|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 18, 2019 8:07:27 GMT -8
The link will take you to a piece which reports a recently retired Admiral called for the removal of Trump from office. Admiral Gone RogueThe military-industrial-intelligence-political cabal are beginning to go stark-raving mad. Cutting back on our endless wars seems to be something bad, in their minds. I have no problem with ex-military personnel criticizing politicians, but the moment they talk about "removing" a president from office they need to be excoriated publicly and Flag Officers need to reminded they are still at the call of the president and subject to military law. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 18, 2019 8:53:33 GMT -8
Admiral McRapin not only thinks America should be the international police force, but he thinks failing to do so is an assault on American institutions. He obviously chooses to be unaware of John Quincy Adam's point that while the US is a friend to freedom and democracy everywhere, it guarantees only its own and does NOT seek dragons to slay overseas. This has been the rule for most of America's existence as a state, though in the last century the interventionists (such as McRapin) denounced it (occasionally rightly) as isolationism.
As an Army brat, I'm glad McRapin is an admiral, not a general.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 21, 2019 11:51:56 GMT -8
I was very surprised to hear Rush Limbaugh come out against the military-industrial-intelligence-political party which has existed for decades in the USA. I have been preaching against this cabal for years, but when someone like Rush Limbaugh comes out and tells people the truth about the fortunes made from our perpetual wars, it is significant.
Rush didn't say it directly, but the Bushes are a big part of this group. The old man was very cozy with the Carlyle Group. And Saudi money has been corrupting US politics for a long time. Funny how the Clintons and Obamas came into office poor and are now multi-millionaires.
We have far too many generals (many more per soldier than in WWII) who have to make themselves important by preaching for constant intervension overseas, and make fortunes upon retiring by getting hired by the suppliers of our military or "News" channels covering foreign wars and politics.
Our leaders have been lying to us for years, and most of us have believed them. It took something like Trump withdrawing a few troops from the Syrian-Turkish border to expose the lies which have been told us. The D.C. war party started screaming like stuck pigs, warning of the imminent collapse of Western Civilization if we don't stay in Syria protecting the Kurds forever. People are seeing this for the lie that it is and are backing the president.
To show that all the recent concern about the Kurds is a lie, simply note that the USA could have carved out a Kurdistan in 2003 or 2004 and we didn't. To have done so would have created even greater problems in the Middle East as the Kurds are spread across Syria, Iraq, Iran and most importantly Turkey. So our decision was to leave things as they were and this has chained us to a situation which is like an open sore, which never heals. It doesn't kill you but is very painful. But the sore is not our problem. It is others'.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 21, 2019 13:16:59 GMT -8
Our leaders have been lying to us for years, and most of us have believed them. I come from years of government service in which lying is not only a given, but is part of our training. I expect every thing said in a government office to be a lie until proven different. I regret that expatiation is almost always correct. I think a degree of disbelief when dealing with government officials is not only expected but required as it avoids surprise whn it turns out they were lying, either by intent, accident or omission. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 22, 2019 8:50:28 GMT -8
Yes. When someone this prominent talks about it, it has the effect of someone noting that the emperor has no clothes.
“The Good Muslim” is a continuing fantasy. I’m not saying there aren’t real tactical alliances that don’t make temporary sense. But there is no sense to delving into Muslim politics unless you mean to permanently occupy a piece of land and enforce your principles. We’re not willing to do that. We’re simply dabbling.
You have people talking of “power vacuums” and ceding influence to Russia. But what the hell is Russia going to do with these shithole countries? They couldn’t do much with Afghanistan. There are lots of prefabricated talking points in favor of intervention. But none of them ring true to me.
A country that can’t even control its own borders is in no position to be writing the boundaries for others.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 22, 2019 9:07:10 GMT -8
Amen brother!
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 9:15:11 GMT -8
The interesting question that Demagogues and GOP Beltway Bandits should have to answer is why they're so much more concerned with the border between Turkey and Syria than that between the USA and Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 1, 2019 13:39:34 GMT -8
The link is to a piece in which Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri openly blames president Bush and his ilk for the damage done to our country by globalization. New World OrderThe Bushes are similar to the Clintons,the Obamas and Bidens in this case. They make their money through politics and want to lower national borders as it expands their business opportunities in general and lowers costs for their business cronies in the USA. Of course, money from their various cronies flows into their pockets. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 6, 2019 12:03:11 GMT -8
The link is to an article by Rich Lowry which details how the distortion and elimination of American History from our lives has been an elite project for decades. No History, No NationI find it strange that he doesn't mention the fact that what he is describing has been pushed on us by communists, both Soviet and Western. The Frankfurt School had a major part in this outrage. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 6, 2019 12:28:10 GMT -8
It's important to remember that leftism is (as we have discussed here before) revolutionary. It seeks to turn every tradition topsy-turvy. This involves rejecting traditional morality and ethics, but also traditional loyalty to country. Marxist loyalty was to class instead of nation, country, or race -- and it stunned many when socialist parties throughout Europe voted for war credits in 1914. Mussolini opposed Italian entry into the war -- until they did enter, at which point he turned strongly nationalist. (This happens elsewhere as well. John S. Mosby was a staunch unionist who boasted that he would join the struggle against secession even if his native Virginia seceded, and even if it meant fighting his friends and family. Until Virginia did secede, and he stood with his state till the end.)
