Trump’s compassion: If you read only one thing today read this (then watch the video)

This video of President Trump and a severely wounded Army captain is one of the things the media doesn’t want you to see. Please help make it viral.

Military Trump Luis Avila

From PJ Media:

Army Capt. Luis Avila was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan in 2011, but even the loss of much of his voice doesn’t stop him from singing “God Bless America,” or prevent President Donald Trump from joining in. Before we get to the scene, a few words about Capt. Avila. His is one of those amazing stories our military seems to produce with shocking regularity. Avila served four years in the enlisted ranks, before attending OCS and his swearing-in as a 2nd Lt. in 2004. In all, he served five combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Read the rest here. Really. You’re cheating yourself if you don’t read it.

Then watch the video:

Now make the video viral.

The post Trump’s compassion: If you read only one thing today read this (then watch the video) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

A transnational elite racing its way to a revolution

In America and around the world, a transnational elite postures for itself and despises the people it rules. This is a recipe for a bloody revolution.

The other day, I was listening to Heather MacDonald speaking about homelessness during an appearance on City Journal’s Ten Blocks podcast. She was describing a visit to San Francisco, and it all sounded so familiar.

Before I get to Heather’s riff on the homeless, I want to do a little riff of my own about the homeless and others in America’s underclass. As long-time readers know, I actually have a conduit to the homeless and the underclass. A very dear childhood friend of mine has made life choices that see her living amongst them. When I visit her, I meet her friends, all of whom have, or have had, some extreme form of drug addiction. They also count among their number the homeless, although I haven’t met those guys personally; I’ve just heard about them.

When Obamacare was an issue back in 2009/2010, I learned something very interesting from my friend. Because she came from a middle class background, she was delighted to know that she could finally have subsidized middle class insurance. Her friends, however, were less delighted. Why? Because contrary to the assumptions in Washington, D.C., these people don’t have middle class values that include constant health maintenance and monitoring and they don’t care about having a personal relationship with a physician and a hospital.

What this meant in 2010 is that, without exception, this cohort of chronic drug users and homeless people were unimpressed by the opportunity to get fully insured for $50 or so per month — that is, to get the type of insurance middle class people were paying hundreds for monthly or that steered middle class people  to jobs with benefits and kept them at those jobs even if they were unhappy. To my friend’s friends, this would be $50 wasted every month. After all, why pay even that much when you can go to the emergency room for free?

This insight was yet another reminder that top-down policies do not reflect people’s needs. Moreover, the Left’s top-down policies exist only to serve a very narrow echelon of the Blue upper class. What the governing class is doing is virtue signaling. It makes assumptions about ordinary Americans (85% of whom liked their insurance before Obamacare destroyed everything), but doesn’t want to go near these same Americans to learn what they value.

Another one of those virtue signaling policies without regard for the concerns of most Americans can be seen in the Dem presidential candidates’ insistence that all Americans should be on the line for the student loans that kids take out to get useless degrees. And when I say “useless,” I’m not exaggerating. It’s not unheard of for people to amass hundreds of thousands in debt for a gender studies or fine arts major. There are no jobs out there in those fields that will provide enough funds for anyone to pay back one of those loans before death.

Ordinary people work hard and try to stay out of debt. When they incur a debt in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the bank usually gets a security interest to protect itself. But not student loans. They just hang out there with us, the taxpayers, on the line. We’re on the line because student debt is expensive for America as a whole (more debt, less wealth) and we’re on the line because Leftists keep threatening to make us pay for the kid who opted, not to go into dad’s plumbing business, but to learn advanced puppetry on our dimes.

Which gets me to Heather MacDonald and homelessness. Once again, our governing class makes assumptions. Sitting in ivory academic towers and political offices, our governing class assumes that people don’t want to be homeless. That’s certainly true for working and middle class people who are down on their luck, but these aren’t the people filling the streets in Blue cities, especially West Coast Blue cities with temperate climates.

What MacDonald pointed out in the podcast is that these people want one thing and one thing only: drugs. Blue city policies enable that. In the name of “humanity,” they give the homeless free food, they don’t arrest drug dealers, they do nothing to stop homeless drug use, and they no longer do even minimal policing against disturbing the peace, public nudity, or soiling city streets. All of this is ostensibly to decrease homelessness but the reality is that these policies make homelessness more appealing to those who want only food and drugs. In other words, these are virtue signaling policies.

These same policies are a disaster for the Normals living in the City: the people who go to work, buy homes, have children — and see their streets made filthy and dangerous by people high on every type of drug and, of course, now carrying medieval diseases on their person. And sure, there’s a mental illness component, but a lot of the mental illnesses involved are not the type that would ordinarily render people dysfunctional. There aren’t many schizophrenics out there. Instead, there are people who self-medicated ordinary depression or other dysfunctions and the medication got away from them.

The elite government policies aren’t for the homeless or for the taxpayers. They are financially beneficial for those in government (on the taxpayer dime) and those attached like parasites to government (sucking up the taxpayer dime). And as I said before, they’re emotionally beneficially for people who believe in virtue-signaling more than problem solving. The governing class, like warped fireflies, is sending out smug signals to others in the governing class: “We spent $12 million on the homeless and gave them free needles! We’re so very, very good.” And then they profess themselves bewildered as the homeless multiply on the streets like wire hangers in a closet.

The same disconnect between the governing class and our country’s needs shows itself with the military that Obama bequeathed to Trump. I covered most of that in this post: Under Obama, there came to be a cancer in the Pentagon. My point in that post is that Obama deliberately created an officer class more concerned with social justice and virtue signaling about things such as climate change than concerned with winning wars. It was this officer class (with some Clinton-era holdovers) that has professed itself shocked! Shocked that Trump would pull our troops out of theaters of war in which they shed their blood without benefit to America or that Trump would jettison social justice in favor of killing our enemies. (It’s a good post. If you haven’t read it, you might give it a look.)

During my podcast yesterday, I discussed that post — and I added a couple more points about the Obama military’s disconnect from ordinary Americans. Those points are relevant here, because they remind us that our governing class does not like us and does not share our goals or concerns. Even as Obama was firing officers who might well have been committed to more traditional military values, he was definitely encouraging officers to embrace his social justice, Leftist agenda.

