Yep, I seem to recall the bearded presence of the future dictator of Red Cuba, when my uncle Bart brought him home to meet the family on November 8, 1959. I had just turned seven at 10 AM and my Dad was at one of his three jobs ( Illinois Medicals Psychiatric Center, The Beverly Theatre, or Home for the Blind) – Ike was about to part the White House, the White Sox won the American League Pennant, but the LA Dodgers took the Series, I was in second grade, JFK was a Catholic running for President and Castro visited the US.in 1959. Castro went to zoos and ranches in NYC, DC, Texas and Canada and generally hung around with Chicago Tribune's Latin Affairs Correspondent Jules Dubois.
Dubois had been a Panama suit and hat reporter in Panama and later became an Army spook during WWII. After the war, Dubois worked to overthrow governments in Central America and also hated Cuban dictator and Mafia puppet Batista.
Bart S. Hickey was a magnificent man.
My Uncle Bart was the tallest of my dad's six brothers and as Mary Garvey once said, ‘That Bart is strictly MGM.' Bart had been a Buck Sergeant in the Marines during the Korean War and afterward worked as a Stationary Engineer. I am given to understand that during one of his not too infrequent visits to Mr. Kelly's that Uncle Bart pal-ed up with Col. Jules Dubois.
The Colonel and Bart hit it off and met up for beers periodically. A few weeks after the Sox lost the World Series, the two ran into one another and met for steaks at Stockyard Inn. Dubois told Bart about the guy who had kicked Batista and The Outfit out of Cuba in January and had charmed the britches off of the Manhattan swells and the likes of Lenny Bernstein. Castro had visited the States on his own, in full beard and Army fatigues many times. He was quietly encamped at The Blackstone Hotel.
Uncle Bart cried Bullshit.
The Colonel protested, "On the Square, Batty. Want to meet him?"
It was arranged. On November 8th, 1959, Fidel Castro wiped his feet on the mud mat in the hall of the Hickey Manse on Marshfield, right here in Chicago.
My Granny, Nora Hickey, was ministering to the "shower of bastards." This was two scores of cousins all of baby boom. Granny welcomed her son and his friends and presented the trio with tea and Lorna Doone cookies, in the living room. The place was generally off-limits to kids who were trooped in the dining room, kitchen or the back basement.
All of my cousins were there but Eddie who was a freshman football player at Notre Dame and it was my birthday; besides, which meant cake. The cake was from the bakery on 79th & Laflin, and it was okay but for the coconut flakes, which I have hated with a generous passion – Lo these many years. Cutting off perfectly good frosting because of coconut flakes is just wrong. Most of the cousins did not seem to mind and swallowed the stuff without so much as a blink.
In walked Uncle Bart and two guys – one a geezer and the other dressed in Army clothes and beards. In the left hand of future dictator and sworn enemy of America was brown paper bag full of beards and paper Army hats, purchased by Uncle Bart at Riley's Trick Shop at 79th and Carpenter. Marine Sgt. Hickey intoned, "Split-tails and goofs, quiet down. This is Col. Jules Dubois and he's a pal and this is his pal, Fidel. Fellas, this is my brother Pat's boy –Patsheen -he's what? Sixteen?"
"Seven, Uncle Bart," I corrected.
"Did I ask you, wise guy? Close your hole and give your ears a chance until you're talked to . . . it's his Birthday, Chief. What did you bring for the kid?"
Into the excitement and up from the basement came FATHER – Grandpa Hickey, formerly of Crinnie Hill, Castleisland County Kerry, a founder of Engineers Local 399, father of seven boys and six girls and a pioneering rage-aholic and unfiltered vocalist. " Bateen, who's your pals, so? I heard ye come in the front door when the back way is good enough for Monsignor McMahon and most Christians. Hello, I'm Lawrence Hickey, Bart's father, like the shtory."
Like what story?
