Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Texts From Sean Hannity About Donald Trump Raise Eyebrows


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Resurfaced texts between Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany, Donald Trump’s former press secretary, are causing waves after they were publicized during Monday’s January 6th hearing.

In the exchange, which occurred just a day after the unrest at the Capitol, Hannity makes several statements that give insight into the disagreement on how to proceed following the 2020 election. The Fox News host stated “no more crazy people,” a message McEnany enthusiastically agreed with. Hannity then went on to give five bullet points for how to move forward, including “No more stolen election talk.”

Just looking at the timing of the texts, Hannity was spitting into the wind at that point. The stolen election narrative, however one may fall on the issue, was ingrained in Trump’s public pursuit and wasn’t going anywhere. Heck, it’s still a staple of almost everything he says to this day.

As to “no more crazy people,” that would have been good advice at the end of November 2020. By January, the damage was done by figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, both of whom pursued the question of election fraud in the most idiotic and self-destructive way possible. Trump needed top professionals in a moment like that, not self-absorbed people who were clearly in way over their heads.

The results offer proof of that, as blunder after blunder occurred, with more viable claims not being properly pursued while Powell promised magic bags of ballots on her office floor she never delivered. Meanwhile, Giuliani simply didn’t have the expertise to lead such an effort, and it showed.

I do find it interesting that Hannity brought up making things right with Pence, an idea that he says Trump was open to at the time. Obviously, that didn’t happen in any way, shape, or form, and I don’t think it’s going out on much of a limb to say it’ll never happen, especially since Pence has telegraphed that he’s going to run in the 2024 election.

Another thing that raised eyebrows is Hannity’s mention of pardoning “Hunter.” Some have suggested the Fox News personality meant Duncan Hunter, but that pardon had already happened earlier in December. Instead, it appears that Hannity did actually float the idea of pardoning Hunter Biden. To which I respond, why?

Maybe I’m not playing 5D chess, but I fail to see what pardoning Hunter Biden would have accomplished other than letting a degenerate crook off the hook. Again, the timing matters and one of the reasons January 6th was so idiotic was because it essentially put a capper on any real pursuit of election fraud. In the aftermath of that event, when these text messages were sent, there was nothing Trump could offer Joe Biden. After all, he had already been certified as the next president. So why would Hannity want to let Hunter Biden off the hook when it would gain nothing? Why even stump for that at that point? Did he think it would somehow buy Trump back into good graces? Those are questions I’d like to hear him answer.

Regardless, what’s clear from the text messages presented is that Trump doesn’t listen to Hannity at all. For all the accusations that he’s an informal advisor, none of the Fox News host’s advice got taken.



X22, On The Fringe, and more- June 14

 



Primary day again! Good luck to all conservatives out there. Here's tonight's news:


Woke Generals Are Wreaking Havoc Here at Home, But Thankfully, Other Countries Have Dealt With Even Bigger Military Disasters



Revolver has certainly been hard on the U.S. military over the last couple years. We’ve warned about its internal ideological purges and shown how pathetic today’s generals are compared to the legends of the past. We’ve even speculated that the American military soon won’t even be the world’s strongest armed force.

But we aren’t here to demoralize you. We believe that with the right strategy and the right leaders, America can be saved. So today, Revolver is going on a tour of the world’s other militaries. Fortunately, “military intelligence” is an oxymoron in many countries, and incompetence is hardly the exclusive domain of the Pentagon.

UK: Evacuation of Basra


The Afghanistan war ended in embarrassment for the United States, as the moment U.S. troops pulled out of the country, the Afghan “government” instantly collapsed against the Taliban. But America’s British allies suffered an arguably even greater humiliation. During their time in Iraq, the collapse came before the British pulled out, not after.

