Without Trump It’s Business As Usual

America needs a proven leader, and a visionary who will not merely motivate the masses but who can craft a meaningful vision in which Americans can place their hope.

by Olivia Ingrassia for American Greatness

Since President Trump boarded Air Force One for the final time in January 2021, establishment Republicans have been clamoring for an alternative to be their 2024 nominee. 

Despite his outsized influence over the party, these recovering NeverTrumpers (and patronizing “Neo-NeverTrumpers”) claim to want a reasonable alternative: a candidate who carries the mantle of “Trumpism” without all the baggage. This, according to their worldview, is in an effort to better appeal to those independents or voters who would otherwise perceive the former president as too divisive, but still appealing to voters who appreciate the Trump Administration’s “many successes.” 

They play to the MAGA base’s potential misgivings about Trump’s first term, criticizing in hindsight the way his administration handled COVID, or some of his unwise endorsements, or the personnel problem that plagued his White House from the start. 

But this chorus of critics frequently fails to account for the never-ending, groundless attacks, both internal and external, the Trump White House was forced to sustain from the moment he was elected—to say nothing of the systemic disadvantages afforded to an administration intent on bucking the establishment. 

Whatever his imperfections, Trump is by far the best—and only—man for the job. Only in Trump do the American people find a true outsider candidate rather than a lifelong member of the political class. His mere presence would once again disrupt the status quo and his record of historic accomplishments speaks for itself. If that’s not enough, consider: The current administration is adamant Trump will not be elected again in 2024. The same cannot be said of any other potential 2024 GOP primary candidate. 

A safe candidate, particularly one who has the blessings of National Review and the “Young Gun” (now in his 50s) Paul Ryan, will become part and parcel of the so-called Movement Conservatism that not only failed to conserve basic principles in America, but has been complicit in the Left’s ruinous march through our institutions. Giving in to people whose job is to perpetuate the movement by complaining, criticizing, and commenting from the sidelines will always leave the forgotten 75 million out to dry. With the preservation of the American way of life, ostensibly the Republican Party’s raison d’etre, all but eroded, what is meaningfully left for the GOP to offer? 

In reality, Trump demolished the Blue Wall in 2016 by challenging the Republican Party apparatus directly. He didn’t stake his campaign on cutting taxes or the run-of-the-mill small government playbook. Trump’s greatest virtue, the thing that makes him so beloved beyond his policies is his method. In many ways, it was the disruption itself that sent shockwaves throughout the system, signaling to disaffected voters that this billionaire from New York might actually deliver something other than business-as-usual in Washington, D.C. 

Trump called the moment for what it was: 

This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged . . . Our great civilization has come upon a moment of reckoning.

In the face of shuttered factories, a post-frontier nation, and amidst the ruins of a once-great civilization, he reminded America of its capacity for greatness, raising the standard for our otherwise listless, nihilistic society drowning in mediocrity. 

This resonated with the forgotten Americans who intimately experienced the harmful effects of an elite class grossly disinterested in governing on their behalf. They witnessed firsthand the influx of fentanyl into their communities as a byproduct of the open southern border. Their jobs were shipped overseas, and their children were also sent overseas to fight and die in the needless foreign wars sustaining solely for the purpose of making our ruling class richer. 

We are approaching eight years since Trump descended the golden escalator of Trump Tower; in many ways the decline has accelerated. The Republican establishment, however, does not seem to have learned much in the intervening years, and still has very little to offer. This was most clearly on display during the midterm elections when, despite the smug predictions of an inevitable “red wave,” some were keen on the idea that some hollow “Commitment to America” would motivate voters to overwhelm the polls. 

To the surprise of no one who has not been in the establishment or a coma, it failed. Perhaps for good reason, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blithely informed us following the GOP’s embarrassing midterm performance that providing military aid for the Ukraine should be our top priority, and a dozen more of our Grand Old Party elected officials voted in favor of codifying the redefinition of marriage. 

