#1
I wouldn't be surprised. Ginsberg is dying I think and she will part this world in 2020. I still have July circled as the date of death, but may be much sooner.
[Breitbart] House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Tuesday evening that he warned the court granting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to the FBI on a former Trump campaign aide of problems with the FBI’s warrant applications twice last year but that the court did "absolutely nothing" about it.
Nunes said he first warned the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in February 2018 of "very serious matters" based on a memo House Republicans wrote outlining issues with the FBI’s use of FISA to get a warrant on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"They did nothing about it," he told Fox News’s Martha McCallum.
#1
Of course they did nothing. These secretive, black robed tyrants were co-conspirators. Not one of them has faulted the FBI for not providing accurate background data on Carter Page.
The FISA judges approved an 'initial' on Carter Page and two additional extensions. How many people are extended for a third time? What evidence was presented supporting the extensions ?
The FISA warrants on Page were a cover. As soon as he was off the Trump campaing staff, FBI interest in Page was dropped (project terminated).
Here's Kurt
Surprising no one, recent revelations demonstrate that not only is Afghanistan a hopeless wreck but our glorious foreign policy elite has been lying about it for going on two decades. Remember, these people are our betters, our moral superiors, the people we should genuflect to and obey because of their wisdom and insights and credentials. And they are lying garbage people. If it wasn’t for the ridiculous impeachment foolishness, maybe our country could focus on this endless disaster ‐ and one that is still killing our best and our bravest. Part of the program?
Here’s the bottom line. Donald Trump’s instincts were right when he looked at this Seventh Century wasteland and asked (I’m paraphrasing), "What the hell are we doing still being here?"
We need to get out of Afghanistan yesterday. The 4K Trump’s supposed to be pulling out soon should be the down payment. Bring our troops all home.
The Taliban rules the countryside. The drug warlords are laughing at us. Our corrupt "allies" are raking in our cash, with trillions of our dollars spraying out of a massive spigot that the beneficiaries don’t want to cut off. But worse, our troops are dying in drips and drabs. Hell, a year ago one of my friends got shot there by somebody pretending to be our ally right up until the moment that turd decided to blast the infidels with a weapon we probably bought him. I do not presume to speak for my friend and I have no idea where he stands on the politics ‐ like all our great soldiers, he’ll go where ordered and do his utmost ‐ but I’m retired and I know where I stand.
...Were we defeated? Not in any meaningful sense. We just have nothing to gain by fighting it anymore. We came to kill al-Qaeda. We killed heaps of those scumbags. But somehow that mission morphed into making Afghanistan a place that didn’t suck. That’s crazy. It’s always sucked and it always will suck and its suckiness is not our problem.
...So, what happens to our allies? Some of our "allies" are apparently less allies than parasites. They’ll be fine, and if they aren’t, too bad. The ones who truly stood with us, who fought beside our men and shed blood with them, we should take care of. That might mean arming them. That might mean bringing them here. But it does not mean running on this miserable rat wheel forever.
"But," warn those who want to stay, "if we abandon our allies what message does that send?" Well, it sends the message that if we prop you up for two decades and you still can’t hack it, yeah, you’re on your own. That is not a bad message to send.
Another response to the Washington Post thing, and a reminder to never trust the Post.
[WarOnTheRocks] The story the Post is telling is neither wholly true, nor supported by the documents it published. Instead, the Post’s reporting puts sensationalist spin on information that was not classified, has already been described in publicly-available reports, only covers a fraction of the 18 years of the war, and falls far short of convincingly demonstrating a campaign of deliberate lies and deceit.
And then he lays it out, with links, in scathing detail.
#1
We came to kill al-Qaeda. We killed heaps of those scumbags. But somehow that mission morphed into making Afghanistan a place that didn’t suck. That’s crazy. It’s always sucked and it always will suck and its suckiness is not our problem.
The GI has always referred to Iraq and AFG as the "Big Suck."
#2
We could 'rebuild' Germany and Japan, because we first bombed the **** out of them down to their domiciles. They knew they were beaten. There was no outside agent to give them succor. Then we utilized existing western or adopted western local institutions that had been in place for generations to 'nation build' among people who had a solid national identity. None of that was present in Afghanistan. However, that lure of a generation long past blinded the ruling caste into thinking they could ignore the quicksand they sought to build a nation on.
