Author: J.H. Holliday

Thus far I have hesitated to comment on the circus revolving around former FBI Director James Comey, and the special investigation into Russian interference in American politics.  For all the special attention by politicians and news coverage by the media, nothing even remotely damning has been revealed in terms of legally actionable material.  A lot of time and energy has been invested in this situation, only to reveal that all we have is a “he said/he said” situation.  Given that this is the case, until something important is revealed, I don’t care about the investigation and I’m still not going to write anything specifically about it.

More important than anything revealed today is this: nothing has been revealed that would cause President Trump to lose his most valuable and powerful ally; the average American who voted for him.  Let me remind the media and politicians of something very important which, regardless of all the attention that has been drawn to President Trump and this investigation, they both seem to have completely lost sight of:

President Trump is a populist president.

President Trump is the first president in a long time to be elected because his views and understandings of the nation’s problems matched the same views and values of the average American voter.  President Trump was not appealing to either major political party.  He most certainly was not appealing to the media (though hypocritically they find his style irresistibly appealing to their ratings/coffers).  In summary, he was not appealing to any of The Establishment.

As much as many Americans do vehemently detest President Trump and think of his supporters as the basket of Deplorables found after the “proverbial lifting up of a rock,” they still have to face the fact the Deplorables are still  Americans; with just as much legitimate voting power that the progressives, in all their angelic wisdom, have.  Or perhaps President Trump’s opponents are hoping that his supporters represent only a minor portion of the population, and that Russia made all the difference in creating extra votes to get him elected.  

Regardless of what you think of President Trump and his supporters, you must acknowledge that he was elected as part of a considerable and passionate movement that defied everything that The Establishment wanted.  Contrary to everything floating around in the media, there is currently nothing that demonstrates President Trump obtained the highest office in this nation by any means other than fair and legal election.  Despite all the efforts of partisanship, the establishment, and the media, the will of the average American citizen was demonstrated in a very fair and political manner for the first time in a very long time.  

Nobody has stopped to think what would happen if Trump was successfully impeached.  Nobody has considered the potential reaction from his many followers.  More importantly, they haven’t considered the reasons why they wanted him to be the President; so much so that they placed their bets on him against all odds.  There is currently an effort to undermine President Trump (and those who fairly elected him) via bureaucratic processes.  For all their blindness, The Establishment should realize this: there are consequences for ignoring and trivializing the concerns of half your electorate.  This doesn’t necessarily mean revolution.  However, impeachment would certainly be further verification to the President’s supporters that their values have been marginalized by just about everyone in power except President Trump.

The Establishment is so caught up in sensation it has tunnel vision.  Once again, they are forgetting to consult the average American, whom they are supposed to represent.  I have watched coverage across multiple news channels.  I have seen all the standard “experts” consulted on the matter.  By and large, these are all the same people who were consulted prior to the election; most of whom guaranteed a Trump defeat.  And now, more than six months after President Trump was fairly elected, these so called experts are doing the same thing they did before the election; ignoring what the average American thinks and feels.  The Establishment is making the same mistake they made six months ago!  They learned absolutely nothing from the election of President Trump.

I don’t care if President Trump said he expected loyalty from Comey.  I don’t care if a few members of President Trump’s campaign spoke with a few Russians.  You know what I care about?  I care about illegal immigrants that bring crime to America.  I care about defeating Jihadists who want to destroy American culture.  I care about paying ridiculous health insurance premiums while Juan Doe comes across the border and gets free health care.  I care about the difficulty Americans have buying anything that is not made by China or Mexico.  Here is what is most infuriating about all this: after everything the election revealed about the will of the average American, THE ESTABLISHMENT STILL DOESN’T CARE ABOUT WHAT WE CARE ABOUT.  They do not represent our interests.

The American citizens whom The Establishment has forgotten represent what writer Daniel Greenfield refers to as “flyover country.”  They are the citizens who do not belong to the great liberal city-states of the coast whose agenda was upset by the election of President Trump.  Their values and wishes are largely neglected or ignored.  While The Establishment spends all its time and energy creating committees that spin the wheels of impotence, a lot of American’s are out there thinking, “can’t somebody just put a little of that energy toward Making America Great Again?”

