Wednesday, February 14, 2024

The Obama Doctrine vs. the West


The global and domestic landscape is one of turmoil and indecision. Everywhere one looks there is chaos and potential disaster, whether in the financial, economic, political, or military sphere. Since the beginning of the post-World War II era there has been one constant that has been the stabilizing force in the world: the stature, power, and influence of the United States. The twelve years of Barack Obama and his ventriloquist dummy, Joe Biden, have overwhelmingly eroded America and dramatically accelerated the demise of western civilization.

Barack Obama assumed the office of the presidency as a man brought up and steeped in 1960s radicalism as well as his Kenyan father’s rabid anti-colonialism, a combination which advanced the doctrine that America, as the current Western super-power, represents the evil nature of colonialism, western civilization, and capitalism’s exploitation of the masses.

The intellectual, material, and military success of America and the West could only have come about from expropriating the wealth and labor of the peoples of the world, therefore what is defined as western civilization must be destroyed and replaced. But that can only come about if the United States is dismantled.

The mindset of Barack Obama and his ideological fellow-travelers is such that under no circumstances can they defend the West; instead, they must not only transform the United States, but destroy any vestiges of its accomplishments. By doing so they, in their addled thinking, exact revenge for the alleged transgressions of the fictitious “White Race” and their dominate global culture.

Barack Obama and these indoctrinated malcontents have spent their entire lives, from birth to the present wallowing in this mindset. Due to his preeminence in the movement, this philosophy, and tactics to overthrow American culture and society as the final step in destroying western culture can be rightfully captioned as the Obama Doctrine.

The ongoing chaos in the United States is a direct result of their tactical methodology. Which is to:

  • Tribalize the American populace through an incessant drumbeat of the iniquities of the so-called white race and their attendant “white supremacy and privilege,”
  • Infiltrate the universities in order to indoctrinate the younger generations about America’s supposed role in the evils of exploitation and “colonialism,”
  • Collapse the economy through the exploitation of unsubstantiated “climate change” and an equally fatuous “green agenda,”
  • Undermine the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation by promoting unfettered sexual and lifestyle “freedoms,”
  • Manipulate the voting process in order to achieve permanent government power,
  • Flood the nation with untold millions of illegal immigrants who will refuse to assimilate and will create massive dislocations in the society and the economy.

The suffering of the average American citizen facing economic ruin and the very real threat of Islamic terrorism within this, or any western nation’s borders, are mere means to an end. To Obama and his confederates, the radical jihadist movement is the tip of the spear to bring down the United States and the West.

Thus Obama, and his allied neo-Marxists that control the Biden Administration, can justify bankrupting the country as well as promoting unfettered illegal immigration of those who will not assimilate and are from non-European nations around the globe, including those who harbor Islamic terrorists.

Primarily because it is an outpost of western civilization in the Middle East and despite the brutality of Hamas on October 7, 2023, Obama and these racially radicalized collectivists have no compunction in forcing Israel to compromise with the Palestinians for a so-called two-state solution knowing those concessions will eventually spell the end of the Jewish state.

To this cabal there is no overriding American interest in international affairs except to take a back seat and surrender its influence to other non-western powers, in particular Communist China.

The acolytes of the Obama Doctrine are well aware that over the past three decades the United States has been increasingly alone in carrying the banner for western civilization. Far too many western nations are incompetent and easily intimidated democracies. The leadership in Europe has been essentially nonexistent, as those nations are on what is now a path of inevitable societal suicide. A path upon which the United States has also embarked.

The population of the European continent is rapidly aging as the result of a catastrophically negative birth rate -- the end product of nearly 160 million abortions since 1980 as nearly 45% of Europeans believe there are no moral absolutes.

As a solution to this dilemma, the countries of Western Europe have, over the years, flung open their borders to waves of legal and illegal immigrants from primarily Muslim nations in Africa and the Middle East. The bulk of them adamantly refuse to assimilate and are currently and deliberately fomenting societal upheaval with an eye to eventually dominating a majority of European nations.

