Monday, December 16, 2024

Dronegate ballooning out of control


The drones are all over now, not just in New Jersey.

And they're creating problems.

According to New York's Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul, drone activity forced runways at New York's Stewart Airfield to shut down Friday night.

As I recently wrote, Dronegate is becoming ever more pervasive—and absurd.

Yet, White House officials have heretofore deemed any and all suspected threats from the drones to be "not credible," and said many sightings are likely just of planes.

Call me a skeptic, but I don’t believe them. Any member of the Biden administration. Ever. About anything. Track record, you see.

Admittedly, I am not generally considered to be an aviation ‘expert,’ but I doubt an airfield would be shut down because of plane sightings! In fact, this would rather defeat its purpose.

“What is it, Bob?”

“Boss, I think we better shut down all the runways. I’m pretty sure I just saw an airplane!”

“Dear God! I’ll give the order!”

This is strange, even in the Bizarro World in which we all now reside.

‘Officials’ have said that the drones aren’t private, aren’t ours, and are definitely not from another nation.

O.K.

If we were to take the ‘authorities’ at their word, it would leave only three possibilities:

1) We have all been hallucinating and haven’t actually seen what we’ve seen.

2) The drones are alien-sent.

3) Government officials are lying to us through their teeth.

None of these options are good. One would be extremely concerning on its face. Two would pose a potentially dire threat, especially because, were it true, the aliens haven’t yet tried to contact us or reassure us that they come in peace.

And three, though perhaps the most likely, would be nonetheless tragic.

It is time for transparency. It is time for action. It is time for Trump.



Christian Patriot News, And we Know, and more- Dec 16

 




0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Why Trump 2.0 Is Going To Be So Much Better Than Trump 1.0


Exciting times are ahead. You can feel it in the air, and it’s far more palpable than the typical joy and merriment that surrounds a yearly holiday season. Whether they admit it or not, a majority of Americans, perhaps even an overwhelming majority, is happy or at least relieved that our country will be getting its best gift less than a month after Christmas, on January 20, 2025, when Donald J. Trump is inaugurated into office for a second time.

I remember having a similar feeling eight years ago. Unfortunately, the honeymoon didn’t last long. Despite the fact that more good happened than bad and America was in a far better place than we would have been under Hillary, Trump disappointed many of us in many ways that first term. From awful staff picks to weak judges to an unfinished border wall to almost everything about how he handled Covid, there were countless missed opportunities to put our country in a better spot.

That, however, was Trump 1.0. This, what we’re about to experience, is Trump 2.0, a whole new fantastic upgrade; an upgrade, by the way, that I never anticipated being possible when I opposed the ex-president in the primaries. After Covid, January 6th, multiple tired court appearances, his refusal to debate in the primaries, and what felt like a million other things, I thought Trump was a washed up shell of the spirited, based, defiant fighter he was in 2015-2016, a broken man who couldn’t possibly win again.

But from there to the summer, something happened, a metamorphosis, a trial by fire that transformed the seemingly tired ex-president into something else entirely, a based fighting machine hellbent on cementing a legacy all of us can be proud of. What exactly happened to enable this transformation? Was it the assassination attempts? Yes. Was it the endless lawfare? Absolutely. Was it coming to the realization that the only way around the fire was through it? Of course. All those things doubtless played a role along with countless others. But whatever happened, it’s more obvious than ever that this version of Donald Trump is NOT the version we saw during his first term.

So, what can we expect from Trump 2.0 that we didn’t get from the original version? Since he can’t do everything himself, it all starts with picking better personnel, a developed skill that is already manifesting itself in many ways as Trump chooses a cabinet & staff of loyalists, yet people with diverse opinions in all the right directions. 

Who could have imagined former opponent Robert F. Kennedy, a person whose views on vaccines and the overall state of healthcare in America are the opposite of any Republican or Democratic establishment, being a cabinet choice even one year ago? Or Tulsi Gabbard, whose views on foreign policy have neocons in a tizzy, being picked as director of national intelligence? Or Covid dissident Dr. Jay Bhattacharya heading the National Institutes of Health? If confirmed, Pete Hegseth is bound to shake things up at defense. And even the more mainstream picks, like Pam Bondi as attorney general, Howard Lutnick at commerce, and Chris Wright at energy, have the potential to be low-key transformational. We can certainly argue over the merits of each nominee, but on the whole this batch is heads and shoulders above the last batch, and it’s not even close.