That’s why, during the Obama years, this happened: In 2011, Obama did away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in favor of open gay service. Frankly, I have no idea how this has turned out for military readiness. I just know that, in 2018, a proud, official Navy press release and a laudatory article in the Navy Times introduced us to Yeoman 3rd class Joshua Kelley, aka Harpy Daniels, a drag queen performing on Navy ships. I don’t mean to harsh on Kelley. He sounds like a perfectly nice young man whose father was in the Navy, so Kelley thought of the Navy as a good option when he was having a hard time making a living as a professional drag queen.

The press release and article tout Kelley’s “knack for life as a sailor,” something that sounds good. Except when you read down in the articles about Kelley’s life as a sailor, it sounds as if he’s sailing on the USS Social Justice, rather than a war ship. Thus, we’re told that Kelley was voted to be the president of Strike Fighter Squadron 115′s Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions and that he became the public affairs officer for the carrier Reagan’s Gay, Lesbian and Supporting Sailors association. He even got a “blue jacket of the year” award, not for being the person who keeps Navy pilot’s planes safe or ships running well . . . but for his work on the Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions.

I don’t mean to slam Kelley. I’m just saying I find Kelley to be a surprising choice for the Navy to boast about. The Navy’s purpose, after all, the reason we taxpayers pay the big bucks for it, is to defend us in war against enemies, not to make drag queens feel good about themselves.

Obama also opened the military to transgender people (before Trump shut that down). Transgender people have a 40% or higher suicide rate, higher than any other population group. It’s trendy to point at discrimination as the culprit for these tragic numbers, but the fact is that other groups that have also been on receiving end of terrible discrimination (e.g., blacks) never had suicide rates anywhere comparable to that.

Moreover, transgender individuals, like other people in the cohort that Dave Chappell calls “alphabet people” have higher incidences of alcohol and drug dependency, risky sexual behaviors, suicide, depression, self-harm and spousal abuse. All of these are terrible things. I don’t wish them on anybody . . . but I also don’t wish them on our military!

Obama also opened combat to women., something that’s been a disaster in all standing militaries but for those, like the Kurds, that live on the front line. Even Israel, a front line country, backed away from women in combat when it was able to do so. Women’s presence was (a) dead weight because women are less physically able than men and (b) disastrous for unit moral, because of rivalries and the men’s inability to cope with the women being hurt or killed in battle.

And then there are those green, green climate change initiatives. In 2014, I had the tremendous pleasure of attending the commissioning ceremony for the USS America. It was a wonderful experience. But as I wrote at the time,

[S]ince this is a 21st century, here’s your assurance that the ship is as green as green can be. (I didn’t hear anyone assure me that a green ship is a safer ship or a better fighting ship, but I might have missed that part.)

USS America - Energy Warrior

I’m all for green ships if they save taxpayer money without impairing the military’s efficacy — or, even better, if they increase the military’s ability to fight wars. But that really wasn’t the issue there, was it?

Put simply, during his eight years in office, Obama revamped the American military so that it was dedicated to (a) social justice and (b) climate change. Interestingly, in 2017, not long after Obama left the White House – and before Trump could put his imprimatur on military — the Navy had a spate of terrible accidents:

A US Navy plane crashed into the ocean southeast of Okinawa on Wednesday afternoon, marking at least the sixth apparent accident involving a Navy asset in East Asian waters this year.

The C2-A Greyhound transport plane was carrying 11 crew and passengers to an aircraft carrier when it crashed into the Philippine Sea, the Navy said. As of Wednesday evening, eight people had been rescued, and three were missing.

Wednesday’s crash comes three weeks after a Navy and civilian panel recommended sweeping changes in a comprehensive review of the Japan-based US 7th Fleet, which covers East Asian waters.

The review found that two deadly accidents — the collisions of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain with commercial ships in June and August, respectively — were avoidable.

The review’s recommendations include new processes for scheduling ships; “ready for sea” assessments for all Japan-based ships; disseminating lessons learned form “near misses”; and ensuring that ships routinely transmit on their automatic identification systems to prevent collisions.

Of the six incidents, Wednesday’s is the only one directly involving a Navy aircraft. The others are collisions involving US warships.”

Maybe just bad luck – or maybe the military had changed its mission under Obama. After all, the fish rots from the head.

If you’re wondering why all these disparate anecdotes belong in a single post, here’s my answer: They remind us that America’s ruling elite has no concern about ordinary Americans. Hillary was speaking for an entire governing class when she said people who won’t hope on the Leftist train are a “basket of deplorables. *** They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.”

We’re racist because we want to be color-blind, rather than engaging in endless victim wars and because we believe that a nation without borders is no nation at all. We’re sexist because we believe that women and men are different. We’re homophobic because we’re troubled by the pressure LGBTQ activists are placing on American institutions. We xenophobic because Hillary and her followers are proud of knowing a big word with Greek roots. We’re Islamophobic because we’ve noticed that 10% of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims actively want to kill or enslave us and are supported by a much larger number than 10% — including, perhaps, the House’s own Ilhan Omar.

The anecdotes I told are concrete manifestations of this hatred. While ordinary people look to the military to protect us from foreign enemies, our self-styled elite class, which controls most of the levers of power in America, sees traditional military readiness as a tattered, irrelevant doctrine. For them, the military is a giant social justice experiment that pays homage to all the other Leftist shibboleths: only engaging in wars that are not for America’s benefit (because America bad), fighting climate change, and making marginalized people feel good about themselves. Once upon a time, marginalized people (i.e., the poor and/or minorities) felt good about themselves because they became highly competent parts of something much greater than each individual, creating indissoluble bonds and a sense of pride. Now they get awarded “blue jacket” because they advance alphabet people causes.

Likewise, homelessness is a problem, not to be wiped out, but to be magnified so as to showcase the enormous financial and spiritual generosity the elite class doles out to the homeless: using our money and making our cities dangerous at so many levels.