Following the overthrow of Saddam’s regime, Britain’s forces assumed control of the Basra region in southern Iraq. Southern Iraq was overwhelmingly populated by Shia Muslims, so it lacked the Sunnis who supported Saddam Hussein’s government and drove so much sectarian violence elsewhere. But nevertheless, the British proved totally unable to control the situation. Shiite militias took over more and more of the city, while the British found themselves routinely stymied by a few hundred membersof the city’s police department (which the British themselves were supposed to be training).

Eventually, the Shiite militias grew so numerous and so deadly that the British were confined to their bases. There was no going out, except by maximally-armed convoy. The city of Basra, with its million-plus citizens, was ruled by the militias, which murdered vendors who sold alcohol or barbers who shaved men’s beards.

Eventually, the British concluded that even their bases were untenable. In early September 2007, their men and vehicles rolled out of the city to an airbase 13 miles away, never to return. Formally, the city was handed over to the control of the Iraqi government. But in reality, it was ruled by Shiite militias. Just to make the withdrawal, the British had to meekly (and secretly) negotiate with the militias so that they could depart the city without being attacked.

In the end, in early 2008, it was the Iraqi army, backed up by the Americans, that had to do what Britain could not, defeating the Mahdi Army in a 2008 offensive. As some graffiti on a portable toiletput it:

Q: HOW MANY BRITS DOES IT TAKE TO CLEAR BASRAH?

A: NONE. THEY COULDN’T HOLD IT SO THEY SENT THE MARINES.

TOP A THA MORNING CHAPS!

The entire saga was Britain’s most embarrassing military defeat since…

UK: The Fall of Singapore


The early days of World War II in the Pacific were a low point for the U.S. armed forces, but they were an even lower point for the British Empire.

At the outbreak of the Pacific War, Britain’s chief bastion in East Asia was the critical port of Singapore, garrisoned by nearly a hundred thousand troops. Shortly before the war, Prime Minister Winston Churchill reinforced the base with the brand-spanking-new battleship HMS Prince of Wales. The fortress was supposed to be nearly impregnable from any attack by sea, but unfortunately for the British, that’s not where the attack came from.

Mere hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese troops landed hundreds of miles to the north, on the Malay peninsula. British commanders dispatched the Princes of Wales north to oppose the landings, where the battleship revolutionized naval warfare… by becoming the first capital ship destroyed solely via air attack.

Still, the odds seemed long for the Japanese: Their army numbered barely 30,000, while the British fielded more than twice that number and wielded the advantage of being on defense. Yet the lightly-encumbered Japanese troops raced rapidly through the supposedly-impenetrable Malayan jungle, arriving at the outskirts of Singapore after just a few weeks.

However, the Japanese supply situation was dire. Had the British remained defiant, they may have won an unlikely victory. But in a brilliant play, Japanese general Tomoyuki Yamashita bluffed the British, pretending to possess overwhelming strength and demanding unconditional surrender. The British meekly capitulated, yielding 85,000 prisoners in the only surrender of more than a thousand years of British military history. Total Japanese casualties totaled less than ten thousand.

France: Dien Bien Phu

The Vietnam War to this day remains America’s costliest military defeat. More than 58,000 American troops died in the failed effort to protect South Vietnam from a Communist takeover.

But while America lost the war, it still acquitted itself well in battle. U.S. forces emerged victorious almost every time they encountered the Vietcong or North Vietnamese directly, and America inflicted far more casualties than it sustained. Even the famous Tet Offensive, which convinced the U.S. public the war was unwinnable, was actually a massive tactical victory for U.S. forces. In the end, America lost the conflict not because its troops were defeated on the battlefield, but because the public saw the war as too costly to keep fighting.

France, on the other hand, can boast no such consolation. A decade before U.S. involvement in Vietnam began in earnest, France was still struggling to hold on to its colonial possessions in Southeast Asia. Their plan: Land more than 10,000 troops, including elite paratroopers and members of the famed French Foreign Legion, at the inland base of Dien Bien Phu, then cut off Viet Minh supply lines and force the enemy into an open battle, which the French would easily win.

