Ooobie on Everything

NATO member brings down Russian jet in Syria

Turkey has shot down a Russian jet providing air cover to Syrian Army ground forces fighting ISIS near the Turkish border and close to the Russian base at Latakia. According to Russia, the jet was operating in Syrian airspace and had not crossed into Turkey and the data will demonstrate this. The Turks say it was shot down over Turkish airspace (yet the fireball, as the Turks described it, came down in ISIS-controlled Syrian territory). The Turks have run to Washington (NATO) to make sure everybody is armed with the same disinformation. I’m sure when the satellite imagery comes out from Russia, NATO war parties will insist the imagery is somehow cooked. And I wonder if we’ll ever see the Turkish imagery, or learn about their own decision-making process — just as we never saw or heard a scrap of existing evidence about what the Kiev regime was up to when it sent that civilian Malaysian airline into a war zone in eastern Ukraine. Some evidence isn’t helpful, as Washington can tell you, and that evidence needs to be buried.

This was inevitable, with NATO members waging illegal war in Syria chiefly to unseat Assad and Russia supporting the Syrian government under the terms of a legal treaty. The US, Turkey and a bunch of other corrupt and brutal Middle East governments want Assad gone. They claim Assad, someone we could do business with for many years, is just too brutal to hold office. It doesn’t matter that Assad is the only man who can hold Syria together for the moment, or that the governments calling Assad a monster are themselves monstrous (think Saudi Arabia). For the moment ISIS is only a minor distraction to everybody including the US. They won’t get really worked up until, Paris-style, the blood starts running in their own streets under ISIS swords. For these fools, for now, the important part is to get Russia out of Syria so NATO can “do its thing.” That “thing” is unseating governments, so far legal governments in every case.

Turkey I am sure has been getting more and more nervous as Russian air support has allowed Assad’s forces to regain ground and begin to take the fight to ISIS. Operating along the Turkish border in Syria, Russian efforts also provide cover for the Kurds, anathema to Turkey. Turkey wants Russia to just go away and let Turkey continue with its double-dealing and treachery.

I predicted that this conflict between NATO and Russia would develop. How could it not, with a variety of air forces flying over Syria dropping bombs on assorted enemies? And here we have it. I saw one comment on a blog site that said only, “can we have one last Christmas?” The Turks reported that the ejected pilots were last seen running, no doubt from ISIS beheaders, so I guess that cheers up the Turks no end. Remember that the only guys the Turks want to stop in Syria are the Kurds. If ISIS wants to kill them and the pro-Assad Syrians and the Russians, Turkey will be glad to help however it can.

There will be a great deal of propaganda unleashed in the next weeks. I’m dead certain that many in the US will use this incident to prove that NATO has to go whole hog, boots on the ground. The UN wholeheartedly endorsed the idea of a global fight against the Islamic Caliphate wherever it is and the US could use that as some kind of a fig-leaf for a “coalition invasion” — even though that wasn’t the meaning of the resolution at all. How many clashes between the US and Russia do you think there will be then? Do you think, as apparently the idiots in Washington do, that the Russians will turn tail and leave their legal mission the minute they see NATO coming? Not likely. And as for a US (so-called NATO) no-fly zone, the dream of the McCain crowd, it will be damned hard to establish when the Russians have already established their own no-fly zone.

There isn’t much more to say at this point. The developments will all unfold in the next days and we will find out some of the facts, while others are obscured or misstated. And I will write more then. But for the moment, remember one thing: neither the US nor its military arm NATO is an undisputed power anymore. Our efforts to bring down legal governments is being resisted with  military force, and if it is war the US and NATO want, it is war they will get. The US is caught in a situation of its own making where the solution can never peace but only more war. We are well and truly stuck in the tar baby and all that remains is for us to stick our whole head in the contraption and expire from our own stupidity.


Up to our Eyeballs

The moment has come: faced with a choice of collaborating with Russia and her allies to oust the mad jihadists from Syria, or opting for another US ground war, known waggishly as “boots on ground,” the US came down firmly on the side of ground war. Right now all we have is a contingent of 50 warriors, but that will grow as sure as God made little green apples. I don’t buy for a moment the idea that these guys are going to really shake up this collection of terrorists and mercenaries and fanatics and thus bring the Syrian disaster to an end. But here’s what I think those 50 men can accomplish and are intended to accomplish: they can embed themselves as “human shields” among “their” terrorists, hoping that Russia won’t bomb the areas anymore, which then keeps alive the dream of toppling Assad by force; and they can claim territory for the US. Nothing like “boots on ground” for claiming territory, although it is made more difficult by “planes in air”that think they already claimed the same territory.

Fifty men, even the best of men, are not going to substantively and directly change the course of events in Syria. They are going to be top-line targets for the savages currently taking over Syria and I dread that one or more of them will be captured. The only thing 50 military men can do is try to hold together the remnants of the US-backed terrorist team while feeding intel into plans for a much larger incursion. The US wants its own territory in Syria, where it can establish a no-fly zone, conduct operations, and give sanctuary to its fighters. The problem, as already noted, is that Russia is able to operate in the air anywhere where Mr. Assad allows them to operate, while the US has no such authority from anybody, not to bomb, not to invade, and not to train and supply terrorists for anti-state action. So what we are being set up for is the big confrontation that anybody sane worries about. I do not believe the presence of an infiltrated American soldier in an anti-Assad formation will keep Russia from bombing. Assad asked Russia in to help him fight the anti-government forces, so of course that is what Russia is doing and will continue to do. I think the Russians will have already made this clear to the Americans, privately and through whatever atrophied diplomatic channels still exist. Russia will not sit idly by and allow the US to carve off a chunk of Syria for its own, I don’t think, and it certainly won’t be cowed by US human shields from continuing to strike against Assad’s foes. This makes it all too possible that we are going to see a direct US-Russian face-off and perhaps the opening of some sort of conflict.  Turkey’s own dubious activities in Syria are another NATO/Russia flash-point. You should add to that the increasing likelihood that there will be a purely accidental and literal collision at some point somewhere in Syria between the two sides if you want to savor the dangerous territories we are in.