#5
Rumsfeld set up the war, he set up Viet Nam. He hade the same mistakes twice expecting a different outcome. We should have never gone in in force. We should have bombed every inch of the place and left it a smoking hole.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/19/2019 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
/\ Henry Kissinger provided Donald a helping hand.
GazetteExtra via Instapundit
The House of Representatives will soon impeach President Trump. Yet these past few weeks have arguably been the best of Trump’s presidency‐not despite impeachment, but in no small part because of it.
Consider the string of successes Trump has racked up in recent days. First came news that the U.S. economy added 266,000 jobs in November, far exceeding economic forecasts. Not only that, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised the August and September jobs reports upward, adding 41,000 more jobs to the Trump economic record. And a new Quinnipiac poll found that 57% of Americans said they are better off financially since Trump took office.
In a move that will further bolster the economy, Trump reached agreement with House Democrats to move forward on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), giving the president a major win. Within days, Trump also reached a "Phase 1" trade deal with China, postponing new tariffs on Chinese goods that were set to kick in and cutting tariffs on some Chinese products he had previously imposed in half. The administration expects a $200 billion boost in exports over two years from the deal. Both deals will certainly bolster the president’s standing with the rural and working-class voters who defected to Trump from the Democrats in 2016.
That’s not all. Trump also reached agreement with Democrats on a spending bill averting a government shutdown. He secured Democratic support on a tax bill that would repeal three Obamacare taxes, including the "Cadillac tax" on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance‐a major win for union workers. And the House approved a $738 billion defense spending bill that would authorize the creation of his Space Force and his parental leave policy for federal workers, while not including restrictions Democrats had threatened on use of defense dollars to build a border wall.
[American Thinker] - Tessa Majors, a young woman ''not of color," was unable to complete her first semester at Barnard University in New York City. She was fatally stabbed in Morningside Park adjacent to the university, collapsing as she left the park -- a place referred to over the years as "Muggingside Park." At least one "person of color," all of thirteen years old, has been arrested. Although it is unclear whether he participated in the murder, he has implicated others who, like him, have barely reached their teen years.
Three days earlier, a black man and a black woman, members of a virulently anti-Semitic sect, the black Hebrew Israelites, went on a killing spree in a kosher market in Jersey City. Six people died, including a police officer.
Last week’s incidents have one obvious thing in common -- both involved blacks murdering whites. They also have at least one other thing in common -- nobody marched, nobody protested, nobody circulated ’White Lives Matter" shirts, nobody organized boycotts of black-run businesses, nobody took to the streets screaming racial epithets, nobody threw bricks at black-owned property, and nobody attacked black citizens.
Contrast that non-reaction not only to what occurred in Baltimore four years ago when Freddie Gray died, or five years ago in Ferguson when Michael Brown died, but with what happened for three days in 1991 when a seven-year-old black boy was tragically but unintentionally killed by a vehicle driven by Yosef Lifsh, an Orthodox Jew who was escorting the Grand Rebbe of the Lubavitch Hasidic community to the cemetery where he visited his deceased wife every Sunday. Lifsh’s car collided with another vehicle; the collision sent Lifsh's car flying onto the sidewalk where it pinned a black youth, Gavin Cato, against a building, causing his death.
Approximately 600 blacks in Crown Heights rioted for three days, injuring just under two hundred people; two residents were shot, a sniper wounded eight police officers, a firehouse was attacked and buildings burned. All of that pales by comparison to the fate of Yankel Rosenbaum, a Hasidic scholar from Australia. He was surrounded by a large group of black youths and repeatedly stabbed by Lemrick Nelson, until he collapsed and died.
Why are the reactions to those tragedies so different? Why no rioting and no reprisals when whites are intentionally and brutally murdered by blacks but prolonged rioting and reprisals reflexively occur when a black is tragically but unintentionally killed, another black is shot to death as he was attacking a white police officer and a third black died from injuries sustained in a police van after being arrested for possession of an illegal weapon? (It is important to remember that none of the police officers were convicted of anything and the Justice Department decided against filing federal civil rights charges against any of the officers involved in the Freddie Gray incident and the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown was never charged).