A Kerry man pronounces Bart as Bayart, said fast and says ‘Like the Shhtory' for no good reason. BTW – Bat is short for Bart, which is short for Bartholomew, and it's diminutive in Irish would be Bat-een, like I am Padsheen, or Patsheen. The Hickey clan from Crinnie also known as the Batty-Lars, due to the fact that our tribe always names two male off-spring Larry, or Bart.
Grandpa took in a full eyeful of Fidel Castro.
"Fwhat are you doing here in my living room dressed up like Tom Barry's Flying Column?" quizzed the original Crinnie Rage-aholic.
Uncle Bart answered, " He's Castro, Father (with undiminished irony) – the guy on Time Magazine from Cuba."
"That's near Florida, so?"
It was agreed.
Hands were shook all around and Fidel Castro was seated at the dining room table next to our Chicago Pater Familias – " How's things with that crook Batista off in the jungles somewhere?"
Col. Jules Dubois translated for the English challenged revolutionist – Castro lit up like one of his virgin-thigh rolled cheroots – " Ah Bueno, Senor Hickey! Muy bien! Las personas que saquearon mi pueblo para este año madres Mañana no será bienvenido en Cuba. Al igual que los Medias Blancas y la Sra. Rigné, Ha, ha, ha! "
" So, that's the way of it." A County Kerry declarative/interrogative sentence answer.
On it went, I suppose, in this manner, until the large brown paper bag was opened with my birthday present from the liberator and future dictator of Cuba.
We all got beards and imitation Army caps made like those paper painter's caps.
Some haul, huh?
Uncle Bart decided to put El Jefe on the spot,
"That's all you got for the Kid? It's his birthday for Crissakes. Dig, Fidel, and come up with some folding money for the little guy." This was dutifully translated by Col. Dubois.
Castro feigned a smile of resignation and oiled these words in his native tongue through his gums and whiskers, "What is this? A Capitalist trap? You Yankees! Very Well, here is five Gringo dollars for your homely nephew with the gapped teeth. I am out of here! Say good-bye to your foul tempered Irish father. Basta Ya! Yanquis!"
Within a few months, Time Magazine's Boy, Castro, was locked in an embrace with Soviet Communism that still breathes lustily today. Alas, Fidel shed his mortal husk.
I got to tickle the real whiskers of Castro and pocket a 1959 value 5-$pot from a Commie and never really caught the desire to cut sugar cane.
Hey, it could have happened. Ask Uncle Bart and Jules Dubois. Oh, yeah. They're passed. So is Castro from what I hear.
Just a fun little read.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
03/07/2025 07:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under: Commies
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Mark Leshkevich
[REGNUM] At the beginning of the SVO, the British gave Volodymyr Zelensky, among other things, a significant moral advance, comparing him to Winston Churchill. “The 44-year-old politician has earned himself a place in history, having demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities and resilience, <…> has become a symbol of the global confrontation between liberal democracies and authoritarianism,” the Financial Times wrote in all seriousness exactly three years ago.
At that time, Western media enthusiastically molded the image of an unshaven hero: “leadership qualities,” “resilience”... At awards ceremonies like the Oscars, they showered him with praise. Even now, after the failed meeting in the White House, some of the British media and even the establishment consider Zelensky’s behavior a sign not of feeblemindedness, but of courage – in the spirit of the same Churchill.
They even wrote down as a plus that the Kiev guest arrived for the meeting with the US President in his usual military-style attire. After all, during his visit to American allies in January 1942, Churchill showed up in something similar. True, that meeting was much more productive.
Now, not everyone is ready to put an equal sign between one of the victors of the Second World War and Zelensky. Even British aristocrats have had a dispute about these figures. Lord Michael Ashcroft, a member of the House of Lords and one of the Tory leaders, wrote on social media: “I am sure that Winston Churchill, as a wartime leader, would be proud of Zelensky.” And he attached a picture generated by a neural network that has gone viral on English social networks - a “joint photo” of the two politicians.
Sir Charles James Spencer Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, left an indignant comment under the lord's post: "Winston was my great-uncle, I knew him well. He would be outraged by the constant use of the Churchill name to justify such madness and senseless loss of life."