Russia’s entry into the Syrian fight has for the first time begun to impact on ISIS and other terror groups trying to bring down the government. Hence the downing of the Russian passenger plane in retaliation. Russia is having an effect, where the US achieved nothing for many months. The Russians are simultaneously pursuing a strong political/diplomatic track under the aegis of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. If not for Russia, the US would never be sitting at a negotiating table with all the key players in Syria. The US should have every reason to enter into collaboration with whomever is fighting ISIS, but it is adamantly against doing so with the Russian team. They have offered various lame excuses for failing to do so. They can’t work with Iran (hah). Hamas is involved. The real reason is that Russia has established a strong position in Syria that the US dare not threaten without risk of direct conflict. The US cannot deal with the concept of Russia as an equal partner, rather than a subordinate. The US no longer has the luxury of pondering which of its various hapless schemes it would make operational — the no fly zone? boots on ground? installation of US-backed government? It is now constrained in what it can do, and hence the low-key opening bid of 50 soldiers. From here on out it is pure risk. There will be more to come.

The US and Russian positions on Syria are actually very close, except that Russia rejects the right of another nation to tell the Syrians who their government can be. They favor settling political differences through direct negotiations and referendum. The US and its allies insist that the terrible Mr. Assad has to go and the US assumes it will be the nation to tell the Syrians who their government can be. The only reason they give for using force to unseat him is that he has been brutal in repressing opposition. Whoop-dee-do. We do business everyday with men as bad as or worse than Assad, men like the Castro zombies, and it’s water off a duck’s back. We only care about human rights when it serves our purposes. But honestly — I can’t see the logic in anything the US  is doing. They have failed at nation-building in each instance beginning with Bosnia and yet they keep trying the same losing strategy. They need to try something new in Syria, like international consultation. Perhaps between the two sides a solution can be found. All those refugees can go home. The US and the EU can pay to rebuild Syria.

I think that if we end up collaborating it will be a miracle. I think the US has decided on a basic course that has as its goals the limitation of Russian gains, the continued fight to unseat Assad, and the strengthening of US influence on what happens in Syria. I  think those 50 boots will end up being 50,000 boots and not nearly so many boots on ground will leave as entered. I think the 50 men gambit is a big neon sign saying, “we’re going in up to our eyeballs.”


I like Rubio/Fiorina

This really is a sea of riches before us. I can imagine many variations of winning Republican presidential/veep candidates. How about Trump/Carson? Or Christie/Fiorina? Or Fiorina/Paul? Or best of all, Paul and Anybody. But  short of that, what could be better than a Rubio/Fiorina ticket? This would be the ultimate male versus female contest. Will the true male contingent vote en masse for their candidates, the smart and honorable candidates, or will they let an aged woman and a left-wing no-borders Latino from California run the country?

I went to a fund-raiser for Rubio in a dusty Florida town when he was running for the US Senate. He had already had an illustrious career in politics from an early age in his state and was a man of ambition. I supported him almost by rote, as a conservative Republican. But I came away deeply impressed on this first acquaintance with his breadth of intelligence and his spontaneity. My friend who went with me felt the same.

He’s presidential timber, I said. “A little young still,” my friend said. “But he has time, and he is one of the smartest guys I’ve seen,” I replied. She has never forgotten my prediction and here we are.

I just announced privately that I thought the GOP nominee would be Trump, maybe with a Carson veep. But that famous political dynamic is in motion, and the front-runner is morphing from Trump and Carson to Cruz and Rubio. Who knows, when the end is reached maybe the candidate will be my favorite, Rand Paul, the only man with a wise foreign policy.

When the issues are debated, the intelligent guys usually win. By trouncing the stupid CNBC moderators and making them look the political hack-losers they are, the candidates were able to put the light back on the real issues we face. These are all impressive candidates. Well, almost all of them. And at last the US audience was able to make an assessment of the characters and ideas of the candidates rather than those of the moderators. I think this stupid debate did the GOP a world of good. Keep the spotlight on ideas and the Dems are finished.

I think Rubio on any grounds is a formidable candidate nationally. He is charismatic, handsome, faithful, true, and smart as a whip. He is strong on US defense, too macho for my tastes but still smart, and he can run intellectual rings around any quantity of so-called MSM mavens. He is not in awe of the process or the vultures of the left.

Fiorina is essential to counter Hillary and she is as quick as Rubio. We would have two really, really smart Republicans countering a heavy-handed and corrupt politico from the Old School (old being the operable word) and no doubt her Latino attack-dog,  who shares her idea of borders as anathema. Welcome one and all. Fiorina is truly smart and able, demonstrably non-corrupt, and a likable personality. Put her against Hillary, even if only as candidate for Vice President, and she comes out well.

So, second to Rand Paul and anybody, I’m going to root for a Rubio/Fiorina candidacy. And when they win, Ben Carson as something really important. Along with all the other smart candidates we have finally fielded. We have waited a long time to collect such a group of candidates.


Is Hillary Clinton a Psychopath? Or just a chronic liar?

Well, that certainly takes the cake. Mrs. Clinton, formerly a Secretary of State, sat before a Congressional investigatory committee and lied her head off. She testified grudgingly, angrily, and self-righteously, and she lied her head off. Worse, she lied about things that everybody in this country with a scintilla of mental alertness knows she was lying about. She lied about something that video and our own memories prove she was lying about. It wasn’t like she fudged things, saying something like, “perhaps or perhaps not, I can’t recall as I was in the midst of a stroke.” No, she flat-out LIED about it.

Mrs. Clinton’s lies in her testimony were so many and so egregious that I can only touch on a few here, so let’s start with the very worst of her lies, all of them centered on Benghazi. Bear in mind that Clinton was the godmother of the bombing of Libya, the murder of Qaddafi, and the agreement to give diplomatic cover to a CIA facility for gun-running to the good terrorists in Syria. She owned everything doing with Libya. She evaporated from sight and sound when things went south in Benghazi, that snake-pit, thus suggesting that perhaps her pitiful agreement to abandon Americans under siege may have been due to her physical condition that resulted in the stroke.

