And here we are. The weekend officially begins now!
I'm sure we need a break after the week that was. Mainly we saw democrats doing what they usually do, accusing others of that which they are most guilty. Not to be outdone by The Atlantic's article smearing the troops and then attributing the smear to Trump, Bob Woodward has stepped into the ring to claim that Trump downplayed the Kung Flu, thus lying to the American people, thus killing everyone, GRAAAWWRRR!!! Just ignore the fact that Trump closed down travel with China, pushed for hydroxychroliquine's use, and recommended against state shutdowns. Ignore that it was democrat governors putting sick people in nursing homes.
Of course Biden, who earlier had coordinated with The Atlantic to smear Trump over our veterans, had to throw his non-cents in. Or tried to anyway...
This is a pattern with Slow Joe, like when he blamed a truck driver for the death of his first wife, and accused him of drinking his lunch that day. Turns out, alcohol played no part in the crash, and the accident was found to be the fault of Biden's wife. Perhaps she was distraught at the affair her husband was having with Jill, whom he would later marry after she divorced her current husband.
Certainly wouldn't be the first time a woman died in a car because of a democrat politician, right Ted?
What is it with liberal democrats killing women with cars?
And now you know the REAL reason for CAFE standards.
Next!
Of
course Meme Dump had to invade the weekend. Any why not start with
Picard? He's basically become a meme in his own universe. With the
failure that is STP, STD, and other See-BS iterations of Trek by
incompetent soy-sippers, it's no wonder Star Trek Day was an absolute
flop. Terrible ratings on See-BS's YouTube videos hosting a virtual Star
Trek Con, failing to gain more views than most content creator YouTube
videos. Guess their idea to trick investors didn't play out too well.
Speaking of not playing well... where has Alex Jones been? I think he's feeling a little left out in this recent vid...
NEXT!
What's next? Animals?
Animals.
Here's one of a cat owner showing the cat a picture of itself. Apparently the cat thinks the pic is a bit unflattering...
What? You died? Well, that's what you get for clicking on a cat video.
Okay, good enough. NEXT!!!
Cooking
I don't
know what others think of Ramsey, but I've always found him to be a
great chef. Yeah, he's a dick to people, but that's all for
entertainment value. I can certainly relate to that. But that aside, the
dude is great at cooking.
Speaking of cooking...
This track is burnin' up the charts!
I find this song goes great with this video of some rioting thug on fire...
These rioters, boy I tell ya. They're like a cult. And not the good kind...
NEXT!
All right gang. Now for the personal thoughts segment, and this one is straight from the heart.
I wanted to do this Open Thread because ever since being invited to this blog months ago, I've had a lot of fun and have seen a lot of cool stuff and read many great articles. I am deeply honored to be a part of this site, and I want to give back as much as I possibly can. I look forward to more content in the future.
But I just wanted to share a lesson I've learned over the past few months during the lockdown, and the reopening, and also some other issues in my personal life. I recently stumbled across some bad news which I'm still in the process of verifying, and don't worry, it's nothing serious or harmful to me or anyone else. But it taught me something about life that I think could benefit anyone reading.
We as individuals have no control over the world around us. Whether it's Toonami going all-in for BLM and slamming people who believe that all lives matter, or the NFL bending the knee, or dishonest media urinalists slandering the President and his supporters, or Star Trek being completely mutated into something unrecognizable by incompetent people, or your employer telling you that your place of business has to shut down because of a stupid governor's tyrannical orders. There is little to nothing you can do to change the rest of the world. Together, we can form a group that demands change, but that doesn't always work.
All we can do as individuals is control what happens in our own lives, and even that isn't assured in all instances. We can pull our support from companies, programs, events, or politicians who don't support us. We can spend our money elsewhere.
But most of all we can create our own content. We can make our own stories, or form our own friendships, or craft our own artworks, or reach out and talk to others and share our own ideas. We can focus on making our own lives, and the lives of our family members, better. That, I think, presents a much more productive and optimistic outcome. Obsessing over things beyond your control gets you nowhere. The best thing you can do is create new things that make your own life better. Things YOU control.
So I encourage everyone to create, or do something this weekend that you want to do. Accomplish something you want to accomplish. Be a positive force in your own life or the life of someone close to you.
Believe it!
_____________________________________
You know what to do! Post your memes, GIFs, music, pics, random thoughts. Recommend and invite someone new to join in!
The Atlantic calls to 'end the Nobel Peace Prize' following Trump nominations
The Atlantic magazine raised eyebrows on Friday when it published a piece calling for the abolition of the Nobel Peace Prize after President Trump was nominated for the prestigious honor.
The president's name was submitted for the 2021 prize by Norwegian lawmaker Christian Tybring-Gjedde, who cited Trump's role in brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Trump has since earned a second nomination from Swedish lawmaker Magnus Jacobsson for overseeing an economic deal between Kosovo and Serbia.
The nominations, however, apparently didn't sit well with the liberal magazine, which declared Friday that "peace had its chance, and blew it."
"If Trump wins the prize, it will be the fourth Nobel awarded for peace between Israel and its neighbors," wrote Atlantic staff writer Graeme Wood. "That will make Arab-Israeli peace mediators more successful at charming the Nobel Committee than the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has won three times in the prize’s 120-year history, but still less successful than my favorite, which is no one at all.
"Giving the peace prize to no one at all is a tradition the Nobel Committee should revive, perhaps on a permanent basis," Wood added. "The record of achievement of the peace laureates is so spotty, and the rationales for their awards so eclectic, that the committee should take a long break to consider whether peace is a category coherent enough to be worth recognizing. Peace had its chance, and blew it. The Trump nomination ... helps show why."
Wood described Tybring-Gjedde's nomination of Trump "preposterous," saying the president's "main diplomatic maneuver is to adopt a lickspittle posture toward authoritarians, promising them decades in power in return for a smile and a condo development. Peace does not mean a web of personal agreements between rich psychopaths."
"By now the contradictions of the peace prize should be apparent," he added. "Is it given for peace, or for rumors of peace? Do you deserve a prize for maintaining despots, as long as the despots are part of a stable network? Is it given for accidentally wrecking a great military — or only if the destruction is intentional? What if you do all the right things, but you are a boor, or an alleged rapist?"