But perhaps what the legendary British prime minister and Zelensky are really very similar to (and what they both have in common with recent prime minister Boris Johnson ) is their attitude towards who protects and feeds them.
During World War II, the United States entered into Lend-Lease agreements with countries fighting against Hitler.
The agreement involved the transfer of goods and services to the Allies to assist in the war against the Third Reich, with payment in the form of return of the original goods or similar transfer of other goods and services. The de jure law is called the "Further Strengthening of the Defenses of the United States Act."
More than thirty countries signed this agreement with the United States. Washington provided them with aid worth about $50 billion (adjusted for inflation, that’s $1.08 trillion today). It seemed like a generous gift. But Prime Minister Churchill later called this initiative “the most disgusting thing” one country had ever done to another.
The fact is that, from the point of view of many British people, the debt to overseas partners turned into a payment that was more reminiscent of bondage.
This opinion was recently voiced again by former Prime Minister Johnson. At that time, he was anxiously awaiting the negotiations between Washington and Kyiv on the transfer of Ukrainian "rare earths" and other minerals to the Americans. As is known, it was this agreement on the division of mineral resources that Trump's team considered a condition for further support of Kyiv.
And then Johnson said: "Yes, if you look at it... it (the Trump-Zelensky deal. - Ed.) is robbery, but wasn't Lend-Lease the same in 1941? The Americans simply robbed us. They took our military bases, and we paid for this aid until 2006."
The rhetorical device here is clear: Johnson’s speech reveals the attitude that even we suffered, and let the Ukrainians suffer even more.
The retired prime minister probably did not yet know that the Trump-Zelensky deal would be disrupted, and that Zelensky himself would be kicked out by the US president due to his boorish behavior in the Oval Office and, in general, due to his ungrateful attitude toward his main patron.
Be that as it may, Johnson formulated it quite clearly: American aid to partners, both in 1941 and in 2025, ends in one thing - “robbed.”
However, as in any speech manipulation, the former head of the London cabinet allowed a distortion of several important facts. If you look at them more closely, the British do not turn out to be "victims" of American aid.
But for a better understanding, let's start with the background.
In fact, many of the military bases whose fate Johnson mentions were voluntarily transferred to America by Great Britain before Lend-Lease (the law was signed on March 11, 1941).
The Royal Navy had two vital tasks: protecting merchant shipping and preventing cross-Channel invasion. Both tasks required destroyers. Britain had lost 11 of its 179 destroyers since the start of the war. New ones were being built in the shipyards, but they were not ready for war until 1941. Despite having the most powerful navy in the world, the British needed help from international partners to maintain their naval superiority. On May 15, 1940, Churchill asked US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to “lend you forty or fifty of your old destroyers.”
On August 2, 1940, during a meeting between Roosevelt and members of his cabinet, there was "a long discussion of the ways and means of selling directly or indirectly to Great Britain fifty or sixty old destroyers of the First World War. It was generally agreed, without a single dissenting voice, that the survival of the British Isles in the event of a German attack might depend on the receipt of these destroyers"
On August 11, 1940, future Secretary of State Dean Acheson and other prominent lawyers wrote an article in The New York Times convincing the public that there were no legal obstacles to the deal and that it could be concluded administratively.
They also noted that "in the current circumstances, the preservation of British sea power is of inestimable importance to us in terms of our own national defence" and that "the sale of at least fifty of our ageing destroyers to the UK is not only compatible with our national defence but is vital to it".
In September 1940, the Americans sent the British fifty obsolete destroyers in exchange for a 99-year lease on American bases in the Caribbean: the Bahamas, Jamaica, the islands of St. Lucia, Trinidad, Antigua, and on the coast of South America, in British Guiana (now Guyana ). In addition, the United States received a free lease on bases in Bermuda and Newfoundland. The agreement was nicknamed "Destroyers for Bases."
Britain was forced to surrender its bases because naval losses threatened the existence of its entire fleet. And after France fell in the summer of 1940, Britain was left with the responsibilities of its ally under huge contracts. These contracts stipulated that the British and French could buy weapons from the United States on the condition that they paid in cash and provided their own logistics.
