Trump Brutally Owns Nicolás Maduro and the Libs

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

The Trump 2.0 Administration has provided patriotic Americans with many delights, but there are few more delightful than going to bed and waking up to find communist dictator Nicolás Maduro had been plucked out of his bed by killmaxxing American Army guys; it’s kind of like when we woke up and realized that the Iranian mullahs and their nuke program were as neutered as a Bulwark staffer. You’ve got to hand it to Donald Trump. This is a guy who doesn’t play footsie with happy talk illusions about universal brotherhood, hugging, and the idea that people who hate you are just friends you haven’t yet sufficiently groveled to. When you’re his enemy, he plays to win. He doesn’t drag it out endlessly, not quite losing until, finally, he does, and our people must flee the country while locals drop off the last C-17 out. When Donald Trump and his supporters talk about hating forever wars, you need to understand that the part of “forever wars” they hate is the “forever” part. They like kicking foreigner tail. They just don’t want to lose, and they don’t want to take forever doing it.

This was a glorious American victory over a communist dictator, so it naturally elicited the usual whining and crying from Democrats, libertarians, and the rest of the eunuch caucus. Oh no, Donald Trump’s not obeying international law! Of course, “international law” is a fantasy for fools, children, in the globalist foreign policy establishment. There’s one thing that regulates international relations – raw power – and when the D-boys showed up in Caracas, they were enforcing its Rule 5.56mm. As pundit Varad Mehta aptly observed on X, all the self-appointed best and brightest commenters commenting on American foreign policy “should read the Melian dialogue sometime.”

TLDR: “International law” is whatever America does because we’re bigger and can kick your butt.

There were 10 great things about this attack on the Maduro regime, as I initially pointed out on X that morning. Let’s count them down, shall we?

10. America’s enemies are terrified by this display of American prowess. If dumping giant bombs down the holes made by the prior giant bombs at the Iranian nuclear facilities were not enough, the fact that our forces can come in and grab some scumbag potentate right out of his marital bed and then leave without a scratch must serve to concentrate their minds wonderfully. This caper has got to send a subtle message to America’s enemies: You can’t run, you can’t hide, this is our cell block, and you’re the pretty new fish.

9. Democrats went from siding with Somali fraudsters early in the week to communist narco terrorists who ignored democracy by the weekend. In their eternal quest to always stay on the 20 side of the 80/20 issues, the Democrats were outraged that we’ve arrested a country’s elected leader. Never mind that was their thing throughout the Biden administration, except the leader was ours, and he was being framed. Maduro, on the other hand, sends drugs and thugs to America that kill Americans. He also parties with the Chinese and the Russians, who I was told by reliable sources – those same Democrats – are the very worst people ever. The morning after we snatched him, it was hilarious to watch all these dummies with Ukrainian flags in their usernames crying that America had deposed Putin’s pal. But hey, in an election year, don’t let me get in the way of the Democrats standing firm with the foreign thug and against our glorious troops who have notched yet another victory over tyranny.

8. Libertarians are upset. When these tiresome goobers are mad, you know you’re doing something right. Thomas Massie, who’s trying to jumpstart his personal narcissism engine as the Jeffrey Epstein onanism that fueled it fades, naturally jumped in, and he was very upset that we defeated one of our enemies. Apparently, the Constitution says you can’t, somewhere. He thinks Congress should have authorized this, ignoring the practicalities like, you know, it’s a secret mission. Regardless, it would be hard to declare war when the war, such as it was, was over before Massie even started running his fool mouth.

But in fact, Congress authorized it by not doing anything. We’ve been rubbing up against Maduro for a couple of months now. If Congress were against Trump finally deposing this creep, it could have passed a law to keep Donald Trump from triumphing over evil. But it didn’t want to, because the majority of Congress was perfectly happy to have Donald Trump flush this human floater. Congress is not somehow ceding its authority by not opposing something it agrees with, and it manifestly agrees with this.