Wood argued that the peace prize is more "subjective" than the other Nobel honors, stating that 1973 winner Henry Kissinger ended and started "many conflicts" and noting that 2009 honoree Barack Obama refused to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and expanded America’s drone program, adding that the 44th president "won for his promotion of, notably not his success in achieving, 'cooperation between peoples.'"
"All of this points to one of two conclusions," Wood stated. "The Nobel Committee can either give the prize to do-gooder organizations such as the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders ... or it can keep the prize locked away for a while, and reevaluate its reasoning for a modern era.
"I suspect that that reevaluation will end, if the committee is honest, with the admission that peace can be recognized only by its fruits, which take decades to mature, and not by its seeds. To keep giving awards for the seeds is to court embarrassment, and to make yourself hostage to wacky attention-seeking nominations like Trump’s. Better to shut it down, before the trolls do first."
The article was greeted with incredulity and criticism on social media.
"I don't expect the media to like Trump and don't care about the Nobel, but the hostility here is discrediting," RealClearInvestigations senior writer Mark Hemingway reacted.
"The liberal media are having a mental meltdown over Trump’s 2 Nobel Peace Prize nominations," NewsBusters analyst Nicholas Fondacaro tweeted.
"Is this a parody account," Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer asked.
"This is silly. Trump does something worthy of it, so the entire system must be burned down?" tweeted Erielle Davidson, a senior policy analyst at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
"I thought people were just trolling the Atlantic when they were saying they’re calling for the end of the Nobel Peace Prize in response to Trump being nominated for 2, but alas, nope: it is real," Daily Wire contributor Harry Khachatrian said.
The Atlantic recently generated headlines with its explosive reporting that alleged President Trump disparaged fallen World War I soldiers buried at the Aisne-Marne American cemetery near Paris as "suckers" and described the cemetery as being "filled with losers" on a trip to France in 2018.
President Trump, as well as current and former members of his administration, have strongly denied The Atlantic's reporting.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:31 AM PT – Friday, September 11, 2020
Thousands of migrants on the Greek island of Lesbos took to the streets in protest after the destruction of a migrant camp.
Police
blockaded the road to the island’s town Friday when migrants protested
the rebuilding of the camp, which burned down in a fire Tuesday. The
fire was allegedly started by people who were angry on part of recent
coronavirus restrictions that were imposed at the camp.
France and Germany said they would be sending relief to the former
camp with France’s president urging European countries to help resettle
the migrants.
“Yes, the German government has decided that we will
bring aid supplies to Moria in Greece to support a new refugee camp,”
stated Michael Walsdorf, a spokesperson for the THW of Hesse,
Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland. “We have loaded camp beds and tents
last night, the team is gathering right now.”
The camp was
considered the largest refugee camp in Europe. It housed around 13,000
people, which was well beyond the camp’s 2,200 person maximum capacity.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:33 AM PT – Friday, September 11, 2020
President Trump
pledged to revitalize the auto industry in Michigan and called out his
Democrat opponent for his failed policies. He made those remarks during a
rally at the MBS International Airport in Freeland on Thursday.
The
President praised auto manufacturing in the state, while also touting
the number of jobs and businesses saved under his watch.
“It’s
been a long time since you had all these plants being built, but we
brought you a lot over the last three and a half years,” he stated. “And
we’re gonna bring you a lot more.”
Under Joe Biden, the President
said Americans will see open borders, endless foreign wars and support
of disastrous policies like NAFTA. He noted that while the Trump
administration has brought jobs back to the U.S., Biden will surrender
those efforts to China.
“Biden supported every disastrous,
globalist sell out for over half a century, including NAFTA, China and
TPP,” he stated. “Joe Biden surrendered your jobs to China and now he
wants to surrender our country to the violent left-wing mob.”
President Trump also weighed in on the coronavirus pandemic by noting
the country has turned a corner on the virus. He went on to reaffirm
the significance of the November election by calling it “the most
important” in our nation’s history.
The Michigan rally saw nearly 5,000 attendees in a state the president won back in 2016.
Was
Donald Trump’s election an aberration? If the fervor of NeverTrumpers
and neoliberal Democrats this election season is any indication, many on
both the Right and Left are determined to make it so. The president’s
often-erratic behavior is certainly a departure from precedent. But the
vitriol with which Trump’s establishment critics treat both the man and
his movement suggests the divide is deeper than outrage over imprudent
outbursts and strange capitalization on Twitter. There really is a
growing, fundamental divide on a set of core issues between global
elites and the people in the places they’ve left behind—one that
transcends Trump himself. And it’s doubtful that divide is going away,
regardless of which septuagenarian wins in November.
At
least, that’s how Ryan Girdusky and Harlan Hill tell it. For them,
Trump is no aberration—he’s but one example of a global backlash against
the neoliberalism that has dominated Western politics in recent
decades. The two up-and-coming writers’ debut book, They’re Not Listening: How the Elites Created the Nationalist Populist Revolution,
is a sweeping, ambitious work, touching on everything from Brexit,
Chilean immigration policy, the Swedish Democrats party, Benghazi, and
more. In doing so, Girdusky and Hill make a convincing case that the
governance of global elites has become increasingly divorced from the
nations and peoples they purportedly serve. Their book is an important
contribution to the search for a new politics that looks beyond the
lockstep neoliberalism and neoconservatism that have proven so
disastrous across the globe.
The
issues driving national populism are familiar to long-time readers of
this magazine: trade, immigration, and foreign policy. Girdusky and Hill
don’t hold back in their critique of the American foreign policy
establishment, castigating America’s regime change wars and the
entrenched interests that perpetuated them. It’s here that the populist
narrative is strongest: “After nearly a quarter century of the American
people electing presidents who campaigned against nation-building and
war,” they write, “the United States had commitments to defend more than
sixty countries in case of an invasion and had hundreds of military
bases around the globe.” America’s decades-long crusade to remake the
world in its image can hardly be called the will of the people.