The fact that Trump has done a better job picking people who are loyal and intent on carrying out his policy agenda shows an ability to learn from his mistakes. This will serve him well as he begins a term with not just a ton of unfinished business from his first term, but a huge steaming pile of carnage that needs to be dealt with from the Biden administration.

Even Trump 2.0 isn’t going to be perfect. We saw that firsthand with the choice of Florida sheriff Chad Chronister, a Branch Covidian tyrant who actually locked a pastor up for daring to have in-person church services during ‘mUh vIrUs.’ as DEA head. But the president-elect quickly changed course once he realized, at least in part thanks to protests from his base, who Chronister really was. The first time around, Trump seemed to be above it all, easily led by people whose approval he desperately wanted but would never have. This time, he seems to have a genuine desire to please the people to whom he owes his position.

Donald Trump seems to be fully aware that his legacy depends on what he does over the next four years, and that kowtowing with the ‘establishment’ isn’t going to cut it. What other leader would have had the political devil-may-care attitude to create something like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and have it headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy? Surely he knows the powerful ‘deep state’ people whose worlds that will upend, yet he is brave enough to do it anyway.

Combine all this with the fact that the ‘Resistance,’ after throwing everything it had against Trump for the past decade to no avail, is but a shadow of what it once was, and we’ve got a potential recipe for some real, lasting success over the next four years.

Yep, I think we’re going to like Trump 2.0 even better than we liked Trump 1.0. 



Tulsi Gabbard’s Iconoclasm Is Exactly Why We Need Her


The establishment is up in arms because Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence, and I must admit something – I probably don’t agree with some of the things Tulsi allegedly thinks. I’m generally more hawkish, and she’s generally more dovish. Now, we have to put things in perspective, because what regime media says about Tulsi Gabbard and her beliefs probably has nothing to do with Tulsi Gabbard or her beliefs. But let’s suspend disbelief for a moment – and that’s going to take a lot of suspending – and assume that the regime media is being honest and that she has a quirky foreign policy perspective that rejects the mainstream consensus about dictators like Vladimir Putin and former dictators/rogue ophthalmologists like Bashar al-Assad. If true, that is a good thing. 

It’s a feature, not a bug.

Again, they’re never specific about what Tulsi Gabbard supposedly does and doesn’t believe. What’s clear is that she is skeptical of the foreign policy consensus of the last couple of decades and that this threatens those invested in it. We also know she’s a combat veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the reserves who has served faithfully here and abroad. She quit the Democrats, and we know she’s rejected much of what her former party believes in – which is generally that same foreign policy consensus. She was one of the people who crossed the aisle to support Donald Trump, and she has fervent supporters that she brought into Trump’s unprecedented new coalition. If we’re talking about coalition politics, and adults talk about coalition politics as opposed to fantasy politics, then her selection as DNI makes sense. You reward the groups that make up your coalition. I, and likely you, are part of the hard-core conservative component that is a big part of Trump’s coalition but is by no means the only part. Everybody who helped sail the pirate ship gets a share of the booty. So, on that basis, it was important to reward Tulsi Gabbard.

But having her as DNI is also important because the last thing the intelligence community needs is yet another hack nodding along with the conventional wisdom. The practitioners of the conventional wisdom seem to screw up massively whenever it counts. They missed 9/11, they told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they didn’t see ISIS rising, they didn’t see Afghanistan falling, and just a couple weeks ago, they were as surprised as the rest of us that the Syrian regime was collapsing. So, it’s not like this is a collection of super-geniuses with an unblemished track record of success. It’s more like a 1982 Yugo with a flat tire and a COEXIST bumper sticker serving as a clown car for a bunch of Yale and Georgetown grads who couldn’t get a job on Wall Street.