But what do we know?  We’re just the “uneducated” basket of deplorables who, unfortunately for the other half of the country, have the right to vote and have our concerns acknowledged.  The Establishment and the progressives may wish that President Trump’s election was the result of Russian manipulation.  But in all likelihood, all those who oppose President Trump will soon have to face the fact he was elected with the solid support of a significant portion of America; regardless of what this investigation finds.

~AD

Share This:

Westerners don’t get it.  

The two attacks by Muslim Terrorists (a.k.a. Islamist Extremists) against the West in the United Kingdom in the past two weeks will probably have minimal effect on the majority of American’s and Europeans.  The major news networks will broadcast a lot of vapid reports, politicians will spew a lot of empty rhetoric, and celebrities will rally around feel good moments like One Love.  With the exception of those present at the attacks, most Westerners will likely go about their lives without much serious thought.

The problem is still out there.  Muslims who follow a strict, literal, and/or extreme interpretation of The Quran will still plot and carry out violent attacks against the West.  In all likelihood, most peaceful Muslims (who make up the majority of the religion) will be content to stand on the sidelines.  This is because they have more loyalty to Islam as a religion than they have loyalty for any nation; regardless of whether they vehemently disagree with a terrorist’s perverted interpretation of their religion.  Many credible studies have proven this.  As for most Westerners; they will be happy enough to ignore the problem of Muslim Terror as long as it continues to be “low-impact” in nature.

Muslim Terrorists launched their most significant attack on the West (thus far) on September 11, 2001.  With the exception of a few minor air travel complications, very little changed for the average Western civilian (unless maybe one has/had a close relative in military service).  Since then, Muslim Terrorists (both foreign and home “grown”) have perpetrated multiple attacks against Westerners from San Bernardino, California to Hamburg, Germany.  Innocent civilians have been run over, stabbed, shot and/or bombed.  Up to this point, a significant number of  Westerners are apparently okay with it; as long as it does not affect them on any large scale.

Westerners will not understand the problem until the storm reaches their door steps and people they know are being injured and/or killed every day.  The Intifada will have to occur on the streets of Los Angeles, London, and Paris before the West begins to take seriously the threat Muslim Terrorists pose to our civilization.  It is imperative then, we start having what Theresa May feebly described as, “embarrassing conversations.”  Well Theresa, I am not embarrassed at all to say this:

“Peaceful and moderate Muslims need to voraciously step up and start being loud in their condemnation of Islamic Terror.  They better start taking significant consideration for preserving, and indeed promoting, the national identity and values of the nation(s) that provide them the many freedoms which allow them to exercise their religion/lifestyle peacefully.  If they do not, and if the terrorists succeed in destroying Western culture, they will find themselves in another version of the same crap-hole country they or their parents left behind.”

Unfortunately, at this point, it may be too late.  Right now, Westerners are too content to accept casualties as long as they occur on a relatively minor scale.  They are too afraid to utter controversial phrases such as, “Muslim Terrorists” and “Islamist Extremists.”  They are happy to limit Military and Law Enforcement abilities to effectively combat crime and terrorism.  They refuse to acknowledge that the lack of assimilation into Western culture by many immigrants is leading to a considerable number of civilians with minimal interest or stake in preserving or protecting Western civilization or national identity.  In fact, too many Westerners feel that challenging multiculturalism in any way is tantamount to Nazism.  No matter what your position, let me pose a hypothetical situation to all Westerners:

Imagine for a second you live in a nation where there is a terrorist attack every day.  You leave your home in the morning and get into your car or hop on the bus, hoping that a car bomb does not go off nearby.  You hesitate to let your children go to the mall for fear they will end up as stabbing victims.  A car backfires and you are tempted to dive to the ground to avoid a potential bomb.  Welcome to the New Intifada; this time it could happen on an international scale.  ISIS is certainly encouraging it.

Since 2015, 13 terrorist attacks have occurred in Europe alone.  All signs point toward the potential for more attacks against the West.  Western leaders have the power and ability to stop, or at least reduce the number of attacks; they’re just choosing not to.  They are willing to accept a few casualties, rather than having any “embarrassing conversations.”  Westerners who want something to be done about it are ignored or shouted down as Xenophobic or Islamophobic.  Any realistic solutions for combating this ideologically-driven terrorism are struck down as “Fascist” or “Racist.”  