Elites
have shown a similar disregard for voters on economics. While the
ruling class across the political spectrum embraced globalism, free
trade, and laissez-faire economics, national populists found themselves
more concerned with creating an economy that supported work, family, and
country. As a result, they’re “supportive of protecting industries like
manufacturing,…support a welfare state that helps young families and
seniors, and are skeptical of free trade and globalism.” Renewed
opposition to NAFTA and to China’s admittance into the WTO proves
populist forebears like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader prescient.
Almost half of They’re Not Listening is
devoted to one issue: immigration. This is no accident; as Girdusky and
Hill write, “immigration is the single biggest motivating factor
leading to the nationalist populist revolution across the world.”
Importantly, anxiety over mass immigration—both legal and illegal—is not
limited to Western Europe and the United States. Girdusky and Hill
present powerful case studies of successful immigration law from around
the globe, “From the Congolese living illegally in Angola, to the
Bangladeshis living without documents in India, to the Mexican
population in the United States.” Clearly, the
immigration-restriction-as-racism trope of the progressive Left is
rooted in naivety at best, bad faith at worst.
Immigration has become the most salient political issue in the 21st
century because it speaks to human realities that neoliberalism
woefully neglects. Hill and Girdusky cite Robert Cardinal Sarah, the
Guinean prelate of the Catholic Church, who has argued that the borders
of homelands and cultures are natural and must be protected. Man is not
an interchangeable economic cog, but rather exists within specific
social and cultural conditions that provide him with dignity and
meaning. This recognition of the social nature of man, and the need to
reaffirm it through the political regime, echoes the unease with which
some in the nascent conservative intellectual movement treated
Enlightenment contract theory and rights-based liberalism in decades
past.
So is national populism a conservative program? And is it the future of the Right? One of the more interesting insights of They’re Not Listening
is Girdusky and Hill’s claim that the national populist agenda is
neither traditionally right-wing nor left-wing. In one sense, this is
obviously true: it similarly chafes at the economic commitments of the
libertarian Right and the social commitments of the progressive Left.
That it is lazily derided as “far-right” by mainstream media is in
itself a validation of the national populist thesis; the elites who
dominate media are, well, not listening to the content of the national populist revolt.
But
there’s another sense in which national populism is an insufficiently
conservative program. For all that national populism gets right in
moving politics away from the idealistic utopianism of neoliberalism,
its imperfections linger.
A
clear example of the populist-conservative split lies in Girdusky and
Hill’s lament over the lack of the working class in elite politics and
media. “[The working class] make up roughly the same percentage of the
population as women,” they write, “Yet when it comes to politics, the
working class is even more underrepresented than all religious, race, or
gender groups who get national attention.” A prior generation of
conservatives would find this to be a self-evident, innocuous
observation: of course the working class is not represented in the political class. They serve different roles within the same polity.
On
a deeper level, though, the narrative implies the same prior assumption
that guides progressives’ poisonous identity politics: one’s immutable
characteristics, whether race, gender, age, or class, are determinant of
one’s values, interests, and thought. Joe Biden was rightly ridiculed
for pledging to choose a “woman of color” as his running mate; the
assumption that a demographic’s interests (insofar as they’re
monolithic, which, of course, they’re not) could only be represented by
one of its own is as absurd as it is offensive. But populism too often
commits the same fallacy, abjuring the possibility that those from
“elite” backgrounds could adequately protect and pursue the interests of
the working class. Instead of seeking to rekindle a healthy sense of
aristocratic duty towards fellow countrymen among those in power, it
fans the flames of class resentment.
Similarly,
the “nationalist” component of national populism presents challenges
for the American conservative. Interestingly, Girdusky and Hill
criticize “politicians in Brussels [who] hoped to transform the EU into
something that resembled the United States, where a central state with a
large bureaucracy would govern across all formally independent
nations.” Surely, Girdusky and Hill do not intend to imply that the
federal government in Washington is the same as the supranational
government in Brussels. And there are certainly important cultural and
historical differences between the nations of Europe and the former
British colonies in North America. But the comparison begs the question
of where one’s political loyalties should lie: the grandiose abstraction
of the (supra?)nation, or the concrete experience of the familial,
familiar, and local? It’s an especially uncomfortable question in the
American context.
Conservative
unease with nationalism and populism is nothing new. Russell Kirk, ever
the critic of populism, was resolute in his defense of class divisions
in politics. “Leadership by men of ability, birth, and wealth is one of
the most natural, and most beneficial aspects of civilized life,” he
wrote in The Conservative Mind.
But, importantly, Kirk also stressed the correspondent duties of those
men of ability: “One of the duties of a statesman is to employ the
abilities of the natural aristocracy in the service of the commonwealth”
(emphasis added). Our contemporary globalist aristocracy seems utterly
uninterested in that latter part. Maybe that’s why Kirk would hold
sympathy towards nearly all of the national populist positions laid out
by Girdusky and Hill.
Perhaps,
then, the answer lies further back in classical thought, with
Aristotle: virtue lies in the mean. Not a mean between the Girdusky-Hill
critique and its object; the neoliberal project has been thoroughly
repudiated. It is failing, whether its devotees realize it or not.
Instead,
national populism needs to be tempered by the best of the classical,
conservative, and Christian tradition. The national populist
revolution represents a necessary and overdue corrective to the decades
of globalist neoliberalism that have plagued Western politics. It moves
the political paradigm back towards the realm of limits, solidarity,
community, and place. But without the tempering forces of virtue, it may
over-swing into the more troubling territory of naked tribalism. In
other words, the national populists need the social conservatives.
Girdusky and Hill, two political consultants, conclude They’re Not Listening on a strikingly apolitical note, echoing shades of Rod Dreher’s “apolitical politics” in The Benedict Option:
“If national populists really believe that nations are families rather
than the neoliberal premise that they’re marketplaces, then they’re
going to have to start acting like it,” they write, “They’re going to
have to create physical communities centered around local institutions,
faith-based organizations and small businesses.” There’s an irony here:
Physical communities are necessarily rooted in a specific, local place,
and organizations and businesses develop inherent hierarchies—or, one
might say, aristocracies. So perhaps herein lies the synthesis: a
national populism, lived out with a healthy respect for the local and
the aristocratic.