It was all a great plan, as long as the French could keep their supply lines open. Which, as it turns out, they couldn’t. After the French arrived at the base, history-teacher-turned-self-trained-general Vo Nguyen Giap quietly amassed a huge quantity of anti-air and artillery units and supplied them with hundreds of bicycles modified to carry more than 400 lbs. of supplies. What happened next, as described by Air Force Mag, was devastating:

Incredibly, the French did not see that Giap was emplacing his guns on the forward slopes of the hills, looking directly down on the camp. The peaks were steep, and howitzers on the reverse slopes would have had to fire at unfavorable angles of elevation to clear the ridges. The guns would have been vulnerable on the forward slopes except that Giap placed them in deep casemates, narrow embrasures dug into the face of the hill, protected by several yards of overhead cover with only the muzzles protruding. Since each gun was assigned to a single target, there was no need for the barrel to move.

When Giap began sporadic bombardment in January, the French took it to be pointless harassment. In fact, the guns were sighting in on their specific coordinates. The main attack, which began at twilight on March 13, was devastating. The French batteries were unable to target Giap’s guns and their artillery spotter airplanes were destroyed on the airstrip.

Strongpoints Beatrice and Gabrielle were overrun the first night and Anne-Marie was taken soon thereafter. By the fifth day, the French had lost the equivalent of three battalions. Giap’s casualties were even greater, but he was now able to strike the encampment with mortars and artillery.

French artillery chief Piroth, who had guaranteed that the Viet Minh guns would do no harm, committed suicide.

[Air Force Mag]

With so much firepower, it became impossible to land or take off a plane from the French airfield. Soon, the French realized that instead of luring the Viet Minh into open battle, they had been lured into a deathtrap. While the French desperately resupplied and reinforced their garrison via parachute airdrop, the situation was hopeless. After a two month siege, twelve thousand French troops surrendered, and French rule in Indochina was over forever.

Russia: Forgetting the electric bill

America spends $800 billion a year to ensure that its military remains the most prepared and combat-ready force in the world. Lately, America’s preparedness has appeared shaky. For starters, our ships keep running into each other.

But it could be much worse. We could have the Russian military’s level of readiness.

In 1995, several Russian nuclear submarines were sitting in port when their coolant systems started to fail. Sabotage? An enemy attack? Nope: The Russian navy literally hadn’t been paying its electric bill, and finally the power company cut them off. Russia swears there was no risk of the nuclear submarine suffering a meltdown, but then again, Russia also thought it was going to beat Ukraine in a week. Speaking of which, one reason Russia’s armored offensive bogged down might be that its vehicles are still using tires manufactured in the Soviet Union.

China: Losing a land war in Asia

If Americans feel bad about losing to a small impoverished nation in Southeast Asia, they should take some solace: Vietnam has beaten every single nation trying to control it in the past century. France’s humiliation has been mentioned above, but China’s Vietnam intervention is a little-remembered calamity as well.

While the People’s Republic of China had been a useful ally of North Vietnam during the height of the war, after Vietnam’s unification relations rapidly went south. So in 1979, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping decided it was time to demonstrate his nation’s dominance over its neighbor. The plan: Strike over the border with overwhelming numbers, capture six regional capitals, declare victory and return home.

But as soon as the Chinese marched south things began to go south. Despite being outnumbered roughly 4 to 1, the Vietnamese defenders were more experienced, better-organized, and better-led. Chinese defense minister Su Yu boasted that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could take Hanoi in a week, but after close to a month and tens of thousands of casualties Chinese troops were not even halfway there. After grinding out enough territory to claim Vietnam had learned its “lesson,” Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping ordered a quick scorched-earth retreat back into China.