Western Civilization is not ready for what could easily start tomorrow.  It has grown complacent and it cannot fathom what is would be to experience The Intifada on an international scale.  With any luck, Westerners will simply learn to live with a level of violence the Israelis have lived with for years.  The leaders of the West have proven either powerless or unwilling to protect their citizens.  Apparently there is very little we are willing to do, or capable of doing, as citizens to hold our leaders accountable for their failure to protect us.

But hey, if it makes you feel better, attend a fundraising concert for victims of Muslim Terror; hold hands, sing Kumbaya and pretend there aren’t still a lot of people out there who want to annihilate your culture and freedoms.  As long as you cry over the victims and spend a few bucks on a good cause, you’ve done your part, right?  As for me, I’m going to be aware of my surroundings and carry a defense weapon wherever legally possible.  We’ll see who survives the New Intifada.

~AD

Share This:

The press conference last Thursday night between President Trump and the American media was excellent.  It is excellent to see the media put in their place for once.  President Trump’s remarks and attitude toward them equate to the feelings that so many American’s have for the mainstream media.  Just as President Trump has struck a chord with many American’s on his political agenda, so has he about the general unhappiness with the mainstream American media.  And just as the mainstream media was out of touch with the needs and wishes of the average American voters, so are they about the feelings the average American has for the media.

The mainstream media has generally gone so far left in this country they can no longer be objective.  Journalism altogether is not what it should be and has become an overall truly sorry occupation.  Whether it’s CNN, the Washington Post, or ABC News, all have gone far beyond the necessary job of reporting news and current events.  They are full of bias, opinions, and a greater focus on sensation than reality.  The media has mistakenly and unnecessarily overstepped their boundaries and become agenda setters.

And who are we allowing to set our agenda?  They are money grubbing, television networks, newspapers, and magazines; many of which are corporate owned.  All of them sensationalize current events instead of reporting on them.  The reason is because the more sensational a story, the higher ratings they get; ergo the more money they make.  What’s worse is most of the major networks and newspapers act as if they are acting in the best interest of the American people.  Many of these reporters and writers view themselves as Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in “All the President’s Men;” keeping the powers-at-be accountable and seeking the “truth.”

In reality, they are a bunch of biased, opinionated, overpaid teleprompter readers.  They are money grubbers just like the people they claim to despise.  They have risen too high in our society and have far too much influence on politics.  The increase in the power they exercise is ridiculous.  When people started giving more credence to what Walter Cronkite told them about the Vietnam War, and less than what their leaders did, that’s where the problem started.  Around the late 1960’s, the American media realized they could turn a nation against its own leaders.  Considering the liberal, anti-establishment nature of the media, this is a dangerous notion considering current events.

The best example of this is the false reporting on the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War.  Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a complete and utter failure for North Vietnam.  It was a victory for the United States and South Vietnam.  It also proved that no matter what North Vietnam threw at us, victory in the war was not even remotely within its reach.  Yet Walter Cronkite, overstepping his bounds and taking on the role of a leader said this, “We are mired in a stalemate that could only be ended by negotiation, not victory.”  First of all, this marked the beginning of the decline in overall support for the war.  Second of all, just where the hell does a know-nothing, leftist, muckraking journalist like Walter Cronkite get off pretending like he knows anything at all about how war should be conducted!?

In fact, about 4 years later, President Nixon’s administration proved Walter to be completely wrong.  In 1972 they decided to do what the American media had made President Johnson afraid to do….wage war the way it should be waged.  They conducted a relentless bombing campaign on North Vietnam; bombing on a scale which had not been seen since the end of the Second World War.  It was an unequivocal defeat for North Vietnam which forced them to sign a peace treaty they had previously rejected.  What do you call that Walter?…stalemate?…negotiation?  Absolutely not.  That’s called victory, Mr. Cronkite.