The Alinskyites are to the violent stage: How do we respond?
"Mommie! They don't play fair. They cheat. They bully. They call me
names!" Every child learns early on that there are fair ways to
interact. Every game, every sport or business competition has rules,
restrictions or regulations agreed to by the participants. Moreover,
referees, umpires, or judges oversee and enforce the rules. It all
begins with respect for your opponent and a willingness to "play by the
rules." If you foul by "hitting below the belt" in boxing or a "hard
slam" in hockey, you are penalized. The rules, assumed or legislated,
are for the good of all of us.
So what has happened to the rules of political discourse in this
country? They have been changed, largely by one side, and politics has
only become more divisive. Even Hillary Clinton promised that "civility
will not return" until their side prevails. The mainstream media, which
has had a referee function in the past, has taken sides and refuses to
call "foul." It reminds one of the ancient Chinese saying, "politics is
war by another name."
Politics in the past has not always been pretty. We thought it was
shrill in 2008, and felt that with the election of a black president we
had finally put race behind us – but it has only gotten worse. Now this
level of acrimony is destructive of civil discourse. Personal attacks
replace discussion. Name-calling answers debate points. Bullying and
intimidation, even violence or property damage, silence dissent.
A neighbor recently asked, "Why am I now afraid to put a bumper
sticker on my car or a yard sign in my lawn?" You do wonder how young
agitators can verbally abuse and physically threaten seniors leaving the
White House grounds after President Trump's acceptance speech. Rep.
Maxine Waters urged her followers to harass Trump office holders
wherever they encounter them. Businesses that do not "virtue signal" the
right mantra are boycotted. And political enemies are "doxxed," their
private phone numbers or addresses made public, as well as their
children's school!
How did this come about? It comes from a groundswell of hatred that
has been simmering since '60s radicals took over university departments
and spread their "political correctness" through two generations. This
Marxism-based anger has spawned the "identity politics" that works to
overthrow the status quo by uniting all the various minorities. How can
this not be divisive? So much for e pluribus unum.
The basic modus operandi was established by the patron saint
of Cultural Marxism, Herbert Marcuse, who said that for the sake of
"tolerance" we must be "totally intolerant" of all views but our own.
The tactics were more detailed by the Obama and Hilary mentor, Saul
Alinsky, who wrote "Rules for Radicals." He insisted, "Do not debate
your opponents. That shows respect for them. Instead, attack them.
Demonize them. Call them names. When they turn to do the same, then you
play the victim and scream 'foul.' The media will cover you and make
them look bad." Can you see this in today's discussion? How can every
argument or statistic be a "dog whistle" or every opponent be "racist"?
Didn't the false cry of "Wolf! Wolf!" eventually backfire?
Undoubtedly, the most dangerous turn to this whole process is the
introduction of force. "Spontaneous protests" have kept conservative
speakers off campuses. In your face insults by "peaceful protesters" has
terrorized many venues. Mussolini's Blackshirts have reappeared in the
streets, calling themselves "Antifa." The term refers to Communist thugs
in Europe who arose to challenge Hitler's Brownshirts. Can they not see
they are embodying the very tactics they say they oppose? Is it not the
psychological disorder called "projection," where you "project" on
another the very issues you struggle with within? It's sort of like
cries of "Russian collusion" when you were yourself buying opposition
research from Russian sources. Complaints of hate usually come from the
most hateful. However, Antifa is cleverly organized, financed and
supplied by nefarious sources. Until this year, they have mainly disrupt
and frustrate opposing gatherings.
Now we face an even more terrifying prospect: anarchy. Anarchy, Greek
for "no rule," was the intention behind an ideology called "Anarchism,"
developed by Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin. The concept seeks
the breakdown of law and order to allow chaos, wherein an organized
minority can seize control as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Or the
disorder might provoke the timid public to accept any ruler that
promises security as Hitler did in 1933. Remember it was an Anarchist
who assassinated President William McKinley in 1901. With mob rule, who
knows? Maybe "coming soon" to a neighborhood near you! The whole scene
is reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong when
fanatical students organized as a Red Guard and punished all dissent,
dragging people from their homes and executing them. Can that happen
here? Not if good people stand up and stop this momentum now. No more
Mister Nice Guy!
What do we do? It starts with courage, like that shown by the early
Patriots. We need to stand up and to speak out. The stakes in this
election are the highest ever, and the socialist mob and their
accomplices in the media are doubling down in a do-or-die effort. But
one major point to make is this: How do you fight hate? Not with more
hate; that only escalates the conflict. Rather, as Dr. King, and Jesus
his model, said, you can only defeat hate with love. Overcome evil with
good. Respect these fools and feel sorry that they have been so misled.
Nevertheless, correct every falsehood and challenge every lie directly.
Push back in social media. Write the editors and congressmen. You vote
every day with your dollars, so don't patronize businesses that kowtow
or pay "protection money" to the mob. Boycott those sports that
disrespect our flag and police. Work to get out the vote. Appeal to
moderates and others to join you. Above all, VOTE – with your dollars,
your feet and your ballot. But VOTE!
There were many American heroes on 9/11, but the greatest were the passengers and crew of Flight 93. Not only did they avert what al Qaeda planned—a direct hit on the White House—but they also embodied Patrick Henry’s credo “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
Do those words still have a meaning in the America of 2020? For two decades, I have opposed the fanatical illiberalism of those strands of Islam that gave rise to al Qaeda. I broke with my Somali family and ultimately with their faith because I believed that it is human freedom that should be sacrosanct, not antiquated doctrines that demand submission by the individual.
So implacable are the proponents of Shariah that I have faced repeated death threats. Yet I have always consoled myself that, in the U.S., freedom of conscience and expression rank above any set of religious beliefs. It was partly for this reason that I moved here and became a citizen in 2013.
It never occurred to me that free speech would come under threat in my newly adopted country. Even when I first encountered what has come to be known as “cancel culture”—in 2014 I was invited to receive an honorary degree at Brandeis University and then ungraciously disinvited—I didn’t fret too much. I was inclined to dismiss the alliance of campus leftists and Islamists as a lunatic fringe.