Ironically, the Vietnam defeat may have paved the way for China’s rise to superpower status. The PLA’s disappointing military performance undercut the hardline Maoist position in the CCP, and bolstered Deng’s plan for economic reforms. Not only that, but the costly outcome may have convinced China’s leaders that foreign military adventures were high-risk, high-cost, and low-reward, a lesson that America’s leaders would do well to learn themselves. When Deng saw the Vietnam invasion was going worse than hoped, he quickly did enough to save face, then cut his losses and got out. If instead of Deng, China were ruled by Lindsey Graham, the PLA might still be battling insurgents in Vietnam to this day.

Israel: Brainwashing and hypnosis


America’s intelligence arm has become more famous for its blunders and delusions than its successes. Forty-five years ago the CIA failed to see revolution coming in Iran. Twenty years ago it sold the Iraq War as a hunt for non-existent WMDs. More recently, high-level CIA staff have convinced themselves that Russia is shooting them with an invisible high-tech laser beam.

But take heart: Even the world’s most famously cunning and ruthless intelligence agency is vulnerable to preposterous and embarrassing blunders.

In 1968 Swedish-born psychologist Binyamin Shalit told Israeli intelligence that he could take a Palestinian prisoner and, using brainwashing and hypnotism, reprogram him into a remorseless killer who could be sent to assassinate Yasser Arafat. Despite this basically just being the plot of “The Manchurian Candidate”, Israeli high command went along with the plan, giving Shalit custody of a relatively dimwitted Fatah prisoner named Fatkhi. In his epic 600-page history of Israel’s assassination program, “Rise and Kill First}, Ronen Bergman describes what happened next:

A small structure containing about ten rooms was put at the Shalit team’s disposal. Here, Shalit spent three months working on Fatkhi, using a variety of hypnosis techniques. The message drummed into the impressionable young man’s head was: “Fatah good. PLO good. Arafat bad. He must be removed.” After two months, Fatkhi seemed to be taking in the message. In the second stage of his training, he was placed in a specially prepared room and given a pistol. Pictures of Arafat jumped up in different corners and he was told to shoot at them instantly, without thinking first, right between the eyes—shoot to kill.

In mid-December, Shalit announced that the operation could go forward. Zero hour was set for the night of December 19, when Fatkhi was scheduled to swim across the Jordan River into the Kingdom of Jordan. A fierce storm rolled in, and the rain was unrelenting. The usually calm and narrow Jordan overflowed its banks. AMAN wanted to postpone, but Shalit insisted that Fatkhi was in an “optimal hypnotic” state and that the opportunity had to be exploited.

Rafi Sutton was standing on the Israeli bank of the Jordan and watching as, soaked and shivering, Fatkhi waved goodbye to his operators. “He made a pistol out of his fingers and pretended to shoot an imaginary target between the eyes. I noticed Shalit was pleased with his patient. It was a bit after 1 A.M.”

About five hours later, Unit 504 received a communication from one of its agents in Jordan: A young Palestinian man, a Fatah operative from Bethlehem, had turned himself in at the Karameh police station. He told the policemen that Israeli intelligence had tried to brainwash him into killing Arafat and handed over his pistol. A source inside Fatah reported three days later that Fatkhi had been handed over to the organization, where he had made a passionate speech in support of Yasser Arafat.

[Bergman]

This list could go on and on, but we will save the rest for a part two. In the meantime, we encourage you to let us know what we left out in the comments. Stay tuned.




The Selfish Californian ~ VDH

The Silicon Valley motto should be 
“I create inequality by hating inequality.”


We hear plenty of reasons for the perfect storm that imploded California. One-party, progressive government, of course. Decades of unchecked illegal immigration, without doubt. Years of mass flight out of state of the productive middle classes, certainly. 

But perhaps the most important, but overlooked, reason has been the infusion of trillions of dollars of mostly tech capital into the state. Unimaginable sums of market capital warped politics and led to a top-down, feudal society, run by progressive elites who are shielded from the ramifications of their own toxic ideologies.

More specifically, the common denominator was the emergence in California of a selfish, monied, left-wing political class. In concrete terms, it cared little for others but masked that unconcern with abstract leftism, emulating medieval penance and indulgences to assuage guilt over its enjoyment of sheltered and very good lives. 