Our elites ruthlessly trample upon the very foundations of America; they seek to destroy the good, deny beauty, and ultimately lead souls on the path to destruction. This unsustainable ideology has produced nothing but depression, confusion, and harm. 

Yet, in a civilization at its breaking point, where one is reprimanded for espousing basic truths, this major party has nothing positive to offer. Have they been so deflated by the lies from our enemies’ tongues, that the absolute best we can look forward to is forbidding scandalizing sexual education policies until third grade? Once the child hits the age of 9, all bets are off? 

A soft-spoken, low-energy politician with a “serious strategy,” simply clinging onto the toothless abstractions of freedom and individualism is insufficient. The summation of the Right’s worldview—should it provide a muscular alternative to the current course of decline—cannot simply be: but we’re not them! 

As Peter Thiel reminded us at the 2022 National Conservatism conference, even Florida in 2022 fails to provide the foundation for a long-term alternative model to the one offered by California. 

America needs a proven leader, and a visionary to capture the intangible—someone who will not merely motivate the masses to get to the polls but who can craft a meaningful vision in which Americans can place their hope. It needs a vision for American excellence: a sovereign nation under God that embraces Truth, not rejects it. 

Though the 2024 election is still nearly two years away, the man at Mar-a-Lago still possesses the requisite spirit, grit, and instinct to take on the colossal task of recapturing the White House, come what may.

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- Jan 18

 

If you're having a happy day, cherish it! You never know what might happen to completely derail it and make you feel like you'll never be that happy again.

Here's tonight's news:

The Great Divide: Morality, Not Politics

posted by Mark Lewis at Townhall

As any good historian will tell you, great nations/empires are not “born,” they arise either from lowly beginnings or they overthrow tyranny to become free.  Either way, the process is long, arduous, and problematic.  It takes people of virtue, courage, and self-sacrifice to rise from nothing to greatness.  For a civilization to do that is grueling, which is why there are so few great empires in history among the countless tribes and peoples who have populated our puny planet.

Only when virtue and hard work are superior to debauchery and weakness (which always exists, too) can a nation become strong and wealthy.  It will rise above its neighbors and often dominate them (sometimes becoming a tyranny itself, though not always).  Regardless, wealth once attained wants to be enjoyed.  So, the lesson of history is that when people “have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat,” they forget their God and the principles that produced that wealth and supremacy in the first place.  The decline begins.  Mediocrity sets in first.  And then, often, there is total collapse.  How many Babylonians exist today?

But, the bottom line is, in the modern terminology, the people become liberals.

We sometimes wonder why so many Americans today are “liberal” (Democrats and RINOs).  They are overrunning and destroying the country; you and I can see that, but they can’t, and we cannot understand why they can’t.  It’s not really that complicated.  Being a liberal is very easy, and when a people do indeed, “eat, fill themselves, and get fat,” then conquering themselves becomes the most dubious of all tasks.  

“The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself; to be conquered by yourself is of all things most shameful and vile” (Plato).  Conquer thyself.  Try it sometime.  How many people can really do it?  Especially when there are endless treasures and pleasures to be wallowed in and consequences are delayed.  Yet it is the most necessary virtue of all.  But the most difficult.  And liberals don’t even try.  They don’t think in those terms, they only think in terms of “eat, fill yourself, get fat,” in other words, the immediate self-gratification.  That is the very essence of today’s liberalism. 

In a democracy, when depravity becomes too widespread or dominant, the government will, of course, endorse such hedonistic behavior (often even financing it) because these people are voters.  So, in Congress, liberalism means legislation protecting and promoting debauchery and licentiousness.  And, because of the wealth created during the country’s period of virtue and hard work, Congress is able to spend as much of other people’s money as it wishes, to buy the votes that keep the lazy, indolent, and self-indulgent in bondage and Congresspeople in power. And they never worry about it because Congress, too, thinks only in terms of present fulfillment—the next election.  It’s a vicious circle.  Decadent people elect a decadent government which encourages more decadence in order to remain in power.  It is a cycle that feeds on itself and, once begun, seems virtually impossible to break.  