Hillary Clinton told us that she never claimed that the Benghazi slaughter was a result of a video clip produced in America, a horrible hateful video clip that enraged people of the Moslem persuasion so much they just upped and spontaneously attacked a US facility of unknown purpose while carrying all sorts of deadly armaments and in the process killing a few Americans. But everybody knows she talked of it plenty of times, up until the moment the truth had been outed, when suddenly she mentions it as a terrorist act. She was clever enough to refuse to flog that lie on the networks, which work fell to the foolish Susan Rice, but she sold the story herself. Clinton claimed that she mentioned that video, but she never said (in so many words) “see, this mean-spirited video is what caused Benghazi, not my stupidity or my desire (in tandem with that of the Big O) to prevent ugly facts from dampening electoral enthusiasm in the upcoming vote.” In fact, she said that although she mentioned that video clip, it was merely a “warning” to others in the region not to try anything.

Fact: The father of one of the victims has made public his notes of his meeting with the Secretary after the deaths. He wrote at the time that Mrs. Clinton said “we’re going to arrest the filmmaker responsible for the video that caused your son’s death.” So she’s certainly lying now just as she was lying then. Not to mention that she used the arm of the law as a punishment for a man who was merely voicing his views.

Opinion: I somehow doubt that the failure of the USG to lift a finger in defense of its personnel in Benghazi would warn off any Moslem fanatic from doing the same thing, over and over and over, with great zeal. I mean, really. Only a fool or Mrs. Clinton’s fact-resistant supporters would buy such a lame story. Even Obama was cautious enough to drop the term terrorist early in the game — even if not in relation to Benghazi but to vague places around the globe.

I’m sitting here and just this instant Fox is replaying Clinton’s claim that she never denied there was an assault involved. The Congressman questioning her rightly slapped her down on that particular idiocy. Treyvon Martin jumping George Zimmerman was an assault. And she knows that too, but it all depends on what the meaning of is is. When the use of the word assault is one of the pillars of her defense, I think the case is made.

Here are some more lies she told. She said that she as Secretary of State would never dream of overriding a head of bureau’s recommendation on something like security, and she was sure no other Secretary of State would have, either. I refuse to believe for one instant that Hillary Clinton, with her degree of responsibility in Libya, would not have insisted on being fully briefed on Embassy concerns and putting in her two cents. Libya was her brainchild. Ergo, if security was denied, then ipso facto Mrs. Clinton failed to intervene in and overturn what she claims was the Department’s security consensus. I don’t believe that the Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security would have opposed the Benghazi security requests. I think this was a Hillary brainchild, but I can’t prove it. Any effort to claim that her views weren’t sought is a lie embedded in lies. It would be as if Secretary Dulles was not made aware of Embassy Moscow’s security needs during the Cold War. It would have been a case where the Secretary would indeed weigh in, were the decision contrary to his or her views on the matter. And surely the security of her dear friend Ambassador Stevens was of special importance to her? But no, she actually didn’t intervene to say, give them what they need. She deferred to her subordinate’s judgment.

One last thing that got me a little riled: her claim that she has always said she takes full responsibility for everything. I thought the Republicans did a good job trouncing her. One Republican, from Illinois, actually asked her to explain how she saw “responsibility” after one such assertion, In reply she blathered on about non-relevant things like, I was really busy, and then he called her out again. What in relation to Benghazi is your perception of responsibility? She couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question, but it is one that I have been pondering since she dropped out of sight for about three months after the disaster in Benghazi.

It’s as if every other word that ever comes out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth is a lie. She’s so artificial it is painful and the idea of four or  more years with a woman who sounds like a braying jackass is impossible to contemplate.

And that’s the subject of another Ooobie. How the Republicans could pull out a victory. I’m not sure they have a cohesive brain anymore, so it’s going to have to be by our own efforts to see that Clinton doesn’t get her hand in the public treasury again. It is my fervent wish that all her future endeavors should involve illicit transactions in tropical countries. By the way, that Representative Brooks got a huge hurrah from me for her brilliant and spirited attack on the non-existent Clinton character. Just great.

A Shout-out to Putin and Russia

I thought I was going to explode if I had to sit through one more idiotic, uninformed, even yokel-ish tv analysis about Russia in the past days. “Russia is getting more aggressive,” grumbled one retired general. “Look at Ukraine and now Syria!” Another complains that “Putin is set on becoming a major player in the Middle East!” The Republicans point to the Syrian debacle and the collapse of what were never defined US goals and purposes, and now Russia’s supposed act of belligerence, and demand that we double down and “do this right,” i.e. through direct US military action to overthrow Assad and supposedly to defeat ISIS. We are already in full violation of international law in our actions, and the Republicans offer more of same. But the Democrats offer no alternative, either. Hillary Clinton is the most gung-ho “use of force” advocate on the campaign trail. I would laugh if all this ignorance were not leading us to the precipice of war. I see we have now sent state-of-the-art nukes to Germany. Oh, goody. And although the US is (of course) absolutely blameless in this turn of events, Putin is making us look slow and stupid. Most of those speaking their piece share the view that this uppity Russian (Putin) is begging for a beating from somebody, and that somebody should be the US. Except we’re busy at the moment being beat up by ISIS.

What Putin did was a beautiful coup against the now largely past-tense World’s Only Superpower. He put a long-time military agreement with Syria into effect in a lightning strike, with very little warning to the US-led alliance. Not coincidentally, for one month, Russia heads the UNSC. This gives Russia major if perhaps only passing leverage and Putin has used it to not only suggest a way forward out of the morass, with a coalition of the willing to support the Syrian Army and the Kurdish fighters; he also put his words into action, launching airstrikes against ISIS in coordination with the Syrian government and Iran. The US and NATO have been invited to join the coalition for a common cause, and NATO is dumbstruck or perhaps just dumb. Not unless we’re allowed to depose another head of government, the US and its friends insist. We couldn’t possibly fight alongside Hamas, they add. As for the Iranians, to whom we just gave our blessings for nuclear weapons, they aren’t the right partner in this context. And Russia merely replies, “we don’t do governments, the voters of the country involved do.”

