Thursday, February 16, 2023

The ‘DeSantis Is Trump Without the Baggage’ Crowd is in for a Rude Awakening


Since President Trump left office, many of the “trustworthy” media outlets have created a talking point that is now held by a minority, yet noticeable number of Conservative Americans.  The belief is “DeSantis is Trump, without the baggage.” This group supported President Trump’s policies and felt he did a tremendous job as president, but now feel the baggage that came with Trump would not be present with Ron DeSantis.  Many have taken this a step further and believe this baggage would give DeSantis (or others) a better chance of winning in a general election against the Democrat nominee than President Trump.  

The first and most important angle to consider when analyzing this stance is the present reality of American elections.  President Trump’s seemingly insurmountable election night leads in 2020, which were significantly larger than his leads throughout the night in 2016, somehow vanished into slim Biden victories.  In other words: Without our corrupt election systems being corrected, it doesn’t matter who runs since the winner is predetermined.  Trump didn’t cost us; the election was stolen.  But for the sake of this discussion, we’ll say that our elections are free and fair.  

Despite his alleged loss, Trump gained more than 12 million votes from 2016 (and likely more,) the largest increase in vote total for any sitting president in American history and the highest vote total by any presidential candidate ever, aside from Biden’s highly suspicious 81 million votes that same year.  So, the media-manufactured Trump baggage has not had any negative impact on voter enthusiasm for Trump.  Based on his vote increasing by millions, you could make the argument the baggage led to more people rallying to support him. 

Prior to 2016, Conservative voter enthusiasm in the previous two presidential elections was abysmal.  John McCain and Mitt Romney both lost convincingly to Barack Obama due in large part to their politically correct, low energy approach to politics when conservatives were looking for the exact opposite. 

The “Trump baggage” can be summarized as a combination of his brash style of politics and the never-ending war waged on him by the media.  Ironically, Trump’s style was the change America sought, and his exposure of the corrupt media is what has kept him so popular.  In essence, Trump is a product of the corrupt environment the media has created, and their hatred towards him makes him more popular.  The “Trump baggage” is what was needed to move the needle enough for Trump to win states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that Republicans had not won since the 1980s

Most of the baggage from the Trump presidency was completely manufactured by media with the purpose of doing exactly what it is accomplishing to an extent now: Diminish enthusiasm for Trump at any cost, no facts needed.  The goal was never to prove any of the false accusations against Trump.  They knew this was impossible; they created them. 

Instead, they wanted to spread the false accusations enough that people either began to believe them or became so fatigued with the smears that they would abandon him.  The Russia collusion hoax, both impeachments, the Stormy Daniels saga, and the now-concluded Trump tax returns are just a few examples of baggage that, in reality, were purely propaganda exercises to take him down.  If there were anything of substance that could truly take down Trump, it would have been revealed long ago.  

If those examples are considered “too much baggage,” could you imagine the media frenzy with issues of actual substance?  Enter Ron DeSantis.  To this point, it is obvious why the Florida Governor does not seem to have much baggage, and it isn’t because he has a squeaky-clean past.  He currently has not declared a run for the presidency which is when most baggage is exposed (or manufactured.)  There already are accusations ready to be weaponized when the time comes.  Important to note, as seen with Trump: truth and facts are not needed to create baggage.

If DeSantis chooses to run for president, whether that is in the next election or sometime down the road, his opponents (from both parties) and leftist media will have no shortage of ammunition to create baggage specific to him.  As Governor of Florida, DeSantis's image as a protector of school children and being “anti-groomer” has gone unchallenged.  His press secretary Christina Pushaw (more on her later) took to Twitter to categorize his signing of the Parental Rights in Education Act as an “Anti-Grooming Bill.”  Recently, he has been accused of partying with his own female students when DeSantis was a 23-year-old teacher in Georgia in 2001. Photo evidence shows DeSantis surrounded by 3 girls holding what looks like an alcoholic beverage.  For someone whose appeal is largely due to his reputation of protecting students from “groomers,” photo evidence of DeSantis having a little too much fun with his own pupils is an ironically awful look and certainly baggage fuel.  