California’s recent premier politicians at the local, state, and federal levels—Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, and Nancy Pelosi—all enjoyed wealth and power, whether by inherited money and family brand names, through marriage, or using their positions to leverage lucrative family and personal business with the Chinese. 

Their lifestyles before, during, and after office-holding reflected both their privileges and the vast material differences between their own lives and the millions of Californians who suffered enormously from their utopian bromides. Yet a world away from their homes in Grass Valley, Kentfield, Lake Tahoe, Napa, Pacific Heights, or Rancho Mirage, the rest of the state’s residents who voted for them currently cannot afford a house, a full tank of gas, a chuck steak, or an air-conditioned afternoon.

At least the Church of the 15th century offered formal contractual indulgences and personal penance manuals for the guilt-ridden elite eager to abort their earned inferno-to-come. In California, however, to enjoy affluence and leisure without guilt or recriminations, left-wing power elites virtue signaled their progressivism, even as it wrecked the lives of distant others. 

If it were a question of drilling more oil while transitioning to clean power or shrugging that nobody José Martinez in Sanger would pay $6.50 a gallon to commute to work, it was a no brainer: Mr. Martinez was simply out of sight, out of mind collateral damage.

So too all of California’s poor and lower middle classes who could not afford to flee and now cannot afford shelter, food, fuel, and safety, due to decades of policies that zoned away new home construction, strangled the gas, timber, and mining industries, taxed and regulated gas and diesel to the point of unaffordability, neglected the needs of the state’s once rich farming industry, and loved fish far more than people. Apparently, these well-educated and self-declared Socrateses believed that Californians could drink Facebook, eat Google, drive Twitter, and live on Snapchat.

The far-left Atlantic’s various contributors for years have been cheerleading most of the policies adopted by the Bay Area elite—defunding the police, decriminalizing an array of crimes, appeasing homelessness, ignoring dangerous drug use and dealing, and urging more redistributive taxation and entitlement. 

But now Atlantic essayist Nellie Bowles warns us that San Francisco is a “failed city.” And she is correct in that the city is increasingly medieval. Its downtown is emptying, filthy, toxic, dangerous, and pre-civilizational—perhaps an unfair term since it was rare in pre-Roman Gaul or nomadic North Africa for tribal residents to sleep in the village pathways, fornicate and defecate openly among children, and violently attack random passersby.

In truth, the implosion of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and California more broadly is no accident. Destroying all the bounty that was inherited from far better and far-seeing generations was the logical result of deliberate policies—reflecting the self-interest of a few million rich, educated professionals. They apparently decided that their genius and superior morality had transcended worries over ancient challenges of food, water, shelter, transportation, and received law and custom.

California’s anointed enjoyed safe neighborhoods from Malibu to Presidio Heights. They inherited or purchased beautiful coastal corridor homes worth $1,200 a square foot, from La Jolla to Berkeley. They drew income from the trillions of dollars invested in Silicon Valley and the new globalized and Asia-centric economy that opened markets of multibillions of consumers for entertainment, media, finance, law, academia, corporations and the accompanying credential professional classes.

And so, they grew hubristic and stupid. In their arrogance and ignorance, they began to feel their own bounty and leisure were birthrights. Free from worries about who brought them their water, food, safety, energy, and shelter—or how—they were liberated to institutionalize their own visions of 21st-century-correct living to less fortunate others, albeit from a properly segregated distance. 

Freeways were obsolete ideas. The fewer built, and the even fewer maintained, the more likely the clueless could be crowded into cost-effective, clean, and safe mass transit.

So, a $15 billion high-speed rail disaster arose and remained inert like Stonehenge monoliths. Meanwhile, thousands of the poor on the obsolete Highway 99 continued to die and were maimed in daily accidents on a Road Warrior-esque obstacle course. The nearby Amtrak trains still sat delayed on side-tracks, for want of a simple, 19th-century two-track rail. How strange that bankrupt 21st-century visions came at the cost of easy 20th-century solutions.