Not only can they not do the job that they do have, but they insist on trying to do a job that they most definitely do not have – that is, trying to undercut the elected president of the United States. From the 51 “intelligence professionals” who either got it wrong or outright lied by calling Hunter Biden’s perverted hard-drive a product of Russian disinformation to leaking dozens of bogus stories about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin canoodling, these clowns somehow got it into their thick skulls that they knew better who should run the United States than those pesky voters. And you know what? They failed. Donald Trump’s coming back. 

Yeah, yeah, I know, there are a lot of good people doing good work in our intelligence community. All those good apples, right? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It still sucks. Did you know all our Chinese intelligence networks got rolled up a few years ago? You don’t have to be an intelligence professional to know that that is very, very bad. They recently let the Chinese hack our telecom companies. And they’re not particularly clever. Just the other day, the NSA decided it was going to try to sidestep the coming hammer drop on DEI by renaming its diversity department, like that was going to fool people. There’s a cunning plan. These guys’ job is to fool the Russians and the Chinese, and they can’t even fool guys on Twitter. 

They’re just bad at their jobs, but these are necessary jobs. We need competent, capable spies and spymasters. These people need to focus on their jobs, not DEI and other nonsense, and to stop interfering in domestic politics. They need to figure out what our enemies’ plans are and disrupt them. 

Let’s assume they somehow become competent again, though I won’t hold my breath. Let’s assume that they start actively developing intelligence again. Let’s assume they start correctly analyzing it. The next step is to make it useful. But it won’t be useful if everybody is singing the same tune. That’s the real objection to Tulsi Gabbard. It’s not that she lacks relevant experience and skills. Even if she was terrible, she is one of several key intelligence officials and if she’s crazy she can be reined in. It’s not even that the senators want to reject a nominee to demonstrate that they are not Fredo to Trump’s Micheal, though what happened to Joni Ernst taught the squishes an important lesson. It’s that Tulsi Gabbard thinks differently about intelligence and foreign policy, and they fear she may have a point. They fear Trump may listen to her and not them.

But we need someone in the senior ranks who thinks differently. There are somewhere near 20 different major agencies that gather intelligence in the United States government. The last thing we want is every single one of them to think the very same way. That’s a recipe for failure. You always want a red team that gives you a different take on what’s happening. You need somebody to look at things from the outside, from the enemy’s perspective, to disrupt the paradigm that everyone in your organization accepts so that you can look outside the box – which is what your enemy is doing. We didn’t see 9/11 coming. Israel didn’t see 10/7 coming. Why? Because these enemy operations were inconceivable to mainstream thinkers. They didn’t fit into what the establishment wanted to see. The last thing a new President George W. Bush wanted was to have to turn the simmering, sporadic fight against terrorists under Clinton into a hot war, but that’s what we would have had to undertake to stop Osama bin Laden. The same with Israel. Israel’s leadership thought – and desperately wanted – Hamas to be contained and quiet. But Hamas did not want to be contained and quiet. Leaders need somebody in their intelligence agencies to tell them what they don’t necessarily want to hear, what they don’t expect, and what no one else is telling them.

So, it’s not a bad thing that some of Tulsi Gabbard’s ideas reject the status quo. It’s not a bad thing that Tulsi Gabbard sees things differently. And if some of her ideas are outright wrong, then at least she will fit in great with our broken intelligence community.



🎭 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. 


Scott Jennings Calls Out Ridiculousness of 'My Truth' After Caitlin Clark Panders to Woke Mob

Rebecca Downs reporting for Townhall 

WNBA star Caitlin Clark may have made some comments about the "privilege" she has in being white after she was named Time's athlete of the year, but that doesn't mean the woke mob will forgive her. 

After Megyn Kelly went after her for the "self-flagellation" involved, Clark doubled down, as she not only repeated how she has "white privilege," but also spoke about "sharing my truth," which is even more of a buzzword. It was a phrase that Scott Jennings was just not having, as he tore the entire concept apart during Thursday's "CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip."

The end of the show, during which they played clips of Clark's remarks, featured a sort of face off between Jennings and Cari Champion, whom host Abby Phillip quipped "might also be our Caitlin Clark correspondent." Jennings and Champion have gone up against each other for panel discussions before. And, just like when Jennings was reminding Champion of key facts about CNN's own reporting on the political balance of X, there were some fireworks.