7. It’s hilarious how all the pinkos started screaming about how this is a war for oil, and Trump was right up front going, “Oh yeah, we’re totally doing this in part because of the oil.” I’m not sure when history ended, and resources stopped having anything to do with wars, but the critics apparently think that happened. In fact, oil is key on many levels. Unleashing Venezuela’s oil production will screw the Iranians as well as the Russians, who we keep being told we should screw with. Both of those regimes run on oil revenue. Venezuela pumping big time is in our interest because it’s against theirs. Socialism, in its collectivist warmth, has destroyed Venezuela’s oil industry. But with it up back and running, that means more global supply and less money for our enemies. Oh, and they used to sell a lot of it to the Chinese. Now, we’ve got a hammer lock on that. So, Xi, go ahead and invade Taiwan, and we’ll cut off your gas. Also, getting their oil industry going will help us by paying back America for the property Venezuela’s leaders stole through nationalization.

6. We blew up Chávez’s mausoleum. Screw that guy. Of course, the libs were sputtering about desecrating his tacky tomb, but that’s what we call an “information operation.” It sends a message. And that message is that if we’re petty enough to killyou again after you’re dead, what do you think we’ll do to you when you’re alive? El Comandante Generalísimo el Jefe Grande Maduro is lucky that he landed on the USS Iwo Jima instead of getting his sorry booty Pinochet-pitched out the side door of a Chinook over the Caribbean.

5. Everybody who had doubts about Pete Hegseth must contend with the fact that they were stupid and wrong. He’s been incredible. Our recruiting is through the roof, Iran has no nukes, and Maduro is worried about picking up the soap. The American military is back. All the weirdos, deviants, and perverts are gone, and you can’t tell us that empowering trans majors to flounce around dressed like Charo helped our combat readiness. You know what helps combat readiness? Combat readiness. And this flawless operation proved it.

4. The video of cheering Venezuelans is wonderful. It’s nice to see people freed, but it’s nicer to see the American people freed from the millions of refugees who flooded our country because no one else would stand up to the communist dictator. And it’s especially nice that thousands of American lives will be saved because the drugs those communist scumbags sent north will no longer be sent north.

3. Trump has made the Monroe Doctrine great again. This is our hemisphere. Now, foreigners may think that’s arrogant or obnoxious, but if we cared about foreigners, we’d be Democrats and losers. The fact is that, for too long, we let Iranians, Russians, and the Chinese touch grass on our turf. No more. There’s a new sheriff in town, and his name is Donnie Trump.

2. The Cuban communists are next, and they are sweating like JB Pritzker when someone pulls out the Ozempic. If you’re an investor, go short on the commie ruling class because they’re running out of friends. Pretty soon, they’re going to be doing some Cuban dancing at the end of a rope from a light post. I look forward to the day my father-in-law goes back to reclaim the property those bastards stole from his family. We’ll have a Townhall VIP party; I’ll supply the cigars and the rum.

1. And, most importantly, it was great that the Army and the Delta Force pulled this off instead of the Navy and the SEALs. We soldiers have had to listen to the squids run their mouths for 15 years about how they iced Bin Laden. Yeah, that was cool, I guess. But not quite taking down a whole country in a night, cool. Now, it’s the decisive branch of American military power’s time to shine again! Go Army!

Podcast thread for Jan 5

 

What a good day.

Trump Should Confront the Mexican Drug Problem Next

Townhall 

Since the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump has made tremendous progress in halting the flow of illegal drugs into our country. On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order that allowed criminal organizations and drug cartels, such as the Venezuelan gang “Tren de Aragua,”  to be labeled as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Also, as he started his second term, the President made it a priority to secure the southern border, which has saved countless American lives.

Under President Joe Biden, the open border led to illegal drugs flooding our nation. The results were horrific as the annual number of Americans killed by illegal drugs skyrocketed. It reached a peak of 114,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12-month period ending in September 2023.

Along with securing the border, President Trump authorized 35 military strikes against narco-terrorist boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Since early September, these strikes have killed at least 115 drug cartel criminals. According to President Trump, for every narco-terrorist vessel destroyed, 25,000 American lives were saved.

