Gay Patriot Header Image

McMaster updates

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:05 pm - August 8, 2017.
Filed under: Donald Trump,National Security,War On Terror,World War III

Earlier installments here and here. The issue is, that NSA McMaster allegedly is:

  • clearing out Israel supporters and Trump supporters from the National Security staff, replacing them with Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Iran supporters. Experts in this story now rattle off about 8 names.
  • preferring his own globalist, interventionist foreign policy to President Trump’s America First agenda. And,
  • perhaps being one of the “leakers” who undermines Trump.

I have to say: On paper, General McMaster looks like he should be one of the good guys. But Media Matters (Soros-Brock smear army), MSNBC (Morning Joe), The Young Turks (or Aging Armenian-Holocaust Deniers), CNN (the CIA News Network), WaPo and NYT, and everyone else on the Left have lined up strongly behind McMaster. That has to be a bad sign. Anyway, the updates:

A window into CIA interrogation; is it torture?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 4:36 pm - August 8, 2017.
Filed under: National Security,Post 9-11 America,War On Terror

Re: waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation” – whether they constitute torture – my own view has long been the following:

  • Under the law, “torture” is a matter of intent. For example, if a doctor is forced to operate on you without anesthetic, it probably isn’t torture. His intent is to save a life – yours – and he inflicts no more pain than is unavoidable for that goal.
  • By analogy, “enhanced interrogation” is not torture if it’s done in the right way and time, to save people’s lives. If it’s honestly thought necessary to save lives, and is done no more than needed to acquire key information, it isn’t torture.

That’s my opinion. The key words are “if”, and “honestly”. In other words, it’s a slippery slope. The interrogators had better be honest, right, and in control of themselves. They can go too far, very easily. When they do go too far, we have to be honest ourselves – and put them on trial for any crimes or torts under the law.

Which brings me to this press release: Two CIA psychologists will be sued for allegedly going too far.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and the family of Gul Rahman, who froze to death in a secret CIA prison. They were [interrogated] using methods developed by the CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen…

…the case is scheduled to go to trial on September 5 and expected to last two to three weeks.

Mitchell and Jessen helped convince the CIA to adopt…methods…including slamming them into walls, stuffing them inside coffin-like boxes, exposing them to extreme temperatures, starving them, inflicting various kinds of water torture, and chaining them in stress positions designed to inflict pain and to keep them awake for days on end…

Sadly, the article is biased (it’s the ACLU after all) in repeatedly calling all that “torture” before the trial. The point of the trial is to decide. I tried to edit out the bits where it’s decided prematurely. To continue:

Mitchell and Jessen trained other CIA personnel in their methods. In 2005, they founded a company — Mitchell, Jessen & Associates — that the CIA contracted with to run its entire [enhanced interrogation] program, including supplying interrogators and security for black sites and rendition operations. Mitchell and Jessen admitted as part of this lawsuit that the government paid the company $81 million over several years. The CIA let Mitchell and Jessen themselves evaluate the effectiveness…and the agency has since admitted that this was a mistake.

According to Mitchell and Jessen’s theory, if humans were psychologically destroyed through…abuse, they would become totally unable to resist demands for information…

The CIA adopted Mitchell and Jessen’s proposals, and in August of 2002, the agency secured Justice Department authorization in the so-called “torture memos,” which were later rescinded by the Justice Department…

The plaintiffs are suing Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute — which allows federal lawsuits for gross human rights violations…

Mitchell and Jessen may go with a “Zyklon B” defense – the idea that they were merely fulfilling their contracts, and it is others (namely CIA officials) who decided how to apply their methods.

As always, say what you think in the comments; I won’t necessarily be persuaded to your view; but I’m still interested to hear it.

Trump getting some stuff done

Just a reminder. From an editorial at Business Insider – emphasis added:

Border crossings, for example, have plummeted, even though all Trump has done so far is promise to enforce existing laws.

The Supreme Court approved parts of Trump’s travel ban…Trump is busy filling lower court positions with conservative justices…pulled out of the Paris climate change deal

The EPA, meanwhile, is dismantling Obama’s coal-killing, growth-choking Clean Power Plan, and draining the heavy-handed Waters of the United States rule. When a veteran EPA official resigned this week, she complained in a letter to her former colleagues that “the new EPA Administrator already has repeals of 30 rules under consideration,” which the New York Times described as “a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history.”

Trump promised to kill two regulations for every new one enacted, but in his first six months the ratio was 16-to-1.

Trump also approved the Keystone XL and other pipeline projects held up by Obama. He’s also rolled back a ban on coal mining on public lands.

To be sure, Trump hasn’t scored a major legislative achievement on signature issues like ObamaCare and tax reform.

