Hüsker Dü
DA
More your belief in far flung fantasy and t swallower fairy tales.
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Circle jerk fake News between the two of you.....figures...
The Ball Thief and his sidekick.....
It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. (Mark Twain, maybe)
Bruddah IZ
DA
Sounds like all that T-bagging is starting to have a profound effect on your vocabulary.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.
Is that your confession?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Lol! Thatʻs Mark Twain. I leave the consensus building to you people.
I know it's Mark Twain. He was talking about people like you.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Share | Twitter
Attorney General Barr Stands athwart History
Shakespeare made famous the phrase
November 24, 2019
Attorney General Barr Stands athwart History
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Shakespeare made famous the phrase "There is a tide in the affairs of men" ("Julius Caesar," Act IV, Scene III), that acknowledges that certain situations gain momentum and become ripe for influencing the future, determining fate. Certainly, we are living in such a time — momentous, unprecedented events are happening that will affect the direction of our nation for the foreseeable future. After all the Sturm und Drang of the impeachment efforts of the Resistance that have divided the country for the last three years, Attorney General William Barr recently gave two speeches that were rhetorical masterpieces. The speeches could not have been given at a more critical juncture in the unfolding crisis, nor could the carefully researched and expertly developed arguments have been more needed, more appropriate. The content of the two speeches form a solid basis of a case against the Resistance. The passion and the masterful rhetoric of the speeches give them the potential for Barr to stand athwart history and determine the direction of the nation for the future.
Throughout history, great speeches have challenged people to rise above self-interest to do what is noble and right. Great speakers have used their positions or their influence to "inspire and unite people during times of struggle"; they have "met moments of great adversity with words both vigorous and poignant, giving voice to the challenges of their time." The "impact on history" of such speakers "will be determined in the future." Reasonable people, reading Barr's carefully constructed arguments for religious freedom and faithful originalists' interpretation of the Constitution, would be compelled and motivated by Barr's words.
I am not alone in thinking the impeachment charade is a headline-grabbing maneuver of the Democrats who are hoping to distract from and cast doubt on the inspector general's report that, according to Senator Lindsey Graham, will be released on December 9, with Attorney General Barr scheduled to give testimony on the 11th. Then there is the soon to be released report from the Barr-Durham probe that turned into a criminal investigation. I'm sure I am also not alone in thinking that Attorney General Barr, with his recent speeches, is using his bully pulpit to lay the groundwork for shaping public understanding and support for drastic action that should result from those reports and that he is employing high-octane, carefully crafted rhetoric to prepare public opinion for the explosive, controversial revelations — i.e., possible judicial proceedings against high-ranking members of the Deep State in the CIA, the FBI, and the Obama administration, including such persons as Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Rice.
The speeches were one-two punches against the Democrat's (1) attacks on religious freedom that have resulted in cultural disintegration and (2) attacks on the Constitution that have resulted in political chaos.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...arr_stands_athwart_history.html#ixzz66CgD8QJx
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Sheriff Joe
DA
Share | TwitterNovember 24, 2019
Trump takes our allies to task
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structur...
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structure of our military alliances. Specifically,
In addition to the absurdity of the U.S. carrying an inordinate share of the financial burden of defending wealthy foreign countries, there is another fundamental point. Namely, do these alliances and military commitments actually serve American national interests? Take South Korea as an example. It has twice the population of North Korea and an economy about 50 times greater. Given that, why can't South Korea defend itself with, say, minimal help from the U.S.? The answer is that it can but would rather to continue to freeload on America's back.
As to Europe, the same story holds true. Germany, the economic powerhouse of the European Union, contributes a miserable 1.2 percent towards its defense relying on America to take care of the bulk of it. And the Germans take umbrage when the U.S. dares to complain about this imbalance. As for military commitments, the U.S. technically bound to defend countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. How in heaven's name do any of them contribute to American security? Answer is they don't. On the contrary, those military promises in Europe, like the one to South Korea, put the U.S. at risk.