By that time it didn’t matter though.  For years already, Cronkite and Dan Rather had filled the air with images of American G.I.s burning the huts of Vietnamese collaborators as well as video of executions of Viet Cong fighters.  The American media brought the ugliness of war to the doorsteps of Americans in a way that was never really possible before.  It did not matter to the American public that the United States won battle after battle in the war.  What mattered to them is how the media portrayed the American military as an imperialist force persecuting a poor population of farmers.  The media showed the tragedy and horror that war inevitably is; especially when it is fought to win.  After that, the American public had a false impression of what war is supposed look like, and they lost the stomach for what war actually is.  Congratulations leftist media: you turned American’s into the bunch of wusses they are today.

The media was emboldened by all this; the loss of South Vietnam was their gain.  While thousands of South Vietnamese were sent to “re-education” camps, thousands of bleeding heart hippies, and the news media they worshipped like an omniscient being, celebrated the loss.  Ever since then, American’s give more credit to the media than their elected officials.  There’s no denying America’s elected officials are partially responsible for this.  However, any responsibility the politicians have in Americans’ unhappiness is equally shared by the American media and all the more so; because so many in the media act as if they are beyond reproach.

Personally, I am sick and tired of watching news anchors on television and hearing hosts on talk radio giving me their interpretation of current events.  It’s easy to sit on your ass, drinking your cup of coffee with your little cliff notes in front of you, and bitch and moan about decisions made or actions taken by big companies, the military, politicians, and other individuals.  So many in the media sit around and pass judgment on everyone and everything; doling out their inexperienced and unsolicited advice on subjects they are obviously and shamelessly biased about.  I don’t care if you have a law degree or a novel on the best selling list, I’m not impressed.  At this point, you’re just part of the problem.  Unlike many American’s, I don’t empower you simply because you’re on TV.

If had my way, the news would probably resemble a simple power point presentation on television, with uncommented video feed and photos.  The events of the day would be listed in bullet point fashion and presented factually.  Reporters in the field would be forced to report only known facts; leaving out their own interpretation and keeping the adjectives to a minimum.  It wouldn’t be as entertaining and it is not supposed to be.  If people want entertainment, they should tune in to whatever lame prime time comedy or crude, brain-cell-killing reality show that seems to pass for entertainment these days.  The media also would not be the extreme money maker it has become either.  Nor should it ever be.  If so many journalists were really as altruistic as they act, they shouldn’t care.

The election of President Donald Trump proves how dissatisfied the American public (or at least half of it) has become with the media.  It also demonstrated just how out of touch the media has been with the American public.  Additionally, the media is finally being exposed for what it is.  Overall, the mainstream media is a left wing interest group with a political agenda as serious and large in scope as any politician or major corporation.  So when I see President Trump telling them what fools they are, I get some satisfaction for once.  We have a leader who is not afraid to tell the media like it is and treat them for what they are.

The struggle between President Trump and the media has just begun.  The muckrakers will continue to rake the muck because, ironically, as much as they hate President Trump for what he stands, they love the money he generates for him via sensationalism.  So America, please just realize that the mainstream media has basically become one giant reality show; albeit with a political agenda and a penchant for painting everything yellow.  Or don’t realize it, and allow yourself to be spoon fed your political opinions and values; just don’t preach to me about your moral purity when your mouthpiece is as much a part of the problem as everything else it criticizes.

Share This:

The refugee problem the United States currently faces is a crystal clear, black and white issue.  Thankfully, we now have a president, Donald Trump, who realizes that.  He is living up to his promises to the half of America that also recognizes the problem.  By now, everyone should be aware of the executive order President Trump signed on Friday which indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees, and temporarily bans immigrants from several Muslim-majority nations, from entering the U.S.  For all those bleeding hearts out there crying and bitching in the streets, here is a simple breakdown of the situation that may help you understand the necessity of what President Trump is doing.

Fact 1: We face an enemy motivated by a violent interpretation of Islam.  Not Christianity, not Judaism, not Buddhism, but ISLAM.

Fact 2:  We know a significant majority of Muslim Extremists originate from, and/or are trained within, a particular cultural background and geographic region.  Within that region, Syria is a particularly volatile nation fraught with risks involving immigration; as can be seen by the multiple terrorist attacks in Europe.

Fact 3: Our enemy does not wear uniforms and they do not tattoo their foreheads with symbols identifying themselves as Muslim Extremists.  They are subversives who hide among innocent people (including other Muslims) for the purpose of achieving their violent actions.  They have explicitly told us they wish to destroy our nation and will infiltrate it by hiding among refugees.