Simultaneously, the Trump administration began building up military forces in the region. While F-35 fighter jets were deployed to Puerto Rico, “three guided-missile destroyers,” were sent to the waters off the Venezuelan coast.

Eventually, the naval force assembled in the Caribbean Sea would include “nearly a dozen Navy ships” and 12,000 troops, as well as the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, “the U.S. military’s most advanced aircraft carrier.”  

On December 10, an oil tanker was seized off the coast of Venezuela that was carrying “2 million barrels of heavy crude” oil. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the tanker was part of “an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations.”

In the weeks that followed, another tanker was seized, a blockade was instituted and a docking facility used for illegal drugs was destroyed. Discussions were also held with Venezuelan dictator Nicolos Maduro, encouraging him to leave office.

After giving Maduro numerous chances to resign peacefully, the President authorized a lightning military strike that was flawlessly executed. Early Saturday morning, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were extracted in an operation led by “Delta Force, the U.S. Army’s most elite counterterrorism and direct-action unit.”

Residents of Caracas, Venezuela reported at least seven large explosions were heard. Fortunately, there were no American fatalities or aircraft losses in the sophisticated attack that President Trump said included a “massive” number of helicopters and fighter jets.

Maduro and his wife were brought to New York, where they will appear in federal court and face justice for their crimes. The Southern District of New York indicted both Maduro and Flores for “narco-terrorism and weapons offenses.”

Under Maduro, “a corrupt, illegitimate government” was established. He “leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking.” Due to Maduro’s activities of sending illegal drugs and criminal gang members into our country, thousands of Americans have been tragically killed.

Venezuela was a major supplier of cocaine into the United States; however, 70% of U.S. drug overdose deaths are due to fentanyl. These drugs are shipped across our southern border after being produced by Mexican drug cartels using chemicals supplied by China.

Sadly, these vicious drug cartels are extremely powerful and totally control Mexico. As President Trump noted in a Fox News interview, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is “not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico.” The President said that Sheinbaum is “very frightened” of the cartels and has rebuffed his offer to destroy them.

Trump claimed that “Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.” The President is correct; the Mexican drug cartels are a direct threat to the United States.

Instead of being grateful that Maduro, a dangerous narco-terrorist leader, was apprehended and will face justice, the Mexican government denounced the U.S. military operation in Venezuela.

In their statement, the Mexican government “strongly” condemned the “military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by armed forces of the United States of America…Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people.”

With the opposition of the Mexican government and Sheinbaum’s refusal to combat the drug cartels, once again, President Trump will be faced with a major decision. While the Mexican President is afraid of the drug cartels, President Trump and our military are not fearful.

Trump realizes that Mexico treats the United States horribly, allowing drugs and illegal immigrants to flood into our nation. If the President decides to act, the United States military has the capability to destroy every Mexican drug cartel. Successfully defeating these deadly cartels would be the biggest step forward in the history of our “war on drugs.”

Trump has been the first United States president to launch a serious “war on drugs” by directly engaging the suppliers with military force and removing a narco-terrorist at the forefront of the illicit shipments into our country. The results have been outstanding, but victory cannot be achieved until the Mexican drug cartels are eradicated.

Striking the Mexican drug cartels can be the latest move of the Trump administration to bring order to the Western Hemisphere. President Trump is updating the Monroe Doctrine for the current era. He said, “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot.”

Under President Trump’s doctrine, the goal is to prevent “hostile actors, foreign-backed criminal networks, and destabilizing regimes from gaining footholds in the hemisphere.” Narco-terrorist organizations in our “neighborhood” should no longer feel comfortable trying to destabilize and destroy the United States. Henceforth, they must face consequences.

President Trump has already placed the outlaw regime of Columbia on notice. He has called the communist dictatorship of Cuba “a failing nation;” however, dealing with Mexico should be next on his agenda.