NATO will hold a Summit of Allied leaders from December 3-4 in London which will mark the 70th anniversary of its founding. This meeting should be interesting to say the least. French President Emmanuel Marcon has already staked out his agenda. He revealed it when he took a swipe at NATO by calling it 'brain dead' in an interview with The Economist. Marcon coupled this with a renewed his call for a European army outside of NATO. This has set the smaller European countries in a near panic. They view Marcon's vision of a united European military force as a pipe dream and unreliable at best. And more importantly, they understandably fear losing American protection because of it.
And then there's Trump. At the NATO summit, he's sure to renew his call for more defense spending from Europe, especially Germany. This will result in hurt feelings, but Europe and others have to be awakened to the fact that the world is changing. They now have to deal with a strong U.S. president who is finally putting his country first. Uncle Sam will no longer be Uncle Sap who indirectly funds Europe's welfare states. As for NATO, the French president is correct; it is brain dead. NATO is like the fallen Humpty Dumpty, and all the grandees of Europe and hand wringing bureaucrats can't to put it back together again.
Will President Trump get all he is asking for from South Korea, Japan, and Europe? No, but he will get far more than previous presidents who got essentially nothing from our allies.
Many foreign policy experts argue that the president is wrong to demand more from Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The argument goes that this could make them less cooperative and thereby jeopardizes U.S. security. This misses the fundamental point. The purpose of the alliances as they now exist is essentially to defend those allies, not to defend America. If those allies don't wish to work with the U.S., fine, but they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. And they know it.
None of this to say that U.S. should go it alone for there are military alliances that are of mutual benefit. One example would be with Japan. The U.S. needs Japan to counter China, while Japan needs the U.S. even more to defend itself from China. There are no doubt other alliances that would be useful but the criteria for them must be that they are 1) in the true national interest of the U.S. and 2) appropriately balanced according to the particular situation. Currently most of our military commitments don't meet those standards, and that is what President Trump is trying to fix.
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structure of our military alliances. Specifically,
In addition to the absurdity of the U.S. carrying an inordinate share of the financial burden of defending wealthy foreign countries, there is another fundamental point. Namely, do these alliances and military commitments actually serve American national interests? Take South Korea as an example. It has twice the population of North Korea and an economy about 50 times greater. Given that, why can't South Korea defend itself with, say, minimal help from the U.S.? The answer is that it can but would rather to continue to freeload on America's back.
As to Europe, the same story holds true. Germany, the economic powerhouse of the European Union, contributes a miserable 1.2 percent towards its defense relying on America to take care of the bulk of it. And the Germans take umbrage when the U.S. dares to complain about this imbalance. As for military commitments, the U.S. technically bound to defend countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. How in heaven's name do any of them contribute to American security? Answer is they don't. On the contrary, those military promises in Europe, like the one to South Korea, put the U.S. at risk.
NATO will hold a Summit of Allied leaders from December 3-4 in London which will mark the 70th anniversary of its founding. This meeting should be interesting to say the least. French President Emmanuel Marcon has already staked out his agenda. He revealed it when he took a swipe at NATO by calling it 'brain dead' in an interview with The Economist. Marcon coupled this with a renewed his call for a European army outside of NATO. This has set the smaller European countries in a near panic. They view Marcon's vision of a united European military force as a pipe dream and unreliable at best. And more importantly, they understandably fear losing American protection because of it.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You would think the Defense over spending nutters would come out in support of T's efforts here.
November 24, 2019
Trump takes our allies to taskTrump takes our allies to task
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structur...www.americanthinker.com
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structure of our military alliances. Specifically,
In addition to the absurdity of the U.S. carrying an inordinate share of the financial burden of defending wealthy foreign countries, there is another fundamental point. Namely, do these alliances and military commitments actually serve American national interests? Take South Korea as an example. It has twice the population of North Korea and an economy about 50 times greater. Given that, why can't South Korea defend itself with, say, minimal help from the U.S.? The answer is that it can but would rather to continue to freeload on America's back.