Shortly after his teaching stint, DeSantis began a military career where he was a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer.  The general consensus is that Liberals typically oppose wars more than Cconservatives do.  However, Conservative opposition to U.S. involvement in military conflicts has become more common than during other eras.  Which means accusations of DeSantis greenlighting cruel and inhumane forms of torture on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, including force feeding detainees through a nasal feeding tube pushed down their throats while DeSantis allegedly watched in amusement, will eventually be addressed.  

With the current, fragile state of foreign affairs, Americans now more than ever want to be sure the commander-in-chief is not being influenced by any foreign countries (such as now.) The American perception of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is unique, because while the majority of Americans oppose Putin and Russia, support for the U.S. to continue sending money to Ukraine is also dwindling.  Which is why DeSantis GOP opponents will undoubtedly question him on his Press Secretary, Christina Pushaw, who recently had to register as a foreign agent because of her paid work with, of all people, a Ukrainian politician named Mikheil Saakashvili.  She also shared a tweet in February of 2022 stating she supported Zelensky, was in Ukraine when Zelensky won the primary and that a “big party” ensued.  While U.S. support for Ukraine heavily outweighs support for Russia, having close ties to a foreign agent of a country the U.S. continues sending endless amounts of money to will certainly create baggage within the GOP should DeSantis choose to enter the race. 

Try picturing the amount of baggage that would come with accusations of DeSantis drinking and partying with his own female students, alleged first-hand accounts about his role in inhumane forms of torture that violate international law, his former press secretary and current rapid response director registering as a foreign agent, and recently having warmonger John Bolton promote him.  Again, allegations are all that is needed to create baggage, not facts.  The baggage potential for DeSantis makes Trump’s look like peanuts.  

So, if DeSantis does run, those pulling for him solely for baggage purposes will be severely disappointed.  When DeSantis is faced with his own, two things are possible.  He could cave and apologize under the pressure, which is the opposite of what Conservatives want.  Or the more likely scenario would be him refuting, defending, or denying the attacks, which is exactly what President Trump has always done.  But whichever response occurs, there is no scenario where DeSantis would be baggage-free.  So, the “DeSantis is Trump without baggage” group must shift the question they ask themselves to this: Which of the two is better equipped to withstand the attacks?  There is no doubt the answer to that question is Donald Trump.


X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 16

 



Anxiety, or impatience, doesn't matter what either it is I've had all day, having either or both of them sucks, especially when all CBS dishes out is useless sneak peaks when they don't even bother to release the typical 10 second promo!

Here's tonight's news:


Nobody Believes John Kirby and Karine Jean-Pierre

Nobody Believes John Kirby and Karine Jean-Pierre


Boy, we’ve sure got a whole host of media narratives popping about these mysterious “objects” being shot out of the skies in the northern reaches of our continent, no?

This all started with the Chinese spy balloon that was allowed to traverse the width of North America, from Alaska past the Carolinas, taking pictures and doing other things above tons of sensitive military installations last week before it was finally taken out over the Atlantic Ocean. Long before the balloon was shot down, a whole cloud of balloons of a different sort was set loose by the Biden administration.

The balloon was ordered shot down by the president on Wednesday, but it was shot down on Saturday. Why? Oh, because they didn’t want to bring it down over a populated area. Forget about the fact that there were lots of open areas it could have been brought down over before it covered the whole country.

Then we were told, thanks to an anonymous government source, that at least three such balloons penetrated U.S. airspace during the Trump administration, something that prompted a host of Trump officials, such as Robert O’Brien, John Ratcliffe, and Rick Grenell, to go on the record to throw shade on that story.

No, really, we were told later, it’s true — the filters that NORAD’s radar had been using had weeded out the detection of certain items flying around in the skies, and now that they’ve been upgraded, we know that Chinese spy balloons floated over places like Hawaii during the previous administration.

Then objects began positively filling up the skies in the past week.