Every day he’s around is another day we didn’t have #CorruptHillary.

UPDATE: Let’s not forget the progress against ISIS. A month ago, we had the liberation of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. That and other Trump administration changes have contributed to progress in Syria (Raqqa) as well.

…key factors were the Trump administration’s delegation of key decision-making to battlefield commanders, the tactic of “annihilation” in which the ground forces surround the group in its stronghold so foreign fighters cannot escape, and drumming up support for burden-sharing among 73 members—69 countries and four international organizations—of the broad anti-ISIS coalition.

The campaign under Trump has witnessed the near fall of ISIS’s territorial hold. The Obama administration laid the groundwork…

Sure. The Obama team was always “laying the groundwork” – with little or no intention of carrying it out.

Sadly, civilian casualties in these operations have been high – because of ISIS using civilians as human shields, booby-trapping buildings to maximize damage and casualties, attacking civilians to keep them penned (unable to escape), etc. That being so sad, tales of “annihiliation tactics” then become almost heartwarming.

If UK/Europe are doomed, this is why

Cross The Line in the UK is a Twitter ad campaign to help people “spot the signs of right wing extremism”. Signs such as being young, doing political actions, and going to the gym:

Here’s the thing: Young, politically-involved gym-goers may vote for Brexit (gasp!), but they commit no terrorist attacks, in the UK or elsewhere. Unless they’re Muslim. If they’re Muslim, they do it all the time, killing and maiming people.

Does the UK have ad campaigns to help people spot the signs of Islamic extremism?

U.S. to stop arming jihadists; Deep State hardest hit

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 9:07 pm - July 20, 2017.
Filed under: National Security,Politics abroad,Syria war,War On Terror

President Trump has decided that the CIA will stop arming the so-called “moderate” (but really jihadist) Syrian rebels.

With the end of the CIA program, U.S. involvement in Syria now consists of a vigorous air campaign against the Islamic State and a Pentagon-run train-and-equip program in support of the largely Kurdish rebel force that is advancing on Islamic State strongholds in Raqqa and along the Euphrates River valley.

More on the Kurds in a moment. Trump’s move should help to maintain the Syria cease-fire, defeat ISIS and defuse Mideast tensions. In my view, it is as sensible as Obama’s original decision to arm the jihadis was not. Naturally, the U.S. Deep State – which wanted tensions (or even a Syria ground war) – hates the move and besmirches it as pro-Putin, “Russia won”, etc.

In news that is not so good, we’ve also had a flurry of items about the growing rift between Turkey and the West. Turkey remains a NATO ally, but Erdogan is on bad terms with the European Community, and it doesn’t help that the U.S. (or NATO) organized a failed coup against Erdogan in 2016.

So, the Kurds would seem to be a major issue. Decades ago, Western powers drew the borders of Turkey, Syria and Iraq in such a way as to divide the Kurds. Ever since, they’ve dreamed of getting together in a new Kurdistan. That the U.S. would have armed the Syrian Kurds (starting under Obama), sets off alarm bells in Turkey.

UPDATE: Julian Assange on ISIS, key U.S. allies, and the Clintons. Here’s the idea.

  • Saudi Arabia and Qatar wanted Syria regime change and funded the jihadis.
  • Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund ISIS (who, I keep saying, are much the same people as the Syria jihadi-rebels). And, per her leaked emails, Hillary definitely knew it.
  • Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund the Clintons.
  • Could all this be why Hillary wanted to bomb Syria and do Syria regime change so much? And not-so-much to bomb ISIS?

Also, Julian Assange noting how the CIA paid ISIS salaries. He excerpts a Financial Times article, deep inside which is this: “One rebel commander, who asked not to be named, said U.S. support had been waning for months, but noted that the rebels had been given their salaries as normal last month.”

UPDATE: Just learned about SOFREP, a news service by Special Forces veterans. And they had a report in 2016 saying that, yes, Obama’s CIA was absolutely, positively making the Special Forces train jihadis in Syria and delivering advanced weapons to the jihadis, in violation of U.S. law against aiding terrorists.

How America armed terrorists in Syria (and ISIS)

I recommend Gareth Porter’s June 22 article on The American Conservative, How America Armed Terrorists in Syria. It tells a story that I already knew (at a high level) – supported by a wealth of details that I didn’t.

In the rest of this post, I’ll share my notes on that and some other articles, re-telling the story with many fewer details. But it will still be a long post. First, a couple of things to keep in mind:
(more…)

The Left sides with Islamic supremacy, part 2

If you missed it: last weekend, beloved left-wing Sharia advocate Linda Sarsour called for “jihad” (her word) against President Trump.