After thinking about homeless projects that magnify homelessness; military initiatives for victim classes, rather than America’s defense; high tax demands that will destroy a thriving economy; the insistence that grown men have access to little girl’s bathrooms; the fight to open our borders so that poor and working class people can lose jobs and housing to illegal immigrants; and all the other initiatives coming from the Leftist leadership in politics, in education, in entertainment, and in the news media, I have to ask: Just who do these people represent?

They certainly don’t represent the interests of the average American or the majority of Americans. We’ve come to the point at which we no longer have “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Instead, we have a government class that despises the people.

Moreover, this is true all over the world, not just America. A friend sent me an email pointing out that there are revolutions in Chile, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Lebanon, England, Baghdad, France, Holland, and Iran. Some are bloody, or likely to be bloody, revolutions (Chile, Hong Kong, Iran); some are voter revolutions (the 2016 election here, Brexit in England); and some are tractor revolutions in Holland or yellow jacket revolutions in France.

In all cases, though, they represent the same thing: People fighting back against political and cultural leaders who have become an international class bound by ties, not to their own countries, but to other world leaders. The transnational elites posture for their fellow transnationals and enacts policies that enrich only themselves. The one thing they’re not doing is taking care of the people in their charge.

Back in 1992, when I was a Democrat, I remember that one of cheers that Bill Clinton liked to use at his rallies to get the audience revved up was, “It’s time for them to go” — with “them” referring to the Republicans who had held the White House for 16 years, to America’s tremendous social and economic benefit.

I don’t look back fondly on the Clinton years, and regret my votes at the time, but I like that theme. Across the world, as weary, beaten-down people look at a ruling class that sees them as despicable, dirty deplorables, these ordinary people, these normals, need to rise up and say, “It’s time for them to go.”

And here’s a word of warning to the ruling class: You managed to keep a lid on things for seven decades after WWII. The people’s discontent, though, is boiling. Bad things happen when the pressure from that boiling finally blows off that tightly pressed lid. I suggest that the Western world’s ruling class, as well as the ruling class in China and the Middle East, gracefully backs away from the levers of power before its members get their greedy, smug little hands blown off of those same levers.

Be assured that I’m not advocating a bullet-style revolution. I prefer my revolutions at the ballot box. But when a people become too discontent, the ballot box is suddenly no longer an option.

The post A transnational elite racing its way to a revolution appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

No. 29 Bookworm Podcast — Your government hates you; it really hates you

This podcast uses homelessness and the military as a prism to focus on the ruling class’s disdain for ordinary Americans and its transnational allegiance.

My latest podcast is up and running. You can listen to it through the audio embed below, or at LibSyn, or through Apple Podcasts. This podcast discusses:

1. The homeless “crisis,” which really involves governments using taxpayer dollars to subsidize homelessness.

2. The fruits of Obama’s military — one dedicated to social justice and climate change — reveal themselves in the attacks his high-ranking officers (plus one of Clinton’s officers) level at Trump.

3. Around the world, the ruling class has nothing but disdain for the people it rules, seeing itself instead as a transnational brotherhood government for like minded people in other governments — and the people are starting to rebel.

Here are hyperlinks to articles I cite. To the extent I cite to an earlier post I did, if the links are already in that post, I have not reiterated them here:

Heather MacDonald’s podcast at City Journal’s Ten Blocks

My post about the cancer in Obama’s military

The Navy press release about Harpy Daniels, the Navy drag queen

The Navy Times article about Harpy Daniels

The CNN article describing the spate of Naval accidents

The fact that John Kennedy also canceled newspapers

As always, if you like this podcast, please share it with others and leave a review at the Apple podcast site. It’s the only way the podcast can grow. Also, feel free to email me at bookwormroom *at* I am very slow responding to emails, but I do read them and I always respond (eventually). I’ll also put up a companion post tomorrow.

The post No. 29 Bookworm Podcast — Your government hates you; it really hates you appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

My Analysis on the Impeachment Story

It Does NOT Make Any Difference If There Was a Quid Pro Quo; Impeachment For This Will Hobble Every President’s Ability to Conduct Foreign Policy!

I was not going to write on impeachment until after the election next Tuesday but with reports of an imminent vote in the House of Representatives as early as Thursday I must say it. No impeachment!

I am still amazed that people are fixated on this Ukraine telephone call. Some seem to be fixated on was there a quid pro quo – after all the President asked for a “favor” and here’s one legacy media’s analysis that Trump pressured the Ukraine president to investigate the Bidens.

So, let’s get this out of the way: Even if it is proven the President pressured Ukraine’s leader through withholding aid to investigate the Bidens, that is not impeachable. Or at least should not be impeachable. (To borrow a aphorism from criminal law: You can impeach a ham sandwich if you have the votes to do so.)

Let me say this: Rivkin and Foley, great lawyers both, have a sensational analysis on why this Ukraine issue is not a proper subject for impeachment. Let me add a few points of my own, some consonant with Rivkin and Foley and some different.

First, every President has conditioned foreign aid on certain behaviors. The Mexico City abortion policy – some Presidents said give to abortion providers and some did not. Here’s an article on this. Foreign aid is not string-free and no nation should expect it to be.

Some might say, but this is different: This is personal. This is seeking dirt on a potential opponent just before an election and using government resources to do so. While it would not have been my advice to authorize this phone call, the actual transcript belies that analysis:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

* * *

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. * * * * The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

This transcript did not copy well and I had to edit it, but it is correct to a high degree of approximation.

So the “favor” was about the Crowdstrike server issue. NOT about the Biden matter. Trump also asked the Ukraine President to look into the Biden matter as a anti-corruption and improper foreign (US) intervention probe.

Now I’ll say this: I think Trump knew exactly what he was doing: If he got dirt on Biden, that would be great. But the President figured the call would be leaked and the media would have to discuss the Hunter Biden matter. And that was the win for President.

What President Trump did not figure on was impeachment. I think the big argument ought not be primarily the reversal of the election (although that could rouse the Deplorables) but that impeachment will hobble foreign policy. For example: A Democrat President could reverse the Mexico City policy in a way that benefits (directly or indirectly) say Planned Parenthood, who had supported that candidate’s election and potentially re-election. A GOP Congress could cite the help from PP and impeach.