Aqueducts, reservoirs, dams? These were likewise relics of previous delusional generations. That the coastal corridor’s water came from aqueducts across vast distances was mostly unknown by those who crowded into one of the most naturally unsustainable regions on the North American continent—a coastal strip mostly dry and bereft of an aquifer to sustain its tens of millions. 

So, the state stopped building water storage. More often, it released snowmelt and runoff water into the ocean rather than to farms and to replenish aquifers. 

Fires? Let forests of evergreens burn as they had in primordial times, better to burn to provide mulch for worms and birds—and scare away the deplorable foothill folk who had no business living in the mountains, anyway.

The elite now dreamed of returning to a half-million person California of the 19th century, reputedly with lush riverbanks from the sea to Sierra, with salmon runs to the mountains. They recoiled at the very idea that a 40 million-person state of mostly poor immigrants—over a quarter of the state’s population was not born in the United States—might need water for their towns or for the farms they worked. 

How ironic that millions fled Mexico and Central America to enter, often illegally, the once golden California, land of plenty. They were welcomed by the state’s business and political elite but not to be housed, fed, and schooled as were the elite. Their directive was to vote correctly for their supposed betters and to supply janitors, landscapers, nannies, cooks, and housekeepers for those who welcomed them in—on the condition that they not dare demand the state’s green resources for good homes, affordable gas, or a nice lawn or long shower. 

Let them instead eat a solar farm, bike path, or Tesla.

And so it went, each carefully placed brick in the once sturdy long wall of California, laid carefully over the past 150 years—to ensure a naturally fragile state with affordable food, energy, security, housing, transpiration, schools, and education—was ripped out, mocked as obsolete, and written off an embarrassment to the present.

Californians who look at their aging dams, their granite classical civic buildings, and their large municipal parks, are like Dark-Age Greeks who stumbled around the ruins of Mycenaean palaces and walls, wondering who were the demi-gods who built such things that now were impossible to emulate. So, too, we are bewildered at Balboa Park or the California aqueduct, or rather saddened that simply copying them is beyond our moral power or expertise.

The state was once rich and secure in gas and oil, nuclear power, cutting-edge freeways and airports, water storage, law enforcement, a topflight public school system, and an effective higher education triad. All these resources have become either politicized or taboos that are neglected, dismantled, or destroyed by a class that commuted little, was nonchalant about their power bills, put their kids in private schools, and enjoyed neighborhoods whose zip codes and private security patrols bounced away revolving-door felons and homeless far distant to the haunts of the middle class and poor.

Rich leftists quote the Gini coefficient chapter and verse, oblivious that they have created a state of affairs in which California ranks second to the bottom—below even New York—in such calibrations of inequality. The Silicon Valley motto should be, “I create inequality by hating inequality.”

We have not built a major mountain reservoir outside of Los Angeles in over 40 years even as the population has soared. The main north-south laterals of the state—the 101, I-5, and 99—often narrow into four-lane deathtraps. SFO and LAX are among the more nightmarish airports in the nation. California’s test scores rank in the nation’s bottom 10 percent of schools. 

Over one-fifth of the state lives below the poverty rate. Urban geographer Joel Kotkin recently noted that African Americans and Latinos in California suffer among the lowest real incomes in the nation, 48th and 50th respectively. How could that be true in the land of Mark Zuckerberg, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Brown?

One-third of Americans on public assistance live in California. To drive through the rural center of the state is to revisit the 1930s world of the Joads. Ramshackle farmhouses now house 20 or some immigrants. Many of them reside here illegally, in trailers, shacks, and illegal add-ons. A state famous for regulating the life out of the middle classes simply ignores systemic flagrant violations of sewage, water, power, and building codes, in the manner of the exemptions given the homeless: out of sight, out of mind. 