The Left promptly fell over themselves, not to denounce her use of the term; but rather to denounce anyone so bigoted as to think that the word could have a violent connotation.

Sarsour provided the necessary fig leaf, by bracketing her call for jihad with blather about how Peaceful Mohammed was totes about Speaking Truth To Power. But imagine if, during the Obama administration, a far-right Christian activist – the type who advocates Christian Reconstruction, say, and who had excused an abortion clinic bombing – had called defiantly for “holy war” against President Obama. The Left would have called for that activist’s imprisonment.

We live in a world, remember, where the Left thinks that using a crosshairs metaphor in your election advertising is direct incitement to violence; as is an Internet joke (meme) in which a corporate logo is being pounded on.

But calling for “holy war”? (which is what “jihad” means) No problem…provided the call is left-wing and/or Islamist; that is, directed against America, its President and/or the Right. Once more, Islam and the Left are allies.

Foreign affairs

President Trump is in Poland and gave a speech to a large crowd cheering “U! S! A! – U! S! A!” and “Dah! nald! Trump! – Dah! nald! Trump!” Video here, summary/reviews here and here.

It sounds fairly epic:

President Donald J. Trump has said the West faces an existential challenge to “defend our civilisation”, “borders”, and “faith”…

“We must work together to confront forces that threaten over time to undermine our values and erase the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition”, he said…

“Because as the Polish experience reminds us – the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive?

“Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” he questioned.

He praised the Warsaw Uprising of World War II. As is customary, he skipped over the bad role played by Polish collaborators in aiding the Holocaust.

Trump will continue on to a G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany. As the Business Insider article puts it:

Trump…urged western NATO allies in Europe to spend more on defense, drawing a comparison with Poland which meets the agreed target of two percent of annual economic output.

Later on Thursday, Trump was slated to condemn “the steady creep of government bureaucracy” and praise the sovereignty of nations in a speech at a Warsaw square, according to excerpts released by the White House.

“The West became great not because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies,” he will say, according to the White House.

Nice 🙂

As to the other side of the world: Trump Plans “Pretty Severe Things” In Retaliation Against North Korea

“I have some pretty severe things we’re thinking about,” Trump said at a news conference in Warsaw. “Doesn’t mean we’re going to do them. I don’t draw red lines.”

“I think we will just take a look at what happens over the coming weeks and months with respect to North Korea,” Mr. Trump added. “It’s a shame they’re behaving this way and they’re behaving in a very dangerous manner, and something will have to be done about it.”

I don’t see how North Korea can ever be solved without China’s active participation. And at this point, China is not even giving permission. If we take on North Korea without China, we will end up in a war with China. I trust that Trump knows it.

UPDATE: Added a bit of emphasis in the Poland speech, and here are more quotes from it. Trump on the importance of families:

We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.

Trump defending Western civilization:

Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom…

… if we don’t forget who are [as a civilization], we just can’t be beaten…

We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God.

We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression.

We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything. We challenge everything. We seek to know everything so that we can better know ourselves.

And above all, we value the dignity of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the hope of every soul to live in freedom.

That is who we are.

The more I learn about this speech, the more I see to like in it. Remember (or as I’ve blogged before), I am a Western supremacist.

Plus, today’s history lesson: In 1683, it looked like the Muslims (Ottoman Turks) would conquer Vienna and roll over Europe. The Pope called on all of Christian Europe to prevent it, and the Poles responded (among others). They prevailed.

It’s an example of Christianity’s – and Poland’s – importance to the West. If it hadn’t happened, America’s West-hating and Christianity-hating Left wouldn’t even be around today, to do their sneering/hating things.

Real threats to journalists’ safety

#RetardedCNN thought they had scored bigly, because they tracked down a nobody who launched a silly Internet meme – a funny gif of Trump beating down CNN’s company logo. And because they were able to terrorize the nobody into begging CNN’s forgiveness.

Hey CNN, how about getting back to real life? Try this one on:

On the fifth anniversary of [a controversy], I appeared on stage with five other people. Of those five… [and for having spoken about the controversy,] one was shot at point-blank range. The other had his event shot-up and two people were killed. Another was forced out of public life entirely. And the fourth had her family’s restaurant fire-bombed. Those are real threats against media figures that go on… right now.

Can you guess

  1. The specific controversy?
  2. The larger theme – who did it? Who does those kinds of attack on public media figures, in real life?

The first answer might not be obvious, but the second should be super obvious. Hint: It wasn’t Trump supporters, or conservatives of any stripe. (more…)

The Guns of Europe

The last few years, amidst Europe’s ongoing terrorist attacks and Muslim-influx crisis, European gun sales have surged. Article from January 2016:

Gun sales have jumped 350 per cent in Austria amid ‘unease’ over increasing numbers of migrants following the Paris terror attacks…

The final months of 2015 showed increases in gun permit applications, while dealers reported huge demand for self defence weapons such as tasers, pepper spray and blank firing-guns.