On Friday, U.S. jets shot down a balloon smaller than the first one carrying a payload over the frozen Beaufort Sea north of the Alaskan coast, with the object crashing into the ice. Then on Saturday another object, said to be a “small metallic balloon with a tethered payload,” according to a military official describing it to Fox News, was shot down over Canada’s Yukon Territory.

And then on Sunday a fourth object was spotted over Montana, and we’re given to understand it was ultimately downed over Lake Huron.

Which is prompting people to ask what the hell is going on.

Our government isn't telling us the truth about these unidentified objects in U.S. airspace. 

The "briefings" we receive in Congress don't give us much—we can find the same info in a news article.

They've gone rogue and owe Americans answers. pic.twitter.com/SLhsN1cGpz

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) February 13, 2023

Kash Patel former 
Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump said

The reason you didn't hear about #UFOs under the Trump Administration is because other countries didn't fly into US airspace

The Biden Administration is weak China and Russia know they can take advantage

— (Jason) Stands For Truth (@TrueJMitchell) February 13, 2023

President Biden is unwilling to defend our border, defend our skies, and defend our people. 

He is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) February 12, 2023

And since Joe Biden has nothing to say about any of this, it’s up to Karine Jean-Pierre to explain it.

How well did that go? Outstanding — other than the fact that she has no clue about what NORAD is and thinks the country to our north is Canadia.

Does it make you feel confident that our White House press secretary can’t speak English during the Alien invasion? pic.twitter.com/x0nzVl5ZdD

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 12, 2023

Given the performance so far, it was time to call in the big guns — so John Kirby, who made his bones lying about military matters to the Washington press corps as a Defense Department spokesman during the Obama years, is now drafted to tell us some new stories as part of his Obama Redux administration billet. And we get this:

JUST IN: White House's John Kirby says Chinese spy balloons were operating during @realDonaldTrump but they were unable to detect them, but the @JoeBiden was able to detect them, details what the program is all about. WATCH pic.twitter.com/CZjWlagoT8

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) February 13, 2023

So, is that believable?

Well, sure. Sort of.

Clearly this is Chinese stuff. It isn’t alien stuff, though everybody associated with this mess — both the Chinese communist tyrants and the Biden administration — would love you to believe it.

Which is how we got this quote:

General Glen VanHerck was specifically asked if it’s possible the objects are indicative of extraterrestrial life.

‘I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out. I haven’t ruled out anything.

‘At this point we continue to assess every threat or potential threat, unknown, that approaches North America with an attempt to identify it,’ he said.

That’s awesome, General. Thanks so much.

That led to the media persisting in UFO questions and Queen Karine delighting in answering them.

Jean-Pierre brought up the alien issue at the top of the briefing, while reading through a prepared statement.

‘And one last thing before I turn it over to you to me, I just want to make sure we address this on the White House’s questions and concerns about this,’ she said before providing her alien assurance.

‘Again, there is no indication of aliens or [extra] terrestrial activity with these recent takedowns,’ she said.

‘Wanted to make sure the American people knew that, all of you knew that, and it was important for us to say that from here, because we’ve been hearing a lot about it,’ she said.

‘I loved E.T. the movie, but I’m just going to leave it there,’ she said, to laughs from the press room.

A theory based on common sense and casual observation: The Chinese are floating these things over North America as a test of our detection and reaction capability. They now know that this administration reacts slowly and indecisively to things they don’t have a full read on — but will react to public sentiment if they’re worried they’ll appear weak. Given that China sees itself inside a window of opportunity for attacking Taiwan, with U.S. missile and other stockpiles depleted after a year of staking Ukraine in its war with Russia, those balloons are a cheap way to probe and map our air defenses in the event that they need to disable us while launching an assault on Taiwan.

Now they know a good bit about what kind of job that would be. Hopefully what they know dissuades them.

But if they’re paying attention to what our military and civilian leadership is saying publicly, they know something else: our people neither tell the truth nor lie very well, and if things get hairy, the American people will place very little credibility in our ruling elite.

And that’s a bad thing, for certain. But it’s an inevitable thing, and, in itself, it isn’t catastrophic.

What’s catastrophic isn’t that we know our leaders lack credibility. It’s that they lack credibility.