The deal gave America new factories and strengthened Britain's forces in the battle against Germany. But only for a time.
On November 23, 1940, the British ambassador to the United States, Philip Kerr, Marquess of Lothian, arrived at New York airport, where he announced to assembled journalists: "Britain is broke. We want your money."
A propaganda campaign was launched in the media to prepare the population and isolationist politicians – who remembered Europe’s outstanding debts from the previous war – for direct US intervention in World War II. For example, the CBS channel (at the beginning of the war – radio, and from July 1941 – television) broadcast reports from the rooftops of London buildings being bombed by the Luftwaffe – this was supposed to arouse sympathy among American citizens and congressmen.
Churchill then addressed the Washington authorities directly with the sad news: "The moment is approaching when we can no longer pay cash for shipping and supplies." The situation had become critical. Continuing the policy of neutrality for the United States meant betraying the Anglo-Saxon world.
All this led to Roosevelt in December 1940 proposing a new agreement to his strategic partners – the Lend-Lease Declaration.
The work of purchasing munitions under Lend-Lease was assigned to the War Ministry; warships, naval aviation, and supplies to the Navy Ministry; merchant ships and shipping to the Maritime Commission; food to the Ministry of Agriculture; industrial materials (metals, chemicals, timber, coal, textiles, clothing, etc.) to the Purchasing Department of the Ministry of Finance.
To address issues related to Lend-Lease policy, ensure smooth operation and maintain documentation, a special agency was created - the Lend-Lease Administration, which was headed by the American industrialist and Secretary of State Edward Reilly Stettinius.
The main categories of weapons transferred to Great Britain were fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, tanks, armored personnel carriers and other specialized vehicles. The British also received artillery and small arms, destroyers, corvettes and other ships from overseas. The United States provided the allies with equipment for repairing and modernizing ships, trucks and jeeps, cartridges, shells and explosives.
The conditions for repayment of the debt in the Lend-Lease Act were written quite abstractly:
"They shall be such as the President shall deem advantageous, and the advantage to the United States may consist of payment or compensation in kind or property, or of any other direct or indirect advantage which the President shall deem satisfactory."
In other words: we’ll take whatever we want.
The new deal did indeed promise to benefit the United States. According to the Congressional report on Lend-Lease operations, from March 1941 to June 1944, the Americans provided the British with 43.3% of the total Lend-Lease amount, which amounted to more than $28.3 billion at the time, or $510.8 billion today.
For comparison: the Soviet Union received 27.5% of the Lend-Lease “pie”, Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean – 14.3%, China, India, Australia and New Zealand – 11.2%.
All funds had to be returned with interest.
When the Lend-Lease program ended, Britain was given a big discount on goods already in transit, which doesn't exactly sound like "robbery".
Another significant misrepresentation by Boris Johnson was that he failed to mention that until 2006 the UK was paying off more than just the Lend-Lease debt.
In 1945, the United Kingdom agreed to borrow $4.34 billion from the United States, of which $3.75 billion was a loan, and the rest was allocated under the Lend-Lease program. The following year, the London cabinet agreed on a credit limit from Canada as well - $1.18 billion. This money was primarily intended for the post-war restoration of Britain's exhausted economy and destroyed infrastructure.
Debt repayment began in 1950. Since then, Britain has paid fifty tranches totaling $7.5 billion to America and $2 billion to Canada at 2% per annum.
Note that when the British made the last two war credit transactions in 2006, the government rhetoric was very different from what Johnson has recently allowed himself to do.
Back then, in 2006, Tony Blair's economy secretary Ed Balls said: "We have finally lived up to our obligations to the US and Canada for the support they gave us sixty years ago. It was vital support that helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the post-war period."
“Important support” and “robbed” are, as they say, two very different things.
Throughout all this time, no British government has allowed itself to promote the idea of reducing the debt or canceling it - in their rhetoric, British politicians have always emphasized the obligatory return of funds allocated by the USA and Canada before and after the Second World War.
So, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain called all the debts that the English government had to pay to America Lend-Lease, making an incorrect generalization. Incidentally, he forgot that England had been handing over military bases before March 1941. Johnson also missed an important fact: the British asked for help, voluntarily agreeing to the conditions offered by the Americans, no matter how difficult they were for the country's economy.
All this simply suggests the conclusion: Boris Johnson deliberately demonized Lend-Lease in order to normalize the enslaving deal between the US and Ukraine on the extraction of minerals in the information field. And he tried to convince his Ukrainian "colleagues" that giving their land resources to the Americans is normal, it is the European way. It can be done even without much gratitude.
But will Ukraine be able to repay its debts to the US, as Great Britain did?
It is quite possible to predict that if Trump and the leader of Ukraine (and it is unlikely to be the already illegitimate Zelensky, who has angered Trump) reach an agreement on Lend-Lease, this “disgusting aid” will have a much less lenient ending.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Kirill Novikov
[REGNUM] On March 4, 2025, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order in which he noted that the 10% tariffs imposed on China would be increased to 20%; he justified his actions with completely non-economic arguments.
Trump accuses China of not taking any measures to combat the spread of synthetic opioids (primarily fentanyl).
Tariffs were also imposed on imports from Mexico and Canada. Both of these countries had previously demonstrated their willingness to give in to American pressure. However, China is not going to make concessions, for its part it has imposed duties of 10% and 15% on agricultural products from America, and 15 companies from this country have been added to the Chinese government's "export control" list.
Donald Trump has made drug abuse a major issue during his first term, declaring opioid overdoses a public health emergency in 2017.
“In 2016 alone, nearly 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses. During that time, the number of overdoses specifically from opioids exceeded 42,000, more than in any previous year.”
According to the latest statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 87,000 people died from overdoses in 2023–2024, which is 24% less than in 2022–2023. However, Donald Trump is sure that these figures are wrong. At a cabinet meeting, the US President said that in recent years, 300,000 people a year have died in the country because of fentanyl. Thus, the total number of victims, according to Trump, has already exceeded a million.
Fentanyl is a potent synthetic opioid that is widely used as a painkiller; it was developed to help patients after major surgeries. The drug gained popularity due to its low cost (since the 2010s, control over opioid turnover has been tightened in America) and high effectiveness in relieving pain (it is 50 times stronger than heroin).
Restrictions during the coronavirus epidemic played a role, when the transportation of large quantities of drugs was difficult. Fentanyl, on the other hand, could be delivered covertly in small quantities.
In 2019, the Chinese government tightened controls on its production, but could not ban the production of precursors - the chemical elements needed to synthesize the substance, since they have already become drugs of daily demand.
Therefore, the ban had almost no effect: Mexican cartels purchased precursors from China, synthesized fentanyl from them, and shipped them to the United States.
Western media paid special attention to the Chinese company Yuancheng Group — from their point of view, it is engaged in the supply of precursors. It is worth noting that another source of fentanyl is India, but Donald Trump talks about this much less often.
China initially expressed its willingness to cooperate with the United States in the fight against the spread of the terrible drug, but after the visit of former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan in 2022, China refused to coordinate its actions with America in this matter.
The United States is convinced that China is deliberately ignoring the problem, directly or indirectly encouraging the export of fentanyl. For example, it was noted that the Chinese government provided tax breaks for companies that exported fentanyl precursors abroad, and some chemical companies even received state grants.
To confirm their suspicions, the Americans like to refer to the book “Unrestricted Warfare” (published in 1999), written by retired Major General Qiao Liang and Professor of Beihang University (Beijing), former Colonel of the Chinese Army Wang Xiansuya. The authors pointed to the transformation of forms of warfare that can already be observed today, for example, the emergence of such phenomena as “information warfare” or “trade war”.
The book, in particular, briefly mentions drug warfare, defining it as “ the receipt of superprofits through the illegal distribution of prohibited substances abroad.”
The purpose of publishing Unrestricted Warfare was to formulate a strategy to counter the unipolar hegemony of the United States. The new US administration is convinced that today the Chinese government has moved from words to action.