The Trump Doctrine Rebuilds Fortress America

American  Thinker 

Early Saturday morning, details emerged of a U.S. military operation in Venezuela that effected the successful capture and extradition of Venezuela’s illegitimate president, Nicolás Maduro, to the United States.  Delta Force operators executed a daring mission in Caracas while combat pilots led the effort to destroy key military installations on the ground.  The narcoterrorist Maduro will no longer wield power over the Venezuelan people or serve as a conduit for America’s enemies to poison Americans and wage hybrid warfare against the United States.  Maduro was blindfolded aboard the USS Iwo Jima as he began his journey toward becoming a criminal defendant in New York (maybe he’ll feel at home with fellow communist Zohran Mamdani at the helm in NYC).  

President Trump reportedly warned the Venezuelan dictator weeks ago that if he refused to peacefully relinquish power and go into exile, the American military would reach down and collect him like an arm coming from the sky.  As Vice President Vance dryly observed, “Maduro is the newest person to find out that President Trump means what he says.”

Hopefully this decapitation strike upon Venezuela’s illegitimate government serves as a warning to all communists and narcoterrorists in positions of power along latitudinal lines below America’s southern border: Your days of endangering the Western Hemisphere are numbered.

The success of this mission will lead casual observers to conclude that there were few risks.  On the contrary, there were extraordinary risks.  Putting U.S. servicemembers in harm’s way invites the possibility of catastrophe.  When elite operators are tasked with complex objectives on battlefields with many unknown variables, the best laid plans lead the needle toward success only so far.  The fact that Secretary of War Hegseth and the U.S. military executed this mission successfully while avoiding American losses is a testament to the planning, skill, and courage of all involved.

Aside from paramount concerns for the lives of U.S. servicemembers, this operation carried significant political risk for the Trump administration.  War with Venezuela has not been high on the list of policy expectations for most of Trump’s MAGA supporters.  Although “America First” voters have been more than willing to listen to the president’s rationale for blowing up drug boats and seizing oil tankers in the Caribbean, the majority of Americans who have grown painfully tired of D.C.’s “forever wars” are wary of new areas of operations for boots on the ground.  Had the mission to capture Maduro gone sideways and required the rapid deployment of contingency forces to secure American personnel, the political repercussions would have been staggering.  

That said, President Trump was prepared to get the job done one way or another and told journalists after the successful mission that the U.S. Navy was bearing down with an “armada like nobody’s ever seen” should it be needed.  

Observing the president’s chess moves from afar, it appears obvious to me that the president sees “luck” as nothing more than the product of opportunity and preparation.  Nobody can doubt that intense preparation went into this strike.  For months, the U.S. military has been slowly squeezing Maduro’s assets like a boa constrictor coiling around its prey.  As U.S. Navy personnel took out narcoterrorists one speedboat at a time and covert American forces operated inside Venezuelan territory, the Trump administration went after Maduro’s ill-gotten oil shipments and other sources of revenue.  Combining economic sanctions with kinetic strikes, President Trump wound tightly around Maduro’s narco-regime as Delta Force operators prepared to cut off the head of the enemy.  Luck is for suckers.  Those who diligently prepare seize opportunity.

As it stands, only Democrats in Congress are complaining that President Trump took down one of the Western Hemisphere’s biggest tyrants and a man personally responsible for exporting terror into the United States and poisoning hundreds of thousands of Americans with cartel drugs.  Those who recognized Maduro as a continuing threat to the safety, security, and stability of this hemisphere and as a remorseless communist willing to condemn his own people to poverty in order to maintain power are thrilled to see the beginning of the end of Hugo Chávez’s murderous legacy.  

As if to drive this last point home, the U.S. military obliterated a mausoleum honoring Venezuela’s dead dictator — a man who transformed his nation from one of the wealthiest in the Americas to one of the poorest — after sweeping up Maduro in the dead of night.  It was a fiery middle finger to communism and a Trump-sized American signature to a hemispheric course correction two and a half decades overdue.