And nobody believes John Kirby and Karine Jean-Pierre when they make assurances about these objects being shot down solely because they threaten commercial aviation.

That isn’t an assertion that China is preparing an EMP strike using a balloon, or that they’re going to drop viruses on us or flood our water supply with fentanyl, or any of the other dramatic theories making their way around the World Wide Web. It’s simply an observation. We’re shooting these aircraft down because they make our government look bad, and that’s actually a legitimate reason to do it.

The Chinese, meanwhile, are accusing us of the same hot air balloon overflights while bragging about their program.

And we have very little moral ground for high dudgeon about the Chinese junk in our airspace. Not when it’s speculated that our government blew up the Nord Stream pipelines under the Baltic Sea last year, which would be an act of war against Russia not authorized by Congress. It’s funny how these balloons started making their way to our skies almost immediately after Seymour Hersh’s story on the Nord Stream attack broke on Substack.

All of this seems to indicate we are in serious times. But we’re not governed by serious people. Just Friday, Queen Karine announced big, groundbreaking news:

Jean-Pierre: "Ben [LaBolt] is making history. Here at the Biden White House, representation matters. He will be the first openly gay communications director." pic.twitter.com/5DdmHKit2l

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 10, 2023

And just Monday there was this from Permanent Deep State Ringworm James Clapper…

After James Clapper, as Obama's DNI, got caught red-handed lying to the Senate about NSA domestic spying, CNN hired him.

Clapper is accusing CNN's @NatashaBertrand of having *deliberately* lied about his letter. 

These media outlets have to confront what they did. pic.twitter.com/scJaVUzIzM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 13, 2023

And there was this from Pete Buttigieg, who as secretary of Transportation is the responding authority for the environmental butcher’s bill from that catastrophic train derailment in eastern Ohio…

Buttigieg made no mention of the Ohio train derailment while speaking at a conference this morning but did find the time to say that there are too many white people who work construction. pic.twitter.com/q4WNcq10h9

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 13, 2023

Buttigieg made those remarks just in time for two more train derailments, one in Houston and one in South Carolina, on Monday.

We’re governed by people who suck.

We’re governed by liars who suck.

And our enemies are noticing. It isn’t good. Those balloons in and of themselves don’t matter. What matters is the perceived weakness and decline they represent.


I Don’t Know What’s Going On With These UFOs, But I Know We Won’t Get The Truth

Even if the Pentagon and Biden administration release information about these objects, will Americans believe it?



Mere days after an F-22 fighter jet downed a Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic Ocean, three unidentified flying objects were shot down over Alaska, Canada, and Michigan in just three days. The Biden administration pledged from day one to “bring transparency and truth back to government” but is eerily silent about what the objects were and why they were shot down.

Not only has President Joe Biden gone days without saying anything about the downed objects, but the Pentagon also refused to give clear answers to reporters or the public about the unusual activity in the sky.

U.S. officials say they don’t know what the objects, which clock in at the size of a small car, are. They claim they don’t know what the objects are capable of nor do they know who sent them. They don’t even know how to hit some of them with a $400,000 missile on the first try.

Gen. Glen VanHerck, commander of both U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), went so far as to say the U.S. hasn’t “ruled out anything” including an extraterrestrial threat, a claim the White House rejected on Monday.

That’s a bizarre statement that certainly does not instill confidence in Americans that our financially bloated Department of Defense can properly assess and neutralize threats to U.S. national security.

That also means any reassurance from the Pentagon that “these objects don’t present a military threat to anyone on the ground,” as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Tuesday, is pure speculation. As is the White House’s claim that these “could just be balloons tied to some commercial or benign purpose.”

If the Pentagon does actually know what’s going on, then the DOD is clearly stonewalling any attempts to inform the public.

Democrats, Republicans, and corporate media alike are frustrated with the Biden administration’s lack of communication. Even after a classified briefing about the objects Tuesday, some senators say the Pentagon is deliberately keeping information from Americans.

“99% of what was discussed in that room today can be made public without compromising security in this country,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Fox News.

If that’s the case, why aren’t Americans getting answers?