If pressed to answer what they perceive as a racist inquiry, liberals will point to the sordid history of slavery in this country. Doesn’t that beg the question? By 1991, no black who lived through slavery was still alive. In fact, it is unlikely that even a child of a slave was still alive then. Moreover, the Crown Heights riot occurred in a place where slavery was outlawed in 1827 and which was a center of abolitionist activism thereafter. While Jews did comprise roughly one percent of Southern slaveowners, the Jewish commitment to the Civil Rights movement one hundred years later -- which actually happened during the lifetimes of many involved in the Crown Heights rioting -- is far more telling evidence of their present-day racial mindset. If we want to talk prejudice and discrimination, no group has had more personal experience to draw upon than the Jews. While slavery was horrific, it still wasn’t genocide. So why the rioting, why no real consequences for the rioting, and why no Jewish rioting in Jersey City or Columbia University?
h/t Instapundit
[NewsMax] There were two momentous occurrences last week, one in the United States, one in the United Kingdom.
One was the vote in the Judiciary Committee of our House of Representatives to advance two articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, and the other was the landslide victory of the Conservative Party and its leader, Boris Johnson, in the elections for Parliament.
These are two watershed events in the struggle of Anglo-American politics to determine what the basic values of our two countries have been and ought to be. They should also be seen as two aspects of a continuing historical conflict between left and right on the political spectrum, a conflict that has been with us at least since the eighteenth century.
On the left in Britain was the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbin, which, at least in the minds of the British voters who decidedly rejected Labour’s platform, stood for internationalism, for redistribution of wealth, and for transformation of Britain into something closer to the utopian socialism favored by progressive ideology.
On the right in the United Kingdom were the Conservatives who favored accomplishing Brexit, the notion of Britain becoming more independent of the European Community, and of preserving the traditions of the British nation, including the great principles of the English common law, such as respect for property, monarchy, and Judeo-Christian religion.
...It is sometimes difficult to understand what Donald Trump has accomplished, given the leftist leanings of the mainstream American media, which accord with the progressive tenets of the Democrats.
Nevertheless, and to an extent remarkable in recent American politics, Trump has kept the promises he made when running as a candidate, to reform the judiciary along conservative lines, to reform the economy by reducing taxes and regulation, and to transform foreign relations by putting American interests in front of internationalist concerns.
The president’s economic successes in job creation, in the reduction of unemployment, particularly among minorities, and in the rise of the stock market, all reinforce the appeal to Americans of the conservative elements of the Republican Party.
Boris Johnson’s triumph suggests the doomed nature of the House Democrats’ efforts against Donald Trump, and, further, that the Conservatives in the UK and in the U.S. are the party of the future.
Tt's Sarah Hoyt
There is a lot of talk about Toxic Masculinity. No one ever talks about Toxic Femininity. Though every woman who is a functional human being knows about it, as does anyone who has ever lived or worked in a predominantly female environment.
So, why does no one talk about it? Well, mostly because the left believes that "designated victims" TM are sacred and must never be called on their own bullshit, no matter how smelly. Hence also the bizarre idea of racial "privilege" that tells you holocaust survivors should be attacked for "white privilege" but the Obama girls raised as the creme de la creme, and never facing a day of privation in their lives don’t have any privilege and are victims.
But there’s also other stuff going into it. To an extent ‐ to the extent that historically for biological reasons men dominated public life ‐ the fact that no one talks about the bad side of female modes of being in society is the result of patriarchy.
Men are ridiculously, idiotically, insanely blinkered about women. They don’t really see women as they see other men, but through rosy glasses as much better than men. The "oh so smart" former president with the depth of a rain puddle in Colorado told us that women are so much better than men and that the world would be better under women. Which means he’s basically a bog standard male who has never given the matter a thought, and is going on what "everybody knows." (It occurs to me this man, if he’d been born to an ultra conservative Arab family in one of the ultra conservative Muslim countries would also be telling us that women’s hair emits seductive rays. He’s a suit that speaks. Or an empty chair, if you prefer.)
Of course it is right evolutionarilly that men should feel that way about women. It keeps the species going. It is also bizarre though, and leaves men curiously defenseless now that women view themselves as an aggrieved class and are trying to take over public life and exclude men.