Now Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado and other Venezuelan opposition figures have an opportunity to lead their country away from misery and back toward prosperity.  Let us hope that they, too, have prepared accordingly.  

President Trump’s strike on Venezuela resembles his strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities back in June in that both operations were “high risk” and “high reward.”  Had either Iran or Venezuela been successful in repelling American forces — or worse, killing American personnel — the loss to American military prestige would have been severe.  Although “peace through strength” may sound like a banal mantra to some, America’s reputation for unparalleled lethality casts a long enough shadow to prevent violent altercations before they have a chance to begin.  Gustavo Petro of Colombia surely isn’t the only guerrilla narco-terrorist soiling his trousers right now as he worries about Delta Force operators knocking down his front door sometime soon.

Just four hours before America’s premier special forces unit “bum rushed” Maduro, the Venezuelan dictator was taking pictures with members of a Chinese delegation who had arrived to show support for their communist comrade in South America.  What do you think those Chinese diplomats were thinking while the U.S. military was blowing up parts of Caracas and swooping down to collect the most powerful and well-guarded man in Venezuela as if he were a piece of trash in need of recycling?  Do you think that Beijing will be more or less likely to invade Taiwan now that its trusted emissaries have seen firsthand the will and resolve of President Trump?  

As with all foreign policy maneuvers and military actions, the chessboard is much bigger than it initially appears.  Decision-makers sitting in capitals around the world are paying attention.  They are intently aware that when President Trump makes promises, everyone should listen.

For twenty-five years, the communist regime in Venezuela has been a constant source of chaos in the Western Hemisphere.  After stealing American infrastructure built as an investment in the country, first Chávez and then Maduro turned Venezuela into a South American hub for exporting drugs, murder, slavery, terrorism, and organized crime into the United States.  One might understandably ask why successive presidents since Bill Clinton have failed to defend the Monroe Doctrine and Americans’ inherent interest in a peaceful Western hemisphere.  The answer is that President Trump’s immediate predecessors lacked grit, strength, and vision.

To serve effectively as president of the United States, America’s chief Executive must be a skilled multitasker.  There was a time when I assumed that anyone crafty enough to reach the White House probably knew a thing or two about artfully juggling numerous responsibilities.  

Watching Donald Trump serve as president has made me realize that I gave previous officeholders too much credit.  While his predecessors might have occasionally proven capable of keeping three or four rings in the air, President Trump appears always to be juggling several dozen chainsaws, machetes, and grenades all at once.  However else one thinks of the president, he is a multitasker extraordinaire, and most of those who served before him were pikers by comparison.  

To secure the Western Hemisphere, we didn’t need a new Monroe Doctrine.  We just needed a new president.

In Defense of the Constitution of 1776

Keith Whitaker  |  The Road to the American Revolution

Wait a minute—the Constitution wasn’t ratified until 1789!

No, I’m talking about the New Hampshire State Constitution, which was enacted on January 5, 1776, thirteen years before the United States Constitution, and, indeed, before any other state constitution in the emerging nation. It was the first.

And yet, the Constitution of 1776 gets little respect. The State’s own website does not include a page for it. There appear to be no events planned to celebrate its birth. Historians call it a “woefully makeshift” piece of machinery. It was replaced by a completely new constitution on June 2, 1784.

So, was the first the worst?

Let’s take a brief look at the text and context to get a better sense of this very first American constitution.

Though settled in the 1620s, New Hampshire had no royal charter to fall back on when the last royal governor fled in mid-1775. Instead, New Hampshire’s Fourth Provincial Congress, a revolutionary body with dubious constitutional standing, took over basic governmental functions. In October, it asked the Continental Congress in Philadelphia for instructions. The official reply, of November 3, recommended that the Provincial Congress:

call a full and free representation of the people, and that the said representatives, if they think it necessary, shall establish such a form of Government as in their judgment will best produce the happiness of the people, and most effectually secure peace and good order in the colony, during the continuance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the colonies.