Now the world sees on one side a stubborn and arrogant US, oddly resistant to join all hands in the fight against ISIS, backed by a handful of allies who act in their own sectarians interests, helping now one side and now the other. They are acting as if Russia has committed some criminal act by opposing illegal US actions inside and outside of Syria intended chiefly to unseat Assad and only in a very desultory fashion to go after ISIS. On the other side, we see a  smart, tough man leading a country beaten down by western sanctions and oil prices, who knows Russia’s security is also at stake and who acts decisively to fill the power vacuum he has seen the US leave in its wake. Russia cannot afford to have this ISIS movement grow. From Putin’s perspective, if nobody else was going to go after ISIS as long as ISIS was fighting the Syrian government, then Russia would step in. Now other nations are going to line up with the Russian alliance in the hopes of staving off ISIS and getting the refugee situation in Europe under better control. In NATO territory, ordinary people upset by the Syrian/faux Syrian influx are asking why the EU and NATO can’t collaborate with the Russian group to defeat the enemy and the main source of refugee outflow. Most people are looking for an alternative to the aimless and, from where I sit, increasingly immoral conduct of war in other countries that the US is offering. It has got to stop, and not least because we are losing badly.  I posted a comment at a blog site that referred to “the five good guys we are currently working with in Syria.” That was a few days before the Pentagon admitted it only had four or five guys left from their trainees. See, you can’t even make this stuff up.

The world, much of it, has grown truly tired of endless wars to unseat leaders who seem to be good or bad depending entirely on the interests of the US and its allies at the moment. The real effects of tearing countries apart “for the good of everybody,” something the US is specializing in, are coming home to roost and they aren’t pretty. Everywhere one looks in the Middle East and beyond, where the US has settled things by use of military force, the fabric has never re-healed and our continued involvement has fed the ISIS movement. We are lightning rods of misery. Doing more of what we are doing, and largely to protect our claim to absolute leadership in global affairs, is sheer madness.

Putin acted in Russian national interests by establishing a counterweight to US might in the Middle East and giving Russia a powerful voice of opposition to the way business is being conducted there. If the US were to agree to collaboration, we could perhaps still deliver ISIS a very serious blow. But the US needs to get on the train, because it is departing the station. This could become yet another lever for creating divisions in the EU and NATO.



The Liar tells one too many

When it comes to lying, almost everybody in Washington practices it daily. Most recently, Ted Cruz lashed out at Mitch McConnell for outright lying to other Republican senators about side deals relating to the Highways bill and the TPP. But the Blue Ribbon for Most Consistent and Outrageous Deviousness goes to Hillary Clinton.

I won’t bother to go back through her history  of lies, like landing in Sarajevo under fire (we wish!). I’ll just pick up mid-whopper with the saga of Hillary Clinton’s private server and all that classified information she sent out over its unsecured pathways. According to Clinton, she never sent any classified information over that electronic beam. The fuss by the intelligence bozos is just a squabble over exactly how much information should be classified. It’s simply bureaucratic quibbling. The guys doing the quibbling, by the way, are the Inspectors General of both the Intelligence Community and (no doubt with deep reluctance) the Department of State. The Intelligence Community includes all the various intelligence agencies, offices and departments of all the different parts of the United States Government and the US military. Their foot soldiers and electronic helpers collect the information we use to determine policies and actions. Sometimes the sources are human beings at risk of immediate execution if discovered. Sometimes the information is sucked up from intercepts and eavesdropping; those sources would be shut down quickly if the government involved realized where the leaks were. This and many more similar considerations are behind the classification system. This isn’t a matter of personal opinion or New Age theory. It isn’t a matter of position or ambition.

Here is a clue for the Smartest Woman in the World: if you are pulling your information from top secret code-word protected USG information, your paraphrased conveyance of the information is classified at the same level as the original information. Mrs. Clinton wants us to believe that she had the authority to take that highly classified information and send it as if it were instructions to pick up her dry-cleaning. Even the CIA’s top officials have had to admit that the information that went forth over Mrs. Clinton’s Personal Server is certainly now in the hands of the people we have on our enemies list, like Russia and China. (Message to Russia and China: give us a hand, here, and mail those messages to the  US Congress c/o Trey Gowdy.)

Yesterday I saw a Fox news banner running across the bottom of the screen, grossly misinforming the US public that “retroactively classified information went out in Clinton’s emails.” Here’s another news flash (listen up, Fox News): what she sent out was not retroactively classified. It was classified at the time she put it in her messages. Classification doesn’t change or lapse until some date 20 or 50 or 100 years from the date of origination unless there is some legal process to treat the information otherwise. So just slapping a U for unclassified on the top doesn’t in any substantive manner change the classification of the material. What the security mavens did was restore the original classifications to the information, thus making all those Clinton messages seen and handled by people such as her personal lawyer “classified.”

Here is the crux of the case:

Mrs. Clinton did know all about classifications, she would have been thoroughly briefed on that aspect of her job when she started it, not to mention from her days in the Senate. She knew, as she said, that you can’t send classified material via private servers. One must thus conclude that she changed the classification of the information from Alpha Sigmoid Eyes Only to “anybody except Americans can have a look” knowingly, specifically and deliberately; and that she did so in order to retain full and exclusive control over all her messages sent over a four-year period and allow her to purge any that would reflect poorly upon her as a potential US president. Mrs. Clinton then obliterated many, many thousands of USG-owned messages, insisting they were only about Bill’s affairs. I mean, about Chelsea’s multi-million dollar wedding.

Tell it to the judge, Hillary.