Just before Phillip called upon Jennings, Champion herself implied that Clark was being treated so well because she's white. "She has a privilege. She has been in this league for so, what, a year? And she makes more money than the people who built this league? And she understands there's a reason, not because she shoots the ball well," Champion claimed.

As Champion and Phillip both wondered, then, why it was that Clark was supposedly "bullied," Jennings launched right into dismantling the nonsense that is "my truth."

"Number one, you know, whether you're an athlete or anyone else, if I hear you use the phrase 'my truth,' I immediately then discount everything else you say. Because there isn't my truth or your truth, there's just the truth," he aptly pointed out. Jennings barely got much further before Champion repeatedly insisted that "that's not true." When he was able to complete his sentence, though, he pointed out that "when you start using phrases like that, it tells me that your brain has been captured by something that I don't really respect."

Jennings also made some worthwhile points, though, about why it is that Clark has had been granted all of these accolades that she rightfully received, specifically how ratings went up, thanks to her. "But you know the league still lost like $40 million this year," he reminded, which even Champion agreed with. Derek Hunter touched further upon this in his Townhall column for Sunday morning, candidly titled, "Let The WNBA Die Already."

As Jennings dared to wonder aloud about what it was that these women built, whom Clark and panelists like Champion and Bakari Sellers praised, the conversation once more became heated Champion especially took issue with Jennings offering that the WNBA is "still running" not merely because of the black women who built it, but also "because of the investors."

"You stop it," Champion insisted, no less than five times, as Phillip soon after had to jump in to call the panelists to speak "one at a time."

Returning to the idea of "my truth," Sellers felt the need to insert race into the conversation. "This is the problem with the conversation about race in this country that we've never tackled because it's two things fundamentally wrong with what Scott said. The first is, when you say things like my truth, right, and you just tune that out. My truth is just vastly different than yours. It's not just the truth," he claimed. "In fact, one of the things I would like to just help you understand is that the definition of white supremacy, do you know what the definition of white supremacy is? It's when you feel like equality is oppression," Sellers continued, a sentiment that Champion agreed with. 

"And for some reason, for some reason, it gets so entangled because people just simply want equality and you feel like that's taking away something from you. I'm not there saying that anybody at the table is a white supremacist, but what I am trying to do is at least educate you on what the truth is," Sellers then went on to say.

Sellers' points were not all necessarily bad ones, as he offered how "we both come from different--we want the same America for our children, but we come from different places. We don't necessarily want equality, some of us just want equity, right?" 

As Jennings aptly offered, "that's a different statement." It is. Clark could have made the same points that she made by phrasing it in way that discussed her "experience," perhaps. 

Later in the panel discussion, Catherine Rampsell also chimed in, claiming that Clark has been "bland and gracious" with her remarks. She also offered that "I feel like it says more about the people who are getting offended by it than [Clark]," which Phillip agreed with. 

As Rampsell continued to emphasize her view that Clark was being "gracious," Jennings offered that those people are perhaps "just disappointed that [Clark] appears to have been captured by the woke mob."

The panel discussion continued to get heated, but that's nevertheless when Jennings was able to make what was arguably his most prophetic point. "I feel a little bad for her because she's going to learn that it will never be enough. No matter how much of the phrasing, no matter how much of the groveling you do, it will never be enough for the people in that league that hate her guts," he said.

As Champion and Phillip took issue with the point, Jennings stressed the key point of how Clark speaks "the language of pandering."

It didn't take Jennings very long at all to be proven correct. In sharing a CNN clip from Friday morning, when Washington Mystics co-owner Sheila Johnson appeared on the network, Jennings emphasized the same points he had just made the night before. 

Johnson, during her appearance for the outlet, as well as with her interview with BET, criticized Time for singling out Clark, wondering and lamenting why the "whole WNBA" wasn't put on the cover. "When you just keep singling out one player, it creates hard feelings," she also claimed.

Even as Johnson looked to downplay Clark's success, the CNN chyron focused on the WNBA successes during the segment, including how the 2024 season had its best TV viewership in 24 years and highest attendance in 22 years.


Kamala Harris for CA Governor? Here's What Her Close Aides Think

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

In a bold and unprecedented move, failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris is reportedly eyeing California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s job. The move would significantly shift her political trajectory after she was largely defeated by President-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 election. However, conservatives argue that her time as California attorney general would mirror her agenda as a governor. 