In late December 1775, a Fifth Provincial Congress met in Exeter to take up the Continental Congress’s recommendation. On January 5, 1776, this provincial body, “Resolved themselves into a House of Representatives or Assembly for the Colony of New Hampshire,” and as such voted to “take up civil government for this Colony.”

The constitution that they “took up” is short, only 909 words—shorter than the United States Constitution by far, and two-thirds the size of the Declaration of Independence.

After a brief introduction, the framers spend almost a third of the document laying out their grievances against the “ministry of Great Britain”: it has waged war on them, stolen their ships and cargo, and left them without legislature or courts. As a result, they are “reduced to the necessity” of establishing a government to preserve peace and good order and to secure the lives and property of the colony’s inhabitants. The framers protest that they did not seek to throw off their “dependence” on Great Britain and shall “rejoice” if a “reconciliation” can be made. In the meantime, they resolve upon a form of government to continue “during the present unhappy and unnatural contest.”

The resolves that follow make up most of the Constitution.

They establish a House of Representatives as the state Assembly. The House will select a twelve-person council—with a president—to handle executive business. The Assembly and Council will make almost all state appointments, including senior military staff. The Council and Assembly will also decide upon the shape of the state courts and the manner of electing future Assemblies, should the war last longer than a year.

As many have noted, the Constitution of 1776 lacks a Bill of Rights and any separation of powers. There is no executive office and no independent judiciary. The legislature is supreme. These absences are a large part of the negative judgment on the New Hampshire Constitution, then and now.

Nor did they include any high-flown calls for science and education, as in the later Massachusetts or federal constitutions. Perhaps even in 1776, these framers were convinced by Dartmouth College that educational mischief needed no public encouragement.

But something else of great importance was missing from this Constitution: any appeal to a higher power. The framers do not mention the King. They do not mention God—the Creator or Nature’s God. There are no pledges of “sacred honor.” The “people,” through their “free suffrages,” are the source of this Congress’s authority and its Constitution. It is a thoroughly revolutionary document, the very first constitution to be enacted for and on behalf of the people. Perhaps this is why it acknowledges, even foregrounds, its own questionable authority. It invites the people whom it addresses to accept it, or reject it, by their own lights alone.

And that they did.

Only a week after its enactment, a Portsmouth delegation complained about its not being submitted to the people for a vote. By September 1776, towns in Grafton County abstained from the call for election to the new state legislature. After the state endorsed the Articles of Confederation in November 1777, leaders realized the need for a less temporary constitution, but the one they proposed in 1779—which would have made permanent the 1776 arrangement—was rejected by voters. In the meantime, in June 1778, 16 Connecticut Valley towns seceded to Vermont. After Massachusetts enacted its own “modern” constitution in 1780, New Hampshire leaders called another Constitutional Convention. In 1781, it proposed a draft constitution that would enact separation of powers, a separately elected Governor with a veto, a separate judiciary, and would forbid plural office holding. In the summer 1781, the people, still anxious about executive power, rejected that draft. The Constitutional Convention tried again, with a second draft that made representation more democratic but retained the governor; again, the people rejected it. Finally, after the Provisional Peace was signed in November 1782, and the people had agreed to a one-year extension on the temporary constitution of 1776, the Convention proposed a third draft that eliminated the Governor, eliminated the separate Council, and left appointments with the legislature—but forbade plural office-holding. Amazingly, it was approved shortly after the Treaty of Paris was signed, in October 1783.

One of the main complaints about the Constitution of 1776 was that it allowed a very small number of men to draft the Constitution, enact it, and then serve under it as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the state. The most dramatic example of this “pluralism” is Meshech Weare, who likely wrote the constitution, and then, for the duration of the war, served in the Assembly, was President of the Council, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and led the “Committee of Safety”—which ruled the state when the legislature was not in session, which was most of the time. The surprising fact that this constitution reveals is how easily republicanism fits with paternalism. The people want government, but they don’t really want to govern. A small number of trustworthy, upstanding officeholders may provide efficiency and expertise. As an additional bonus, they don’t cost much. This is a constitution for people who want to get to work, manage their private affairs, and believe that the government governs best that governs least.