California’s mid-size cities nudge out other blue-state metropolises to rank among the nation’s leaders in property crimes. The nation’s highest gas taxes, income taxes, and near highest sales taxes either do not mitigate the above pathologies or perhaps help fuel them. 

If our liberal political elites lived in crime-ridden Stockton, San Bernardino, or Modesto, had two children in the Los Angeles City public schools, commuted daily on the 99 from Delano to Visalia, flew weekly commercial out of LAX, tried to buy a California home on their salaries as public officials, rode BART to Oakland each evening home, or depended on a business supplying the state with lumber, gas or oil, food, transportation, or construction—the stuff of life—then they might fathom how assuaging their left-wing guilt in the abstract destroyed the lives of those they never see and never wish to see.

So, in a word, California’s debacle was the work of the self-absorbed. 

The self-declared most caring, virtuous, and moral in the end proved the most narcissistic, selfish, and self-centered. Yes, the rich left-wing California elites are many things, but utterly selfish explains what they do unto others. 



BUZZ CUT: Biden’s Military and The Great Reset

The Buzz Cut
by Buzz Patterson for RedState

When Barack Obama proudly announced in 2008 that he would “fundamentally change the United States of America,” it was a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the men and women who bravely serve every day. Donald Trump’s election to office offered a reprieve, a reenergization, and renewed pride for our servicemembers. Sadly, for our troops and our national security, Joe Biden has assumed Obama’s mantle and is rapidly, and intentionally, eliminating our military readiness and capability. I witnessed the birth of this “dereliction of duty” in my years in the Clinton White House. It’s true, Democrats are at war with the traditional culture of our military which has been, in the past, deeply grounded not only in effective war-fighting doctrine, but in traditional virtues – such as courage, duty, honor, and patriotism – and Judeo-Christian principles.

Indeed, Biden is seeking to govern along the New Left lines established by his Democrat predecessor (who is likely calling the shots for the struggling 79-year old), by using tactics of community organizer Saul Alinsky. Biden/Obama’s culture war with the American military is being conducted on several fronts including notions of “diversity,” “vaccine requirements,” and “green power.” The victims? The 3.1 million servicemen and women and YOUR national defense. While radicals like AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar maybe happy, our men and women in cockpits, foxholes and nuclear submarines are not.

Let’s be clear: our nation’s military has a single core mission—win wars and defend our homeland. Our military has been developing and honing its proud culture for almost 250 years. I was privileged to serve our nation as an Air Force pilot of 20 years and saw combat and deployments into 69 countries. Anyone who has ever served can testify to the necessity of trust, loyalty, unity and cohesion. Elements absolutely critical to success on the battlefields or the seas.

Anything, absolutely anything, that undermines those requirements should be identified and removed, lest we lose our soldiers in combat and our nation’s wars. This is that clarion call. The push for “diversity” in a force that doesn’t require it destroys the trust necessary in military units. Today’s culture war on our military is taking its toll, and we’re destined to never winning a war again.

In my years in uniform, as a pilot and then commander, I never witnessed a single racial or gender incident. Turns out, nobody cares about your race, ethnicity, or sexual preference when bullets are flying. Yet, under the tutelage and control of the left, we have created the Department of Defense “Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).” DEI is simply a synonym for Critical Race Theory (CRT) and “inclusion” is lib-speak for equality of outcomes, and the US military is embracing it with open arms. Farewell, for now, to a military service dedicated to meritocracy.

At the United States Air Force Academy, where I’m a former commander, a professor boasted about teaching CRT, a required briefing to incoming West Point cadets included a section dedicated to “white privilege,” and an active duty Air Force Lieutenant Colonel was fired from command for penning a book that discussed the indoctrination in his unit and his service.

These are just a few of many examples of progressive radicalism invading our ranks. Here’s another: Recently, Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA03), chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee, introduced the Military Vehicle Electrification Act (H.R. 7379).