Liberal “morality” is basically a “live and let live” philosophy.  And while even Jesus never compelled people to obey him (nor should we), liberals take this principle to its logical conclusion of licentiousness and utter dissipation—“freedom” with no restraints.  As James Madison wisely noted, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power.”  There must be some restraint on freedom; we cannot let every human do as they wish. 

There is no contradiction between liberty and morality; indeed, liberty cannot exist without morality.  But Madison’s meaning is that if liberty is stretched beyond morality, then demands for “liberty” will eventually erode the freedoms of others who are not so shameless in their moral persuasions.   Too many welfare recipients don’t want to work; they want the “freedom” to live their indigent lifestyle.  A society can only survive a minimal amount of that.  But when they demand I pay for their indolence, I say, “NO! You have no right to my money!”   But, under liberalism, I’m not allowed to protest.  Liberals want only freedom, not restraint; they accept none of the latter.  Or, more accurately, they demand the exclusive right to define what restraints should exist.  But, thus far, there has been almost no restraints on the Left’s “morality.”  This is the great divide in America today.  Not politics.  Morality.

The “live and let live” moral philosophy is very easy and requires no thought, no backbone, no character, and no moral strength.  Many so-called conservatives are caught up in it, too.  But liberals are very generous.  They will let you enjoy the same lifestyle and philosophy they do.  Just allow them to rule, to set all the standards, and to do whatever they wish, with only liberal-defined restrictions. That’s liberalism.  Trouble-free and what most people want.  Until it’s time to pay the bills.  Then somebody else should do that.  Because “responsibility” and “consequences” are two words not in the Left’s dictionary.

Hard work, self-discipline, virtue, self-sacrifice—"conquering thyself”—are the most difficult achievements for humans.  But, unfortunately, history teaches over and over and over again that they are the roots of success and true freedom.  

The key again is, there is no freedom without morality, because morality is what curtails vile human behavior.  Either morality, or government.  And if it requires government to restrict venality, then there will be no freedom, only tyranny.   Edmund Burke: “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters.” 

Conquer thyself.  Or be conquered by someone else.

Liberals never conquer themselves.  It’s too hard.

And it’s just what government loves.

For The Sake Of The Republic, The Church-Style Weaponization Committee Must Answer These Questions

The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government must be zealous and thorough in its pursuit of tyranny.

Ben Weingarten reporting for The Federalist

With the establishment of a Church-style committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Congress now has a vital opportunity to hold America’s national security and law enforcement apparatus to account for its corrupt and lawless targeting of perceived political foes.

The House Judiciary subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, will be fully empowered to investigate the deep state’s depredations across the entirety of the executive branch, covering the full panoply of assaults on our civil liberties, and to take steps to prevent it from ever inflicting such damage on our republic again.

Given the massive scope of the already-known security state scandals, the stakes involved in putting said security state on trial, and the counterassault against the committee already underway, it is imperative that the panel operate in a highly strategic fashion to seize the critical opportunity at hand.

To that end, its planners should give considerable thought to the following questions upfront.

How Will the Committee Define Success? 

How the new weaponization committee defines success should drive every aspect of its planning. In my view, if the panel were to do the following things, it would constitute a rousing victory for the American people.

First, the committee must expose the most egregious and wide-ranging assaults on our civil liberties by the national security and law enforcement apparatus. It must then hold to account the most culpable actors through, at minimum, publicly revealing the full extent of their wrongdoing, demanding their respective agencies take commensurate disciplinary and other corrective action using any tools of compulsion if needed, and, where merited, making criminal referrals — notwithstanding the Biden Justice Department will be unlikely to move on them, in and of itself validating the committee’s work.