Rewind One Week

If the way the Biden administration handled the Chinese spy balloon at the beginning of the month means anything, we won’t get clear answers about these mysterious aircraft for a while — if at all.

It was a day after a big white object was spotted in Montana that reports indicated the Pentagon had “been monitoring a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that has been hovering over the northern U.S. for the past few days.” If the balloon hadn’t been spotted by the public, there’s a good chance the DOD would not have told Americans about it.

Through The New York Times, an anonymous “official” at the Pentagon once again claimed without evidence that “the balloon did not pose a military or physical threat” to Americans.

When the Defense Department finally announced it downed the balloon over the Atlantic Ocean, an unnamed official at the DOD allegedly told reporters at an off-camera press briefing on Feb. 4 that Chinese balloons like this one “transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration.” This unsourced claim spread like wildfire through the corporate media even though multiple Trump-era officials went on the record to deny it.

It wasn’t until two days after the Pentagon’s initial accusation that VanHerck “clarified” that“we did not detect those threats” at the time Trump was in office. So the DOD knew Trump couldn’t be blamed for failing to shoot balloons he was never informed about but let lies about the former administration spread among the public without consequence or pushback.

A Pentagon that prioritizes its political agenda ahead of the security of the American people it is sworn to protect clearly doesn’t have its priorities straight. Why should we believe anything they say about the series of UFOs?

Even if the Pentagon finally decides to release information about these last three objects, who sent them, and why they were hovering over North America, will Americans even believe it? Trust in the U.S. military is falling and currently sits under 50 percent. It has broken the trust of Americans, and that won’t be helped by further obscuring information.

I’m not going to pretend to know what’s going on with the downed UFOs. What I do know is the Pentagon and the Biden administration both have long histories of lying to Americans to protect their political agendas.



The Perils of Trying To Curtail Hazily Defined 'Disinformation'

The Perils of Trying To Curtail Hazily Defined 'Disinformation'

A government-supported organization's controversial ratings of online news sources illustrate the challenge of deciding what qualifies as disinformation.

A government-subsidized organization's controversial ratings of online news sources illustrate the perils of trying to curtail hazily defined "disinformation."

(GDI)

NewsGuard, a service that rates adherence to basic principles of good journalism, gives this website its highest possible score. Yet the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a British organization that aims to steer advertisers away from disreputable websites, claims Reason is one of the 10 "riskiest" online news sources in the United States.

The stark contrast between those two assessments illustrates the challenge of defining "disinformation," an increasingly nebulous concept that invites subjective judgments driven by political allegiances and policy preferences. That problem is especially acute when the government demands that websites take steps to curtail "disinformation," portraying it as a grave threat to public health, democracy, and national security.

The GDI, which receives financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy, purports to offer "neutral" estimates of the likelihood that a website will promote disinformation. Counterintuitively, its "risk" ratings do not require any actual examples of inaccurate reporting, let alone deliberate misrepresentations.

The GDI ratings are instead based on 16 "indicators" under two "pillars": "content" and "operations." The organization says Reason's "high" risk rating was due to a lack of explicitly stated policies regarding "authorship attribution," fact checking, corrections, and moderation of reader comments.

The GDI emphasizes that its "content" judgments are based on a sample of articles that reviewers analyze without knowing the source or author, which it says helps "maintain nuance and neutrality." But several of the "indicators" require judgments that are bound to be influenced by the reviewers' personal opinions.

In assessing "article bias," for example, reviewers are supposed to considerwhether the writer uses "faulty logic" or "unfairly engages with different views on the story." Reviewers also look for "negative targeting" of "individuals or institutions," which is supposedly distinct from "criticism" based on "solid reasoning" and "strong evidence."

The GDI says its ratings do not hinge on whether reviewers agree with the opinions that writers express. But it beggars belief to suppose that people who read articles that contradict their own views won't be especially inclined to perceive "faulty logic," insufficient attention to other perspectives, weak reasoning, and inadequate evidence.