The Obama cabal are also counting on the fact that among the most insidious traits of the America’s and the West’s so-called “best and brightest” is that they are incredibly self-absorbed and, thus incapable of admitting their mistakes and taking corrective actions. Instead of dealing with the harsh realities of what is happening in their respective societies today, far too many seek shelter in unknowingly abetting the downfall of their nations and the West by collapsing their societies and economies in the quixotic pursuit of vague and unproven climate-change theories.

There are only a handful of leaders in the United States and other Western countries willing to repudiate the tenets of these racially-inspired neo-Marxists as well as telling their citizenries the unadulterated truth about the accelerating demise of the West. The rest are incapable of handling the truth themselves, much less knowing what to do about the situations and dilemmas at hand. They react instead with futile collectivist theories promulgated by self-proclaimed and egocentric intellectuals who themselves have no worldly experience except self-induced guilt and, for some, a desire to be part of the in-crowd in the thrall of the Obama Doctrine.

This mindset, combined with a lack of forceful and determined leadership by the United States, will eventuate in another global financial catastrophe, a hegemonic Communist China, an inevitable full-blown military conflict in the Middle East, and the unchecked spread of radical Islam. The ultimate goal of the fall of western civilization will then be realized, but at a massive and bloody cost.

Until the narcissism and ideology of today’s American ruling class is replaced by those willing to repudiate and expose the Obama Doctrine and act accordingly, the world will continue to evolve into an exceedingly dangerous place as once the United States is lost there will be no turning back.

Due to the base nature of the human race, with its failings and foibles, all societies have shortcomings, but the key measure of any civilization is what it does to control these tendencies and strive for a culture of equality. No nation or civilization in history has done more to assimilate virtually all races and ethnicities and advance the well-being of mankind than the United States and western civilization.

In 2024 the American people have the unique opportunity to overwhelmingly reject the ideology and machinations of Barack Obama, the addled treachery of Joe Biden, and the complicity of a neo-Marxist Democrat Party and essentially save western civilization.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- Feb 14

 




What Trump’s ‘Retribution’ Really Means


Many have discussed a second Trump presidency revolving around “retribution.”  Trump’s Republican primary opponents have claimed that Trump, if re-elected, would be consumed with “personal grievances” at the expense of “real issues.”  Across the aisle, leftists have attempted to program the masses into believing that any form of “retribution” — more on what they mean by that later — would render President Trump a dictator.  However, both narratives contain easily exposed flaws.

The media have been champing at the bit to twist Trump’s words to advance their dictator narrative.  In response, Trump has given smart political answers in saying winning the election, as well as success, will be his retribution.  There is no doubting that winning and undoing detrimental Biden policies, similar to when he succeeded the Obama administration, would be one form of retribution.  However, no amount of politically nuanced attacks by his “fellow” Republicans, or mainstream leftist gaslighting, can alter reality.  Attacks on Trump are real issues that need to be addressed.

Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley were predictably the loudest Republican voices echoing the “real issues” talking point.  DeSantis has said Trump becoming the nominee would make the election “about legal issues, criminal trials, and January 6,” suggesting that those issues, as well as people who have been wrongly harmed as collateral damage for aligning with Trump — such as January 6 prisoners who continue to rot in prison, or Douglass Mackey, who was sentenced to seven months in prison after the newly inaugurated illegitimate Biden regime raided his home for a meme he had posted five years prior — will never receive the justice they deserve.

As for Haley, after continuing to be soundly defeated in every primary election, including in Nevada, where she came in a distant second to “None of These Candidates,” she continues to point out all of the “dysfunction” that comes with Trump, essentially placing the blame on him for being the target of increasingly obvious political persecution.

Both were unique in how they demonstrated their lack of understanding of the seriousness of our newly weaponized government.  Trump’s entrance into politics began as a mockery but has now progressed into impeachments, indictments, ballot removals, arrests, and God knows what else to come between now and November.  These are real issues, and any candidate who suggests that these things should be “left in the past” concedes that he either isn’t aware of the legitimacy of voter concerns about these issues or is willfully ignoring them for political gain.  Either explanation is disqualifying.