Upon doing this, the committee must elicit and, where possible, publicize testimony from witnesses and victims — including whistleblowers and targets of deep-state abuse. This will at least provide victims some form of catharsis as they may never see justice and, relatedly, doing so will demonstrate to the American people the very real costs of deep-state corruption. These steps would help build the political case for what should be the committee’s ultimate objective: to propose and pass laws necessary to prohibit and punish the hyper-politicization and weaponization of the national security and law enforcement apparatus going forward, including, if needed, radically restructuring the apparatus.

What Areas Should the Committee Investigate?

Given the unfortunately target-rich environment said national security and law enforcement apparatus has created in abusing its powers, the finite time and resources with which the committee will be operating, and the stonewalling, subversion, and subterfuge it is likely to face, what are the most critical areas for the committee to investigate? 

Since Donald Trump descended the escalator in his eponymous tower, we have seen the deep state target an ever-increasing number of Americans on ever-widening grounds. The escalation in domestic targeting began with the “narrower” pursuit of “Trump world” on the grounds of purported collusion with a foreign adversary — of being treasonous. It then widened to encompass the targeting of not just conservatives but anyone who would dare engage in “wrongthink” on a slew of issues — from the Chinese coronavirus to critical race theory to radical gender ideology — as dangerous if not terroristic.

Wrongthink has, in effect, become a procedural capital offense, politically in the Jan. 6 Committee’s punishment-by-process of those who dared to question the integrity of the 2020 election and in the Justice Department and federal judges’ like-minded pursuit and adjudication of the cases of Jan. 6 defendants in which their political beliefs in many instances were literally put on trial, and for which they were punished. The Biden administration codified the domestic war on wrongthink with its National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism and has been proceeding accordingly.

All of which is to say, from Russiagate to Jan. 6 to the conspiracies like those between the government and the private sector to silence dissent and violate the First Amendment (as highlighted in “The Twitter Files”) and far beyond, there is more than fertile ground for investigation. This is to say nothing of the weaponization of the security state going on right now that must be unearthed and stopped dead in its tracks — something clearly acknowledged in the committee’s founding resolution, which grants it authority to look into pending criminal cases.

The committee, therefore, should diligently prioritize its areas of inquiry, determine the most efficacious ways to pursue them, discern which agencies and individuals absolutely must be compelled to provide relevant documents and/or testify, anticipate the myriad roadblocks it is certain to face, and plan its response to them.

Who Should Staff the Committee? 

Who should staff the committee, and how will it overcome the onslaught of opposition it will face? Personnel is policy, and it is the personnel, of course, who will be determining the scope of the committee’s inquiries, which leads to pursue, and how best to pursue them. If the wrong personnel are in place, the committee will fail. 

These personnel will face merciless resistance and pressure, if not outright intimidation, aimed at thwarting their work. They will be up against the national security apparatus, the Democrat Party, many Republicans, and the corporate media. Members of the deep state and Democrats such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerrold Nadler have already come out with claims that the committee is McCarthyite, hyper-partisan, provocative, and dangerous — before a single hearing has even been held.

Expect a massive information operation to be run by the deep state and Democrats in conjunction with their corporate media mouthpieces to undermine the committee’s work, replete with a deluge of leaks and lies. 

Republicans tapped for this committee must be equipped to deal with these and other constraints. The committee will also be up against the clock, operating with finite resources and dealing in areas that, by their nature, are secret and sensitive. This will make pursuing evidence difficult and exposing it publicly even harder. 

Republican members tapped to the panel and the staffers they select, therefore, must be equipped to handle these challenges and constraints. They must be courageous, disciplined, and shrewd in how they go about their work. If the committee is to make hay, both members and staff must be eminently familiar with the tactics of the agencies and individuals likely to resist them — from their stonewalling and game-playing with redactions to other dirty tricks — familiar with agency pressure points and where and how they are likely to bury bodies, and steeled against the reprisals professional and personal that might be threatened against them. It would behoove the committee to consult extensively with former members of the national security and law enforcement apparatus supportive of the committee’s efforts, whistleblowers from relevant agencies, and former targets of the deep state as it prepares for the probe.