But the power of the illiberal elements in the American left has grown, not just on campus but in the media and many corporations. They have inculcated in a generation of students an ideology that has much more in common with the intolerant doctrines of a religious cult than with the secular political thought I studied at Holland’s Leiden University.
In the debates after 9/11, many people sought materialist explanations for the attacks. American foreign policy in the Middle East was blamed, or lack of education and employment opportunities in the Arab world. I argued that none of these could explain the motivations of the plotters and hijackers, who in any case were far from underprivileged. Their goal was religious and political: to wage jihad against their kin if they didn’t accept a literal interpretation of Islam, to denounce Arab governments as corrupt and their Western allies as infidels, and ultimately to overthrow the established order in the Middle East and establish a caliphate.
American policy makers preferred the materialist explanations, as they implied actions to solve the problem: invasion, regime change, democratization. It was unpopular to suggest that the terrorists might have unshakable immaterial convictions.
Nineteen years on, we see a similar dynamic, only this time it is within our borders. Naive observers explain this summer’s protests in terms of African-Americans’ material disadvantages. These are real, as are the (worse) socio-economic problems of the Arab world. But they aren’t the main driver of the protests, which appear to be led mainly by well-off white people.
Their ideology goes by many names: cancel culture, social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality. For simplicity, I call it all Wokeism.
I am not about to equate Wokeism and Islamism. Islamism is a militant strain of an ancient faith. Its adherents have a coherent sense of what God wants them to achieve on earth to earn rewards in the afterlife. Wokeism is in many ways a Marxist creed; it offers no hereafter. Wokeism divides society into myriad identities, whereas Islamists’ segmentation is simpler: believers and unbelievers, men and women.
There are many other differences. But consider the resemblances. The adherents of each constantly pursue ideological purity, certain of their own rectitude. Neither Islamists nor the Woke will engage in debate; both prefer indoctrination of the submissive and damnation of those who resist.
The two ideologies have distinctive rituals: Islamists shout “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to America”; the Woke chant “Black lives matter” and “I can’t breathe.” Islamists pray to Mecca; the Woke take the knee. Both like burning the American flag.
Both believe that those who refuse conversion may be harassed, or worse. Both take offense at every opportunity and seek not just apologies but concessions. Islamism inveighs against “blasphemy”; Wokeism wants to outlaw “hate speech.” Islamists use the word “Islamophobia” to silence critics; the Woke do the same with “racism.”
Islamists despise Jews; the Woke say they just hate Israel, but the anti-Semitism is pervasive. The two share a fondness for iconoclasm: statues, beware.
Both ideologies aim to tear down the existing system and replace it with utopias that always turn out to be hellish anarchies: Islamic State in Raqqa, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle. Both are collectivist: Group identity trumps the individual. Both tolerate—and often glorify—violence carried out by zealots.
This Sept. 11, then, let’s dismiss the fairy stories about the enemies of a free society. Their grievances aren’t merely economic and they won’t be satisfied with jobs or entitlements. Their motivations are ideological and they will be satisfied only with power.
I cling to the hope that most Americans are still willing as a nation to fight and, if necessary, to die to preserve our freedoms, our rights, our customs, our history. That was the spirit of Flight 93. It was the spirit that ultimately defeated al Qaeda and Islamic State. But it is not the spirit of today’s “woke” protesters. And it is time that we all woke up to that reality.
Rush Limbaugh: Trump's aim not 'unity' but 'overwhelming' defeat of left
"Overwhelming" defeat of the left should be President Trump's
objective at the moment rather than national "unity," contends
ralk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.
He highlighted to his listeners Thursday a focus group in which a
woman who said she had voted for Trump in 2016 doubted she would do the
same in 2020.
It was because Trump "has not brought the people [of] the country together."
That, Limbaugh said, is not going to happen any time soon.
"Now, I happen to be aware of Trump's personal desire to be able to
unify the country, but I’m also aware that he is well aware now that
it’s beyond his abilities right now," he said.
Limbaugh explained that from the president's perspective, "his opposition has to be defeated."
"It’s too late to try to find a way to get along with these people.
Maybe that can come later. But right now, they have to be defeated," he
said. "They have to be overwhelmingly defeated. These people are gonna
have to be defeated in a massive landslide. The landslide is going to
have to be huge."
Limbaugh pointed out that Trump, in fact, was "elected as an outsider" to "drain the swamp."
"Everybody knew that was not gonna be pretty. The swamp’s just not
gonna sit there and let themselves be drained," he said. "They’re not
just gonna watch themselves go down the drain with the Drano and not put
up a stink about it. The idea that somehow? See, this is why I don’t
believe that that woman actually thinks that was Trump’s objective.
"'Bipartisanship.' Bipartisanship? The only way that’s ever gonna
happen is if we cave on our core beliefs. They’re not going to, and the
left isn’t even interested in bipartisanship. The left doesn’t even
believe in opposition. Their objective is to eliminate it and to wipe it
out, and it ought to be ours. In a political sense, it damn well ought
to be ours."
Limbaugh said the reality is that the left wants to "permanently transform this country away from its founding principles."
"And as I say, there’s just one guy standing in the way of them succeeding at this, and that’s Trump."
John Durham is a name attached to an internal DOJ investigation; however, it is William Aldenberg who is the real investigative lead. Aldenberg is the technical center; and Aldenberg provides Durham the results of the investigation he is directing.
Lou Dobbs and Devin Nunes discuss the frustration and slow-pace of the current DOJ probe under the office of USAO John Durham. Recently AG Bill Barr has inferred that more indictments are possible as an outcome of the background investigation. We’ll see.
“Mr. Weissmann, when did you stop violating the civil rights of members of the Trump campaign?”
That might be the first question Attorney General Barr could ask Andrew Weissmann if given the chance to inquire about his role as “Mueller’s Pit Bull” in the Special Counsel’s Office.