It comes just months after shotguns were reported to have sold out across the country as residents became increasingly paranoid about refugee numbers.

Article from August 2016:

Applications for gun permits have gone up significantly in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. In places with stricter gun laws, such as Germany, non-lethal guns and pepper spray have become alternatives.

“There’s no official explanation for the rise, but in general we see a connection to Europe’s terrorist attacks,” Hanspeter Kruesi, a police spokesman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, told Reuters.

Czech Republic’s President saw the light:

President Milos Zeman used to advocate gun control, but called for easier access to guns in July [2016] following the terror attack in Nice.

“Earlier I spoke against possession of large amounts of weapons [in the hands of the people],” Zeman said in a July interview with newspaper Blesk. “After those attacks, I do not think so any more.”

And last week, the Czech Republic began to create their own version of our 2nd Amendment:

Czech lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution…

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths…

…the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

It’s rare to have that right in a country’s Constitution. Hopefully, it’s about to become less rare.

Unfortunately, Germany is busy turning its guns against its own People’s free speech:

German lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks…

Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory “fake news.”

“Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill…

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

This is fascism: the merger of Business and State, in which the State commandeers Business to achieve the State’s aims – such as, in this case, the enforcement of political purity and consensus. Looks like Mark Zuckerberg has no problem with it.

Are the Germans going to target ordinary citizens’ protests against Germany’s insane Muslim refugee policy? Sadly, yes:

By “right wing extremist” what German authorities really mean is anyone who questions the immigration policies of the Europe, or thinks differently than the general population.

The article cites the relevant sections of Germany’s criminal speech code – that sound good on paper, except they are so subjective that the authorities can, will and do use them to punish any speech they don’t like.

I’m not sure – my German is quite rusty – but I think that in this clip, Germany’s Vice Chancellor is saying that Muslim refugees are more German than the Germans who would object to their presence, and who should therefore be locked up.

Are Trump’s Joe/Mika tweets strategic?

Donald Trump is a genius at branding people. I still think that his tweets about Joe and Mika are un-presidential and unhelpful. But I have to admit: From now on, whenever I see Joe and Mika’s faces, I will remember that they’re vain people who have had work done (or at least she has), and that the POTUS shares my view that the two of them say and do some pretty ridiculous things.

There’s also a notion making the rounds that President Trump may have created the controversy for strategic reasons.

…the President couldn’t care less about Mika’s face or ‘Morning Joe’s’ ratings. The sole motive behind the attack was to distract the media from reporting on the travel ban and ‘Kate’s Law’ passing the House. The ‘Muslim Ban,’ as the MSM has coined it, is the most controversial law Trump will likely put into effect during his Presidency.

As Joseph Curl, former Drudge Report editor and Daily Wire writer tweeted… “For those who don’t think Trump is the Master Tweeter, the travel ban is in place and everyone’s talking about — Mika and Joe. Well played.”

I get the point being made. But I don’t quite buy it.

I mean, so what if we talk about the President’s temporary travel ban on 6 countries where the citizens are unusually prone to terrorism – AND have unusually poor documentation (poor proof of identity)? Or if we talk about a new law that cracks down on criminals entering the U.S. illegally?

They’re both good things. Why not let the media talk about them? The more they’re talked about, or the more Antifa is out protesting them: the more Trump’s own stock goes up. He improves his brand among the Silent Majority.

The SCOTUS travel ban decision last week was especially cool. 9-0, baby! It wasn’t a perfect decision; but heck, they had to get Ruth Bader Ginsberg on board. And they did, thus slapping down some real nonsense from the lower courts.

So, my view is that Trump would have been better off letting the media focus on the travel decision, on Kate’s law, or even on Trumprussia – which is increasingly being recognized as Fake News (so that talking about it actually hurts Democrats now). No need for all this Twitter strategery.

As always, feel free to disagree or to express your thoughts, in the comments.

UPDATE: Overnight, Trump got his tweets on, including his re-tweeting a parody video of him punching down CNN. 🙂

UPDATE: CNN’s answer is… a high-brow form of whining to Mommy. In measured tones, they play the victim. Poor dears. There goes what was left of their glamour.

UPDATE: Scott Adams argues that it’s all a big trap for CNN. In particular, CNN must cover – that is, re-broadcast – the parody “CNN smackdown” video. It’s like forcing CNN to advertise their own position of weakness.