If members are attacked like former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was in pursuing Russigaters, and staffers are targeted for surveillance like his former Russiagate investigator Kash Patel was by the very Justice Department he was pursuing, you will know the committee is doing its job properly. 

The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government should be as zealous and thorough in its pursuit of the tyranny of the deep state as the Jan. 6 Committee was about railroading wrongthinkers.

It must think and act as seriously, strategically, and relentlessly as the malefactors whose efforts it seeks to expose and remedy. The republic hangs in the balance.

The Ultimate Arms Deals: Why Washington is So Eager to Support Ukraine

posted by Ned Barnett at American Thinker

I thought the Afghanistan bug-out was the ultimate arms deal.  

Biden abandoned billions of dollars of weapons, leaving them behind for the Taliban to enjoy.  Which meant that our military – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines – were out a lot of weapons and vehicles, aircraft and drones, and God alone knows what else.  When you’re in the middle of a bug-out, it’s hard to find the time to go take an inventory of equipment you’ll never see again.  Why we didn’t use a little C-4, which we were probably abandoning as well – to render all of those vehicles inoperable (a fancy term that means terminally broken) I’ll never know.  There must have been an angle.  

The actual value of what was left behind was all over the map. 

A quick review of contemporary headlines range from a CNN claim that we left behind $7 billion worth of materiel – a lot of money, equipment-wise, for sure.  However, FactCheck.org insists that the Republicans “inflated the cost” of what the Taliban seized, claiming that $85 billion is too high an estimate.  They came in with a marginally-deflated number, $82.9 billion.  

Which is not far from what President Trump said in Alabama on August 22, 2021:  “They’ve left $83 billion worth of equipment behind, including brand new Apache helicopters, thousands of Humvee vehicles with armor guard, equipment that nobody has ever even seen before, it was so sophisticated.”

A few days later, Trump expanded on his perspective of the weapons left abandoned.  

“In addition to the obvious, all equipment should be demanded to be immediately returned to the United States, and that includes every penny of the $85 billion dollars in cost. If it is not handed back, we should either go in with unequivocal military force and get it, or at least bomb the hell out of it,” Trump said.

Whatever the loss, when the military loses a weapon, it’s time to go back to the manufacturer to get it replaced.  Tankers without a tank aren’t much good to the Army, just as pilots without planes aren’t doing a whole lot for the Air Force.  So it does matter how much weaponry assigned to the U.S. military – exempting those given to our Afghan “allies” – was left behind and need to be replaced.  

One of the joys of that – at least to military equipment manufacturers – is that the replacement is not just brand-new, but almost always progressively enhanced in capabilities – and price.

Getting back to Afghanistan, the Government Accountability Office reported that between 2003 and 2016, the U.S. supplied Afghan defense and security forces with an arsenal that included 208 aircraft, 42,000 pickup trucks, 22,000 Humvees, nearly 9,000 MTV cargo and transport trucks, nearly 1,000 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, nearly 200 armored personnel carriers and hundreds of thousands of rifles, pistols, machine guns, grenade launchers, rocket propelled weapons and night vision goggles. More had been provided between 2016 and August of 2021.

If those weapons came out of military stock – vehicles stored in armories waiting for the military to need them to fight our enemies du jour – they will be replaced with newer ones.  However, new-built weapons ordered for Afghanistan were already written off.  Their loss didn’t hurt America’s military preparedness.