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with readiness and everything to do with the Green New Deal. Does this enhance our military’s effectiveness? Only if you want to see Priuses driving around the desert looking for recharging stations.

The result of these progressive and radical changes to our core military mission are early exits for our most trained and skilled professionals (voting with their feet) and a recruiting void that spells disaster down the road. Pilots and special operators are moving to greener, more traditional, pastures. The Army and Navy are offering huge enlistment bonuses and still unable to meet the numbers of personnel required. Turns out Americans who are considering serving this nation don’t want to work for Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and AOC. Can you blame them?



J6 Committee’s Own Witness Debunks Claim Of Coordinated Insurrection



Last week, the Select Committee on Jan. 6 brought forward a pair of witnesses to testify in the panel’s first prime-time hearing to depict the Capitol riot as a coordinated “insurrection.” Among them was a documentary filmmaker named Nick Quested, who was embedded with the far-right group the “Proud Boys” on the day of the turmoil.

Quested gave the committee an eyewitness account of the riot as he followed the Proud Boys throughout the day.

“I filmed several rallies in Washington D.C. on December the 11th and December the 12th and I learned there would be a rally on the Mall and — on January 6th,” Quested said. “So my three colleagues and I came down to document the rally. According to the permit, the event there was going to be a rally at the Ellipse.”

After arriving at the National Mall, Quested added, he “observed a large contingent of Proud Boys marching towards the Capitol. We filmed them and almost immediately I was separated from my colleagues.”

Quested shared his footage from the demonstrations and how he “documented the crowd turn from protesters to rioters to insurrectionists.”

“Now a central question is whether the attack on the Capitol was coordinated and planned,” said Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., while wrapping up questions. “What you witnessed is what a coordinated and planned effort would look like. It was the culmination of a months-long effort spearheaded by President Trump.”

Except Quested did not testify that the Proud Boys attended first as insurrectionists. To the contrary, Quested told NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” Sunday that the group’s leader, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, was “very receptive” to the documentary crew’s embed.

“How did you get Mr. Tarrio and other members of the Proud Boys to say, ‘Yes. Film us. We want this on the record. Document what we’re doing?” Todd asked.

“Well, I had a colleague who gave me Enrique’s phone number and I called him,” Quested said, before going on:

He was very receptive to the idea. He liked the film that I had produced called Restrepo with my colleagues Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington, which was a film about a deployment of veterans in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. So I think the veteran aspect of that was appealing to them.

The leader of a group plotting a coordinated insurrection would normally be hard-pressed to allow a documentarian to film it, let alone be receptive to an embed.

Even if the Jan. 6 riot was coordinated, contrary to the FBI finding “scant evidence” of an “organized plot,” a coordinated attack would undermine the committee’s central claim of former President Donald Trump’s culpability.



10 Things Worse Than Taking Your Kids To A Drag Show



So, taking your kids to drag shows is bad. But it can't possibly be the worst thing ever, can it? We need to have nuance in these discussions, as Jesus taught us to. So, we've come up with this list of ten things worse than taking your kids to a drag show:


1. Releasing a bunch of scorpions into an orphanage and then punching the orphans as they run out screaming - Pretty evil! Though, Jesus never said you should tie a millstone around your neck and yeet yourself into the ocean if you do this, so maybe it isn't as bad. Huh. Alright, we'll try another one.

2. Hitler! - He's worse than everything! So kinda a gimme.

3. Um, oh yeah! Killing someone! - Killing someone is wrong. That's worse! Totally worse. I think we can all get behind this one.

4. [ask writers for more ideas]

5. ?

6. ... 

7. ???

8. [fill in later]

9. [fill in later]

10. Bees? - Bees can, uh, sting you or something? That's pretty bad?


Uh... sorry. We couldn't come up with ten. The intern who writes these listicles is getting fired. 

But, uh, yeah. Stop taking your kids to drag shows, ya creepy weirdos.