The mess in Syria

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:38 am - June 19, 2017.
Filed under: National Security,Syria war,War On Terror,World War III

U.S. Shoots Down Syrian Aircraft for First Time.

The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants…

According to a statement from the Pentagon, pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja’Din, south of Tabqah in northern Syria, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.

Coalition aircraft conducted a show of force and stopped the initial pro-regime advance toward the town, the Pentagon said…

A few hours later, the Syrian SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters and, “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces,” was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet, the Pentagon said.

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said, using an abbreviation for the Islamic State group. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them…”

And that’s what doesn’t make sense. ISIS and the so-called “moderate, democratic” opposition to the Syrian government are much the same people. There is a flow of people, weapons and training between them.

Just as no one can “have their cake and eat it, too”, the U.S. must choose between defeating Syria’s Assad regime and defeating ISIS. To attempt both, is to stick with a losing position.

UPDATE: Krauthammer tries to explain it. According to him:

  • ISIS is doomed – will be gone within 6-12 months.
  • Russia, Iran and Syria are working to “inherit” northern Iraq for Iran (the new Persian Empire), and likewise to have all of Syria in the hands of Assad-Russia-Iran-Shiites.
  • Meanwhile, the U.S. is working to defeat all that; especially to have a de facto division of Syria along ethnic lines, in which the western half of Syria will be Sunni-dominated and Saudi-friendly. (And northern Iraq, ??? Not sure.)

It still sounds hokey to me, with too much danger of an accidental war with Russia. But I wanted to acknowledge that the side favoring U.S. involvement in Syria might have a strategy in mind.

We’ve been hearing a long time that energy pipelines (especially liquid natural gas) might be involved in all this. Pipelines to Europe, that need to run through Syria. The Russia-Iran version would tend to make Europe more dependent on them, while the U.S.-Saudi version would do the reverse (or preserve Europe’s dependence on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia).

The mess in the UK

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:24 am - June 19, 2017.
Filed under: Politics abroad,Religion Of Peace,War On Terror

As you’ve probably heard, a UK man assaulted pedestrians with a vehicle last night.

What’s new and different is that, instead of the usual Muslim trying to kill infidels, he was an infidel trying to kill Muslims. Needless to say, his murderous actions were wrong and I condemn them.

What amazes me is that this sort of thing hasn’t happened sooner. European and UK authorities have chronically failed to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, prompting citizens to take matters into their own hands. It’s amazing that it took this long for one of their citizens to do so.

As an aside, I’m slightly puzzled by whether this attack should be called “terrorist”. In deciding what to call combatants, I have always used the following matrix:

  • Uniformed soldiers attacking uniformed soldiers: Honorable combatants.
  • Uniformed soldiers attacking civilians: War criminals.
  • Civilians attacking uniformed soldiers: Irregular / guerilla forces.
  • Civilians attacking civilians: Terrorists.

The underlying premise is that a war is going on. Islamic terrorists are called terrorists, in part because they are engaged in a war (against the infidels and/or to establish the supremacy of Islam). Or, as they call it, “jihad”.

If we call this UK guy a terrorist, we implicitly acknowledge that the UK (among others) is in a war with Islam and this particular combatant is on “our” side, however wrongly he goes about it. Do we not? Rather than do that, I’m inclined to just call this UK guy a lunatic mass murderer.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Again, due to the failure of UK and European authorities to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, a case could be made that the guy is a combatant in an ongoing war with Islam – albeit a degenerate combatant; a civilian attacking civilians – thus a terrorist.

So that’s what I’m stuck on…whether to call him a terrorist or a mass murderer?

Obama Systematically Dismantled Anti-Terrorism Efforts

Whose side was he on?

The Obama administration “systematically disbanded” law enforcement investigative units across the federal government focused on disrupting Iranian, Syrian, and Venezuelan terrorism financing networks out of concern the work could cause friction with Iranian officials and scuttle the nuclear deal with Iran, according to a former U.S. official who spent decades dismantling terrorist financial networks.

David Asher, who previously served as an adviser to Gen. John Allen at the Defense and State Departments, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday that top officials across several key law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration “systematically disbanded” law enforcement activities targeting the terrorism financing operations of Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela in the lead-up to and during the nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

So let me get this straight. You on the left have your panties in a wad because President Trump might possibly (there is no evidence) have colluded with Russia to help win an election. But you couldn’t care less that the previous president clearly put the strategic interests of a hostile terrorist state ahead of the interests of the United States, systematically dismantled our Intelligence Community’s efforts to investigate and disable the terror-financing activities of that hostile terrorist state, and … oh by the way… delivered billions of American taxpayer dollar to that hostile terror state.

Care to explain?