Regardless of what was given to the Afghans on our side during the war – but later captured by the Taliban – and what was abandoned – in good condition or totally junked – is up for debate.  What’s not up for debate is that our armed forces – after turning over used-but-workable weapons and vehicles to our Afghan allies, or abandoning them in the desert for the Taliban to find -- had to go back to our military-industrial complex with orders for replacement equipment. Remember, a soldier without a rifle, a sailor without a ship, or a pilot without an airplane isn’t worth much to America’s defense. Naturally, we have to replace that equipment.

Normally, equipment has a projected life-cycle, and is not replaced until it has ended its projected combat lifetime.  A USS Virginia-class nuclear submarine is projected to last 42 years. If the Navy wants another one faster, it has to prove that the need is greater than had been planned. But if the Virginia is accidentally rammed while docking and essentially ruined, the Navy will go hat-in-hand to Congress asking for the funding for a replacement sub – and will probably get it.

But what about Ukraine? 

It’s hard to pin down, because that number of weapons required seems to grow astronomically, every time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed up in his olive-drab t-shirt to justify how his country – in defending against and defeating the Russians – is somehow supporting international democracy.  But wait, that’s a polemic for another time. 

Last summer, The Hill reported that “the Biden administration has committed nearly $13 billion worth of military assistance to the Ukraine since Russia invaded six months earlier.”  This support is made up of either state-of-the-art or recently downgraded – but still useful – arms and equipment.  Because it takes so long to order, build, and ship brand-new equipment, everything sent came out of military armories, or even from active-duty units.

What are those weapons?  Are they antiquated hand-me-downs?  Not likely.  We’ve shipped – and this is far from a comprehensive list:

• High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems
• 1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided antitank missiles, known as TOW, which can destroy a tank up to 5,000 yards away.
• 155mm Howitzers – 126 cannon and 806,000 artillery rounds, along with 126 tactical vehicles to tow the Howitzers into combat
• National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems – an advanced system that can knock down a Russian MiG more than 100 miles away.
• Seven hundred Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems – combat drones – these are attack drones, not recon systems. These kill tanks, troops and anything else worth killing.
• Seven hundred Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems – light, short-ranged combat drones designed to attack troops and “soft-skinned” vehicles.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and to date – check out the list in The Hill article – the Biden administration has committed at least as much to the Ukraine as was lost in Afghanistan when we bugged out.  Maybe a lot more.  Say, between Afghanistan and the Ukraine, the total is close to $175 billion in equipment.  That's equipment that must be replaced before our military services will be ready to once again defend America.  

Which means that this is a gold mine for the American military-industrial complex.  Setting aside Hunter Biden’s ties to the embattled nation, why was Biden so eager to support the Ukraine?  And why was Congress so eager to support the Ukrainians with American-built, top-shelf weapon systems?  Because defense contractors have factories and other support operations in virtually every congressional district in America.  Because replacing those weapons means high-paying jobs at a time when we’re teetering on the edge of recession – if we’re not already there.

Don’t believe me?  Will you believe the military?   How about Defense.gov?  

Here’s what they had to say, in an article published in September 2022.

Because so much gear has been pulled from U.S. military units, that equipment must now be replaced in order to sustain America's own readiness, and the Defense Department has already contracted with an array of manufacturers to give back to military units what was taken from them in order to support Ukraine. 

‘As we work with industry to accelerate production on both replenishment systems and direct procurements under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI, we're using a number of tools to get the funding moving, and the contracting happening quickly,’ Bill LaPlante, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said during a briefing today at the Pentagon.

Maybe abandoning billions of dollars in equipment in Afghanistan was the right thing to do.  I don’t see how that’s possible, but maybe it made sense.  Maybe it was all worn out and needed to be replaced. Why it then wasn’t dynamited is beyond me. 

And maybe it makes sense to support the Ukraine with state-of-the-art military equipment, including artillery, ammo, combat vehicles and so much more.  And maybe the massive building blitz of replacement state-of-the-art equipment makes national defense sense, or even anti-recession sense.  In 1934, FDR bought the Navy a couple of aircraft carriers, the famous USS Yorktown and USS Enterprise, because it meant jobs for unemployed blue collar workers, and there’s nothing wrong with putting skilled workers back to work, is there? Or maybe it just makes sense to kowtow to military equipment manufacturers, companies who’ve been known to support politicians who support them.