Republicans ignoring or not recognizing these attacks as real issues is a wrong.  But Democrats’ current and most brazenly hypocritical instance of gaslighting to date is even more alarming.  Leftist TV panels can frequently be heard shrieking at the thought of Trump indicting his political opponents.  Yes, they somehow say this without ever noting that Biden and his cronies have already set the precedent for this.  They almost deserve credit for getting through their TV segments with a straight face.  But despite all their theatre, it isn’t “retribution” they truly fear, but rather accountability, and perhaps with good reason.

Joe Biden has presided over a blatant, unconstitutionally weaponized government.  His former (and likely current) boss, Barack Hussein Obama, began this tactic of American politicking by allowing his FBI to spy on an incoming president, which Hillary Clinton and her campaign masterminded.  Nancy Pelosi willfully failed to secure proper security measures in the lead up to January 6, prioritizing optics instead, which has led to the unconstitutional denial of due process for many Americans.  This was followed by an obviously biased January 6th Select Committee, which was recently revealed to have operated in a less than ethical manner.  When you consider all of this, and too much more to mention, it is no surprise that they are hammering the retribution talking point, trying to convince America that any instance of them finally being held accountable for their own conduct would undoubtedly be a product of a dictatorial regime.  The irony.

Despite their attempts, the truth remains the same.  The oath of office mandates that a president “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of their ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  That oath is broad by design, as each president faces a unique set of challenges at the time of their reign, and is entrusted by voters to be able to recognize, and determine how to properly address them.

Lincoln dealt with slavery and the Civil War, FDR Hitler and World War II, Reagan the Cold War and the USSR, and the list goes on.  There is now a new war that has begun inside the United States by those who have weaponized their power.  Getting answers from and delivering justice to those who have carried out these harmful acts on Trump, and by extension the United States, to prevent it from occurring further would not be a distraction, nor would it be dictatorial.

Trump would be just as obligated to attempt to fix this new problem, known as the weaponization of government, as other presidents were to fix the problems of their time.  In fact, Trump would be derelict in his duty if he were to not address these issues at least in some way, as he has already stated he believes that the problem will continue in perpetuity if not addressed.

How one defines retribution in political terms is ambiguous.  So how should we expect Trump to address this if he returns to office?  Last year, he pulled no punches in stating, “I am your warrior, I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”  Then, asked by Glenn Beck if he would “lock people up,” Trump said, “The answer is, you have no choice, because they’re doing it to us.” Further, during his post–New Hampshire victory speech, when referencing an embarrassing Nikki Haley celebratory I-came-in-last address to her astroturfed Democrat supporters, Trump said, “I don’t get angry.  I get even.”  Trump, ever the believer in “an eye for an eye,” in a business sense, to prevent misdeeds from continuing, seems to understand the long-term importance of how what has taken place must be rectified.

If Trump fulfills his constitutional duty in this regard, he will not be using government as a weapon for payback, or “personal grievances,” as Biden has.  Instead, he will be cleaning up the deeply rooted, decades-long corruption in government that now plagues America, which would certainly fall under “success,” as he regularly references.

No, Trump will not be going after “journalists” or “the media” or any given “political opponent” who has criticized him, as the media suggest.  Instead, he will, within the confines of the law and presidency, aim to protect America from enemies seeking to destroy it, whether they be foreign or domestic, as all presidents are required to do.  That is something all Americans, regardless of candidate preference or political affiliation, should demand from their commander in chief.



The Lawfare Cheerleaders Are Hitting The Wall Of Reality


The lawfare has been going on for a while, but we are now starting to see some reality slap these hacks in the face. More slapping is coming. Welcome to the world of real law practice, resisters.

Understand that Twitter lawyers and MSNBC lawyers are all terrible. I mean, they are awful. Professionals laugh at them. They count on their titles and resumes to insulate them, and some of them are impressive – Laurence Tribe, for example, was a liberal but somewhat respected Harvard professor. Now, he shouts nonsense at passersby on Twitter all day. These people operate not in court but in their bizarro world, where insane legal theories get taken seriously. 

