How to Combat the Politics of Paranoia

To remain sane in our chaotic age requires one to reject the politics of paranoia and embrace truth.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

Amidst these turbulent times, friends and acquaintances have often asked me how one can separate the wheat of facts from the chaff of rhetoric and combat the politics of paranoia. As you can imagine, the presidential campaign has increased solicitations for said advice. Thus, in a bipartisan spirit—for these suggestions apply to messaging across the political spectrum—I have composed this (hopefully) helpful summation.

But first, the needed mea culpa.

In an instance of the physician not healing himself, every morning, I wake up and make myself miserable by opening my email inbox and social media sites to peruse ever more frightening items about the imminent demise of our free republic, specifically, and/or humanity, generally. Yes, I willingly engage in this masochistic quest to stay abreast of current events. Though, in my defense, current events do bear some responsibility for engendering despair and despondency. Further, I openly admit to penning and posting articles upon current events. Though, again in my defense, I do try to compose them as analytical surveys rather than as frantic calls to action. While I do not always succeed, the point of this mea culpa and summation is precisely that: to remain sane in our chaotic age requires one to reject the politics of paranoia and embrace truth.

No, it will not be easy.

During this presidential election, billions of dollars will be targeted at you by politicians, their operatives, issue advocacy groups, and the traditional and social media during to scare you witless; induce your compliance; and cajole and coerce your consent to their governance and implementation of their agenda.

Again, both sides will continue to do this. But what will separate the facts from the rhetoric is the following:

1. The scope of the fear being engendered;
2. The factual basis for that fear and its proposed remediation;
3. The degree to which this “solution” entails the infringement your freedoms, such as the freedom of conscience; and
4. The establishment of dependence upon the political class.

Succinctly, then, herewith is the political rhetoric “life hack”: the greater the fearmongering, the lesser the factual basis for its dire prediction; the fewer precedents for its remediation; and fewer rights and autonomy you will retain in implementing its “solution.” How you apply this life hack is entirely your decision.

In conclusion, in my own effort to combat the politics of paranoia, there is also one final bit of advice I have gleaned from an unexpected source.

During the depths of the Great Depression and at a time when fascism and communism were on the rise, in his First Inaugural Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously warned against being fearful. In his opening, FDR inverted the rhetorical tricks of the politics of paranoia:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

FDR asserted he would not overstate the financial crisis, which in fact spoke for itself, and recognized his responsibility to offer an honest assessment the public deserved and demanded. He then explicitly stated that the American people would overcome this crisis. Thus, his “fear itself” statement was to emphasize the American people’s faith in themselves, which had been vindicated time and time again during crises. Bluntly, FDR sought to diminish fear so the people could think clearly, make their own assessments, and voluntarily consent to his proposed solutions.

That many of FDR’s proposed solutions ultimately did not work and may have entailed the curtailment of some of the privileges and prerogatives of the powerful is beyond question. But what is also beyond question is that FDR’s continual reaffirmation of trusting the American people with the truth, however harsh, and urging them to reject facing it fearfully laid the foundation for the salvation of civilization from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Importantly, however, it is equally inarguable that when FDR allowed his own fears and those of the public to guide his decisions, it resulted in the patently unjust internment of Japanese-Americans, which extinguished their liberty and expropriated their property.

Today, we can also be certain of one ineluctable fact. No matter how fearful they may make the public feel, those politicians and their cohorts who peddle the politics of paranoia are the real cowards. They are afraid to be honest with you because their great fear is…

You.

X22, And we Know, and more- August 11

 

Fraudie Murphy: Tim Walz Owes America An Explanation And An Apology

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

I have to be honest; I’d never heard of a “CommandSergeantMajor” before Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. I was never in the military so the various ranks, what they mean and in which order they come has never been a part of my life. But everyone I know who is or was in the military did know about it, and they all, to varying degrees, call BS on every excuse the campaign even could offer up in an attempt to explain it away. The simple fact of the matter is Walz has lied repeatedly about his military service, and if he’s willing to do that – up to and including engaging in stolen valor – what wouldn’t he, and the Democrats around him, lie about?He portrays himself as an Audie Murphy-type, the most decorated soldier in US history, when he’s more likeFraudieMurphy.  