I am delighted to say that the entire intelligence community has jumped down her throat in response. You can’t just call something something it isn’t (other than calling a  man a woman, a woman a man, or a white a black.) You can’t paraphrase your country’s most closely guarded secrets, throw them to the winds, and expect anybody will buy the theory that the classified portions were somehow “laundered.” (That’s something else Mrs. Clinton is good at, laundering.) In any case, the die is now cast. The investigations will begin, and as we saw, probably from the very first message they reviewed, the evidence will show the woman’s guilt. Saying “I didn’t know” is no defense under the law, Mrs. Clinton. I bet you know that, too. Between Trey Gowdy’s hearings on Benghazi in the House and this new investigation, I think Hillary’s big fat goose is cooked. Look in that haggard face if you can stand it and you will see there the realization that she tried one scam too many and told one lie too far. Old Joe is in the bull-pen, limbering up.


The Supreme Court Rewrites American Culture

I’ve been wanting for weeks to write something about that lying sticky-fingered candidate for the presidency, the Missus, but it’s a lazy summer and it has made me lazy too. Still, things around me have suddenly begun to fall apart at an alarming rate, although Americans appear oblivious. You’d get a far larger percentage of Americans who could tell you about the Kardashians latest inanities or the newest “K” for Caitlyn than can tell you why the US is not coordinating with the whole world to bring down ISIS, or why Russia is Public Enemy Number One again, not that they really care about any of those things anyway. Now I see how it was that terrible things like WWII happened. Nobody saw it coming or cared, either.

And you can be sure that most Americas are unaware that the US is now for the first time inserting itself directly on Russia’s doorstep with our heavy weapons, our materiel, our jets, our military advisers and even our troops. The risks of direct confrontation are thus exponentially greater than they were when the threat from NATO/US was less immediate. Russia will respond and is already accelerating its move away from western production of any kind of military components or devices to domestic production, as well as toward accelerated production of nuclear weapons both tactical and ballistic. They will forward base their own weapons and materiel, right there across the street from NATO.

But it is at home where the greatest damage to America is being incurred. The US Supreme Court in just a couple of decisions has attempted to rewrite western culture. With one sweep of the judicial pen, these justices have pretty much annihilated the institution of marriage, leaving in its wake some alien and absolutely malleable something that in the end will expand to include ever  more bizarre unions, all of them equally good or bad or neutral or whatever. As one of the judicial dissents on gay marriage noted, it is a predictable and foregone conclusion that the next to qualify as married will be the polygamists. He didn’t add “and after them, any combination of two or more persons (no doubt even animals and inanimate objects) including those of family members and adults and children.”

This obscenely wrong decision came right after the Court’s majority repeated its earlier derogation of duty by totally ignoring the text of the law under consideration in rendering judgment on Obamacare subsidies. In this case, the actual words of Obamacare were not rewritten, as in changing a “penalty” to a “tax.” They avoided the problem of very clear text they opposed by deciding not to rely on text as a basis for their analysis, opting instead to divine the “intent” of those hundreds of legislators who wrote and passed the bill. As if there were one single intent, like a bee hive or an ant hill, which is what the leftists running the asylum would have us be, in a perfect world (the same one where communism is the perfection of socialism). John Roberts could just be called a traitor; or even suspected of being a blackmail victim; but then he voted the next day to uphold traditional marriage. I guess it’s better to call him crazy. Maybe it was the head problem he had. Maybe as a result it isn’t always John Roberts on the bench, but maybe, sometimes, Teddy Roosevelt or Jesus Christ himself.

We all know what is coming. The left is baying for blood — stop tax exceptions for the religious! Silence the anti-gay right! Shut down the churches, hound the believers out. This is totally nuts. The do-gooders of the Court have opened the gates to hell.

They are joined in their perfidies by the US Congress, those spineless corrupt traitors to the American people. The latest insult and injury is that GOP leaders have ignored vociferous bipartisan public objections to both the secrecy of the TPP treaty text and the wheeling and dealing going on (again behind closed doors). Part I of this screw-you-America legislation has already successfully cleared the hurdle of Congressional approval and now gives the President the right to “fast-track” trade negotiations. What’s the damned rush about? The secrecy shrouding this bill is a repeat of the “considerations” that preceded imposing Obamacare on an unwilling nation. It is absolutely unacceptable and a violation of the public trust. What are we doing about it, then? Not a thing.

The GOP leadership all got big donations at the time they were pushing the legislation. I’m sure you’ll find the exact same situation on the Democrat side. It’s all about power and money. It’s my new mantra: power and money, power and money. It explains everything.

Speaking of power, money and corruption: those emails are keeping Hillary busy making up stories or steadfastly ignoring the news as she tools around the US presenting herself, the owner of her very own e-mail server, as Everywoman. If we had an opposition leadership in DC we’d be wiping up the floor with the self-righteous but sinister Mrs. Clinton and her list of suspected felonies. Instead we have a bunch of self-interested valueless men who sell themselves as pragmatic. This business of the server may in fact bring her down, even if only Trey Gowdy wants to do so. She did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department or to the US Congress under subpoena. She withheld, at a minimum, relevant Benghazi emails. In addition, those emails she sent that contained not one confidential thing were riddled with confidential information. The US Department of State, trying to cover its ass, has actually now given the correct classification and redacted the emails sent to Congress. (The upside of confessing that you failed in your institutional duties by allowing valuable and sensitive information to be sent daily on an insecure server is that you don’t have to let Congress see what Mrs. Clinton was saying.) Even the White House ignored her use of a private server, apparently sharing the Secretary’s blasé attitude toward national security. The State Department is now looking thoroughly politicized and incompetent.

As for the Republicans, they’ve been an across-the-board failure at anything other than playing to their interests. They haven’t succeeded in or seriously attempted to make good on anything promised in 2012. They have played hard-ball only with their own members, in particular those who think the words of the Constitution mean something, like Justice Scalia. They seem to think the public is an ass. They work hand-in-glove with the Democrats in Congress to satisfy the same money/power sectors and the will of the rest of us is worth bupkis. Among the presidential aspirants, I’m a Rand Paul supporter, but I also love Ted Cruz. Unfortunately, the Machine has its own candidate and as in recent past elections, their choice will win and it will be Pablum Redux. Then the question will be, how many who feel betrayed and ignored within their own party will stay home or vote for somebody else? How many will decide they really have wasted enough votes on Dem Lite? I can’t believe those fools in the RNC haven’t figured out what’s coming.


US Foreign Policy: A Cry for Help

I’ve been working on a piece on domestic political inanity, but am taking a detour to comment on the latest news from DC regarding Russia. Whatever happens at home doesn’t matter if it doesn’t affect what is happening abroad, where we have lost our marbles. The only politician making sense on foreign policy at present is Rand Paul. All the rest, and Mrs. Clinton in first place, are macho posturers who think they can still push other major powers around with impunity and that not threatening Russia in its own backyard is weakness. What has set me off this time is the announcement that the White House is considering getting even tougher on Russia to make sure it behaves itself in Europe. To justify the action, NATO asserts some non-existent Russian threat to NATO countries on NATO’s “far eastern” fringe. There is nothing to suggest this, of course, but that’s the glory of propaganda: a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

The newly-imagined NATO militarization program involves upgrading all the regional armies (magnificent arms sales!), and even stationing missiles. We have already sent military advisers and military hardware to Ukraine, a country not a member of NATO that is sinking under the waves of ineptitude and division, and rumor is rife that the US is funding a mercenary army for Ukraine to fight against Russia and Russia’s own proxy army in eastern Ukraine. NATO also declared one of its new missions (and apparently newly discovered authorities) is to weed out corrupt governments in Europe. I have already watched with amazement the replacing of Ukrainian government officials with foreigners, no matter what the public wants — whose hand is behind this incredibly disrespectful attitude to national interests, do you think? The One World’ers, the ones now declaring the right to weed out somebody else’s government, anywhere in Europe. And how does the weeding out occur? Through Color Revolutions? Pre-planned and deliberate disruptions of public order to achieve a much larger goal? Violent ousters of the “corrupt government”? Is weeding out anything like what we did in Syria? Could Hungary be in for some weeding out, and the Czech Republic, too? The Hungarian prime minister is a pragmatic man who prizes Hungarian independence; even under the Soviet regime Hungary was known to be rather independent in its economic dealings with the west. Now the Hungarian president is being told by the US/EU what to do in both foreign and trade policy. It rubs the wrong way. And the Czech president has banned the US ambassador in Prague from ever going to the presidential palace after the latter insulted the former by telling him what to do vis-à-vis Russia. Sounds like corruption to me.

Before my patriotic readers cheer on US provocations in eastern Europe, consider this: the last time we tried putting missiles in Europe, we had a huge anti-war movement in all the west European countries. Nobody wants to be in the missile cross-hairs of the Russians, and certainly not on behalf of the Poles, who just hate the Russians on principle, or the Latvians with their neo-Nazi sympathies. And they would be in those cross-hairs if the Americans put missiles in their backyards. Many western and even eastern Europeans also reject the US rationale that it is only making Europe safer. Most people in western Europe don’t care what happens to Ukraine unless it involves a lot of refugees, but so far the refugees are going almost exclusively to Russia. Anybody with even one eye in his head can see that all the military armament over a twenty some year period has been flowing eastward, not westward. It was flowing eastward when Russia was barely able to keep its Army together. Pull out a map and look at foreign military bases belonging to the US and Russia. And yet it is obvious that Russia would never attack NATO short of a NATO attack on Russia. What’s the real goal of all this? Containment, disarming, “weeding out.”

I read an article today that warned that we have entered a New Cold War period. I shot back that the commentator should get serious, it isn’t a Cold War, it is the prelude to WWIII. Many west European commentators, including Le Pen in France and Farage in UK, are increasingly worried by the militant US position on relations with Russia and object to it. They blame NATO and EU actions for ushering in the opening phase of WWIII. This is a nuclear war we are discussing and people are beginning to sit up and take notice. As one west European recently wrote, if the US is reverting to its expansionist era, then the Europeans have a right to know of the new policy and adjust their own accordingly. Vladimir Putin has already ridiculed US plans, asserting that “only in a madman’s dream would Russia attack NATO.”

All of what we have been seeing in the development of a policy of confrontation with Russia coincides with the unfolding of the new and bigger US propaganda effort led by Cold War hounds Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Voice of America. The US government was concerned about the burgeoning success around the world of Russia Today, a Russian state-controlled news outlet. I myself read and watch it on-line, not only for news on Russia, which is predictably skewed, but for news on my own country. You can always bank on finding the bad news stories that have been spiked in the US press, and they are all one hundred percent true. That’s why others read it, too — to hear the other side of the story, and the things their own governments are hiding. Really, who would have thought that one day propaganda would have a use?

In the past, of course, such propaganda would have been only for purveyance to the ignorant world and prohibited for distribution within the US, lest the American citizen also be influenced by untruths. Nowadays, there is no exemption from propaganda for the supposedly naive world or the US citizen. One of the clearest examples was the recent performance of our Ms. Potato Head press spokesperson at the US State Department. Despite OSCE monitoring reports showing that there are equal numbers of Minsk agreement violations in Ukraine by each side, Marie Harf insisted that “we know” that the “vast majority” of the incidents were by the “Russian-backed rebels” and only “a tiny minority” by Kiev’s forces. She absolutely refused to acknowledge the facts as reported by the European monitors and instead spread blatant disinformation. She briefly tried to justify any violations, however few, by Kiev by asserting that Kiev was fighting to defend its country and thus was morally right. She was forced back to issue by a Russia Today reporter, who put her down deftly with a little dig on US moral superiority, but the reporter got nothing for her efforts. Harf wasn’t budging and that’s that. Harf can follow simple instructions, like “deny deny, deny.”