You need to understand that the idiocy we see swirling around the attempts to frame and bankrupt Trump has zero to do with the kind of law normal lawyers practice every day. Except for political cases, where the normal rules often fail to apply – and when they do, the resistance gets pummeled – you do not get the “one weird trick,” too-clever by half kind of legal theories we see deployed against Trump. Weird stuff generally gets rejected and decisively. There’s generally one set of rules and people generally play by them – what non-lawyers hear about are the unusual cases where the rules get ignored. So, ideas like “Hey, this obscure sub-section of an amendment designed to exclude confederates can be used by one state to exclude the guy half of America wants to re-elect as president on the grounds that him not quickly enough tweeting for people to be peaceful is the same as the Civil War” rarely get raised because they always get laughed out of court. Or not laughed out – thrown out brutally when the judge gets mad about having his intelligence insulted. 

But in political cases, politicized bodies like the Colorado Supreme Court accept legal nonsense (even there, only by one vote). And then it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and suddenly, the judges are not playing by the new rules. They look at it as a legal matter – which the Twitter Perry Masons and MSNBC Clarence Darrows do not – and start asking perfectly predictable questions. Then you see the poor schlub stuck arguing for the nonsense theory, tapdancing and tugging his tie, trying to answer questions that never got asked in the echo chamber. After all, some questions are too hard to ask – they spoil a great theory. Trump is the worst monster there ever was, right? So, whatever has to be done to stop us from having to relive his nightmarish rampage of economic prosperity and peaceful security. If that means bending the law until it snaps, well, so be it. After all, Trump is a menace, and all six lawyers on set agree!

There’s your giveaway. If you get six lawyers agreeing on something, the fix is in.

That is why they are shocked when a court acts like a court, and suddenly, they need to answer tough questions about their theory. Why should one state, brd on its own criteria for what constitutes an “insurrection,” get to choose who can be president for all 50 states? What happens when another state decides that not enforcing the law on the border and allowing an invasion of third-world peasants constitutes an “insurrection” and knocks Senile Joe off the ballot? Why can’t it, and no, “But There Are Special Trump Rules” does not cut it. The Supreme Court has a bit of an ego – with some exceptions, it does not like to be made a fool of, and this ballot silliness is foolish. Some of the hardest questions came from the liberal justices. Look for an 8-1, maybe 9-0 rejection of this dumb scheme.

And you will see more with the criminal cases. There are potential avenues for appeal for the wacky rape case and the attack on Trump’s businesses. I am just hoping Trump’s lawyers, whose strategies I frequently do not understand, have preserved those issues for appeal (You have to raise issues in the trial court, or you waive them on appeal). The same goes for criminal cases. I think he has meritorious selective prosecution arguments, and again. I hope his lawyers are preserving those too (you would do that by making motions in the trial court, which I am unsure has happened yet).

The legal insufficiency of the cases is an issue. The Alvin Bragg case is just stupid -even honest leftists admit that. Fani Willis’s case is stupid too, and she might find herself in a cell for being corrupt. The Jack Smith DC trial is brd on unique legal theories that have never been tried before and that seem to contradict existing precedent. The Florida case got its feet kicked out from under it when the DOJ decided not to charge Biden for arguably worse acts than are alleged against Trump – though, of course, Trump can’t rely on the senility defense. All of these face severe questions when they get real judges looking at them – which might happen for some of them at the trial court level.

As for the resistance fantasy of Donald Trump spending the election campaign in successive courtrooms, do you think that’s going to end up happening? After waiting years to charge him, the government is now whining about Trump’s taking the necessary time to defend himself. We all know they timed these cases to happen in an election year, and so do the Supremes. Do you think anyone who is not a Dem appointee or named Roberts is going to shrug and go along with what everyone knows is happening? No, the federal cases, at least, will almost certainly not be heard in 2024, and unseemly haste by a judge to force them to trial before the election will not be appreciated.

These cases were always crap, and they relied on the cynicism of their proponents to maintain the fantasy that they are just law as usual. They are not, and everyone knows it – including the Supreme Court.



SCOTUS Gives Jack Smith One Week to Respond to Trump's Immunity Claims

Rebecca Downs reporting for Townhall 

On Monday, as we covered at the time, former and potentially future President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in to keep his January 6 case on hold due to claims of presidential immunity. The Court has now told Special Counsel Jack Smith that he must respond by February 20. 

The Hill, which reported on both the appeal and the Court's response, highlighted the amount of time the justices are giving Smith here:

In a brief order, the high court ordered Smith to respond by Tuesday, Feb. 20, not a particularly speedy schedule.