Impeachment will hobble any President’s ability to conduct foreign policy, which the Chief Executive is plenary under the Constitution. Any President has to have prophylactic ability to act or refuse to act in his or her best interest and that ought to be in the best interest of the nation. The House should vote no and if they refuse, the Senate should meet on the first day of trial and pass a demurrer resolution (A demurrer is a pleading that says even if the facts are proven, it is not a cause of action and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages.) dismissing the articles of impeachment once and for all.

If you live in a district with a Democrat House member – politely ask him or her to vote NO. Let’s put this false issue to bed once and for all.

Under Obama, there came to be a cancer in the Pentagon

Obama purged the Pentagon during his presidency. Recent events give us an insight into the anti-American mindset of those whom he left in place.


Do  you remember when Obama started purging the upper echelons in the Pentagon, sometimes under cover of law, sometimes under cover of darkness? After the pullout from Iraq, Obama had a little list of those people he didn’t want to see serving anymore in America’s military. Some he fired outright. Others he treated so shabbily that they had no option put to leave.

Just in the first five years of his presidency, Obama fired almost 200 military officers:

[W]hat has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From’s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

I have no way of knowing whether some in that long list really deserved to go. Perhaps Obama discovered a badly-calcified, top-heavy, lazy, corrupt bureaucracy when he took office. Two things argue against that conclusion, though: First, Obama seldom fired other bureaucrats, which argues that generally he had no problem with calcified, top-heavy, lazy, corrupt bureaucracies. Second, in my remembered lifetime (that is, excluding my childhood years), I don’t know of any other president who pushed out so many high ranking officers.

When Obama was cleaning out the Pentagon, at least some retired officers expressed their concern that this was a purge, not a necessary reboot to a degraded institution:

-Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely: The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.

-Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.

-Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin: Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.

-Retired Navy Captain Joseph John: I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job just keep your mouth shut. Now this trend appears to be accelerating.

Food for thought, right? I can’t say whether those quoted officers were correct or not, for I don’t know what was going on in the Pentagon. Maybe those retired officers were just whiners and malcontents, sorry to see the Pentagon under Democrat control.

However, when I look at Obama’s practical, strategic, and tactical demands on the military (e.g., draw-downs, aiding America’s enemies, unduly restrictive rules of engagement) and his open efforts to turn our military into a social justice experiment (e.g., women in combat, transgenders in the military, etc.), I’m inclined to believe that Obama’s decisions about officers were not primarily aimed at ensuring that our military was the best, most honorable fighting machine in the world. Obama seemed to have other goals in mind.

I’ve recently been thinking about all those missing officers and the mystery behind their banishment. The reason for these thoughts is that I’ve read statements from two officers Obama elevated to important positions and one who served under Clinton. The most touted statement came from William H. McRaven, the Admiral who oversaw the Osama bin Laden mission.

For those who’ve gotten hazy about bin Laden, he was the man who masterminded 9/11, killing 2,996 people on American soil. This attack included a direct strike on the Pentagon and an attempted strike at the White House or Congress. The latter was stopped only because brave citizens on United Flight 93 went to war with the terrorists. Bin Laden was also the man to whom McRaven gave a private, respectful burial at sea, one that ensured “that bin Laden’s body was be handled in accordance with Muslim traditions complete with.” How nice.

Anyway, a little over a week ago, McRaven launched a full frontal media attack against President Trump, including the not-so-subtle implication that Trump should be the subject of a coup. This implied attempt to destroy a sitting American president came after multiple paragraphs in which McRaven burnished his own military credentials by draping around himself the lives of others in the military. And then this:

As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, “I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!”


If our promises are meaningless, how will our allies ever trust us? If we can’t have faith in our nation’s principles, why would the men and women of this nation join the military? And if they don’t join, who will protect us? If we are not the champions of the good and the right, then who will follow us? And if no one follows us — where will the world end up?

President Trump seems to believe that these qualities are unimportant or show weakness. He is wrong. These are the virtues that have sustained this nation for the past 243 years. If we hope to continue to lead the world and inspire a new generation of young men and women to our cause, then we must embrace these values now more than ever.

And if this president doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it. (Emphasis mine.)

The sooner, the better? That doesn’t sound as if McRaven has the patience to wait for the November 2020 election, does it? That sounds like a call to arms . . . to military arms.

But McRaven isn’t the only one. Barry McCaffrey served in the Clinton White House and, judging by his words today, I’m betting Obama would have been glad to keep him on. McCaffrey is a West Point grad and a Vietnam vet. One would expect from him a strong grounding in history and a sober nature, one not prone to hysteria. Anyone expecting that would be wrong.

When word got out that Trump said the government (i.e., the taxpayers) should no longer have to pay for the Washington Post and the New York Times, both of which have abandoned any semblance of journalism in favor of operating as the media arm of the Democrat Party, McCaffrey got very, very excited:

I wonder if that tweet gives us a clue about the identity of the general whom McRaven quoted, the one who burst into tears and then started screaming to the Heavens about Trump’s iniquities. Only a hysterical ninny could liken cancelling newspapers to becoming Mussolini.

For those who have forgotten their history, there is no relationship at all between Trump and Mussolini. Politically Mussolini dragged every institution and business in Italy under the state’s umbrella. (“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”) Trump, in contrast, is doing his best to limit state power. To that end, he’s been shrinking the regulatory state by cutting regulations, decreasing the number of employees, and trying to move the agencies out of D.C. and closer to their mandates. In this regard, it’s useful to remember that Louis XIV consolidated his power by building Versailles and forcing the nobles who might have challenged him were they further away to live in his court under his watchful eye. Trump has also limited his own executive authority (he’s the first president to have done so) and placed strict constructionist judges on the court.

Also, for all the (well-deserved) insults Trump hurls at the press, he’s done nothing to harm journalists. During Trump’s presidency, no journalists have been imprisoned (unlike Judith Miller, who was imprisoned on Dubya’s watch), none have been spied upon (as happened to James Risen under Obama), or bugged a news outlet’s phones (as happened to the AP, which still happily carries water for the Left, and to Fox, again under Obama).