In addition, leftists are reflexive malcontents. They live to be outraged, and thus reject whatever is in favor of whatever they dream could be. This, again, encourages them to reject existing society and the country it maintains in favor of globalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 12, 2019 15:01:17 GMT -8
The Federalist has an article regarding the Deep State in which the author states;
This is nonsense and the author tacitly acknowledges it is nonsense in the rest of his article by laying out the way the Deep State undermines those who do not agree with it. Conservatives should stop prefacing their points with apologies and start stating facts unequivocally.
That 95% support number sounds like something out of a banana republic election or a plebiscite organized by Stalin. In itself, the fact that 95% of federal government employee political contributions went to support Hillary Clinton is a clear and undeniable sign that the left have been burrowing into the administrative state in order to take over the country's reins by dishonest means. A 95% percentage shows clear bias. That number would be impossible in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 14, 2019 14:35:39 GMT -8
The link is to another very witty and insightful piece by Mark Steyn. I saw some of what the Dims' two witnesses said yesterday and thought very much the same thing that Steyn is writing. But I am not nearly so clever so I will leave it to you to read. The Ukraine is uniquely useful to the US |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 14, 2019 15:25:56 GMT -8
I regularly read Steyn, but usually later so I hadn't read this yet. I certainly can locate the Donbas, but then it played a significant role during World War II. It was the biggest Soviet coal source (and not far from the iron of Krivoi Rog and the manganese of Nikopol), so naturally it was also their top industrial area for a long time. But of course Steyn is right that the President decides policy and these advisors are supposed to give advice and execute the President's decision.
I never saw the TV series Yes, Minister, but I read a book about it. People like Taylor and Kent (and so many others) remind of Sir Humphrey, who believed that the permanent bureaucracy should make the decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 14, 2019 15:46:33 GMT -8
We used to buy steel from around Donetsk. Zaparoshe and Kryvoirog (I can't recall the exact spellings) were mills exporting a lot of steel from the area. In those days, the trouble was not a separatist movement in the Donbass. The problem was the various mafias killing each other for control of metallurgical plants, which produced the only things which foreign countries would buy from the ex USSR. The amount of crime was unbelievable.
It got so bad that the mafias also spread into countries in Eastern and Central Europe. There was an instance in Vienna where someone used a machine gun to shoot some rival. I visited a Russian trader living in Klagenfurt and there were two guards outside his office with Glock pistols. This was very surprising for Austria.
"Yes, Minister" is my favorite TV sitcom of all time. It's sequel "Yes, Prime Minister" is almost as good.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 14, 2019 16:05:05 GMT -8
Spellings in Ukraine have changed (e.g., Kiev to Kyiv, Lvov to Lviv, and I think Kharkov to Kharkiv), but the spellings (or transliterations) I remember for 2 of the cities you listed are Zaprozhe and Krivoi (or Krivoy) Rog. Donetsk, incidentally, was Stalino until Khrushchev destalinized.
I also had the book on Yes, Prime Minister. Perhaps the best things I recall are Sir Humphrey's example of how the question sequences of a poll can determine the results, and Sir James's wonder "if they are on our side" in a foreign affairs issue. By "they" he meant the Foreign Office bureaucracy, not the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 19, 2019 10:31:02 GMT -8
This information leads to a number of interesting questions. Ukrainian Defense Minister VindmanWhy would the Ukraine offer such a post to someone unless there was some indication that the person in question had shown extreme loyalty to the Ukraine? I am convinced the Ukraine based their offer on something which indicated that Vindman was "on their side." Does Vindman have dual-citizenship? If so, to which country is Vindman most loyal? |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 19, 2019 10:44:46 GMT -8
That's a very good question, and it might be nice to question Vindman about what might make the Ukrainian leadership think he would have been a suitable Defense Minister. Smaller countries that rely heavily on immigrants (such as Israel, particularly in its early years) or lack people with the relevant skills might do this, but Ukraine is a fairly large nation with very few immigrants and an educated population.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 21, 2019 14:23:14 GMT -8
Here is a good piece from Selwyn Duke regarding Vindman's loyalties and the question of non-native-born Americans serving in certain government positions. Native Born is SaferSelwyn sounds like he has been reading ST and R&T for a while. We need to do away with dual-citizenship as well. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 21, 2019 14:43:38 GMT -8
In theory, dual citizenship violates the law (or maybe even the Constitution), which requires a naturalized citizen to abandon any other loyalty. Of course, one problem with anchor babies is that they are officially native-born citizens, but their loyalty may well be elsewhere. Teddy Roosevelt was scathing about hyphenated Americans precisely because he couldn't be certain of their loyalty, though I think he took it a bit too far. Fondness for the culture of the old country, or concern for relatives and friends still back there, is not the same thing as uncertain loyalty.
The whole idea of the melting pot is that immigrants become Americans, but also add their foreign-born mite to what being an American means.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 21, 2019 14:59:55 GMT -8
It was against the law when I was a young man. Now it isn't. I believe it was some Supreme Court decision which changed this.
Being a hyphenated American is very different from having dual citizenship. One can be born in the USA but still be an Italian American, love Italian food, be proud of Italian culture and still have one's first loyalty to the USA. That being said, I must admit that growing up in the South, the first time I heard anyone call themselves a hyphenated American was when I was 15 or 16 years old. It was a girl from up north who worked with me in a restaurant.
From personal observation, I believe it is much more difficult for an immigrant who holds on to his original citizenship to be as loyal to the a new country. As I have said before, my wife had to renounce her Singaporean citizenship to become a US citizen. She could have remained a green-card holder, but chose to become an American thus had to decide between the two.
|
|