...

By next Tuesday, the special counsel will now have to respond to Trump’s latest tactic: requesting his trial be kept on hold until he can ask the full District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to review his immunity claims, and then, if needed, the Supreme Court.

The timeline for Smith’s response isn’t fast compared to how the Supreme Court has handled some recent emergency applications, however, a signal the justices aren’t viewing Trump’s case with particular urgency.

Curt Levey, a constitutional law attorney and the president of the Committee for Justice, who weighed in about the request last night as well, also shared his thoughts with Townhall on the timing. "Giving Smith a week may suggest the Court wants a thorough response from Smith, which in turn would indicate that it plans to carefully consider Trump’s stay request," he offered. 

It's looking increasingly possible that the trial in the January 6 case, originally set for March 4, just before the Super Tuesday primary schedule, will not take place as scheduled. It had been paused while Trump appealed the issue of presidential immunity. 

If Trump can avoid a trial before the election, and he ends up taking office once more, he can pardon himself or direct his own Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop the case. 

The delay tactics and timing look to be President Joe Biden's worst nightmare as he's weaponized his DOJ against his political opponents. As Matt covered, Politico put a piece over the weekend revealing that Biden was particularly frustrated with the speed Attorney General Merrick Garland was moving concerning the election interference charges brought against Trump. The New York Times in April 2022 had also revealed that Biden "has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6."



GOP Leadership Is Obviously Corrupt, But These Senators Are Standing Up For America

Here are the Senate Republicans who deserve praise for placing American interests first by voting against more U.S. spending for war in Ukraine.



In its latest act of placing American interests last, the U.S. Senate passed legislation on Tuesday to ship $95 billion more in U.S. taxpayer money to foreign nations such as Ukraine.

In a 70-29 vote, the foreign supplemental approved by the upper chamber authorizes funds for (mostly) Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan but did not include provisions addressing the ongoing invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill — which was introduced days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s back-door border boondoggle collapsed — received the backing of 22 Senate Republicans, whose support pushed it over the finish line.

As if placing the needs of foreign nations above their constituents’ wasn’t bad enough, several Republicans who supported the measure publicly talked down to voters concerned about America’s open border and other major domestic issues. As The Federalist’s Tristan Justice reported, McConnell said those who oppose continued funding of America’s proxy war with Russia hold “the dimmest and most shortsighted views of our obligations.”

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis insulted voters’ intelligence by stating, “Our base cannot possibly know what’s at stake at the level that any well-briefed U.S. senator should know about what’s at stake if Putin wins.” Utah Sen. Mitt Romney put the cherry on top by telling his colleagues Tuesday’s vote is “most important vote we will ever take as United States senators.”

While these and more Republicans were more than willing to ship even more of their constituents’ tax dollars overseas while the United States is deep in unsustainable debt and spending, several Senate GOPers put American interests first instead.

Mike Lee of Utah

One of the more outspoken senators against shipping more U.S. funding to Ukraine, Lee filibustered for four hours on the Senate floor on Saturday, arguing against the measure. Utah’s senior senator once again took to the chamber floor on Monday night encouraging his Republican colleagues to prioritize their constituents’ needs over those of foreign nations.

“Those who vote ‘yes’ undermine what senators are elected to do, first and foremost: which is to represent our states,” Lee said. “Every senator has the chance … to vote ‘no’ on this bill, and by so doing, vote in support of governors, schools, hospitals, churches, playgrounds, clean streets, and safe neighborhoods, by voting against more funding for Ukraine.”

Rand Paul of Kentucky

The Kentucky senator highlighted that bill titles often mislead about a bill’s contents, and opined that the $95 billion supplemental should be titled, “Ukraine First, America Last.”

“If this bill had an image or a cover on the front of the bill, the image would the migrant in New York who assaulted a police officer, was freed from jail on no bail, and gave the middle finger of both hands to America,” Paul said. “That’s what this bill is. It’s the middle finger to America.”

Tommy Tuberville of Alabama

Tuberville affirmed that America “should not give another dime to Ukraine until we secure our border for our citizens” and called out his GOP colleagues for neglecting the foreign invasion of the United States.