Mussolini on the other hand…. Mussolini was a former newspaperman himself, and he assiduously sought to co-opt the media as a propaganda branch of his fascist government. Those who did not get with the program, whether within or outside of the media, were subject to shattering violence and cruel deportations. Today, under Trump’s presidency, Democrats cannot point to a single journalist who has lost a job, been deported, or been the victim of government violence directed against the journalist or the journalist’s family. And no, being called names at Trump rallies doesn’t count.

But wait! There’s more! The above examples are just general complaints (get the pun?) about Trump’s presidency from two former Democrat military operatives. Al-Baghdadi’s death this weekend, however, not only shined a light on the Democrats’ relationship to terrorists versus Trump (respect the former, hate the latter), it also revealed again the kind of military officer the Left loves — and the kind whom Obama promoted even as he fired scores of other high-ranking officers.

Before I get to this last tweet, let me remind you who al-Baghdadi was. Or rather, let Clarice Feldman remind you, for she provides an excellent summary about the picaresque adventures of one of the most foul, evil, sadistic “austere religious scholars” ever to walk the face of the earth:

First, a little background to refresh your memory. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was an ISIS leader. He was a very, very bad man. In 2009, we had him captured and imprisoned in Iraq. For some utterly inexplicable reason, President Obama released him from Camp Bucca. Thereafter, Baghdadi and his troops took over the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit and Mosul, and threatened Baghdad.

Along the way they burned down everything in their path and tortured and murdered civilians, soldiers and police officers.

Director Blue posted a gruesome photo essay of his butchery.

Baghdadi photographed and publicized how he and his fellow butchers roasted alive men hogtied over flames, burned whole families with their children in cages, drowned prisoners in cages, raped and murdered thousands of Yazidi women and girls, and beheaded, shot, and blew up countless thousands of people.

Among those he kidnapped, tortured and murdered was a young American woman Kayla Mueller whom Obama failed to rescue in time.

After his Iraqi mayhem, Baghdadi took refuge in Syria where he hid out.

Aside from inviting sadists like himself to enjoy the feast, Baghdadi also inveigled Islamic true believers into following his train by enticing them with the promise of a glorious martyr’s death, one that would lead the faithful, not to a meeting with the one true Islamic God, but something better! Follow me, he said, and you’ll not only get “infidel” women and children to rape in this life, if you get killed, you’ll enjoy the carnal pleasures of an eternal brothel. Surely that’s worth fighting and dying for!

Given the way in which ignorant and brainwashed fighters are brought into ISIS’s army, Trump understands that it is extremely important that Baghdadi’s followers know precisely how Baghdadi himself met that death: Did he embrace it as the final act of a glorious martyrdom that would give him the wonders of an endless orgasm or did he, as hypocritical a monster as ever lived, cling to life, dreading what awaited him in the afterlife? President Trump loudly, clearly announced that the same man who murdered tens of thousands and enticed thousands more to their own deaths, died in abject, pathetic, groveling, cowardly fear — and murdered his own children as his last act:

He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming.  The compound had been cleared by this time, with people either surrendering or being shot and killed.  Eleven young children were moved out of the house un-injured.  The only ones remaining were Baghdadi in the tunnel, who had dragged three children with him to certain death.  He reached the end of the tunnel, as our dogs chased him down. He ignited his vest, killing himself and the three children.

As a throw-in, Trump again made sure in the same speech to remind people just how bad Baghdadi was, along with another reference to Baghdadi’s own cowardly end:

Baghdadi and the losers who worked with him – in some cases people who had no idea what they were getting into and how dangerous and unglamorous it was – killed many people.  Their murder of innocent Americans Jim Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller were especially heinous.  The shocking publicized murder of a Jordanian pilot who was burned alive in a cage for all to see, and the execution of Christians in Libya and Egypt, as well as the genocidal mass murder of Yazidis, rank ISIS among the most depraved organizations in history.

The forced religious conversions, the orange suits prior to many beheadings, all of which were openly displayed for the world – this was all Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s work.  He was vicious and violent, and he died in a vicious and violent way, as a coward, running and crying.

Kudos to Trump for establishing unequivocally that America will catch up with the bad guys, that it will send them to their deserved death, and that it will not allow anyone to forget why they deserved the end they received.

You already know how the media and prominent Democrats responded to the unexpected news about Baghdadi’s death. I already alluded to the Washington Posts‘ infamous “austere religious scholar” headline (and you’ll find a boatload of spoofs here). Others in the media and in government were just as disgusting. Don Surber has a good round-up that includes the WaPo making Baghdadi’s death about abandoning the Kurds, James Clapper warning that ISIS will be “galvanized” by this, Bloomberg praising Baghdadi’s meteoric rise from teacher to ruler, and Nancy “the Leaker” Pelosi complaining that nobody told her about it.

Of all those pathetic, anti-American responses, though, the one that stopped me in my tracks was the reaction from James Winnefeld, a now-retired Navy Admiral who served as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Obama from 2011 to 2014. He wasn’t purged under Obama, he was elevated. And here’s what one of Obama’s officers had to say about the death of a sadistic murderer who acted out his sick psychopathies against thousands of people:

Take a moment and contemplate what you just read: A former member of Obama’s Joint Chiefs celebrates the careful, respectful reverence with which America’s troops were forced to treat bin Laden, the greatest mass murderer of Americans in history, and mourns the fact that we didn’t do the same for Baghdadi, a sadist of the first magnitude.

As far as I know, Trump has not purged the military’s high officers. I’m wondering, though, whether he shouldn’t take a very close look at the caliber of men and women Obama left behind after his purges were through. If they’re anything like McRaven or Sperry, our military is in very big trouble.

The post Under Obama, there came to be a cancer in the Pentagon appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Part I: The faux grounds for Trump’s impeachment and his perfect defenses

The Dem’s have no statutory basis to demand Trump’s impeachment — and Trump has valid defenses to charges that his Ukraine dealings were an abuse of power.

This will be a two part post.  Part I deals with the law relating to impeachment.  Part II will deal with how the Senate should handle the trial of any Articles of Impeachment that come out of the House’s Star Chamber impeachment inquiry.


Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the Democrats running the House’s Star Chamber impeachment inquiry do in fact come up with Articles of Impeachment.  What will they be?  And will the President have any affirmative defenses?

No less a legal and historical scholar than Maxine Waters claimed in 2017:

Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ and we define that.

If true, that would leave the President with no defense other than that the Democrats are wrong on the facts.  Thankfully, Waters is  wrong.  To the contrary, the parameters for impeachment are defined at law and, because of that, the Democrats face insurmountable obstacles in impeaching Donald Trump for any and all acts related to his July 25 phone call with President Zelenksyy of Ukraine.

First, the House cannot validly impeach Trump for using the same powers other presidents traditionally wielded. Thus, if it has been custom and practice for presidents to negotiate using foreign aid as a tool, then Trump’s doing so is similarly beyond a valid impeachment charge.

Second, the House cannot validly impeach Trump for asking a foreign power to aid him in the legitimate exercise of his constitutional authority. Leaving aside whether Trump might personally benefit from the investigation, no American citizen (even, theoretically, Hillary Clinton) is above the law. The fact that an election looms does not change that fact. In other words, Democrats cannot avoid criminal culpability by insisting that investigations are illegal as an election draws near.

The Law of Impeachment

The Constitution, Article II, § 6, states that impeachment is a remedy that can be used to remove “civil officers” for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders, writing a Constitution and not a hornbook, did not further define “high crimes and misdemeanors,” because they did not need to define it for it was a phrase well defined in British common law of the era.

Note: For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “common law” is nothing more than “judge made law,” as opposed to legislatively-created statutes. Past judicial decisions are looked to as for future decisions, a practice that, in 18th Century Britain, created most of the “law of the land” and defined many rights vested in British citizens.  Much of our Constitutional provisions and our rights as Americans come out of British law as it existed in 1787, and the “common law” is still an element of law in Britain and the United States today.

When the Founders relied upon recognized “common law” principles related to impeachment, they looked to the 500 years of British judicial history before 1787 (See John Hatsell, Precedents and Proceedings In The House of Commons, Vol. IV (Impeachment) (1796)).  It is that body of common law that defines “impeachment” as the term is used in the U.S. Constitution.  In his seminal study of the Constitution, Commentaries on the Constitution, 3 Volumes, (1833), Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story examined impeachment in Vol. II (§§ 794-96). He opened his examination by acknowledging the role common law played in understanding the doctrine:

The only practical question is, what are to be deemed high crimes and misdemeanours? Now, neither the constitution, nor any statute of the United States has in any manner defined any crimes, except treason and bribery, to be high crimes and misdemeanours, and as such impeachable. In what manner, then, are they to be ascertained?

After dispensing with commission of crimes in office as an obvious grounds for impeachment, Story addressed “political” offenses as grounds for impeachment, as well as the limitation upon those offenses:

. . . [T]here are many offences, purely political, which have been held to be within the reach of parliamentary impeachments, not one of which is in the slightest manner alluded to in our statute book. And, indeed, political offences are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it. . . . Resort, then, must be had either to parliamentary practice, and the common law, in order to ascertain, what are high crimes and misdemeanors; or the whole subject must be left to the arbitrary discretion of the senate, for the time being.

The latter is so incompatible with the genius of our institutions, that no lawyer or statesman would be inclined to countenance so absolute a despotism of opinion and practice, which might make that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person.  [Emphasis added]  The only safe guide in such cases must be the common law, which is the guardian at once of private rights and public liberties.

(At the bottom of this post, you will find a handy-dandy poster reflecting this principle, which you can share with friends on social media.)

Story then lists a wide range of offenses for which officials were impeached in Britain since the 14th century. almost all involving neglect, oppression, or exercise of arbitrary power.  Thus, contrary to what Maxine Waters claims, there are limitations on what constitute impeachable offenses. The official charged must have deviated from a historically established pattern and practice.  Democrats cannot validly impeach the President for duly exercising the powers of his office, nor for reasonably acting to advance malfeasors’ punishment for breaking the laws of the land.  Indeed, the President is bound by his office to enforce the laws of this nation.

More recently, Alan Dershowitz has also weighed in on what can legitimately constitute a charge of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  His view is more restrictive than Story’s, but the two agree that there are outer boundaries and that simple political offenses or, as Dershowitz frames it in the language of Madison, “maladministration,” do not constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior. Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.

What is not debatable is that “maladministration” is an impermissible ground for impeachment. Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary democracy in which the leader — the prime minister — is subject to removal by a simple vote of no confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.

Of course, since 1789, it is U.S. History that defines impeachment in our country.  Notably, in the three past instances in which the House has impeached a president, each has been for an actual crime committed by the President.  The House impeached Andrew Johnson for violating a law of dubious constitutionality when he removed the Secretary of War. The Senate refused to convict.  The House impeached Bill Clinton when he committed a crime in a civil case by perjuring himself when asked about his having had sex with a White House intern. The Senate refused to convict.  Lastly, the House voted to investigate Richard Nixon, when he was an accessory after the fact to the criminal Watergate Hotel break-in. Nixon resigned.

The bottom line is that there are limitations on what grounds exist for impeaching a president, that a president cannot be impeached for engaging in a historically established pattern and practice, and that past presidential impeachments have revolved around criminal acts. So what have the Democrats got?

The possible bases for the Democrats’ Articles of Impeachment

I. Statutory bases for impeachment

When trying to predict the Democrats’ future actions, only three possible laws or legal conflicts come to mind — that Trump violated campaign finance laws, that he obstructed justice, and/or that he interfered with Congress’s power of the purse. As set forth below, however, none of those are applicable.

A.  Campaign Finance Law

The Whistle Blower asserted that Trump’s July 25 phone call, in which he sought information about the 2016 Russian hoax and potential corruption by Joe and Hunter Biden, broke two laws relating to election campaigns.  He cited 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which makes it illegal to accept any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” from a foreign national.  But no court has ever interpreted the term “other thing of value” to include mere information.  Even the highly partisan Mueller team, when explaining their decision not to prosecute Trump Jr.’s meeting at Trump Tower with Russians for the express purpose of obtaining facts detrimental to Hillary Clinton, stated at Vol. I, p. 187:

[N]o judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts.