In fact it leaves as the only defense in society that most women ‐ even the feminists who pretend otherwise ‐ unless completely and extensively broken and indoctrinated know what other women are and therefore will not trust any of them. As they shouldn’t. I can’t imagine a worst hell than what Obama is proposing.
...So, the problem is this: right now, men, due to their illusions about women are curiously defenseless against women in public spaces. As a result, and in many ways masculinity itself is being exterminated.
...You see, if you go back to what women and men did in the distant past before agriculture, the past that still shapes us because evolution is very slow, you’ll find that men hunted in groups, where the hierarchy must be absolutely clear, because you have to know who is giving orders, in a group that must coordinate their actions and might all die if they don’t. Also you must be sure that the best/strongest/most agile man is in charge.
Hence males continuous testing "contests" with each other, but also the acceptance of the hierarchy thus established, once it’s established.
While women also have hierarchies (after all, the alpha female raises more kids) it’s more subtle. Females, you see, gathered. They also watched kids at the same time. Your goal is to be able to gather the most food, while losing none of your toddlers who wandered off and didn’t get watched.
Women try to have cohesive groups that from the outside appear to be smooth and loving because they are cohesive and do communal work (a lot).
Women’s work is traditionally safe, boring, social, and capable of being interrupted by kids.
This means the best of these groups is one that’s fairly homogeneous and minimizes personality conflicts.
This is usually accomplished by alpha females by enforcing a stultifying conformity and destroying the social credit (and sometimes the mind) of any woman who steps out of line or is just too weird.
In the primitive tribe this was best, because if all the women were more or less the same, they all watched every other woman’s kids, and more kids survived.
Unfortunately, as with men, there is always a contest of wills to see who will be the alpha female who keeps the other ones in line and apparent comity. And the alpha female has to be fairly ruthless at rooting out threats to her authority.
This usually boils down to "having something" on every woman in the group or making it up if she doesn’t. And being ruthless at using anything she has to pull other women back into line. When she loses that game, her reign is over and she becomes just another of the lumpen masses to be kept in line by the new alpha female.
While this form of being social works pretty well in extended families (which is all the earliest human groups were) with the matriarch keeping charge till she can’t hold it together anymore, and the other women ‐ and often the new incoming women were kidnapped or traded from other tribes so had to learn the way of this one ‐ being kept in line by her, it works like heck in the modern world of offices, laboratories and factories. Not to mention universities.
And because our society insists on being blind to the existence, let alone the dangerous side of female aggression, it destroys any possibility of accomplishment or excellence and in general makes the wheels come off whatever endeavor it is where women become ascendant.
The beginning of civilization was when the first man instead of pummeling another man into the ground with his club chose to hit him only once, establish dominance, and then make a pact of friendship. You find something like that in almost every early saga of humanity.
You never find that among women. Women don’t fight for dominance and then become best friends. Because that’s not how female dominance works.
#2
I can't agree with this oversimplification of how societal dysfunction in women got here, nevertheless we are here now.
Somehow, I've never met these women. Maybe I was lucky. Probably because western ideas arrive in my part of the world at very slow speed. They are met with an ideological sieve so potent that it almost always reduces them to harmless 'fads' and 'quirks' for individuals rather than movements.
And that's an idea. Strong roots and militant defence of culture, even if it's empty, ridiculous hubris like in India. America had so much better. Maybe instead of looking to history and biology and caveman psychology, we should acknowledge the forsaking of our roots. The christian archetypes we should have imitated, the ideals which created men and women with grit enough to get through world wars and depressions together without turning on each other like beasts.
In my opinion, this thing called toxic femininity is just a symptom of the larger spiritual putrefaction. A manifestation of the spirit of Jezebel in wayward women, seeking to murder the righteous and steer Ahab, today's p↻ssywhipped buffoon toward folly. All you need to do to avoid them in your life is to not be an Ahab. Be an Elisha. Or at least be cautious like Jehoshaphat.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Breitbart] House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Tuesday evening that he warned the court granting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to the FBI on a former Trump campaign aide of problems with the FBI’s warrant applications twice last year but that the court did "absolutely nothing" about it.