As to Europe, the same story holds true. Germany, the economic powerhouse of the European Union, contributes a miserable 1.2 percent towards its defense relying on America to take care of the bulk of it. And the Germans take umbrage when the U.S. dares to complain about this imbalance. As for military commitments, the U.S. technically bound to defend countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. How in heaven's name do any of them contribute to American security? Answer is they don't. On the contrary, those military promises in Europe, like the one to South Korea, put the U.S. at risk.
NATO will hold a Summit of Allied leaders from December 3-4 in London which will mark the 70th anniversary of its founding. This meeting should be interesting to say the least. French President Emmanuel Marcon has already staked out his agenda. He revealed it when he took a swipe at NATO by calling it 'brain dead' in an interview with The Economist. Marcon coupled this with a renewed his call for a European army outside of NATO. This has set the smaller European countries in a near panic. They view Marcon's vision of a united European military force as a pipe dream and unreliable at best. And more importantly, they understandably fear losing American protection because of it.
And then there's Trump. At the NATO summit, he's sure to renew his call for more defense spending from Europe, especially Germany. This will result in hurt feelings, but Europe and others have to be awakened to the fact that the world is changing. They now have to deal with a strong U.S. president who is finally putting his country first. Uncle Sam will no longer be Uncle Sap who indirectly funds Europe's welfare states. As for NATO, the French president is correct; it is brain dead. NATO is like the fallen Humpty Dumpty, and all the grandees of Europe and hand wringing bureaucrats can't to put it back together again.
Will President Trump get all he is asking for from South Korea, Japan, and Europe? No, but he will get far more than previous presidents who got essentially nothing from our allies.
Many foreign policy experts argue that the president is wrong to demand more from Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The argument goes that this could make them less cooperative and thereby jeopardizes U.S. security. This misses the fundamental point. The purpose of the alliances as they now exist is essentially to defend those allies, not to defend America. If those allies don't wish to work with the U.S., fine, but they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. And they know it.
None of this to say that U.S. should go it alone for there are military alliances that are of mutual benefit. One example would be with Japan. The U.S. needs Japan to counter China, while Japan needs the U.S. even more to defend itself from China. There are no doubt other alliances that would be useful but the criteria for them must be that they are 1) in the true national interest of the U.S. and 2) appropriately balanced according to the particular situation. Currently most of our military commitments don't meet those standards, and that is what President Trump is trying to fix.
Media coverage of the attempt of the Democrats (and the media) to impeach the president has drowned out other news. That's a pity because what generally has not been reported is President Trump attempt to readjust the structure of our military alliances. Specifically,
In addition to the absurdity of the U.S. carrying an inordinate share of the financial burden of defending wealthy foreign countries, there is another fundamental point. Namely, do these alliances and military commitments actually serve American national interests? Take South Korea as an example. It has twice the population of North Korea and an economy about 50 times greater. Given that, why can't South Korea defend itself with, say, minimal help from the U.S.? The answer is that it can but would rather to continue to freeload on America's back.
As to Europe, the same story holds true. Germany, the economic powerhouse of the European Union, contributes a miserable 1.2 percent towards its defense relying on America to take care of the bulk of it. And the Germans take umbrage when the U.S. dares to complain about this imbalance. As for military commitments, the U.S. technically bound to defend countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. How in heaven's name do any of them contribute to American security? Answer is they don't. On the contrary, those military promises in Europe, like the one to South Korea, put the U.S. at risk.
NATO will hold a Summit of Allied leaders from December 3-4 in London which will mark the 70th anniversary of its founding. This meeting should be interesting to say the least. French President Emmanuel Marcon has already staked out his agenda. He revealed it when he took a swipe at NATO by calling it 'brain dead' in an interview with The Economist. Marcon coupled this with a renewed his call for a European army outside of NATO. This has set the smaller European countries in a near panic. They view Marcon's vision of a united European military force as a pipe dream and unreliable at best. And more importantly, they understandably fear losing American protection because of it.