According to a CNN report, several top aides are urging Harris to run for governor in 2026 despite polling as one of the most unliked vice presidents in U.S. history. The report noted that the decision will depend on whether Democrats believe the outgoing vice president has a strong chance of winning the party’s presidential nomination in what is expected to be a highly competitive primary in 2028. Half the party appears to be split on whether Harris should try her chance at the White House again or take a different path. 

The governor’s race, meanwhile, looks like a lay-up: Harris was elected statewide three times and served 10 years combined as state attorney general and US senator, and when asked by CNN, several major candidates made clear either directly or through aides that they would likely step aside if she got in. In CNN’s conversation with over a dozen current and former Harris advisers and other top California Democratic players, the only consensus around the vice president is that she likely can’t do both, since that would essentially require launching a presidential campaign soon after being sworn in as governor. Harris will need to decide very soon after Trump’s inauguration if she will quickly give up on her dream of being president – which she feels got short shrift from the circumstances of this year – and instead go for a job that, while one of the most powerful in American politics, would clearly be a fallback.

The report highlighted the tight timeline Harris would need to follow if she ultimately decides to run for Newsom’s seat. It pointed out that, at the latest, she must have a clear agenda for a potential governorship by the summer of 2025. 

“What she’s been saying to people over the last couple of weeks, donors, other supporters that she’s been talking with, is you haven’t seen the last of me, I’m not going quietly into the night,” CNN’s Issac Devore said. “Advisors, people close to her, are debating about what that means. They do not want her final official act ever to be essentially certifying Donald Trump’s win over her, especially four years after January 6. And so they look at this governor’s race in California in 2026, and it seems to them like a layup, essentially, that she would probably clear the field or mostly clear the field, and she would get to be governor of California.”

A former advisor to Harris said that a run for governor would be more like a “capstone” rather than a “stepping stone,” adding that “if you’re thinking of running for president in 2028, the worst thing you can do is run for governor in 2026.”

Meanwhile, another believed that Harris could win the presidential race once Trump was out of office and that the gubernatorial race would be distracting. 



Dems Can't Ignore It: 'Stench of Loser' Lingers for Their Party As Trump's Appeal Grows


Rusty Weiss reporting for RedState 

DNC Finance Committee member Lindy Li torched her party post-Kamala as having the "stench of loser" and predicted an era of economic prosperity coming under a new Trump administration.

Li, speaking to host Kevin Corke on "Fox & Friends Weekend," offered a grim analysis of the Democrat party as they continue reeling from a devastating red wave last month.

“I think, unfortunately, the Democratic Party has the stench of loser written all over the party," she bluntly surmised.

"And I’m sorry, I’m speaking as a Democrat myself, this brings me no joy to say it, but I feel like Democrats are going to be consigned to the wilderness for at least the next four to eight years."

From your lips to God's ears, Lindy.

Corke and Li addressed tech moguls Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos suddenly playing ball with President-elect Donald Trump, each making or pledging a donation of $1 million to his inauguration fund.

Li suggests the two will help solidify a relationship between the business world and the incoming administration rather than fighting against them as they've previously done.

"And right now, the economy is ailing under the Biden-Harris Administration, and people are just — they’re suffering," she said. "Yes, inflation has come down, but cumulative price hikes are still eating away at people’s pocketbooks, and people are dying for a change."

Li is one of a very select few who have admitted the Biden economy has been borderline torture on the American people, perhaps the most significant reason Kamala got trucked on Election Day.

Towards the end of the interview, Li provided a shocking level of optimism over the return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office - especially for a DNC official.

She's predicting some serious Tumpmentum carrying the American economy to a "new era of prosperity."

"I think we’re about to embark on an entirely new era of prosperity; I certainly hope so," said Li. "And, yeah, you can just feel it."

"Even in the last couple of weeks, Americans are celebrating, Trump’s approval rating is incredibly high, people are in support of his transition," she concluded. "The momentum is just tremendous, and I’m speaking as a Democrat, and I’m feeling it as well!”