Tough Love Versus Kumbayah

Posted by V the K at 9:21 am - June 5, 2017.
Filed under: War On Terror

J.J. at AoSHQ had some interesting stuff this morning. I’m just going to swipe it and highlight the best parts.

Tarique Ghaffur (Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard when the 7/7 bombings took place) proposed last weekend, (that) we need to round up the terror watch list, all 3,000 of them, and intern the lot. And secondly, we need to lock down the 650 jihadis we allowed to return to the UK or get them out. If they went to Saudi or Syria to train, they can go back there. And their passport and right to British nationality hits the incinerator on their way out. I know all the arguments against internment-the camps become universities for terror, it will alienate other Muslims and help radicalise extremist sympathizers. And a few weeks ago I’d probably have said that tipped the balance. But we are way beyond that now.
Our security services clearly cannot cope in monitoring all the threats out there against us so it’s time we took the most obvious ones off the streets. If we breed more homegrown terror, we incarcerate or deport. A or B.

Spengler, aka David P. Goldman, over at PJ Media has a similar brainwave:

The way to win the war is to frighten the larger community of Muslims who passively support terror by action or inaction-frighten them so badly that they will inform on family members. Frightening the larger Muslim population in the West does not require a great deal of effort: a few thousand deportations would do.

A little tough love would do a lot more to reduce terrorist attack than all the “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” Kumba Yah horse dung the left is pushing. Still, I would favor deportations over internment camps. As we’ve seen with Club Gitmo, they tend to be portrayed in the media as worse than Birkenau, while in reality being four-star resorts for terrorists complete with soccer fields, halal food, and Qurans delivered with white gloves so they are not soiled by the dirty hands of infidels. (The media, once again, being helpful to the cause of Global Jihad.)  Besides, I have a strong aversion to imprisoning people who haven’t violated laws. You could use the same logic to deny people their right to bear arms (as Britain has).

Deporting people who have actually trained in jihad or supported jihad would have a strong deterrent effect; just like “stop and frisk” had a strong deterrent effect in NYC before liberals stopped it because virtue signaling.

JJ continues.

My feeling is that Islam is a totalitarian political movement that seeks the subjugation of humanity, or its destruction in the attempt. It is not compatible with a modern, civilized society. Unfortunately, it’s more modern (chronologically-speaking) twin, Leftism/Statism/Socialism has the same goals, minus the pseudo-religious trappings, and has definitely formed an alliance of convenience with the former.

He’s right about that. If every ISIS dispatch ended with “Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Western Civ has got to go!” they would barely be distinguishable from a course syllabus at Evergreen State. The main difference between Islamic Supremacists and progressives is that the latter have a pretty fuzzy notion of their endgame: a Global Socialist Utopia that will Work This Time because the Right People (them) Will Be In Charge; whereas the former have a much more specific vision of a Global Caliphate ruled under the iron fist of Islam

But another thing the reason terror won’t stop is because it’s working. The terrorists are achieving their goals of getting the West to kneel to Islam. When pools and recreational facilities are separated by sex to appease Muslims, that is a concession to the terrorists. When schools in the United States teach Islamic propaganda and get children to recite verses from the Quran (but ban all expression of Christian faith), the Islamic Supremacists are winning.  When laws are passed banning criticism of Islam and the Quran, that is a huge victory for Islamic Supremacy. When media companies ban the image of Mohammed, that is a concession to terrorists.

When the free countries of the world attack the only real democracy in the Middle East and give billions of dollars in aid to its enemies, that is an enormous victory for terrorism.

Terrorism is working. And as long as it keeps working, we will have more of it.

By the way, the NeverTrumper Conspiracy Theorists are blaming the terrorist attack on… Russia.

Anything to avoid saying ‘Muslim’

The first step to solving a problem for real, is: Naming it honestly.

As Mark Steyn points out (hat tip V), our leftie-globalist-academic Superiors want us to believe that “sowing division” is what’s wrong with the endless stream of mass murders by Muslim terrorists. Because the desirable opposite is “unity”, led by those same Superiors.

Thus, they subtly equate their critics with Muslim terrorists. If, say, you’re a free-market populist who rejects the elite consensus, you’re as bad as a Muslim mass murderer. Because you’re also “sowing division”.

It’s similar to how the Left represents “hate speech” (i.e., criticism or rejection of the Left) as a form of violence, unprotected by the First Amendment. Under such insane terms, the Left is allowed to attack you with physical violence because they are only protecting themselves from the “violence” that you were about to think, or say.

Re: the London attacks, British media says they were done by “men of Mediterranean coloring”. It has a courtroom precision to it, which is nice, but also don’t say Muslim.

