defeat for the North’s elite. That’s the makings of desperation.  

What we know about wars is that they rarely go as planned. The KPA isn’t Saddam’s army. It isn’t the Taliban. They’re generally well equipped, rigorously trained, and appear motivated – via fear and special status — to fight. (North Korea’s military is ranked 23 out of 126 by globalfirepower.com.) The North has concentrated forces and thousands of artillery pieces in the hills just north of the DMZ to strike Seoul. Seoul’s a mere 30 miles from the DMZ.

Metro Seoul’s population is 25 million. In the opening phase of a war, the North would unleash thousands of rounds of artillery fire. Or intend to. It’s speculated that much of that artillery is outdated, and munitions may be poor, too. But that’s based on documents “leaked” from the North. They may be disinformation. But it’s a numbers game, anyway. 

With thousands of artillery pieces, what portion would have to be operational to wreak havoc on Seoul? From the Washington Post:

The Second Corps of the Korean People’s Army stationed at Kaesong on the northern side of the DMZ has about 500 artillery pieces, [analyst] Bermudez said. And this is just one army corps; similar corps are on either side of it.        


All the artillery pieces in the Second Corps can reach the northern outskirts of Seoul, just 30 miles from the DMZ, but the largest projectiles could fly to the south of the capital. 

How quickly could the U.S. and ROK make headway in destroying functioning artillery? Not overnight. How much time would KPA firepower have to attack Seoul? Add to the mix the North’s chemical and biological munitions stockpile.

The North has agents deployed throughout Seoul Metro. They would act as saboteurs, yes, but they’d target leaders to kill. Soft civilian targets would be in their crosshairs too.  

The North has 180,000 commandos. Per the Washington Post:

“Strategic SOF [Special Operations Force] units dispersed across North Korea appear designed for rapid offensive operations, internal defense against foreign attacks, or limited attacks against vulnerable targets in the ROK [Republic of Korea] as part of a coercive diplomacy effort,” the report said. “They operate in specialized units, including reconnaissance, airborne and seaborne insertion, commandos, and other specialties. All emphasize speed of movement and surprise attack to accomplish their missions.”  

The U.S. has 23,500 stationed in the South. Thousands of U.S. troops are deployed along the DMZ, serving as a tripwire. In the opening days, U.S. causalities would be significant. Rolling up the KPA would mean advancing up the Peninsula toward the Chinese and Russian borders. Fighting would be fierce. Much of the Korean peninsula features hills, mountains, and valleys. It’s suitable terrain for resistance warfare.    

As for the Chinese and Russians, military intervention is unlikely, for obvious and complicated reasons. The Russians don’t have a history of direct military confrontation with the U.S. Berlin and Cuba saw tensions resolved without conflict. The Russians were glad to equip and arm the North Vietnamese communists, but not to do the fighting.

For the PRC, the early 1950s are long gone. Mao certainly tipped the balance for the North Korean communists in the Korean War. U.S. and allied forces had all but won the fight when Chinese intervention led to a stalemate.

Modern China’s economic health is tied to manufacturing and global trade, much of it with the U.S. The PRC seeks broad hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. Xi Jingping and Trump may have come to an accord over what to do about the North in hopes of avoiding war. Certainly, Pyongyang is unhappy with the Chinese, lashing out at Beijing for its “lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S.”  

War and the North’s defeat would push refugee hordes into China. Managing a refugee crisis isn’t something China wants. Nor does the PRC want U.S. and ROK troops perched on the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. For that matter, Putin wouldn’t care for the U.S. to be nearer Vladivostok. Avoiding conflict better serves China’s interests.     

There’s no question that Kim Jong-un is ruthless, but is he suicidal? Like a poker player, Kim could keep his nuke card in hand, threatening to play it to wring concessions. Kim’s father and grandfather were masters at bellicosity and exacerbating tensions to leverage aid and economic help.

A White House official is worried about nuclear blackmail, as Fox News reported:

North Korea’s nuclear weapons development could be used as “blackmail” to influence the U.S. to abandon its ally in South Korea in order to make it easier for Pyongyang to overtake its archrival, a White House official [Mark Pottinger] said Tuesday.

Would a future U.S. president abandon South Korea in the face of nuclear blackmail? Who knows if Kim’s successor would be ruthless and rational? Even rational men miscalculate. Is conventional war now, even with its high price, better than war tomorrow, with nukes in the mix?

Trump is weighing a lot. War, and its consequences, carries the greatest weight. 



Source link