What’s clear is this.  Every vehicle, weapon and artillery shell we give to the Ukraine will be replaced, brand-new, at taxpayer expense.  And maybe – just maybe – the degradation of Russia’s military might, and its fearsome reputation, which has been shattered, is worth billions of dollars.  Time will tell, if we listen closely.

John Kerry and his “Select Group of Humans” at the WEF will save us from ourselves

John Kerry Pontificates About the Extraordinary Ability of a “Select Group of Humans” at the World Economic Forum, Who Will Save The Planet for the Eaters and Serfs

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

During a sidebar conversation with those rare elites who wax philosophically about their magnanimous ability to protect the vulgarian eaters, former Secretary of State and current Climate Czar John Kerry, praises the audience for their unique traits and gifted high-mindedness that will protect all humanity.

While the lizard tongue darts, the grand pontifications are espoused.  The audience oohs and ahhs, at the nature of their entitled superiority. They are so good, so magnanimous, so altruistic in their disposition, according to Kerry they are literally “extraterrestrial,” which is to say out of this world.  WATCH:

Go ahead and tell me how CTH was wrong 12 years ago….  Their worldview:

An 'Almost Extraterrestrial Plan' - Climate Lunatic 

John Kerry Offers His Most Ridiculous Take Yet

Mike Miller reporting for RedState

In this episode of The Existential Threat to Mankind…

Every time I run across a story about climate alarmist bilge from John Kerry, the first “United States special presidential envoy for climate,” I think back to Al “Polar Ice” Gore and how loony we thought he was. Listen, John Kerry makes Al Gore look like a piker without breaking a global-warming-induced sweat.

Welp, I’m happy to report that this is the most ridiculous take I’ve yet seen from Kerry, and I’ve seen a lot.

As Fox News reported, the U.S. “climate envoy” turned heads with an out-of-this-world [sarc] speech at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos — itself way too smug in its haughty view of its elitist self.

In other words, Kerry fits right in.

Anyway, Kerry melodramatically referred to himself and his fellow attendees as a “select group of human beings” with an “almost extraterrestrial” plan to save the planet. Reminds me of a silly science fiction flick I saw, years ago, but I digress.

Here’s Kerry:

When you start to think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we — [a] select group of human beings because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives — are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.

Thank God Kerry and his pals can only talk about their grand visions rather than implementing them.

Businessman and conservative Tim Acheson, as quoted by Fox, called Kerry’s words: “Liberal delusions of grandeur.” And conservative author Doug Powers absolutely blistered Kerry and his colleagues:

Kerry’s ‘select group of human beings’ are psychotic, delusional, narcissistic, Marxist hypocrites trying to get richer by making everybody else more miserable.

Amen. To Powers’s point, Kerry and his pals jet around the world, most if not all in private jets, to pontificate from on high to us schleps about what kind of cars we should drive, stoves we shouldn’t have, and where we should set our thermostats— always what we must sacrifice “before it’s too late”; before the existential threat to mankind is visited upon us, as Nancy Pelosi might say, by the wrath of “Mother Nature,” herself.

Incidentally, as I reported in December, multimillionaire John Kerry’s last big nothingburger was his declaration that U.S. taxpayers should “step up and lead” climate reparations. For the world. No, really:

Well, it would be great if there were some — I mean the United States of America, proudly, is the largest humanitarian donor in the world. The American people already do an enormous amount around the world … so we’re on deck.

I mean we’re in the fight. … We have to step up to lead.

Who’s “we,” Mr. Kerry? Are you, the beneficiary of multiple trust funds and a marrier of multimillionaire women, part of we? 