London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, did at least call them “cowardly terrorists”. And Prime Minister Theresa May slammed the “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” – but then went back to calling for “unity”, plus Internet censorship. As opposed to, say, deporting the UK’s known Muslim radicals and improved vetting of Muslim immigrants, or better enforcement of the UK’s existing laws against inciting violence.

It’s beyond question that the murderers were doing it for Allah. One can only hope that the good people of the UK will wake up.

More Obama-NSA abuses

Yet another story that should be all over the media, but I haven’t seen it much. (If you have, let me know.)

Why wouldn’t it be covered? I find that it reflects great discredit on the Establishment (both political parties, Deep State and Controlled Media). As I started to say yesterday, they have ways to decide what you’re going to hear about. For as long as they can, they will bury stories that don’t fit their agenda.

To review some background:

  • Under the 4th Amendment, the government isn’t supposed to spy on U.S. people without a court-ordered warrant.
  • “The FISA Court” is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 “to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.” (Wiki)
    Note, foreign.
  • But FISA Court hearings are secret and only the government and the court judge are present, like a kangaroo court. The adversarial system is abandoned.
  • As such, FISA tends to be very lenient to the government. Over time, they have created a secret body of law that gives the government sweeping powers to do domestic warrantless surveillance under an alleged “special needs exception” to the 4th Amendment.
    • One example – In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked a FISA order that requires phone companies to provide a daily, ongoing feed of everyone’s phone call data to the NSA. Super invasive!
  • Even so, FISA isn’t toothless and doesn’t approve everything – as you shall see. They need to preserve respectability, at least in their own eyes.
  • FISA judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States. In this regard, Establishment Republicans control the FISA court.

That’s just background. Now for the news, as reported by John Solomon and Sara Carter at Circa.com.

Under President Obama, the NSA secretly conducted years of surveillance and searches on Americans that not even the secret, super-lenient FISA Court would approve.

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community…

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm…

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true…

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself…

RTWT. Naturally, the NSA is scrambling to reassure people that it has fixed the problem. Riiiiiiiight. And Susan Rice didn’t lie and none of the surveillance data was ever misused against Obama opponents or improperly unmasked. Riiiiiiiight.

To people who understand civil liberties and limited government, all this is a huge deal that shows how far out of control the U.S. “intelligence community” (Deep State) has gotten. Chris Farrell at Judicial Watch compares it to President Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the U.S. Civil War.

Where is the Special Counsel on this?

Or the media coverage? Bush’s NSA did some illegal surveillance in the 2000s – and in 2005, was duly slammed by The New York Times. A large kerfuffle. “But that was then.” It served the interests of someone powerful – someone in deep alliance with, or control of, The New York Times – to weaken Bush. Not so much with Obama, eh?

See the FISA Court’s declassified order spanking the Obama administration, here. By the way, note how large sections of the relevant law and dockets are blacked out, showing how the FISA system has created secret law that the citizens aren’t supposed to know about. That’s horrible.

Also from Circa: Comey’s FBI was neck deep in the abuses.

The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances…

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Posted by V the K at 8:34 am - May 25, 2017.
Filed under: War On Terror

On a related note: A dimbulb California Dhimmicrat congresswoman says terror attacks are because Mohammedans “feel isolated.” (It’s always about feelings with those dingbats.)

Trump on terrorist Losers

After expressing solidarity with the Manchester bombing victims, he said:

So many young, beautiful, innocent people, living and enjoying their lives, murdered by evil losers in life. I won’t call them monsters, because they would like that term. They would think that’s a great name. I will call them, from now on, losers, because that’s what they are, they’re losers. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers, just remember that.

This is what I’ve spent these last few days talking about in my trip overseas. Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed. We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people. And, in today’s attack, it was mostly innocent children. The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them aid and comfort, must be driven out from our society forever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated, and I mean completely obliterated.

Emphasis in President Trump’s delivery. I find this interesting on several levels.

First, calling them “losers” is a Trumpism. He’s spent his life focused on the issue of winning vs. losing in business, and he speaks colloquially and from his heart. Translators (into other languages) may have to footnote the expression or come up with some local idiom that would strike us as odd (if we heard it translated back).

Second, it’s an Americanism. Trump is a throwback to a time when most Americans were focused on winning vs. losing. As General Patton said in a bygone era, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time.” This was before the Left programmed us to look down on winners and give everyone a participation trophy.

Third, it’s true. These terrorists are losers. They can’t think of anything better to do with the wonderful gift of life, than to try to ruin it for others. In addition to being evil, vicious, nihilistic, malicious, etc., they’re indescribably stupid. As such, only the stupidest of women should want to have sexual intercourse with them. They lack evolutionary fitness.