It is therefore not surprising that all 10 of the "riskiest" sources identified by the GDI are conservative or libertarian, while nearly all of the 10 "lowest-risk" sites, which include NPR, The New York TimesHuffPost, and BuzzFeed News, lean left. Although the GDI insists that "the index does not assess partisanship or the specific political, religious or ideological orientation of the site," it explicitly considers "the degree to which the site is likely to adhere to an ideological affiliation."

The GDI combines dubious methods with a dodgy definition of "disinformation." You might think that disinformation, as distinct from misinformation, requires an intent to deceive. But the organization disavows that requirement because it "cannot be directly measured."

The GDI's definition of disinformation nevertheless describes it as "intentionally misleading." The organization contradicts itself again when it says "all newsrooms are vulnerable to disinformation risks, ranging from everyday human error to more nefarious tactics" (emphasis added).

You might also think disinformation, at the very least, must be false. The GDI thinks that criterion is also too demanding, because it is "extremely difficult to assess at scale" and because "a statement that is technically true can be presented out of context in a misleading and harmful way."

In short, the folks at the GDI know disinformation when they see it, although they do not claim that "high risk" websites actually promote it—only that they might. That attitude reflects a broader problem: Everyone agrees that disinformation is bad, but people disagree about what the category includes.

Given this confusion, the federal government's efforts to squelch "disinformation," which include pressure on social media platforms and subsidies for groups like the GDI, are especially chilling. Even "intentionally misleading" speech is protected by the First Amendment, and a government that respects freedom of speech has no business deciding how to apply that slippery label.

© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.


Destroying Meritocracy Is Deadly ~ VDH

Our government is playing with our lives as it prefers diversity, equity, and inclusion over ensuring the best qualified employees are hired.


A recent epidemic of airline near misses deserves both attention and reflection. 

In mid-December, a San Francisco-bound United Airlines Boeing 777-200 airliner, just a little over a minute after taking off from Maui, Hawaii, suddenly dived. It lost more than half its altitude and came within 800 feet of crashing into the Pacific Ocean before pulling up. 

About a month later, an American Airlines jet crossed the runway at New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport just as a Delta Air Lines plane was accelerating for takeoff. The two aircraft nearly collided. 

Then in February, a FedEx cargo jet at the Austin, Texas airport just missed crashing into a Southwest Airlines airliner by a mere 100 feet. 

The same month an American Airlines Airbus A321 was being towed out of the gate at Los Angeles International airport, and smashed into a bus carrying passengers between terminals, injuring five.

These near and actual accidents come amid a general landscape of aviation chaos. 

After Christmas, Southwest Airlines simply canceled 71 percent of its flights. It blamed staff shortages due to storms. The airline seemed incapable of ensuring enough of their pilots, attendants, crews, and airport staff could get to work.

The Federal Aviation Administration in January canceled all flight departures from the United States for two hours due a computer safety system collapse. Thousands of additional flights were canceled, many for over 24 hours. 

Something has gone terribly wrong.

Either the Department of Transportation and its Secretary Pete Buttigieg, or the head of the FAA, or the quality of either ground crews, pilots, or air traffic controllers—or all combined—are putting American travelers at mortal risk. 

If not corrected, these near-death airline experiences and the near collapse of the U.S. commercial aviation system presage catastrophes to come.

Similar problems are plaguing the U.S. military. 

On July 21, 2021 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley assured the country that “The Afghan security forces have the capacity and capabilities needed to fight and defend their country.”

Those forces utterly collapsed in a matter of hours less than a month later. 

On the eve of the war in Ukraine, the Pentagon wrongly warned Congress that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours of a general Russian invasion. 

This month, the Defense Department officials apparently allowed a series of surveillance balloons to enter U.S. airspace. Joe Biden claims he was advised by the military not to shoot down a Chinese survival balloon craft as it crossed with impunity much of the United States. 

In the aftermath, Pentagon spokespeople gave incomplete, mutually contradictory, and absurd explanations for these serial violations of U.S. airspace, most likely perpetrated by the Chinese communist government.