The New Hampshire Constitution of 1776 was not perfect, but neither was it merely an experiment or trial run. It bravely met a serious need at a moment of emergency. It stayed true to revolutionary principles: “No Kings. Let the People rule.” Yet, subsequent constitution-makers in this country took another direction. They checked the people’s power through pitting office against office, relying on the ambition of office-seekers to limit potential threats to liberty. Their approach also accommodated the expansion of states (and eventually the federal union) to integrate factions, such as the geographical sections that gave the New Hampshire framers so many headaches.

These gains come with a price. Never again would the people’s rule in an American state be as direct as in New Hampshire in 1776. Also, the choice for more “scientific” constitutions changes the character of the political elite from stewards to seekers. Insofar as these “modern” constitutions make rule appear more illustrious, they excite those among the people who enjoy ruling rather than merely thwarting oppression. They impart a glory to public affairs that threatens to undermine the quiet, peace, and primacy of private life.

At a time when the American people seem alternately depressed or enraged, complaining either that a “King” or “deep state” rules them illegitimately, perhaps we could learn something from the resistance that the people of New Hampshire put up, for well over a decade, against supposedly less “makeshift” forms of government machinery.

Follow Keith Whitaker on X.

Art by Beck & Stone

🎭 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. 

The UK’s Patience With Mass Migration Is Gone

Townhall 

Is it possible that British citizens — and any politician who isn't a member of the Labour Party — are finally getting fed up with mass migration from the Third World?

They'd have every right to be. Mass migration has been an unmitigated disaster for the U.K. The nation now leads in reported rapes per capita, thanks to an influx of men from countries where women aren't equal or free. That was the excuse a lawyer gave for his Afghan client who raped a 15-year-old girl, after all, saying his client wasn't "used to a society where women are free and deemed equal to men."

Yesterday, Townhall reported that another Afghan man was arrested for attacking people at a hospital, including a nurse who suffered a massive head laceration and said she was "lucky to be alive."

Keir Starmer even said violence against women and girls was a "national emergency," but failed to say exactly why.

It's long past time to stop coddling these migrants and acting like racism is a worse offense than rape, murder, and terrorism.

MP Rupert Lowe has been banging this drum on deportations for a while. Back in October, he lambasted the Metropolitan Police for blocking a United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) protest calling for mass deportations. At the time, Lowe wrote, "So what? What's so offensive about mass deportations? We have Islamist hate spouted on our streets most weekends, yet you allow that with seeming joy. People have a right to peacefully protest to demand mass deportations."

The prohibition on UKIP came as U.K. authorities did find the wherewithal to crack down on Jews wearing the Star of David and the kippah in public.

Now Lowe is back, and this time he's not mincing words about deporting migrants.

"Please, spare me the continued moral outrage," Lowe said. "I am bored of it. The British people are bored of it. It is not cruel to deport criminals. It is not inhumane to defend our own citizens."

There are many examples of U.K. officials refusing to deport criminals because it would be "cruel." In March, a judge refused to deport a Pakistani sex offender who raped a teenage girl because the man is an alcoholic, saying he would face "inhuman or degrading treatment" in Pakistan because of his drinking problem. Ironically, a few weeks later, authorities refused to grant asylum to an Afghan woman and human rights advocate, saying she faced "no risk" from the Taliban.

Lowe continued, "What is cruel and what is inhumane is allowing foreign killers and sex offenders to walk amongst us in the name of...human rights. They should have forfeited the moment they committed their crimes."

A U.K. social media user echoed Lowe's sentiment.

"Human Rights are a communist universalist fallacy," the user wrote. "The principle that the freedom we’ve won &  enjoy, within the jurisdiction we subsidise, are automatically transferred globally is bulls**t. This principle is riddled with opportunity for our enemies, as we’re witnessing."

As this writer often says, mass deportations are the moderate option to address the problems migration has caused in the U.K. and the U.S.