Andrew Weissmann is a relative newcomer to Twitter, only signing on recently after the end of his government service and when he became a faculty member at NYU Law School. His contributions via Twitter are 100% anti-Trump and anti-Barr. They go hand-in-hand with his email to Sally Yates after she was fired by Trump for refusing to enforce his Executive Order prohibiting travel into the US from certain countries deemed to be state sponsors of terrorism. Weissmann wrote to her “I am so proud,” “And in awe. Thank you so much.”
Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice.
Those two bookends — his Yates’ email and current Twitter activities — establish beyond a doubt that Weissmann was an Anti-Trump ideologue during his time as a senior member of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Office (SCO). He has made no effort to hide his bias, and I do not accept for a single moment any claim that he navigated his duties with the SCO in a fair and impartial manner.
Andrew Weissmann had one goal in mind, finding a way to indict or otherwise drive Donald Trump from office.
In that regard, he had an ally. Kevin Clinesmith was a member of the FBI Office of General Counsel, assigned to the National Security and Cyberlaw Branch. Clinesmith was assigned by the FBI as the primary “legal advisor” to “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” (CH).
Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to a single count “Information” charging him with having “made or used a false writing” in connection with a federal investigation.
On June 19, 2017, Clinesmith altered the wording of an email received by him from another intelligence agency and then forwarded the altered email to a “Supervisory Special Agent” (SSA) of the FBI. The changes made by Clinesmith resulted in the SSA’s mistaken belief regarding Carter Page’s status with that other agency, and as a result, the SSA’s affidavit to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was inaccurate due to Clinesmith’s alteration.
There are several corollary issues tied up in this episode, and I’ll deal with those further down in this story.
But I first want to address some wild and uninformed speculation about the status of Clinesmith vis-à-vis the ongoing investigations initiated by Attorney General Barr into various aspects of the origins of CH and all that came after. I don’t have any first-hand information, but I have 22+ years’ experience doing exactly what it is the Durham investigation has likely just done.
A federal prosecutor does not file an “Information” without first having in place three things: 1) an agreement by the defendant to waive indictment; 2) an agreement as to the specific crime the defendant will plead guilty to, and 3) an agreement as to the factual basis the defendant will admit to in order to support the guilty plea.
Those three items are agreed to in advance and are generally the result of extensive conversations and negotiations between the defendant’s attorney and the prosecutor.
The prosecutor NEVER enters into that agreement unless he/she is certain as to the full scope of potential criminality in which the defendant was involved. That means the defendant has sat down with the case agent/prosecutor and answered every question put to him. Those questions are not limited to just the incident to which the defendant will later plead guilty. The questions go back to the beginning, and the defendant who is hoping for the best possible outcome will, in almost all instances, answer every question, especially when he has no meaningful defense to the most obvious charge and the prosecutor has the keys to the jail cell in his hand.
Kevin Clinesmith does not think he was involved in a “criminal” enterprise that targeted Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, or anyone else. Clinesmith knows he did something wrong, but Clinesmith sees everything that went on during CH as a legitimate federal counter-intelligence investigation. For that reason, Clinesmith has no reluctance to answer all the questions John Durham’s investigators have for him because there is nothing to hide from his perspective. He does not see anything fundamentally improper – much less illegal – about what Operation CH was attempting to uncover.
But Clinesmith doesn’t know everything that John Durham’s investigators know. And John Durham’s investigators might not have solid evidence for things that Clinesmith does know — what was said behind closed doors by certain individuals directing the investigation, both before and after the SCO took over the case.
Clinesmith’s value in the form of “cooperation” is not what most people seem to believe “cooperation” must consist of.
Former National Security Advisor General Flynn
Durham was not going to have Clinesmith arrange to have lunch with Andrew Weissmann, and then send him in carrying a digital recording device and instructions to get Weissmann to discuss all the fun times they had figuring out how to entrap General Flynn.
From Clinesmith, the “cooperation” Durham sought was likely nothing more than information. Clinesmith is a “pair of ears” that John Durham otherwise doesn’t have.
He’s someone who was a “body in the room” when others were talking, making decisions, and giving directions. Clinesmith wasn’t a person giving directions, but he was one of the guys who was told what to do by the Andrew Weissmann’s and Jeannie Rhee’s of the SCO – after he was one of the guys told what to do by the Peter Strzoks and Andy McCabes of the FBI.
Why – other than the obvious reasons – is this fact of importance to investigations started by AG Barr, including the Durham investigation? Well, that requires a bit a “Lawsplainer” on what is known as a “federal criminal conspiracy.”
Generally speaking, a “criminal conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more people to commit one or more crimes, combined with an overt act taken by one or more conspirators “in furtherance” of carrying out the purpose of that agreement.
But for purposes of understanding the importance of Clinesmith to Durham (and others), the most significant factor to understand is the question of “how” a prosecutor builds and proves a conspiracy case.
Complicating Durham’s investigation is the fact that the various actors involved will all profess they were simply conducting a criminal investigation. They will claim that all the actions taken by them in the course of conducting that investigation were legitimate law enforcement inquiries.
Durham needs someone who tells the same story the targets would tell, but maybe tells it in a way that is not so “self-serving.” This is where the evidentiary rules for “proving” a conspiracy come into play.
First, the “agreement” between two or more persons to commit one or more crimes does not need to be an “express” agreement. It is not necessary for the evidence to be that the co-conspirators talked about the crime then intended to commit, and then verbalized – or memorialized in a writing – an agreement to commit that crime. A typical “Jury Instruction” in federal court on the crime of conspiracy includes some form of the following language:
For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy.
One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful plan with the intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy, even thoughthe person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy.
An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that the defendant personally did one of the overt acts.
Against the backdrop of what a jury would be told, there are many, many appellate court decisions on the subject, which have some form of the following comment:
“An agreement to commit a crime can be explicit or tacit, and can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including inferences from circumstantial evidence.”
THAT is why Kevin Clinesmith is of value to an investigation. It is highly unlikely that Durham or any other prosecutor going back through the CH investigation is going to find overt or direct evidence that any of the participants entered into an explicit agreement to violate a federal statute. But in many instances, that is not the method by which the existence of a conspiracy is proven in a federal criminal trial.