Sheriff Joe
DA
By ASHLEY PARKER AND DAN LAMOTHE | The Washington Post | Published: November 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.
Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but was convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.
Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation after learning that he had proposed privately to White House officials that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher would be able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia.
Spencer’s private proposal to the White House — which he did not share with Esper during the course of several conversations about the matter — contradicted his public position on the Gallagher case, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES
Esper said in the statement that he was “deeply troubled by this conduct.”
“Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position,” Esper said. “I wish Richard well.”
Spencer’s spokeswoman did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of Spencer’s private offer to the White House when they spoke with President Donald Trump on Friday, Hoffman said.
Spencer’s proposal to the White House came after Trump intervened in the cases of Gallagher and two soldiers on Nov. 15. Countering Pentagon recommendations, the president issued pardons to Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced a murder trial next year, and former 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted in 2013 of the murders of two unarmed men in Afghanistan.
Trump reinstated Gallagher’s rank after the SEAL was demoted as punishment for posing for the photograph with the corpse. As a result of the actions during the past few days, Hoffman said, Esper has decided to let Gallagher keep it.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.
Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but was convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.
Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation after learning that he had proposed privately to White House officials that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher would be able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia.
Spencer’s private proposal to the White House — which he did not share with Esper during the course of several conversations about the matter — contradicted his public position on the Gallagher case, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES
Esper said in the statement that he was “deeply troubled by this conduct.”
“Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position,” Esper said. “I wish Richard well.”
Spencer’s spokeswoman did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of Spencer’s private offer to the White House when they spoke with President Donald Trump on Friday, Hoffman said.
Spencer’s proposal to the White House came after Trump intervened in the cases of Gallagher and two soldiers on Nov. 15. Countering Pentagon recommendations, the president issued pardons to Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced a murder trial next year, and former 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted in 2013 of the murders of two unarmed men in Afghanistan.
Trump reinstated Gallagher’s rank after the SEAL was demoted as punishment for posing for the photograph with the corpse. As a result of the actions during the past few days, Hoffman said, Esper has decided to let Gallagher keep it.
By ASHLEY PARKER AND DAN LAMOTHE | The Washington Post | Published: November 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.
Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but was convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.
Esper asked for Spencer’s resignation after learning that he had proposed privately to White House officials that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher would be able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia.
Spencer’s private proposal to the White House — which he did not share with Esper during the course of several conversations about the matter — contradicted his public position on the Gallagher case, chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Defense Secretary Mark Esper on the sidelines at a Navy-Air Force football game in Annapolis, Md., in October, 2019.
JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES
Esper said in the statement that he was “deeply troubled by this conduct.”
“Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position,” Esper said. “I wish Richard well.”
Spencer’s spokeswoman did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of Spencer’s private offer to the White House when they spoke with President Donald Trump on Friday, Hoffman said.
Spencer’s proposal to the White House came after Trump intervened in the cases of Gallagher and two soldiers on Nov. 15. Countering Pentagon recommendations, the president issued pardons to Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced a murder trial next year, and former 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted in 2013 of the murders of two unarmed men in Afghanistan.
Trump reinstated Gallagher’s rank after the SEAL was demoted as punishment for posing for the photograph with the corpse. As a result of the actions during the past few days, Hoffman said, Esper has decided to let Gallagher keep it.
A self-admitted war criminal was going to get off easy with a single-level demotion before his retirement, but that's not good enough for t.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You mean because being an Operator is easy?
He admitted killing unarmed civilians (including children) from hiding as a sniper and was on trial for killing a wounded prisoner with a knife.
He made that part easy.
Will this lower the annual defense budget? Doesn't say that anywhere. FYI...not a chance.