Li has been aggressively critical of the Democrat party following the election, blasting the Harris campaign repeatedly for essentially setting close to $2 billion on fire and ending her campaign in significant debt.

She referred to the funneling of money to well-connected party friends as "incestuous" and demanded accountability.

"That campaign [money] was supposed to be spent on battleground states, making the economic case to Americans, explaining bread and butter issues, explaining how she would bring inflation down, not on lining the pockets of well-connected Democrats," she railed.

If more Democrats were honest about their current predicament like Li, they might not be "consigned to the wilderness for at least the next four to eight years."

Instead, they can't seem to admit why their message failed to resonate with the American public and the man they described as Hitler is now above water with his approval rating.

They're reeling. Trumpmentum is real. And Li is the only Democrat warning about the dire situation for her party. She's yelling "Iceberg!" on the Titanic while DNC officials are blissfully unaware of what's about to happen.



Will the US Military Be Ground Zero in Trump's War on Woke?


The late conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh described the purpose of a country's military perfectly — in classic Rush style.

The purpose of any military is to kill people and break things. It's not to advance anybody's social agenda. It's not a laboratory for the left's social ideas or playgrounds. It is to kill people and break things.

Limbaugh died nearly four years ago, but his definition of a country's fighting force rings more true today than when he first said it. From the volatile Middle East to the unpredictable Vladimir Putin in Russia to Xi Jinping's Communist China, the world is increasingly volatile and unpredictable. 

While I'm not a military expert, common sense suggests that America's military must be the best it can be, and as Limbaugh suggested, including the U.S. military in the left's laboratory of "woke" social experiments is patently insane, yet that's exactly what we've seen for four years, courtesy of failed President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and now-retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley.

As my colleague Streiff reported in mid-November, President-elect Donald Trump's "transition team transition team is considering an executive order that would send into retirement any three- or four-star general deemed "lacking in requisite leadership qualities." If fairly applied, that standard would force a super-majority of the 44 four-star and 162 three-star officers off active duty." 

Translation: Trump plans to root out “woke” ideology in the military, pronto.

Other Republicans have spoken out about the U.S. military's "woke" priorities over the last four years, but have done virtually nothing about it. That may be about to change.

Military veteran and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick to lead the Department of Defense, while not yet confirmed, has repeatedly attacked the military leadership’s embrace of “woke” culture, which usually refers to so-called "transgenderism," racial identity politics, and the silliness of gender pronouns.  

During a recent recent appearance on "The Shawn Ryan Show" podcast, Hegseth said:

First of all you gotta fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI woke s*** has got to go. Either you're in for war-fighting and that's it. That's the only litmus test we care about.

Exactly. While words without actions have been a bane of the Republican party for years, particularly in Congress, the prospect of Hegseth leading the Pentagon with Trump in the White House and GOP control of both chambers presents a golden opportunity to undo four years of wreckage under Biden. 

Pete Hegseth Lays Down a Marker in His Looming War on DEI

Here's more:

The American Accountability Foundation (AAF) released a list of 20 officers who Hegseth should fire. Notably, during his viral interview with Joe Rogan, Trump told a story about how military leaders in Washington, D.C. told Trump that destroying ISIS quickly wasn’t possible, but when Trump visited the military leaders on the ground, he heard a different story. Those commanders, Trump said, told him it was doable but Washington, D.C. had tied their hands.

Other anecdotes highlight the prevalence of the newfound way of thinking for Armed Forces. For instance, as The Center Square previously reported, official training materials for West Point cadets included warnings about white privilege.

AAF President Thomas Jones wrote in a letter to Hegseth earlier this week;

As global tensions rise, with Iran on the march, Russia at war, and China in the midst of a massive military buildup, we cannot afford to have a military distracted and demoralized by leftist ideology. Those who were responsible for these policies being instituted in the first place must be dismissed.

And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trump’s pick for secretary of State, told The Center Square in 2023 that "woke activists" were “hollowing out our military."

The United States military is the greatest fighting force in the world, but woke activists in the Biden Administration are undermining military readiness, cohesion, and purpose. We cannot allow these left-wing crazies to hollow out our military. The world is an increasingly dangerous place and America’s security requires a strong military capable of deterring – and if need be, defending – our nation.