CHINA DENIES ITS OWN GUILT.
On the day Trump issued his decree, China's State Council published a white paper on fentanyl, outlining its own contribution to combating the drug's spread. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian noted at a briefing that the US was denigrating his country for propaganda purposes.
It should be understood that the problem of the spread of fentanyl is only an episode in the escalating confrontation between China and America.
Despite the fact that the US is currently experiencing an ideological and value split, both parties – Republicans and Democrats – are convinced of the need to combat Chinese influence. The sanctions imposed by Donald Trump during his first term were not lifted by Joseph Biden. Moreover, in some areas they were even tightened – for example, 100% tariffs were imposed on Chinese electric cars.
And this has brought results: according to statistics for 2023, trade turnover between the countries decreased by 11.6%, and from 2018 to 2024, China’s share in the total volume of US trade decreased from 15.7% to 10.9%.
Both countries are trying to identify each other's weak points and strike at them without hurting themselves.
For example, China has effectively become a monopolist in the rare earth minerals market. Any restrictions in this area will hit not only the American economy, but also the leading supporter of its president, Elon Musk, whose companies actively use titanium and lithium.
This explains why the US is confidently trying to impose an unequal agreement on rare earth mining on Ukraine.
Donald Trump's core constituency, farmers whose prosperity was largely based on exporting their own produce to China, is suffering from higher tariffs in agriculture. China is ready to switch to the agricultural market in South America - for example, it already buys soybeans from Brazil.
The US, in turn, is trying to find other markets. For example, Canada has become one. However, this has not helped to cover the losses from the trade war. Will farmers then continue to support the Republicans?
But China is also suffering from US sanctions: the tariff standoff has slowed economic growth. China already faced difficulties - for example, the housing crisis led to a decrease in purchasing power. And the government has to inject new money into the economy to solve this problem.
But on the other hand, the trade war allows the Chinese government to attribute the slowdown to negative influence from the United States and to unite the people around opposing this threat.
The trade war is hitting both sides equally, but each side is determined to achieve its own goals. America is seeking to maintain its leading position, while China is seeking to increase its influence through its status as the new “workshop of the world.”
In general, tariff wars clearly indicate a weakening of economic globalization and a return to the concept of “national interest.”
[ZeroHedge] The Biden presidency might have been the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the American people. A shocking investigation by the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project has revealed that virtually every document bearing Joe Biden's signature during his presidency was signed by an autopen — except for one.
What makes this revelation particularly damning is that the only document confirmed to have Biden's actual signature was his letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. Let that sink in for a moment.
Remember when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) revealed his discussion with Biden when Biden couldn't recall signing the executive order halting LNG exports? Now we know why — he probably didn't. The real question is: Who did? Who was running the country while Biden was not all there?
The use of the presidential autopen dates back to the 1950s, and there's been much debate about its legality. In 2013, Barack Obama became the first president to sign a bill into law using an autopen. He was vacationing in Hawaii at the time. His office relied on a 30-page memo from President George W. Bush's legal team asserting that the president's presence was not required as long as said president had authorized the signature.
What's not clear, in the case of Biden, is who was running the autopen and whether Biden was aware it was happening.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is demanding that the Department of Justice investigate whether Biden's obvious cognitive decline allowed unelected bureaucrats to essentially run the government without presidential oversight. If this is true — and let's be honest, all signs point to yes — every executive order, every pardon, and every official action taken under Biden's name could be constitutionally void.
Bailey's letter to Michael E. Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, spells it out perfectly.
I write to request that you conduct a full investigation into President Biden's mental capacity in his final days in office. By now, Biden's mental decline is famous. Under the 25th Amendment, his inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power. Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them. That would explain why the Biden administration's orders were aggressively much farther to the left than any previous President. If in fact Biden's staffers were exploiting his mental decline, those orders are null and void.
The evidence is overwhelming. We know that Biden's handlers desperately tried to
prevent anyone from meeting with him one-on-one. Even Democratic insiders admit the truth. DNC fundraiser Lindy Li recently spilled the beans and acknowledged that Biden wasn't running the show; his staff, his wife, and Hunter were.