Honestly, looking over the record of Walz talking about his service, I’m not sure if there’s a incident of him speaking honestly about it. 

I get that people change their stories over time, that memories fade and the size of the fish grows – and EVERYONE is the hero in their own story – but I can’t find a time when Walz referred to his service accurately. 

While he did get to the rank of Command SergeantMajor, he was demoted when he backed out of deploying to Iraq with his troops. The got the promotion to CSM on condition he serve 2 more years – long enough to take the required courses for the rank and make it worth the National Guard’s time to have spent the money. Walz agreed to do that, then backed out.

I get how life can intervene in anything – I do love the old joke, “Want to make God laugh? Make a plan” –and the idea of deploying anywhere when there’s an open Congressional seatyou’ve been thinking about running for is a drag, which seems to be what happened here. 

I understand all of that, an open seat is not very common and they’re really the best shot people new to politics have to win, so I don’t really have a problem with Walz seeing his opening and wanting to go for it. I do have a problem with the fact that he’s been lying about it since 2005. 

Since 2005 and deciding to run for Congress, every single time Tim Walz has spoken or written about his military career he has lied about. Sometimes straight out lying by claiming to be a retired Command Sergeant Major, other times lying by implication that he was deployed into a combat zone.

I don’t know that there’s a biography of Walz online anywhere that does not imply that he either retired at a rank he did not retire at, that he deployed to a combat zone (which is precisely what he dodged by retiring to run for Congress), or both.

To have deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom someone has to have been deployed as part of the war in Afghanistan, which is not limited to being in the actual combat zone or the country, if they were deployed in support of it.However, if you do not have a military background, the odds of you knowing that it applies to both people in the combat zone and people sent places to, say, ship supplies to the combat zonefrom several countries away is probably lost on you. I’m not belittling the service of anyone, but there are people who are clear and people who deliberately conflate to two, and those people don’t do it by accident, they’re slipping a little valor in their pockets.

Remember the dentally-challenged “noble Native American elder” the media hyped up as being victimized by Nick Sandmann, the one who creepily banged his little drum in Nick’s face? He was billed as a Vietnam veteran who ultimately was exposed to be like Connecticut Democratic Senator Dick Blumenthal who lied about serving IN Vietnam, only to have massaged the language to imply it – having served during Vietnam. Walz did the same thing, repeatedly, even on his own state government website. 

There doesn’t seem to be any consequence for Democrats who lie about their military service, explicitly or implicitly. There doesn’t seem to be any consequence for Democrats who lie period. Bill Clinton is still a star in the party after using his Cabinet to lie on his behalf about his affair and not a single one of them resigned out of principle after he finally told the truth. The media paid out a fortune to Sandmann after lying about him and they act as though it never happened. Blumenthal is still a United States Senator.

At some point, and let it be with Tim Walz, a line must be drawn or responsibility exacted, doesn’t it? He did serve, and that should have been enough. But it wasn’t for him, like Joe Biden he felt compelled to embellish his biography because A) he must be wildly insecure (he was an assistant coach, not a head coach, ego is the only reason to lie about that), and B) because he could. Once you don’t get caught doing something like this you do it more, the fish gets bigger and bigger. 

Fraudie Murphy should be commended for his service, but condemned for exaggerating and lying about it, and ultimately stealing the valor of those who actually did what Tim Walz only pretended to have done. He needs to answer questions, and not from a friendly MSBNC-like reporters, about it, and he needs to apologize for having done it. After that, it’s up to those who actually did serve how he pretended to as to whether or not they want to accept that apology. 