“In December, all of 49 Republicans voted to defeat similar legislation—because it did nothing for our southern border. Senate Republicans were unanimous,” Tuberville said. “We had a consensus in the Republican Conference that we should not give more money to other countries until we secure our southern border. … My position has not changed since December. The 17 Republicans who voted to take up this legislation can explain their change of heart themselves.”

Eric Schmitt of Missouri

Schmitt underscored how disconnected Democrats and the GOP establishment are from everyday Americans, saying: “The working folks back home that feel left behind by this town [Washington, D.C.]” are exhausted by Congress’s “ridiculous priorities and being 34 trillion dollars in debt and shipping jobs overseas.”

Josh Hawley of Missouri

Similar to his fellow Missouri senator, Hawley lambasted Congress for bankrolling Ukraine’s corrupt government and ignoring the urgent needs of Americans.

“I have listened carefully — carefully — to colleague after colleague of mine come to this floor and stand where I am now and say, ‘It’s so important that we spend this money on these overseas wars. We must spend the money. If we don’t spend this money now, why, it may cost us more money in the future. No, it’s imperative,'” Hawley said. “Meanwhile, these same people turn to the citizens of Missouri and say, ‘You’re not worth a dime.'”

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

Prior to the Senate’s passage of the $95 billion foreign subsidy package, Johnson said President Biden and Congress’s No. 1 priority should be securing America’s borders, not those of foreign powers.

“As much as you may be sympathetic with the people of Ukraine … we need to first secure our own border,” Johnson said.

Ted Budd of North Carolina

Budd blasted Democrats’ open border policies and said America must “secure [its] own border before [it] can help other countries protect theirs” in order to remain a leading power.

Roger Marshall of Kansas

Marshall called out Democrats’ insincerity in negotiating a foreign invader amnesty bill, calling the maneuver a “charade.”

The White House was “never serious about it,” Marshall said. “Why would we have to beg the president of the United States to secure our own border? … Why would we have to give [Democrats] Ukraine funding in return for a secure border? It makes sense to nobody.”

Marco Rubio of Florida

The Florida senator explained his opposition to the bill by saying his constituents are “tired of being put in second place.” This bill “violates our most important responsibility, and that is to give voice to the people of this country,” Rubio said.

Rick Scott of Florida

Scott used his Senate floor time to highlight President Biden’s failure in rescuing Americans being held captive by Hamas, saying: “I can’t imagine why the president of the United States isn’t speaking every single day about Americans … being held hostage by Hamas terrorists and what he is doing to get them out.”

J.D. Vance of Ohio

Vance underscored the seriousness of the U.S. border invasion, particularly the prevalence of fentanyl in American communities.

“We’re being invaded by up to 10 million illegal migrants over the course of Joe Biden’s term in office, and we have apparently no president with the willpower to stop that problem,” he said. “We have a fentanyl crisis that has led to the deaths of over 100,000 people per year in the last few years of our youngest and brightest people.”

Honorable Mentions

Other GOP senators to vote against the $95 billion foreign aid supplemental include John Barrasso of Wyoming, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Katie Britt of Alabama, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana, Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, and James Lankford and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming did not vote on the measure.



How Biden Allowed Iran to Save Its Terror-Supporting Officers in Syria


Spencer Brown reporting for TownhallVIP 

Following the deadly Iran-backed attack on American troops in Jordan on January 28, President Biden and his Pentagon brass pledged a "multi-tier" response for the brazen assault that killed three U.S. service members. 

The retributive strikes saw at least one senior leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah — one of the handful of Iran-backed terrorist organizations that have been coordinating scores of attacks on U.S. troops in the Middle East since October — in Baghdad, but there was a notable lack of punishment for the source of all the chaos in the region: the regime in Tehran. It appears that was by Biden's design.

Instead of acting swiftly and decisively, however, the administration telegraphed its considerations and likely targets for days on end. Waiting until after the fallen heroes had returned to the United States for a dignified transfer in Dover, Delaware, the Biden administration finally began launching strikes in the region. 