Thanks to the Heritage Foundation's investigation, we now have proof that Biden's signature was automated throughout his presidency — which raises serious questions about whether he was aware of what was being signed in his name at all. The Oversight Project rightfully points out that since Biden revoked Trump's executive privilege, we can easily determine who controlled the autopen and what safeguards, if any, were in place.
The implications are staggering. We essentially had a presidency by proxy, with unelected staffers wielding presidential power while the man himself was barely cognizant enough to read a teleprompter. This isn't just a scandal; it's potentially the biggest constitutional crisis in American history.
On the other hand, both sides would link arms to make sure nothing ever came of it. Even our politicians aren't crazy enough to set that precedent in motion.
#4
Even if Biden actually wrote his name on a piece of paper in front of witnesses there's reasonable doubt whether he had always been aware of what he was signing and what he was doing. To say the least.
Biden's decline was obvious even in 2020. There was no cover up, it has always been gaslighting.
#8
"The People of the United States Have No Standing"
That would be a win outcome, too.
And, Rantburg for the Win!
This has been talked about here since November IIRC, and can make the case dancing around it since the drop-out, the closed door testimony, and like EH2660 said, since 2020 or even the primary 'win' 2019.
The other thing discussed since the topic was broached, is that this front needs to be opened no matter the shoot the moon odds, because it will have to be defended.
So make the case, very publicly, so that the normies who are new to all this can see for themselves and come into their own, because they are the target audience.
Lot of talk about "where are the perp walks?" well this comes first, setting the scene. To re-cap the ending of Gaslight, the victim wasn't sure who to go at, the one who was gaslighting or the one who was trying to get her out of the situation. That is where we are at, opening statements of a crime trial.
[Breitbart] Democrats are exposing their true colors by worshiping at the altar of radical transgenderism at the expense of the safety of women and girls, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) told Breitbart News Tuesday in an exclusive interview.
"Democrats, by doubling and tripling down on the radical transgender agenda that the American people find incredibly distasteful, by forcing girls to compete with boys in sports and pushing transgender surgeries on young children, they are proving themselves to be the party of perverts," Gill told Breitbart News.
Monday night, Senate Democrats killed legislation to protect women and girls from having their sports infiltrated by men masquerading as women. No Democrats supported Tuberville’s bill.
Yet Tuesday, dozens of female Democrat lawmakers are expected to wear pink to President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress in protest of Trump’s supposedly anti-woman policies.
Gill encouraged Republicans to be aggressive and unafraid in communicating to the public Democrat hypocrisy and the dangers of transgender cosplay to women and girls.
[PJMedia] During President Trump's speech to a joint session of Congress, he announced that with the help of American intelligence agencies and Pakistain, the planner of the Abbey Gate terrorist attack in Afghanistan was being brought to America at that moment to "face the swift sword of American justice."
It was an exhilarating moment. The news may have prompted a small feeling of "closure" among the families of the 13 American service members who died in that Afghanistan calamity on Joe The Big Guy Biden ...46th president of the U.S. I'm not working for you. Don't be such a horse's ass.... 's watch.
But the Paks may have handed over the wrong guy. They say that Mohammad Sharifullah is "a commander of the ISIS (ISIS) affiliate in Khorasan Province (ISKP) [and was] an Afghan national captured in an operation conducted in the Pakistain-Afghanistan border
...also known as Pashtunistan, home of ignorance, poverty, and automatic weapons... region." The Pak Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked Trump in a statement for "appreciating Pakistain’s role and support in counterterrorism efforts across the region."
But, could it be that the Paks, who hid the late Osama bin Laden ...... who has left the building...... from the Americans for years, engaged in yet another subterfuge to stick it to us? Of course the Paks could have done that.
A former CIA "targeter" whose job was to find bad guys in Afghanistan says whoever told the Trump team that this Mohammad guy was the shot-caller for the Taliban ...Arabic for students... is lying to them.