Concerted actions, circumstantial evidence, and inferences that can be drawn therefrom are the foundations upon which federal criminal conspiracies are often proven.
What about “intent” to commit a crime a reader might ask? Again, the law recognizes that “intent” is a matter of what was in the defendant’s mind at the time the action was taken and is not subject to “direct” evidence unless the defendant confesses. So “intent” is most often established by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable “inferences” that can be drawn from such evidence.
That takes us back again to what Clinesmith can tell Durham about what he heard from others, and what he saw while working on CH. All of that is potentially “circumstantial evidence” that could support a “concerted action” or “tacit agreement” approach to proving the existence of a “conspiratorial agreement.”
When you look at the history of the investigation, and Clinesmith’s function and role over time, you see the potential for Clinesmith to have been a wealth of information – much greater than if you just focused on his job function.
The CH investigation was originally based out of FBI HQ as was explained by the Inspector General’s Report on Four FISAs.
“[Counterintelligence Division-CD] officials originally decided to conduct the investigation out of FBI Headquarters … rather than out of one or more field offices, which is more typical. The original team … from multiple field offices who were assigned to Headquarters for 90-day temporary duty assignments (TDYs).”
Clinesmith was stationed in FBI HQ – he did not need to be assigned to CH from another location. Although not technically an “agent” or an “analyst”, Clinesmith was a “professional support staff member” assigned to work with the CH team. Clinesmith was involved in many aspects of the investigation as it developed from the beginning.
Because he was normally assigned to FBI HQ, Clinesmith remained a “constant” in the investigation even as other team members rotated back to their normal assignments. As the IG noted:
Following the November 2016 U.S. elections, the 90-day TDY assignments ended…. CD reorganized the structure of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation by transferring the day-to-day operations of the four individual investigations to three field offices, and dividing oversight of the investigations between two operational branches at FBI Headquarters…
Peter Strzok, having overall supervision of CH was at FBI HQ, and Clinesmith was at FBI HQ. Clinesmith was a “constant” because he didn’t come to CH from another field office, and he remained working on CH when the four components were shifted to Field Offices with oversight of the investigations in FBI HQ. But there was then a third iteration of staffing as noted by the IG:
In April 2017, CD again reorganized the Crossfire Hurricane investigation by restructuring the day-to-day operations of the cases back at FBI Headquarters to recentralize the case…. to restructure the investigation at Headquarters and to impose greater structure on the team’s investigative and analytical efforts.
As of April 2017, CH was back being run out of FBI HQ, and Clinesmith remained with the investigation – now in its 9th month.
In May 2017, Robert Mueller was named SCO, and he brought in approximately 17 current or former DOJ prosecutors to take over leading the various elements of CH. Once again, Clinesmith stayed with CH while other FBI personnel assigned went back to the regular assignments, and new agents and analysts joined through the Special Counsels Office.
Clinesmith, like Strzok and maybe only a small handful of others, was involved for nearly the entirety of the “Russian Hoax” aspect of the investigation. Clinesmith has added value to Durham by virtue of the fact that he was involved for the first 8 months of the SCO’s handling of the investigation, not being kicked out until February 2018 when his text messages and emails were revealed to the SCO by the IG. Strzok was taken off the investigation in Aug. 2017, only 60 days after the SCO got started.
Clinesmith was with CH from “Day 1”, and lasted 8 months with the SCO before he too was removed in February 2018. Combined, Clinesmith was on the CH investigation for 20 months. That is a lot of ground to cover, and likely involved a lot of meetings where he sat in on or participated in the discussions.
But let me also address the “centrality” of Clinesmith to the actual “decision-making” on CH investigative decisions.
I have said on Twitter and in other writings that I do not believe that Clinesmith had leadership or otherwise significant operational role in how CH was pursued. That just wasn’t his function, and it reflects a misunderstanding of the role of FBI “General Counsel’s Office” attorneys and where they fall in the “food chain.”
Clinesmith was assigned to the “National Security and Cyberlaw Branch” of the General Counsel’s Office. That places his functions within the “intelligence” side of the Bureau’s activities and relates primarily to their evidence and information gathering authorities and techniques.
Between a “National Security Letter” which is akin to an “Administrative Subpoena”, and a FISA Warrant, there is a range of intermediate intelligence-gathering methods and techniques that can be employed depending on circumstances.
The kinds of authorities and techniques on counter-intelligence matters are different than what the FBI would use on criminal investigations. When they have questions involving criminal matters, they generally will call the AUSA assigned to the investigation – or some other AUSA they know – and get advice/answers.
But DOJ does not have a robust staff of prosecutors or other attorneys who handle “intelligence” matters because “intelligence” matters do not normally end up in prosecutions. So, the FBI’s “legal expertise” on those subjects is in-house – people like Clinesmith. They are there to answer questions about what agents can do consistent with their lawful authorities in terms of gathering information through a variety of techniques that likely violate the Fourth Amendment.
Being able to provide that advice does not make the OGC lawyer an “investigator” or “analyst” in the investigation. He is a resource to get advice and answer legal questions unique to counter-intelligence matters. The idea that because he has the important-sounding title of “Office of General Counsel Attorney” it means he had some key operational responsibility in decision-making misunderstands the position.
Since he was on the ground at the beginning of CH in August 2016, and knowing that the details of the investigation and operations underway were “closely held,” he was likely privy to the thinking of those involved in those early days when everyone was animated by a “WTF?” attitude when it came to the allegations involving Candidate Trump and Russia.
Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer
The early days of CH are where a lot of corners were cut, including the eventual reliance on the Steele “dossier” which the FBI could not itself verify. All they had was Steele’s word that his sourcing was solid, and the allegations of the “dossier” were based in fact. Discussions among the FBI team on how to deal with Steele’s information – and how to describe Steele to the FISC – would be very interesting to Durham and his investigators since we know that a decent amount of obfuscation was employed in the initial application. Whose idea was that and why?
Beyond their self-professed justifications, Clinesmith can describe any conversations he might have been involved with in real-time, which may be at odds with the publicly stated justifications.
I doubt that McCabe or Comey talked to Clinesmith directly, but Clinesmith likely spoke with others who were privy to conversations about what McCabe and Comey had said to others.