According to reporting from the Financial Times, "Iran pulled senior commanders of its Revolutionary Guard out of Syria days before the US launched strikes against Iranian-linked targets in the Arab state to prevent the elite force suffering further casualties." Conveniently, the IRGC "officers had left Syria by the time Washington launched air strikes five days" after Biden promised to launch a response to the attack that killed U.S. troops. 

Reminding that the Biden administration said it "directly targeted Revolutionary Guard facilities in Syria," that means the agents of Tehran operating in support of Iran's terror proxies were able to get away, thanks to Biden's delays and ample warnings. 

As Joe Truzman, senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), noted, Iran saving its officers' hide was "exactly what the Biden administration intended" to happen. 


Even worse — and proving that Biden's strikes in response to the killing of U.S. Army Sgts. Kennedy Sanders, William Rivers, and Breonna Moffett won't prevent future attacks on American troops — is this nugget, also reported by the Financial Times.

Iranian officials, calling the decision to withdraw IRGC commanders merely a "change in tactics," received notice from the U.S. "through indirect channels that it did not seek a conflict with Iran." 

That is, after Iranian patronage to terrorist organizations saw more than 170 attacks launched at U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan and took the lives of three American service members, the U.S. told Tehran we didn't seek a conflict.

That also means, as an "Iranian analyst affiliated to the Islamic regime" told the Financial Times, "[o]nce there is relative calm, these forces will return to Syria." And Tehran's support of terrorist proxies in the region will resume at full strength. 



Survey: Half of Americans Think Biden Got Special Treatment in Classified Docs Probe


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll concluded Monday showed that half of Americans surveyed think that President Joe Biden received special treatment in Special Counsel Robert Hur's classified documents investigation because he is president.

About half of Americans think President Joe Biden got special treatment when federal prosecutors decided last week they would not prosecute him for allegedly mishandling classified documents, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 53% of respondents, including 29% of Democrats, in the four-day poll which closed on Monday, agree with a statement that "Biden received special treatment because he is the U.S. president."

About half - or 46% - of respondents said they were at least somewhat familiar with U.S. Special Counsel Robert Hur's comments that prosecuting Biden would be tough because Biden, 81, could present himself to the jury "as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

That last statement (I'd question the "well-meaning" part) caused a firestorm of replies from Democrats and has cast doubt on the President's re-election bid - and the wisdom of the Democratic Party in apparently keeping him as the candidate.

The poll results underscore potentially critical vulnerabilities for Biden as he seeks re-election. Some 78% of respondents in the poll - including 71% of Democrats - think Biden, already the oldest person ever to occupy the Oval Office, is too old to work in government.

Trump, his likely opponent in the November election, is 77 but suffers less from voter skepticism over his age. Only 53% of respondents consider Trump, who was president 2017-2021, to be too old for government work.

It's important to note that the "too old for government work" query produced over 50 percent results for both presidential candidates, although President Biden's number here is notably higher than former President Trump's.


Schiff Seems Ready to Toss Joe Biden Under the Bus 

Latest Biden Documents Revelation Exposes the Duplicity in the Press


Another question in the survey involved both candidates having taken documents illegally. The responses to that question appear to be a statistical wash between Trump and Biden:

Some 64% of respondents, including 50% of Democrats, considered it believable that Biden's (sic) took the information illegally. A similar share of respondents - 68% - said they considered it believable that Trump also mishandled classified documents, a charge that is at the center of one of his indictments.

Note that this charge is "at the center of" one of Trump's indictments, but Special Counsel Hur has declined any prosecution (during or after his term in office) due to his being a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," who is unable to stand trial for mishandling classified documents - granted there are different investigators and prosecutors involved.

Public perception of the capability of the candidates could be a big deciding factor in this fall's presidential election. Neither candidate is in late middle age - they are both senior citizens, one in his late '70s and one in his early '80s. Both have issues with handling classified documents, although there is one key difference: Donald Trump removed classified documents while president when he had the authority to declassify those docs (whether he did so or not is unclear), while Joe Biden removed classified materials not only when he was vice president, with no such declassification authority, but while he was a senator. And now, a majority of Americans believe that he was treated with kid gloves because he is the sitting commander-in-chief - and that he is too old for the job.

We do live in interesting times.