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

‘Draft Our Daughters’ Legislation Smacks Of Trojan Horse For Government Social Credit System

It is oxymoronic to suggest that women must register for a possible future draft while excusing them from close combat.

posted by Elaine Donnelly at The Federalist

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), meeting behind closed doors, recently pulled “Draft Our Daughters” out of the legislative dustbin.  

SASC Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., “sweetened” this year’s version with a trade-off deal purporting to exempt female draftees from being “compelled to join combat roles that were closed to women prior to December 3, 2015.”

The defense bill would automatically register all persons of draft age (18-26) who are subject to Selective Service law, extending government power into the lives of every young person in America while weakening military readiness.  

The “combat carve-out” ploy was a false promise that should have fooled no one, but the measure passed on a 16-9 bipartisan vote.

Why a Combat Carve-Out for Women Is Not Credible

If the Senate wanted to exempt women from direct ground combat, they should have done so across the board, instead of approving a ruse involving Selective Service registration.

Direct ground combat units, such as the infantry, armor, and special operations, attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action. The “Draft Our Daughters” legislation mentions the 2015 date when then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter denied Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford’s formal request that these specialties and units remain all-male. 

The former commandant backed his request with three years of scientific research. According to a summary of field tests, fighting teams composed of average-ability men outperformed mixed-sex units with highly qualified women in 69 percent of evaluated tasks, including hiking under load and typical combat maneuvers.

The research also confirmed significant differences in the physical strength, speed, and endurance of male and female Marines performing heavy-duty close combat tasks. Carter ignored these inconvenient facts, assigning priority to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) goals.

Pentagon leaders promised that “gender neutral” standards would be identical for men and women in the combat arms. Reality intruded when initial Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) trials reported an 84 percent failure rate among female trainees, compared to 30 percent among the men.

Adjustments in test requirements improved women’s scores, but the Army has abandoned sex-neutrality as its goal. A 2022 RAND report showed that only 52 percent of the women could pass the test, compared to 92 percent of the men, but Army policies still pretend that men and women are interchangeable in all ground combat specialties.   

Pentagon leaders who cannot define what a woman is cannot be trusted to define what “combat” is. The purpose of a military draft is to rapidly supply combat replacements in a war that threatens the very existence of the United States. It is oxymoronic to suggest that women must register for a possible future draft while excusing them from close combat.

The defense bill combat carve-out gimmick changes nothing. Women drafted in a time of national emergency would have to serve where they are ordered to go — just like the men.

The Purpose of Selective Service Registration

Anyone who thinks that a reinstated draft would solve the military’s recruiting crisis should reconsider. Government coercion would increase public resistance, and critical race theory (CRT) instructions in schools are undermining patriotism, which is essential for recruitment in the All-Volunteer Force.

Nor would a draft deter endless wars. President Lyndon B. Johnson shipped thousands of draftees to fight oversees in Vietnam. 

The Heritage Foundation has made a good case for abolishing the system, but right now Selective Service is a low-cost insurance policy ($26 million per year) to back up the All-Volunteer Force. It does not exist to advance “sex equity” for less than compelling reasons.

Under “Draft Our Daughters,” any future Selective Service call-up would be governed by “equity” mandates. Drafting equal numbers of men and women just to find the one woman in four who might meet physical requirements would increase administrative demands and jam the system at the worst possible time.

Data and common sense suggest that sex-mixed conscripts would be weaker, slower, more vulnerable to debilitating injuries, less ready for speedy deployments, and less accurate with offensive weapons during combat operations.

So why would any senator vote for the women’s “combat exemption” sham? Either they don’t understand the purpose of the draft, or they are pursuing an incremental “national service” agenda. A law requiring “all persons” to register advances the intent to change the purpose of Selective Service in incremental steps.

Consider the 2020 report of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. The commission recommended Selective Service registration of women for the lamest of reasons: “The time is right.” It also promoted a powerful interagency Council on Military, National and Public Service, which would grant millions of dollars to organizations coordinating national service mandates.