B.  Obstruction of Justice

The House may go so far as to claim that Trump obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with the House’s “impeachment inquiry” regarding the Ukraine matter.  This will not fly.

The House doesn’t normally have judicial power for the Constitution, at Article III, explicitly provides that the “judicial power” resides in the Courts.  The House can assume “judicial power” for a limited period of time only if and when the House of Representatives authorizes it.  Trump maintains that the House, which has repeatedly voted not to open impeachment inquiries against him, is operating unlawfully and his administration has no duty to comply.

Importantly, even as Trump has refused to respond to subpoenas, the House has assiduously avoided testing its subpoenas in Court.  Law professor Alan Dershowitz dealt with this issue in a recent article at Gatestone Institute, Impeachers Searching For New Crimes:

This brings us to President Trump’s directive with regard to the impeachment investigation. Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

C.  The Withholding of Aid

Aid for Ukraine was part of Public Law 116-6, which Trump signed on February 15, 2019.  Nothing in the law states specifically when the funds must be released (just as there was none in the 2016 law), with the only proviso being that the administration disburse before the fiscal year in question ends.* When it comes to Trump and aid to Ukraine, his administration transferred or otherwise made the 2019 funds available to Ukraine by September 10, 2019, well before the end of the fiscal year.

One can argue whether any president has inherent power to withhold aid permanently from a foreign country once Congress has authorized the money — something President George H.W. Bush did when he unilaterally cancelled aid appropriated for Yemen in 1991 — but that is not a question applicable to this situation.  Moreover, as David Rivkin points out at WSJ and in his blog, “Congress attempted to curtail this power [i.e., the President’s power over foreign aid] with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.”  Thus, nothing President Trump did conflicted with Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.

II.  Non-statutory basis for impeachment

Leaving the law behind, there seems to be a wide range of possible grounds for Democrats to impeach Trump (GrabieNews has so far compiled a list of 95 bases), almost all of which are ultimately nothing more than “orange man bad and we disagree with his policies.” That said, the only one that would pass the laugh test would be a charge that the President abused his power by conditioning foreign aid to Ukraine on opening investigations relating to the Russia hoax and to Joe Biden, a 2020 candidate for President.  This is the “quid pro quo” that will almost surely be in any Articles of Impeachment. Passing the laugh test, though, so that the media can relay it to a credulous public with a straight face, still does not make it a valid impeachment charge.

There are multiple problems with this quid pro quo argument, the first being that presidents have primary authority over foreign policy.  Historically, presidents have regularly used foreign aid as leverage when negotiating with foreign countries.  As David Rivkin explained:

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.

Thomas Jefferson impounded funds appropriated for gunboat purchases, Dwight Eisenhower impounded funds for antiballistic-missile production, John F. Kennedy impounded money for the B-70 bomber, and Richard Nixon impounded billions for highways and urban programs. Congress attempted to curtail this power with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.

Presidents often delay or refuse foreign aid as diplomatic leverage, even when Congress has authorized the funds. Disbursing foreign aid—and withholding it—has historically been one of the president’s most potent foreign-policy tools, and Congress cannot impair it. Lyndon B. Johnson used the promise of financial aid to strong-arm the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea to send troops to Vietnam. The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) concluded that this constituted “quid pro quo assistance.” In 2013, Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, said he would slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance until Cairo cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism goals. The Obama administration also withheld millions in foreign aid and imposed visa restrictions on African countries, including Uganda and Nigeria, that failed to protect gay rights.

So, all things being equal, Congress has no right to curtail the Executive’s historic powers. Again, to reiterate what Story said, Congress may not “make that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person.” Moreover, under the statute as written, Trump had authority over the timing of aid to the Ukraine at least through the end of the fiscal year.

That being the case, we are left with one remaining question: Did Trump use his legitimate power towards an end that was itself an abuse of power?

The Democrats desperately want to answer that question affirmatively. They insist that asking for any investigative assistance into crimes that may have been committed in the 2016 Russia Hoax and any crimes committed by Joe Biden are so beyond the pale as to justify impeachment and overturn an election.  Their problem is that nothing that Trump did is an abuse of the power because the Constitution imposes upon the president the obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Indeed, it is ludicrous to suggest to the contrary, at least unless we are to amend the Constitution, explicitly or implicitly, to hold that progressives are above the law.  We will be in a shooting civil war before that happens, whether in fact or in deed.

Consequently, as Rivkin further states at the WSJ and in his blog,

Investigating Americans or Ukrainians who might have violated domestic or foreign law—and seeking the assistance of other nations with such probes, pursuant to mutual legal-assistance treaties—cannot form a legitimate basis for impeachment of a president.

Or as Andrew McCarthy states:

It is common for presidents to ask their foreign counterparts to assist Justice Department investigations. House Democrats will not acknowledge this because they seek to delegitimize the Barr/Durham probe as a Trump 2020 campaign initiative; but it is not.

The sole factual issue for this defense will be whether Trump had valid reason to request Ukraine’s assistance in investigation the Russia hoax and whether Trump had a reasonable basis to inquire further into Joe Biden’s possible criminal acts, specifically whether he violated 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 (Prohibited foreign trade practices by persons other than issuers or domestic concerns).

As to the former, the mere fact that the DOJ is reviewing the origins of the worst political scandal in our nation’s history, namely the attempted coup that was the Russian Hoax (let alone that it is now a criminal investigation), was a valid justification for Trump’s request for assistance from the Ukraine.  Moreover, President Trump had a predicate — i.e., a reasonable indication to believe that a crime may have been committed — to ask for assistance investigating whether, when Joe Biden demanded that the Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor be fired as a non-negotiable condition for receiving American aid, the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden directly or indirectly through his Burisma ties.  Cry as the progressives might, this is a legitimate issue, one raised at the time internally during the Obama administration, one that Joe Biden proudly boasted about and, nevertheless, one that the Obama administration never investigated.