The Pentagon likewise disputes details of recruitment shortfalls. But the military brass concedes that many branches of the military are still between a third to a quarter short of their recruitment goals—despite the military steadily lowering standards for enlistment. It denies that the new woke military culture has alienated future recruits, although polls suggest otherwise.

The same shortfall is true of U.S. weapon arsenals. Between cuts in the defense budget, poor procurement planning, incompetent administration, and massive arms shipments to Ukraine, the military suffers dangerously low inventories of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, artillery shells, rockets, missiles, and mines.

America’s security, safety, prosperity, and postmodern lifestyles are not our birthright. 

They are the dividends of centuries of prior hard work, unfettered freedom of speech, disinterested research, and a meritocracy. 

Tamper with any of that and the system begins to fall apart. 

The United States will then resemble the miasma we see in most of the world abroad where ideology suppresses free inquiry, political correctness warps research, and tribalism trumps meritocracy. 

Many of the major airlines have established racial and gender quotes for government pilot training programs. 

United Airlines has set quotas to ensure half of its trainees will be minorities or women. 

Since 2013, the FAA has been lowering standards for air traffic control qualifications to achieve de facto race and gender quotas. 

In testimony before Congress our top military brass has bragged not of their reduction in standards for enlistment, but of their “diversity” hiring, as they purportedly ferret out “white supremacy” and “white rage.” 

In sum, our government is playing with our lives as it prefers diversity, equity, and inclusion over ensuring the best qualified employees are hired on the basis of racially and gender-blind competitive tests and experience. 

Keep it up, and there are going to be a lot more Afghanistan-style surrenders, Chinese surveillance craft in our skies, and airline nightmares.




Ukraine war: Zelensky rules out territory deal with Putin in BBC interview

 

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has ruled out giving up any of his country's territory in a potential peace deal with Russia.

In a BBC interview to mark a year since Russia's full-scale invasion, he warned conceding land would mean Russia could "keep coming back", while Western weapons would bring peace closer.

Mr Zelensky also said a predicted spring offensive had already begun.

"Russian attacks are already happening from several directions," he said.

He does, however, believe Ukraine's forces can keep resisting Russia's advance until they are able to launch a counter-offensive - although he repeated his calls for more military aid from the West.

"Of course, modern weapons speed up peace. Weapons are the only language Russia understands," Mr Zelensky told the BBC.

He met UK and EU leaders last week in a bid to bolster international support and to ask for modern arms to defend his country. When Ukraine's president asked for modern fighter jets, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said "nothing is off the table".

But Kyiv has become increasingly frustrated with the speed with which Western weapons have arrived. Deliveries of battle tanks - promised last month by a swathe of Western countries, including Germany, the US and the UK - are still thought to be weeks away from arriving on the battlefield.

President Zelensky also addressed a threat by Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko to wage war alongside Russian troops from his territory if a single Ukrainian soldier crossed the border. 


"I hope [Belarus] won't join [the war]," he said. "If it does, we will fight and we will survive." Allowing Russia to use Belarus as a staging post for an attack again would be a "huge mistake", he added.  


Russian forces launched part of their full-scale invasion from Belarus 12 months ago. They drove south towards Ukraine's capital Kyiv but were fought back and made to retreat within weeks, after suffering heavy casualties.

When asked if he was surprised by Russia's tactics in the war, Mr Zelensky described them as "valueless".

"The way they destroyed everything. If their soldiers received [and carried out] those orders, that means they share those same values."

Ukrainian data released this week suggested Russian troops in Ukraine were dying in greater numbers this month than at any time since the first week of their invasion. The figures cannot be verified, but the UK's Ministry of Defence said the trends were "likely accurate".

"Today, our survival is our unity," said Mr Zelensky on how he thought the war will end. "I believe Ukraine is fighting for its survival." His country was moving towards Europe economically, as well as through its values, he said.

"We chose this path. We want security guarantees. Any territorial compromises would make us weaker as a state."

"It's not about compromise itself," he said. "Why would we be afraid of that? We have millions of compromises in life every day.

"The question is with whom? With Putin? No. Because there's no trust. Dialogue with him? No. Because there's no trust."  


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64662184