Lumping together military conscription and mandatory national service seductively suggests that young people could avoid the former by accepting the latter.

Once Americans become accustomed to automatic registration, a very expensive, controlling Big Government bureaucracy would use “carrots and sticks” to commandeer the lives of young “national servants” for politically correct reasons of the government’s choice.

Question: Where in the U.S. Constitution is there authorization for the federal government to run the lives of young people for less than compelling reasons?

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of military conscription because the Constitution authorizes Congress to raise armies. However, Congress is not empowered to conscript anyone for the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, or the National Commission-recommended “Public Service Corps.”

Congress should not replace Americans’ presumption of freedom with a presumption of service, tracked in a Big Government system smacking of “social credits.”

‘Draft Our Daughters’ Is An Affront to Women, Who Are Opposed

Military women don’t want to be forced into the combat arms on an involuntary basis, and a recent Rasmussen national survey found that 58 percent of female respondents were “somewhat” or “strongly opposed” to drafting women (22 percent and 36 percent, respectively).

Capable, brave women have always volunteered to serve in times of national emergency, and it is an affront to suggest they would not do so again.

Nevertheless, the defense bill’s backdoor “Draft Our Daughters” scheme could be approved during closed-door negotiations or rammed through during the post-election lame-duck session, even if Republicans win.  

Consequential legislation such as this should be publicly debated, not dropped behind closed doors like an explosive device wrapped in camouflage. “Draft Our Daughters” legislation is unacceptable, and it has no place in law.

Tucker Carlson Interviews Geoff Shepard About “Six Ways from Sunday Crowd” Targeting President Nixon

Tucker Carlson has been talking for a while now, about the parallels/similarities of how the CIA and Intelligence Community targeted Richard Nixon and how the same group targets Donald Trump almost 50 years later.

In this interview with Geoff Shepard, Tucker Carlson discusses, “newly unearthed documents showing Watergate was a scam from start to finish.” Geoff Shepard saw it happen walks through the story with Carlson.  Geoff Shepard’s documentary, “Watergate Secrets and Betrayals,” is available at the link here: https://watergatesecret.com WATCH:

Chapters:

• 0:00 Intro
• 0:51 Who Is Geoff Shepard?
• 2:22 What Was Watergate?
• 12:07 The CIA’s Involvement in Watergate
• 20:13 The Break-in
• 38:11 Unanswered Questions About the Break-in
• 49:10 The Core Criminals of Watergate
• 53:03 The Smoking Gun Tapes
• 56:14 The Press’s Role in Watergate
• 1:11:39 Political Persecution of Richard Nixon
• 1:40:17 Hillary Clinton’s Role in Watergate
• 1:47:05 The Similarities to Donald Trump
• 1:57:22 What Did Nixon Think of All This?
• 2:14:57 Did Nixon Believe the Election Was Stolen?

The Three Mistakes Kamala and the Democrats Are (Still) Making

Adam Turner reporting for RedState 

I hate to interrupt all the (premature) celebrating on the Democrat side since they unchained themselves from “the dying anvil that was Joe Biden that was dragging them down into the murky depths of the lake named Guaranteed Election 2024 Loser Lake”, but Kamala Harris and the Democrats are still making some big mistakes when it comes to their campaign to hold onto the presidency in 2024.

Yup, that’s right, you heard things correctly. Despite all the mainstream media propaganda, the Democrats are the ones making three yuge mistakes since Vice President Kamala Harris leaped into the ring to replace the old, senile, and broken-down Biden.

First, Kamala Harris and the Democrats just can’t seem to quit their campaign attack on Donald Trump for being the devil. Meaning, they continue to portray Trump as a man who is a particularly corrupt and crude barbarian crook who abuses women and hates minorities and wants to overthrow America’s democratic society in favor of a dictatorship. This kind of attack does work with their base, as is clearly demonstrated to me whenever I attempt to discuss politics with my large number of relatives who are part of that voting block. These people often tell me how Trump admits he wants to be a dictator (he once made a joke), Trump is a Nazi (despite him not being a socialist and his daughter and grandkids being Jewish), and that once in the White House Trump will never leave the building (despite him already having done so). 