A Defense Department comptroller report in 2022 included a fiscal year 2023 $86.5 million request for "dedicated diversity and inclusion activities," as well as language showing the importance of DEI to the military.

The Bottom Line

The time is now. Prior to the election, I shuddered to think about what four years of a Harris-Walz administration would do to our military, but now? The U.S. military is as good of a place as any to begin the "war on woke" in earnest. 

Constitutional conservative, noted loather of hypocrisy, whataboutism, irrational bias, and ultracrepidarianism. Oh, and an insufferable pizza snob — Chicago-style, thin crust — of course.



2024 May Be the Year the 'Political Hit Job' Strategy Finally Died

 

Pete Hegseth, President-Elect Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, is seen with his wife Jennifer Rauchet, as Hegseth meets with Senators, December 10, 2024 in the Capitol Building.

While the election is over, the media is still just as noisy and chaotic as at the peak of campaign season, and that’s because presidential cabinet positions are now in the spotlight.
On the surface, everything appears to be “business as usual” for our post-election media environment, including a predictable tsunami of PR political hit pieces targeting the president’s nominees. But this time around, the outcome has been dramatically different than in previous years. These attacks, fueled by salacious stories from anonymous sources, have been a part of the standard political campaign for decades. Even the younger generations, who are generally less politically aware, have noticed the pattern because it happens at such alarming frequency today. A candidate for a particular role is announced, and within days, people come out of the woodwork with accusations of crimes that supposedly occurred years or even decades ago but were never reported.


Historically speaking, this has been an effective strategy because it preys on people’s good nature. Most want to reward good behavior and punish bad, so lobbing a few accusations at someone has, for quite a while now, been a powerful tool in quickly derailing someone’s career. Public relations professionals in the political arena have leveraged that to make opponents seem undesirable. Rather than highlighting the merits of their candidate, they instead chose to tear their opponent down by spreading false claims. They do this because it works.
Let’s be clear—while this has been incredibly effective, it’s also incredibly immoral, and to make matters worse, it’s been weaponized at an increasingly frequent pace, particularly over the last decade.


But there is a silver lining here, and it’s that the perpetrators of this strategy finally seem to have pushed too far, and we’re seeing evidence of that in the public’s backlash to these type of hit pieces. The most prominent one in the news cycle right now is that of army veteran, Fox News host, and nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.

Immediately following the announcement of Hegseth’s nomination, the media pushed out a barrage of stories of all sorts of inappropriate, and in some cases, even criminal behavior—with essentially all of these accusations coming from "anonymous" sources. Dozens of media outlets ran with these unsubstantiated claims, collectively publishing hundreds of hit pieces that were completely devoid of any evidence to support their claims. The New York Times even dedicated an entire article to misrepresenting a private email between Hegseth and his mother.

Evidence contradicting the claims stacked up quickly though.


Hegseth’s mother called the publication out for the misrepresentation by its journalists. Many who worked with Hegseth came out publicly to say they have never seen any of the behavior he was accused of. In fact, several even publicly commented on his integrity and character, including a recent story in Twitchy about Phillip Stutts’s experience with him over the span of a decade. Despite all of this, some journalists still continued to spread these false accusations from anonymous sources.

In the past, a nominee in the crosshairs of this type of attack would have been met with an almost universal condemnation. The damage was often so swift and severe that it was almost impossible to recover from, so typically they would have to be replaced with a new nominee.

But this time, the public response to accusations against Hegseth have been a complete departure from what we’ve seen in the past.

Today, instead of the instant and often complete destruction of a nominee’s reputation, we now see people thinking critically, demanding evidence, and where applicable, calling out the journalists and media outlets participating in this behavior.

An analysis of public sentiment on social media shows that
 people now see through these attacks because they’ve seen them weaponized time and time again by political operatives, and frankly, they are sick of it. You can see it for yourself by scrolling through the comments on posts about this topic on social media.

The tide is turning and I say it’s about damn time, because this immoral political hit piece strategy needs to end, both for the good of the PR industry and for the good of our country.

Thank God that Trump is choosing capable and SERIOUS people. The O'Biden/Harris freak show is over and the Adults are back in charge now.


Source for much of OP: