Dated.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
The Stupid Empire
Via Jonathan
Reprinted from brionmcclanahan.com
As the first leg of the American invasion force rolled through Iraq in 2003, Sergeant Brad Colbert of the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion of the United States Marine Corps leaned out the window of his Humvee and urged the Iraqi people to “vote Republican.” This moment was captured by the embedded reporter, Evan Wright, and made famous in a series of articles that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine and later in the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. (I recommend this series to anyone who wants a realistic view of the early stages of the war in Iraq. It is not for the faint of heart, however. The vulgarity and violence may turn some viewers off, but it also helps explain why people in other parts of the world hate the United States.) Wright later recounted that Colbert was not making a joke; he firmly believed what he was saying. While this surprised Wright, it typifies the “stupid empire” of the Republican Party and progressives in general.
From the war to “end slavery” to the war to “liberate Iraq,” the United States has been waging war for the last one-hundred and fifty years to theoretically bring “liberty and democracy” to “heathen” parts of the world. These are, rhetorically, wars for “humanity’s sake,” but more than anything they bring a perverted form of empire, one in which United States taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it except more war, higher taxes, inflation, and resentment from many of the people the military sought to “liberate.” Liberation becomes a relative term, and most of the people “freed” by the United States become dependents of the federal government or are betrayed by the loose promises of “freedom and democracy.”
Reprinted from brionmcclanahan.com
As the first leg of the American invasion force rolled through Iraq in 2003, Sergeant Brad Colbert of the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion of the United States Marine Corps leaned out the window of his Humvee and urged the Iraqi people to “vote Republican.” This moment was captured by the embedded reporter, Evan Wright, and made famous in a series of articles that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine and later in the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. (I recommend this series to anyone who wants a realistic view of the early stages of the war in Iraq. It is not for the faint of heart, however. The vulgarity and violence may turn some viewers off, but it also helps explain why people in other parts of the world hate the United States.) Wright later recounted that Colbert was not making a joke; he firmly believed what he was saying. While this surprised Wright, it typifies the “stupid empire” of the Republican Party and progressives in general.
From the war to “end slavery” to the war to “liberate Iraq,” the United States has been waging war for the last one-hundred and fifty years to theoretically bring “liberty and democracy” to “heathen” parts of the world. These are, rhetorically, wars for “humanity’s sake,” but more than anything they bring a perverted form of empire, one in which United States taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars with nothing to show for it except more war, higher taxes, inflation, and resentment from many of the people the military sought to “liberate.” Liberation becomes a relative term, and most of the people “freed” by the United States become dependents of the federal government or are betrayed by the loose promises of “freedom and democracy.”
More @ The Abbeville Institue
Syrian Conflict Explained: Highly restricted briefing document on Syria…...
Via Iver
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called the Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight ISIS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria......
So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and Ukraine and killed lots of folks including all those people on board the Malaysian airliner and that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad but, now that they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel, are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad). So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good.
America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate.
This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War: and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and, hence, many Muslims will now see IS as good (Doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad. So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started? ……
I hope that clears all this up for you.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
~ Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745), Irish essayist, novelist, & satirist
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called the Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight ISIS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria......
So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and Ukraine and killed lots of folks including all those people on board the Malaysian airliner and that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad but, now that they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel, are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad). So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good.
America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate.
This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War: and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and, hence, many Muslims will now see IS as good (Doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm…might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad. So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started? ……
I hope that clears all this up for you.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
~ Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745), Irish essayist, novelist, & satirist
#BlackLivesMatter is a front for a Marxist takeover of our Country
Via Billy
The #BlackLivesMatter movement is not a movement against institutionalized racism in America. It cannot be, because institutionalized racism in America, for the most part, doesn’t exist. We have a black president (notice I didn’t say African-American), our schools are integrated, our military is integrated and opportunity abounds for those who seize it in this country.
No, BLM is simply a front for a Marxist takeover and destruction of what made this country great — freedom and individual responsibility. It is a threat from within. It is seditious garbage. It is Marxism pure and simple. The movement is being funded from outside and the youth of our country are being manipulated and brainwashed.
Most of the “protesters” in Charlotte were from out of state and paid from outside.
The #BlackLivesMatter movement is not a movement against institutionalized racism in America. It cannot be, because institutionalized racism in America, for the most part, doesn’t exist. We have a black president (notice I didn’t say African-American), our schools are integrated, our military is integrated and opportunity abounds for those who seize it in this country.
No, BLM is simply a front for a Marxist takeover and destruction of what made this country great — freedom and individual responsibility. It is a threat from within. It is seditious garbage. It is Marxism pure and simple. The movement is being funded from outside and the youth of our country are being manipulated and brainwashed.
Most of the “protesters” in Charlotte were from out of state and paid from outside.
More @ The Washington Times
10th NC Patcon
Brock is holding his 10th North Carolina Patcon. If you are in the area and can make it, it is something that I would not miss. I had the great honor of being able to attend one of Brock's Patcons and it was very instructive and enjoyable.
Go here to find out more: 10th NC Patcon
Voting for growth: Trump would shake up Hillary’s entrenched Washington
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Voters must shake up Washington if they want a more prosperous future.
Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve have pronounced 2 percent annual economic growth — perhaps a bit less — the new normal. Factoring in labor force growth that implies 1 percent growth for productivity and +* pre-tax wages, hardly anyone is average these days.
Workers are supporting — through taxes for government benefits — more retirees and prime-age adults who choose not to work at all.
Earned income from wages and other sources continues to become less equal. New technologies — robots in warehouses, apps that replace taxi dispatchers and the like — are eliminating jobs and driving down wages for ordinary workers. Meanwhile, those with degrees from the most prestigious universities or with training in science, engineering and technology enjoy rising incomes.
More @ The Washington Times
FBI Director James Comey EXPOSED: Received millions from Clinton Foundation, on their Corporate Partner Board, brother works for law firm that does Clinton Foundation taxes
REFRESHER:
Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned from the FBI in the middle of the investigation (February, 2016).
Pay-for-play involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed
FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence
FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning
FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass
FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock
FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview.
Clinton and her closest aides cited "amnesia." In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications.
Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey
...and then, 3 days before the "investigation" ended, the Attorney General of the US met with the husband of the target of the investigation.
FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence
FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning
FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass
FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock
FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview.
Clinton and her closest aides cited "amnesia." In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications.
Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey
...and then, 3 days before the "investigation" ended, the Attorney General of the US met with the husband of the target of the investigation.
--John
************************
It appears that James Comey did not recommend federal charges against Hillary Clinton, in part because he is connected to the Clinton Foundation through the Swiss bank HSBC. More than 200 republicans sent a letter demanding to know why he didn’t recommend federal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of private email servers. Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” the letter states. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”
According to Mini Planet ,a review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.
Lockheed Martin
More @ Truth Uncensored
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)