Fourth, it’s something new. I mean, I’ve called these Islamist terrorists “losers” before – but to hear the President of the United States do it, seems new. (If President Obama did it, please let me know in the comments. A search for “obama calls terrorists losers” turns up only Trump doing it.) It expresses a (rightful) depth of contempt for the terrorists that Obama probably never had. I also doubt that Obama ever talked about “completely obliterating” them.

Fifth, it’s strangely persuasive. Killing terrorists in wars, policing and effective border control all do have a place in the War on Terror. But, to really end terrorism, we will need to thrust a moral and social frame upon the terrorists that makes them seem “obviously” contemptible, or even ridiculous. So that, even to an America-hating leftist or a Muslim who may feel oppressed, being a suicide bomber no longer carries any status or moral authority or cachet. “Ugh, what a bunch of losers” is such a frame – and has the virtue, again, of being true.

Sixth and not least: Trump is saying it in the Middle East, to the faces of Palestinians (and earlier, Saudis). Kudos, Mr. President!

Seventh, the Usual Suspects hate it – you know, Whoopi Goldberg, The View, the leftie newspapers saying it makes light of things and doesn’t show enough seriousness – so you know that Trump must be on the right track.

UPDATE: Scott Adams seems to agree.

What kinds of people join the Losers [terrorists]? Mostly young males. And you know what brand young males do not want on them? Right: Losers.

If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.

Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t.

UPDATE: Just to give credit where it’s due: in 2015, there was a push from the Obama administration to refer to the ISIS as “Daesh”. That, too, was a brand-poisoning exercise. Maybe not a great one. In Arabic, the letters are an acronym of ISIS’ name and evoke the Arabic words for “one who crushes and tramples” others, and “one who sows discord”. Perhaps our words “sociopath” or “fascist” are dynamic equivalents? Daesh is derogatory enough to make ISIS want to cut your tongue out. So, it’s a good shot. But 1) it evokes nothing in English, 2) it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter: these jihadists are losers.

UPDATE: Sean L gets into the spirit of the thing:

Perhaps we need to start using phrases that carry the same level of contempt in the Arabic world as “loser” does over here. How about “pig penises”?

Trump and Saudi Arabia

Probably more than any other country, Saudi Arabia has “hacked our democracy”. I keep meaning to write a post on their ownership share of U.S. media, and why they would be on board with a “Trump is a Russian agent!” narrative.

During the election, Trump rightly criticized Hillary for taking money from the world’s worst country for women and gays. And he had a nasty Twitter exchange with a Saudi prince.

What a difference a year makes. First, the new US-Saudi arms deal:

According to a statement just issued by the White House, Trump “has just completed largest single arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7 billion” which will boost Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran. The White House added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia…

According to estimates cited by The Independent, including restocking and future commitments over the next ten years, the deal could balloon to $350 billion worth of arms…

I’m not at all sure this is good news.

  • How is it different from what any pet of the Deep State would have done? (Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush, Lindsay McCain?) I don’t know.
  • Does it boost U.S. jobs as much as Trump says? I don’t know.
  • I know it will help Saudi Arabia to conquer its neighbor Yemen and gain control of its oil reserves. (Not necessarily good.)
  • Does it put U.S. defense technology in the hands of people who hate us? Probably.
  • Does it mean that Saudi-controlled elements of U.S. media will ease their war on Trump? I don’t know.

I do know that Trump’s speech in Riyadh was epic. As Bruce Bawer puts it:

It was gag-inducing to hear him praise the “magnificent kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, “the splendor of your country,” “the grandeur of this remarkable place,” and so on…But then something happened…

…he began mixing the ethereal praise with realistic businessman-type talk about the value of international partnership…[and] underscored the fact that in order for such a partnership to work, something would have to change. And it would have to change a lot. The Islamic world, he insisted, had to turn into a place where young Muslims could grow up “innocent of hatred.”

And then he spelled out the results of that hatred, presenting first a roll call of some of the “barbaric attacks” on America – 9/11, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando – and then a list of other places (“Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China, and Australia”) where that hatred has manifested itself.

However delicately he worked his way around to it, it was nothing less than an accusation.

No, he didn’t explicitly charge Muslim leaders with funding terrorism – but he told them, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to cut off funds to terrorists…And, yes, he spoke of “Islamic” (not “Islamist” or “radical Islamic”) terror. And he made it clear he wasn’t just talking about terrorism – he was talking about Islam itself. He condemned “the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Kudos, Mr. President!

Full video here (scroll down). Short excerpts here and here. Full text here. Addressing Saudi princes, telling them to their faces, “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death…Drive them out of this Earth!”