In any case, here’s what I think. I think that the Russian propaganda and disinformation system is now ramping up to meet the US ramp-up; I think that Russians will meet any placement of US missiles in Ukraine and Eastern Europe by putting nuclear weapons in Kalingrad and Crimea and targeting them on European capitals and economic regions. They are also rapidly developing their own advanced anti-missile missile system. I predict a rebirth of the anti-war protest movement in Europe, where the left is already geared up for their usual anti-G7 antics. The addition of the more reputable anti-war elements will significantly raise the pressures on governments. Tensions within NATO between those looking for accommodation of Russian national interests and those determined to screw Russia will likely be exacerbated by growing tension between east and west. Chafing at the imposition of US interests over those of Europe will not help tempers.

I also predict that if there is not a serious reconsideration of the growing militarization of our foreign policy, we are looking WWIII in the face. At these close quarters, with the US pushing into Russia’s front door, accidents happen. And sometimes others provoke accidents for their own stupidly short-sighted purposes.

And I didn’t even mention our similar provocations of China, or the emerging Sino-Russian military cooperation and coordination of positions. The multi-polar world has emerged full-blown. No longer that stable bi-polar world, or the incredibly heady days of unipolar power for America, but one where powerful nations are asserting their rightful position in global decision-making. We need to recalibrate. We need to rediscover diplomacy.


On the Glory of Free Expression

Our younger generations don’t even know what freedom of expression is or means. That’s because they hardly ever hear a contrary voice throughout their school years and if they do, that voice is quickly silenced by peer disapproval and teacher discipline. Lenny Bruce, the foul-mouthed lefty who lived and breathed to shock hum-drum 1950s America with his harsh comedy, or the women who demanded a vote, or the homosexual who was openly who he was — they were acts that taught us the meaning of freedom to say or express whatever you like. It meant having to listen to these horses’ asses yammering at us even when we would have loved for somebody to shut them up. And we respected that right, knowing that someday we might need its protection as well.

Poor kids. Today  Lenny Bruce is the principal in their elementary school and actively discourages kids from pledging allegiance to any flag, especially that of the oppressive US. His teacher’s union is headed by the woman who demanded the vote and now wants to marry her girlfriend, the one who loses no chance to drum into the little kids’ brains that sex has nothing to do with what is between their legs and men are oppressors. His Boy Scout leader is a gay blade who accompanies the little boys to summer camp and plays with them to his heart’s content. (Why didn’t Michael Jackson volunteer as a Boy Scout leader? I bet he thought about it.)

And what about all those other people, the ones who disagree with the officially-acceptable point of view? Aren’t they allowed to speak their minds? Don’t we get the protection of the first amendment?

Well, in a word, no.

A straight baker must bake a cake celebrating a homosexual union the baker deeply feels to be a perversion and a sin. But a gay baker may refuse to decorate a cake stating “marriage is an act between one man and one woman,” a legal point of view held by numerous states, because it is offensive to him. A US flag flown by a vet in a condo complex has to be taken down; but Mexican illegals, in our schools at our expense, can fly the Mexican flag at school, wear it on their clothes, and hoist it pretty much anywhere. They can also fly the US flag upside down. In our prisons, the taxpayers are getting socked with the cost of making creepy convict males into even creepier convict females. Just consider that oh-so-creepy Cpl. Manning. (And Chelsea! I guess they look alike.) Soon it will be illegal for any church to preach that homosexuality goes against God’s law. I’m guessing a Department of Indoctrination is in the offing.

And when was the last time you recall the scientific community uniting with one voice to condemn the manipulative and deceptive practices of the eco-fanatics? Where is the letter from the NSF to the world, decrying efforts to silence and even punish anybody who scoffs at the prophecies of impending disaster we are tormented with at every turn?

How about religion in general? Atheists, trans-gendered no doubt, don’t want that religious crap anywhere, not in the US capital and not in your home, if you want to know the truth. And religion doesn’t hold much sway anymore, or so its seems given the various sects’ supine acceptance of the assault on them. I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on homosexual marriage: will they uphold that First Amendment right that gives religion its special protections from assault by government, that specifically enumerated and deeply considered right; or will they ignore that right and create a new one out of whole-cloth, a right that, if put to the founders, would have found universal rejection as any such thing. Will they create a right that then seriously impinges on freedom of religion by making certain doctrines anathema and forcing churches instead to recognize homosexuality and the unions of homosexuals? Will pastors who oppose homosexual marriage be forced to marry two women or men anyway? I am absolutely certain, if this is how it goes, the  next step will be polygamy, then human and other. But let’s be brutally frank, as long as I’m expressing my opinions: marriage isn’t worth a plug nickel anymore anyway. It has already been deeply degraded by the left-wing gay rights agenda that includes the destruction of that institution and has become so au courant that the Republican elite has adopted it as their own, as well. Ask Ken Mehlman, our gay ex-GOP party chairman.

And God forbid that anybody should question the bona fides of a person with the right colored skin (anything but white). If you ask why Obama has been such a destructive force in the White House, accelerating the fall of the great American nation, it is because you are a racist. If you think that the Hispanic George (Jorge) Zimmerman was right to shoot that vicious little thug Trayvon Martin, you are a racist.If you think Al Sharpton is a lying, greedy and wicked provocateur who lines his pockets on other people’s problems, then you are a racist.

And now comes the female and womanly part of the “no freedom of expression zone.” Hillary Clinton. When the male GOP candidate goes up against her, he’d best pull no punches and go relentlessly after this corrupt and contemptible woman for all her underhanded dealings. If he shows any inclination to fall back to defense, the media whores of the Democrat Party will crucify him. Every word pronounced will be considered for its potential, even likely, sexism. So don’t make them look for it, give it to them. When you’re at a barbecue, gush how you love a hotdog and a bun, not two buns or two hotdogs, but precisely one hotdog and one bun!

I, for one, don’t intend to shut up voluntarily. I will go to my grave calling things the way I see them and rebutting the inane and lame arguments of the opposing camp. If all they have to say in return is “shut up,” I guess, like Lenny Bruce, I’ll keep on handing it out to those brainwashed Americans.

Not a Pretty Picture

I could be referring to so many things: excess plastic surgery; gross obesity and death-camp “svelte;” Boy George; Hillary Clinton.

I saw today in the National Enquirer that Hillary is a “confirmed” lesbian and travels with girlfriends including The Hoom aka Huma Abedin. Scoff if you will, but the National Enquirer is one of the most accurate gossip magazines in the US and always scoops the others on big news. It used to be far less reliable until Carol Burnett sued the pants off the gossip rag. Ever since then, if something scary and utterly bizarre, like Bruce Jenner turning into a hideous woman, has appeared in National Enquirer, it inevitably ends up on the mainstream front pages. In fact, is running a series of photos of the two women together with the title, “how close are Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton?” Nothing at all racy in the photos, but that question made me wonder if they, too, were insinuating something. In fact, a search of the internet shows this to be the topic du jour. But to quote some shrill harridan, “what difference does it make?” I’m going to make a giant assumption that Hillary’s alleged sexual appetites won’t turn off her fans in the almost entirely Democrat lesbian community or among the generally de-sexualized or over-sexualized and certainly anal retentive left.

On the other hand, surely she’s about to be given the hook and hauled off to prison for:

a) hiding subpoenaed records in her own personal closet forever before being outed by a female assistant who obviously was not taken by Mrs. Clinton’s charms;

b) successfully defending a pedophile rapist in her first idealistic youth and then gloating  about what a cake walk it was;

c) lying to her superiors on the Watergate Committee while trying to remove Richard Nixon from the Presidency for lying;

d) profiting knowingly from narcotics activity and drug-money laundering, in Arkansas and beyond;

e) corrupt trading;

e) wiping out four years of official U. S. Government records concerning the affairs of the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in clear violation of the law, and after those communications had been subpoenaed by Congress;

f) all of the above and much, much more.

It doesn’t look that way. It appears that Mrs. Clinton is waaaaay above the law, up there with her husband and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and that verminous weasel Harry Reid (The Good Mormon). I’m still counting on Trey Gowdy to be the outstanding prosecutor he is and zap her on the feloniously deleted government records. I sense a kindred spirit there.

The exterminator came by today, waging the endless battle against Florida insects. This guy and I always chat about politics. He’s what I consider a true centrist, a stubborn guy who likes to consider things and make up his own mind. He said Rand Paul, my favorite, will never get elected by the Republicans and my broken heart and I agree he is probably right. He wondered what I thought about Hillary’s chances of getting the nomination. I said it looked that way, but one never knows. One lefty chiropractor acquaintance with whom the Bug Guy engages in barter trade (“roaches for realignment”) had said he was voting for Hillary, who was just what the country needed, a woman. It was her right to be president as a woman. The exterminator asked him if that meant that using sex as a criterion was good or bad, or if it maybe was only good when it served your larger interest and not that of the other guy? Good one, I offered. Of course it didn’t sway the argument. The same guy thought Obama had a right to be president because he was black. Not honorable, uncorrupted, knowledgeable and fair-minded, not even a demonstrable US-born citizen, but black. Same for Hillary. Who cares if she’s an unindicted felon?! What’s the difference?

Now we hear that Mrs. Clinton, her morally lax husband, their homely daughter, and IN PARTICULAR their very own money-making Foundation are going to continue taking foreign donations. Hell, no, they’re not killing the golden goose. Those Foundation funds are beautifully easy to expunge after they accidentally get commingled with those of the Hillary campaign. It’s entirely possible that all records could disappear. The Clintons threw the public a crumb, agreeing to say a polite “no more, for now” to the Saudis and to everybody but a small number of very rich countries, some of them actually Socialists, as is Mrs. Clinton. I’m impressed, aren’t you? The only good thing is Norway’s income is way down with the falling oil prices. They won’t have so much  money to funnel to her via the Foundation. (The wife of a Norwegian military official once told me the rest of the world ought to get to vote in US elections since the US told everybody else what to do. I’m sure she would send in her five euros.)

The Republican field is pretty good aside from their uniformly bellicose foreign policy. (Well, we can’t yet throw in Rand Paul.) They all spout the usual nonsense about carrying the flag for civilization, democracy, freedom, and Niceness. The problem is the “little” wars are multiplying and the Big War, the One that is really going to End All Wars, threatens on multiple fronts. The deeper we involve ourselves in other peoples’ wars, the more impossible it is to withdraw. And needless to say, the money and power interests get bigger and fatter, too, feeding on all this endless conflict. The old military-industrial complex that Eisenhower spoke of. (If you live in the DC area you’ll get it — the place has burgeoned and grown like a tick off the taxpayers’ blood. Every retired General has at least an office there and increasingly the metropolitan population lives off the government.)

As for the GOP candidates’ domestic platforms, I am still waiting to hear what those are. Nobody seems to be making Obamacare much of an issue. I do applaud the House repeal of the estate tax, let’s hope the Senate acts quickly so we can all enjoy another self-righteous bit of blather from The Empty Suit about “fairness” (highway robbery) as he vetoes the bill.

One last word on another picture that’s not so pretty, this one the latest blast of Cold War hysterics from the US Pentagon: our military leaders have expressed to the Russians and the world their indignation that the Russians acted dangerously and provocatively and aggressively when US spy planes were flying “in the Baltic” in international waters. What isn’t stated is that the US spy planes were spying on Russia along its adjacent border, as we assume we aren’t spying on Latvia. NATO considers Russia to be rude in telling NATO jets unambiguously to buzz off. But here’s a question: when Russia is, say, steaming through the English channel en route to its own war games in the North Atlantic, a la NATO in the Black Sea, why do NATO and its leading member-state hawks fan the flames of hysteria and portray Russia’s passage as threatening? If it is truly threatening, then just think how Russia feels about US spy  planes, sent from half a world away, patrolling its borders. Threat or no threat?