Or is the “we” comprised only of Americans who can’t buy their way out of the never-ending sacrifices that you and your Davos pals drone on and on about what we must give up? “Extraterrestrial plan”? Please.

What Brian Stelter and Seth Moulton Are Talking About at the WEF Should Concern Us All

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

After CEO Chris Licht began to take stock of the mess he’d acquired over at CNN, one of the first moves he made was to boot Brian Stelter and cancel his show, “Reliable Sources” back in August 2022.

Where did he go after getting the boot, after acting like a Democratic operative?

Stelter was named a Harvard Kennedy School’s Walter Shorenstein Media and Democracy Fellow, to “work with both students and faculty during the Fall of 2022.”

“As the Walter Shorenstein Fellow, Stelter will convene a series of discussions about threats to democracy and the range of potential responses from the news media. These discussions with media leaders, policy makers, politicians, and Kennedy School students, fellows, and faculty will help deepen public and scholarly understanding about the current state of the information ecosystem and its impacts on democratic governance,” the school noted.

Imagine anyone thinking that Stelter was an authority on anything, much less “threats to democracy.” What are the chances that he was talking about BLM/Antifa in those “threats,” the weaponization of the federal government against the people, or the media aligning itself with a political party to push their narrative? I’m guessing none of those topics came up in whatever nonsense he was pushing.

But this week, Stelter is involved elsewhere — at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Guess what he’s doing there? He’s on a WEF panel warning about, “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation.”

Is he there teaching about how to spread disinformation?

A.G. Sulzberger is the chairman of the NY Times. He claims that disinformation is “the most existential” challenge we’re grappling with as a society.

Maybe “trust declines” because the American people can no longer trust the media to print the truth and not take a side. Maybe Sulzberger should examine why millions no longer trust the NY Times.

Listen as Stelter can’t stop talking about President Donald Trump and claims he lied, yet Stelter then deems as good Democrats pressuring social media “to be stronger in content moderation” [crack down on speech].

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said, “Well, I think this is the question of ultimately what we’re trying to achieve there is some measure of public safety.” Moulton then blames “misinformation” for not being able to “get people to take a COVID vaccine.”

Um, guys? That’s calling for government censorship — do you even listen to yourselves? If you can’t convince people to get a vaccine, that’s on you, the failure of what you are saying. It doesn’t justify cracking down on the speech of people who disagree with you. Then, of course, we get to the question of who gets to decide what “misinformation” is — the media and politicians on the left have been replete with all kinds of misinformation over the past couple of years, but that was “okay” to them and not censored or suppressed because they were the folks who controlled the social media organs. Now that there’s at least one media organ — Twitter — that is not under their control, they have to start talking about cracking down on speech.

Questioning speech, and calling things “fake news” is bad, according to Sulzberger.

No, the problem isn’t questioning speech, the problem was the fascism and Communism shutting down opponents and their speech.

Věra Jourová of the European Commission for Values and Transparency took it a little further talking about “illegal hate speech,” saying, “You will have soon also in [the] U.S. I think…”

Stelter asks Moulton about the U.S. doing what Europe has done to crack down on speech. Moulton claims we have “a lot to learn” from Europe, “They’re way ahead of us in that regard.” He does give a nod to concerns for free speech — he was a Marine, so he took something away from that. But we’ve already seen Democrats trying to do exactly that — follow Europe — trying to censor speech they don’t like under the umbrella of “misinformation” and/or “hate speech.” We saw Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) citing, approvingly, Europe, saying we needed to act “aggressively” to go after “hate speech” on social media. We saw Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) endorsing subjecting social media companies to “hefty lawsuits” to force them to “do something” about misinformation. We also saw the office of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) going after a journalist to shut down what he was saying claiming he was pushing “conspiracies” because he was reporting on things that exposed Schiff.

This is the kind of thing they’re talking about at the WEF and that isn’t a conspiracy. This is where they think things are moving. That should concern us all.