In the aftermath of the election, we know there was a significant amount of “panic” and “angst” among some in the FBI working on CH over what the fallout might be once the new Trump Administration was running DOJ. It’s likely that Clinesmith had many conversations that were of a similar nature to the text message exchanges and emails he was involved with. What sentiments were expressed by others – especially those who were in positions of being decision-makers on CH? These conversations could include statements or comments that might amount to “consciousness of guilt” by the speakers.
Durham knows that in the weeks following the inauguration, more and more evidence began to mount that the Steele dossier allegations were baseless, and the investigative steps taken in reliance on them were all unsound. Yet the FBI and DOJ officials in place in April 2017 still used the allegations as a basis to seek the second extension of the Page FISA. Was Clinesmith involved in discussions on that decision? How was it justified? What was the view on Steele’s claims, especially in light of what was learned by then from the interview(s) with Steele’s “Primary Sub-Source”?
Next for Durham – or maybe another investigation as I have surmised – is what Clinesmith learned when he remained assigned to the investigation after the Mueller appointment. A critical issue there involves Mueller’s hiring of 17 SCO prosecutors, and their first order of business after the SCO took over the CH investigation.
Those prosecutors, and any newly assigned investigators, would have looked at the FBI personnel who had been on CH before the SCO, and then stayed on the case assigned to the SCO, as the “institutional history” of what had happened between July 2016 and May 2017. The SCO did not begin CH over again from scratch, they picked up the investigation at the point it was assigned to the SCO, and Clinesmith would have been central in bringing the SCO lawyers up to speed on what had been done up to that point in time.
Based on my experience, and given my point of view about the role played by FBI OGC attorneys, I do not believe the SCO prosecutors would have given Clinesmith any significant responsibility in an operational respect. Remember, the SCO was the “All-Star” team handpicked by Mueller. Clinesmith’s role was to advise the FBI agents about how they could lawfully go about their investigative steps, not what steps they should take, and why. That was the province of the prosecutors.
But – and this is key – the fact that he is a clear Democrat partisan with an overt anti-Trump bias would have made him ideologically “sympatico” with the partisans like Weissman and Rhee that Mueller brought in. As part of his bringing the SCO lawyers up to speed, it would have all been spewed forth by him as a “true believer” in the wildest Trump-Russia conspiracy theories that drove CH up to that point.
What Weissman fears is that Clinesmith can tell Durham what was said to him by the SCO prosecutors. Durham now has a first-person account into the machinations of the SCO in the crucial first few weeks and months when the thinking and planning were taking place with respect to digging out the evidence to prove the Trump-Russia collusion that they were convinced had to exist.
What did Clinesmith tell them about problems that had developed with the sourcing behind the allegations in Steel’s memos? The third Page FISA extension took place on the SCO’s watch? Did members of the SCO play a substantive role in approving the application for the third extension? How much did they know about the problems? Did anyone offer a rationalization for pressing forward with the third extension? Did anyone voice an objection, privately or publicly?
The same pattern of questions can be put to Clinesmith about every aspect of his involvement in the continuing investigation during the eight months he worked with the SCO.
A prosecutor establishes inferences of “intent” behind explanations offered about why certain actions were taken and other actions were not. You establish the existence of a “tacit” agreement through showing concerted actions all leading in one direction and with a single purpose or goal.
Kevin Clinesmith – and maybe others – give those conducting Barr’s investigations live witnesses to the decisions that were made and the motives for making them. It’s up to the prosecutor to then weave those together to lead to certain unavoidable conclusions.
Someone – or more than one – with the SCO decided it was necessary to try and erect a firewall between themselves and Kevin Clinesmith, as they clearly understood his vulnerability once William Barr was appointed Attorney General, given what they knew the IG report on Four FISAs would disclose about Clinesmith and the altered email. They knew he was going to be prosecuted for altering the email. They knew the Page FISA had been illegitimate going back to the original application. They knew Barr would run that subject to ground, and Clinesmith would be compelled to talk.
So, what did they do? They inserted a passage and footnote into the Mueller Report which basically said, “Clinesmith didn’t work for us.” At page 13 of the Report, there is the following information about how the SCO Investigation was staffed: (emphasis mine)
The Special Counsel attorneys and support staff were co-located with and worked alongside approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, a paralegal, and professional staff assigned by the FBI to assist the Special Counsel’s investigation. Those “assigned” FBI employees remained under FBI supervision at all times; the matters on which they assisted were supervised by the Special Counsel. (FN1)
Footnote 1 referenced there read as follows:
FBI personnel assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office were required to adhere to all applicable federal law and all Department and FBI regulations, guidelines, and policies. An FBI attorney worked on FBI-related matters for the Office, such as FBI compliance with all FBI policies and procedures, including the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). That FBI attorney worked under FBI legal supervision, not the Special Counsel’s supervision.
The FBI Attorney being referred to was Kevin Clinesmith.
“He didn’t work for us.” I can hear Andrew Weissmann’s voice calling out those words. The SCO is desperate to not be held accountable for Clinesmith’s actions, and they created a barrier behind which they are going to claim that any insights he offers to Durham or anyone else about the SCO are invalid because he wasn’t “on the inside” of what was happening.
What I’ve tried to set forth here is NOT A PREDICTION. It might turn out that Durham or others come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone with a conspiracy or other crime. I have not covered here what crimes might have been the subject of a conspiracy – I’m writing another article on that topic.
But it is important to understand that any charged “conspiracy” must relate to the intention to commit some identifiable crime. All I’ve tried to show with this article is how, on a theoretical level, forcing Clinesmith to plead guilty produces the cooperation that can assist the broader investigation in ways that even Clinesmith might not realize.
There is no need for a “cooperation” agreement unless some additional benefit was going to be bestowed upon Clinesmith. It’s not necessary in order to obtain his testimony before a grand jury or trial – a subpoena accomplishes that. “Cooperation” from him was always about historical recollection. He gave that. There would have been no “Information” filed without it. Whether it helped to build a prosecutable case is what we are all waiting to hear.