The problem for the Democrats is that although this attack does work to rev up the base, it doesn’t work on anyone else, most especially the actual swing voters the Democrats will need to persuade to vote for Harris to win the 2024 election. These swing voters have heard this argument repeated before – really, ad nauseum since 2015 – and have already seen a Trump presidency in action, so they know that it is ridiculous partisan BS.

To resort to a well-known meme, the Democrats need to stop trying to make this “fetch” happen. (But they can’t, because they believe their own propaganda.)

Second, Kamala Harris and her campaign are not doing enough to separate her from President Joe Biden and his administration. As the vice president for Biden, she is intrinsically tied to his administration and his left-wing policies. For that reason, during a year when that administration and its policies are resoundingly unpopular, it is imperative that she criticize Biden or otherwise separate herself from him in some significant way. Instead, Harris is just ignoring this problem and pretending that she had no power or responsibilities during the Biden administration, and thus, that nothing that happened can be blamed on her. (I wasn’t the border czar! I didn’t cause any inflation!)

As I wrote before that in 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, a far more distinguished public official (unlike Harris) acted to separate himself from his president, Lyndon Johnson, on the key issue that was harming the Johnson administration – the Vietnam War. Because of this strategy, Humphrey, under similar conditions, came back in 1968 and almost won the election.

Third, Kamala Harris and her campaign team chose unbelievably poorly for her vice-presidential nominee. The ironclad rule of choosing a vice-presidential running mate is, first, DO NO HARM. Here, she chose a man – Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota – who DOES HARM. As my Red State colleague and fellow Seinfeld super fan Bonchie has clearly demonstrated, Tim Walz routinely and egregiously lied and dissembled about his “war record” to try and help himself politically, first when running for Congress, then when running for governor and now while advertising himself as the nominee for vice president. And now, Walz has been finally caught.

Contrary to Democrat hopes, this stolen valor issue is easy to understand, and it is serious enough that it is not going to go away. 

This particular mistake is also inexcusable because it was so preventable. Normally, when campaigns are selecting a vice president, they go through the potential candidates and make sure that each one has no major skeletons in his/her closet. Eric Holder, the former six-year U.S. Attorney General, was supposed to be doing that here. But, somehow, Holder missed these obvious facts that came to light just a few days after Walz was selected. So, Harris, in her first major test as candidate, failed miserably in choosing her running mate.

It gets worse. As everyone with even a rudimentary amount of political knowledge knows, the smart money bet to be selected as Harris’ running mate was Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Shapiro had some major advantages over Walz: 1) he came from a more important state (Pennsylvania is a state that Harris MUST win to win the presidency); 2) he was more moderate than Walz, the latter of whom is just another left-wing radical like Harris (normally you want to “balance” the ticket); and 3) as only the second Jewish nominee for vice president, he would presumably help with Jewish Americans nationally and in other states, like Joe Lieberman did in 2000, especially in Florida. Nevertheless, Harris was clearly intimidated by the anti-Semitic Democrats into choosing Walz instead of Shapiro. Shapiro was a proud religious Jew, who had also (once) been somewhat conservative on the issue of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The antisemites simply could not tolerate that in a Democrat vice-presidential nominee. 

Of these three mistakes, Kamala Harris can still fix the first two of them, if she wants to. (But she probably can’t ditch Walz at this point.) But I doubt she will do so. Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence that Harris realizes that she has, and is, making these mistakes, so it seems unlikely that she will in any way change her election strategy. Especially since she and the other Democrats are so enraptured by her current temporary and easily explainable polling boost.

 As Donald Trump would say, “We’ll see how this turns out” for them.