I can think of no other grounds for impeachment, though I am sure Schiff & Co. will have some inventive surprises.  In the next post, I will deal with how the trial in the Senate should proceed, given that the House has denied any due process rights, including the right to be represented at the hearings, to the President.  There are more than ample ways — fully Constitutional — in which the Senate can vindicate the rights of the President, hold a fair trial, and make the House Democrats rue their sins in the process.


*The law in 2016, which has the identical fiscal year proviso, was the law that applied when Biden was the Vice President. Thus, his threat to withhold the money did not violate the law. It was his threat to withhold the money to protect his son’s dubious business practices that raises eyebrows.


The post Part I: The faux grounds for Trump’s impeachment and his perfect defenses appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

The memesters are already out on Al-Baghdadi’s death

I’ve gathered here some of the best spoofs of the WaPo’s heinous Al-Baghdadi death headline, plus a couple of other funny cartoons about a bad man gone.

This is what the WaPo did:


And here are some of the best examples of what Twitter did to the WaPo:

And to finish off this p ost, a couple of other Al-Baghdadi death commentaries:

The post The memesters are already out on Al-Baghdadi’s death appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Libertarian Rachel Mace is Bringing the Message of Liberty To Fairfax County

And the Progressives Don’t Like it!

The Progressive Voter Guide, political porn at its best, is covering the races in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and here is what they said about the Libertarian Rachel Mace, running against Del. Eileen Filler-Corn:

Delegate Filler-Corn is being challenged by Rachel Mace, a Libertarian, and John Wolfe, an Independent. Mace is against gun violence prevention. She also is opposed to meals taxes that help fund important projects like affordable housing. Additionally, she opposes the elimination of student debt, but offers no solutions to the student loan debt crisis. Little information is available on Wolfe’s positions on key issues.

Here is how Mace responded to these criticisms at the FB page of her campaign:

Furthermore, meals taxes are regressive taxes that HURT the poor. So, it’s really bizarre to adopt a tax that hurts people so you can vaguely claim you’re helping people.

If you want to solve student debt, start by not giving virtually unlimited student loans to ANY student for any college major. Teach MATH in high school instead of social justice so students can actually calculate interest before attending college.

Cancellation of student loan debt is a moral hazard problem. It doesn’t address the high cost of college and is a handout that would absolutely hurt the people who didn’t have the opportunity to attend college. You want those who didn’t have the ability or means to attend college to pay off your 100k loan for drama school? (Mace cited this article from Forbes.)

First and foremost, none of the proposed gun legislation is proven empirically to reduce gun violence. A simple trip to the CDC would see that 20 year trends on gun violence are pretty much flat. (Mace then cited this article from Reason.)

There’s no evidence meals taxes have directly impacted affordable housing in any meaningful way. What would really increase affordability is improved zoning. (Mace then cited this article from the Urban Institute.)

Looks like the flag of liberty is raised right in the lion’s mouth, so to speak. If you live in the district (41), vote Mace! If you are near it and can help, give Rachel a hand. She may be a long shot to win but she got out there and fought the good fight; that’s more than I can say in many districts for the GOP.

It’s Charlie Millner in Campbell County for BOCS!

Would be FIRST LP Elected to a Board of Supervisors in Virginia

I interviewed Charlie Millner earlier in the year and I was VERY impressed with him and his campaign. Man of faith. Knows why he is running. Open Libertarian.

And it has only gotten better! The Virginia Citizens Defense League and a Republican leaning PAC: Virginia Families. (The BOCS races in Campbell County are not organized by major parties but rather local PACs)

Here is the VCDL endorsement:


  • MICHAEL MILLNER for Spring Hill District!
  • STEVE SHOCKLEY for Sunburst District!
  • MATT CLINE for Concord District!

And the Virginia Families PAC:

Virginia Families PAC · August 22 ·  We are proud to endorse Michael “Charlie” Millner Jr. for Board of Supervisors for the Spring Hill District of Campbell County. Charlie is a strong advocate for family, liberty and freedom, which means he’s GOOD for Virginia Families!

Now it’s time for the Sandy the Blogger endorsement. Here’s why:

Millner wants to make transparency and clarity part of his campaign. I think we need supervisors like this – who are willing to stand for the right. Millner’s slogan is BRINGING CLARITY. This would have useful for Warren County – would have saved a lot of embarrassment! (I also like his nod to Charlie Brown!) I think Millner would stand for the people to know more and prevent secret deals or legislation. I also think he’ll listen to people.

So BRING CLARITY to Campbell County! Vote Millner in November.

Sandy the Blogger Endorsements for General Assembly

Pretty Simple: Vote Republican unless…

The Sanders the Blogger endorsements are simple in the General Assembly races this year:

  • A Republican against a Democrat – Vote Republican. Just that simple. Yes even the RINO you do not like much. Let’s take care of that another time. Even if there is a third party person you really like this time.
  • A Republican against a Libertarian and NO Dem – This only occurs ONCE and it is in the 16th District – vote Del. Les Adams!
  • A Republican against a LP AND a Dem. It pains me to say: This once; this election – got to vote for the GOP! This is a good place to say: There is a LP candidate in the Shelly Simonds/Del. David Yancey race (94th District) named Michael D. Bartley and he is a REAL Libertarian. I am VERY impressed with Bartley. But I got to say: Too much to lose this time – vote Yancey. But Bartley should run again. Same for James Jobe in the 96th.
  • A Democrat (NO Republican!) against a Libertarian – VOTE for the Libertarian and help them too! That goes for Rachel Mace especially running against Del. Filler-Corn. And Mark Lewis in the 9th Senate District against Senator McClellan. And Pete Wells in the 71st District against Del. Jeff Bourne.
  • A Democrat (Again NO GOP) against a Green or other lefty or unopposed. Either vote your conscience or don’t vote. I know it is vaguely unAmerican sounding to say: Don’t Vote! But a vote is an endorsement and especially if the person is unopposed. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, I realize. One exception: Vote Joe Morrissey in the 16th.
  • In the 97th District – DO NOT Write in Del. Chris Peace! Vote Scott Wyatt.

Now in the next few days, I’ll have endorsements in local races.