Adams, who now works for the Defense Department, uses open source materials and sometimes calls her old contacts in Afghanistan to run down leads while looking for bad guys and connecting the dots for articles and books.
She thinks a different person was the actual shot-caller for a suicide kaboom at Abbey Gate at the Kabul Airport in those frantic days before the U.S. ignominiously bugged out.
The man who helped plan the attack, Adams believes, is Hafiz Haqqani, of the notorious Haqqani terror network, and who has connections to Al Qaeda's one-time number-two bad guy, Ayman Al Zawahiri ...Formerly second in command of al-Qaeda, now the head cheese, occasionally described as the real brains of the outfit. Formerly the Mister Big of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Bumped off Abdullah Azzam with a car boom in the course of one of their little disputes. Is thought to have composed bin Laden's fatwa entitled World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders. Currently residing in the North Wazoo area assuming he's not dead like Mullah Omar. He lost major face when he ordered the nascent Islamic State to cease and desist and merge with the orthodox al-Qaeda spring, al-Nusra...> . In fact, Adams believes the man who told the boom jacket-wearing terrorist the precise place to detonate his bomb for maximum U.S. casualties is Zawahiri's son-in-law.
Here’s a hard truth:
Hafiz Haqqani—the terrorist on the ground at Abbey Gate who told the suicide bomber he was in the best position to kill the most U.S. soldiers and to detonate—is the son-in-law of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
First, you have to understand what Adams believes is the leadership apparatus of the Taliban. She believes the Taliban is wholly infused by Al Qaeda. Adams says the families have intermarried. She says three of the top leaders of the Taliban have the last name of Bin Laden.
Adams is the first to point out that the United States bankrolls the Taliban — and by extension Al Qaeda and the Bin Laden family — $40 to $80 million per week.
As I reported previously, USAID money was used for a lot of the payoff to the terrorists.
Adams's claims were verified in a February congressional hearing.
Adams isn't new to finding bandidosDeath Eaters who try to hide. She's written a recent work about the Abbey Gate terror plot called "HKIA: Know Thy Enemy."
She also found all the planners of the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, and wrote about them in her book, "Benghazi: Know Thy Enemy."
Remember that Secretary of State Crooked Hillary Clinton ...former first lady, former secretary of state, former presidential candidate, Conqueror of Benghazi, Heroine of Tuzla, formerly described by her supporters as the smartest woman in the world, usually described by the rest of us as The Thing That Wouldn't Go Away. Politix is not one of her talents, but it's something she keeps trying to do... , Jake Sullivan, and Obama aide Susan Rice told Americans that the Benghazi attack was a misunderstanding that grew out of a movie no one watched — for which the movie maker was tossed in the calaboose Drop the rosco, Muggsy, or you're one with the ages! in America by President Obama. But Adams wouldn't rest until she tracked down every one of the bandidosDeath Eaters who killed her CIA compatriots and America's Ambassador to Libya.
After last night's announcement, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X.com that the FBI and American intelligence worked to get their hands on the planner.
But Patel need only remember his own frustrations as a DOJ investigator involved for a time in the Benghazi prosecution to inform this latest case. In his book, "Government Gangsters," Patel was frustrated that "when it came to Benghazi, the B.O. regime, the F.B.I. and the D.O.J. wanted to seem tough on terrorism, so they kept minimal prosecutions open and brought up big-sounding charges that we couldn’t support."
And before he became the nominee to head the FBI, Patel told the Shawn Ryan show that the top brass "went and got basically the wrong guy [involved in Benghazi]. And then we prosecuted that wrong guy. Not that he wasn’t a part of it. He just wasn’t like the top tier of guys I would have gone after. And they screwed up the prosecution because they didn’t listen to us."
🚨BREAKING NEWS: The masterminds behind the Abbey Gate attack are Sirajuddin Haqqani and Sanaullah Ghafari. So why was a fake mastermind detained and extradited to the U.S.—and who is telling our American President @realdonaldtrump it was someone else?
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.
...46th president of the U.S. 