Fact 4: Our current system for vetting refugees sucks.  It will take a significant time to develop a better system.  For those who don’t seem to understand this, let me clarify: currently it is very easy for Muslim Extremists who hate the U.S. to enter our country, avail themselves of our freedoms, and then stab as many Americans as they can in a mall or university, for example.

Fact 5:  In order to buy time for improving the vetting process and simultaneously keep our nation secure, it is necessary to stop immigration from areas of risk (see Fact 2); as least on a temporary basis.

It’s very simple: There are a lot of refugees who want to come to this country and Muslim Extremists have explicitly said they will infiltrate our nation using these refugees.  As our president, Donald Trump has an obligation to protect American citizens.  As sad as it is that these refugees are stuck in a bad situation, they are not citizens, and they are just one case among many worldwide.  It is not President Trump’s responsibility, nor the responsibility of every American, to improve the condition of all humanity; definitely not at the risk of jeopardizing our own safety.

All President Trump is attempting to do is slow down the flood of potential threats pouring into our nation.  Since when is it so horrible to slow things down in order to re-evaluate a policy?  A safer U.S. would be beneficial to all.  Refugees seeking a safe home and a secure future would appreciate it if the nation they are coming to is not as chaotic as the one they just left.  American’s should not underestimate the amount of damage that can be done by just a few Muslim Extremists once they are here.  Things can get bad very quickly, and it benefits both citizens and would-be citizens alike to make sure those who are allowed into this nation would not do anything to intentionally harm it.  Regardless of what President Trump does, refugees will not have access to the American dream if there is no dream to come home to.

These bleeding heart protesters need to calm the hell down.  This is not some Hitlerian, genocidal executive order that says all Muslims who want to come to the U.S. are bound for certain doom.  A Syrian refugee asking to come to the U.S. is not going to drop dead all of the sudden because someone tells them, “I’m sorry, you will have to wait, as we are currently re-evaluating our vetting system.  We would like to ensure the man in line ahead of you does not kill you once you arrive in the U.S.”

There will come a time when our nation can be less strict in our immigration but we have to ensure we have a nation first.  This will not be the first time in history that refugees did not get instant gratification.  Hopefully, for their benefit and ours, it will not be the last.

~AD

 

Share This:

This morning Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States.  The protests are already underway in many places.  I do not envy President Trump and the job he now faces.  There is so much dissent in our nation and so many people that are just plainly wrongheaded.  Case in point; Cal State Los Angeles’ so called “Special Interest Housing Community. “

I bring this up on Inauguration Day for two reasons.  First, because it demonstrates the completely backwards thinking that President Trump and his supporters now officially face.  Second, because five days ago was the anniversary of the birth of a man who lead a movement that also faced a similar backwards thinking.  That man was Martin Luther King Jr.

Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with a lot of MLK’s politics.  After all, he was socialist enough in his thinking that he could be considered a Maoist.  However, he was an extraordinary man by any measure.  He led an effective movement to bring civil rights to Black Americans at a time when they faced true discrimination.  Unfortunately for him, he paid for that movement with his life when he was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Fast forward to Fall of 2016 in Los Angeles, California.  The Black Student Union of Cal State Los Angeles petitioned the university to create housing specifically aimed at housing primarily Black students.  CSLA bowed down to this request by setting aside a small group of dormitory rooms to be primarily used for housing Black students.  These rooms are not segregated in a literal sense; students of other races may apply for and live there too.  Having said that, are they aimed at segregating Black students?  Absolutely.

What is ironic and quite tragic is that Black students asked to be segregated.  The Black Student Union at CSLA actually claimed they were subject to “racist attack.”  These so-called attacks included, “racially insensitive remarks and micro-aggressions.”  What a bunch of BS.  Most of these dumb, spoiled students probably have no idea what a real racist attack actually looks like.

MLK and his peers grew up in a time when Black students could be beaten to death simply for walking into a certain college dorm, let alone apply for learning and housing there.  Here we are almost 50 years after his death; Black students are whining because they cannot handle diversity or opposing opinion now that they have been given all the opportunities that MLK and his peers could literally only Dream of.

Part of the objective of going to college is to expose one’s self to different cultures and opinions.  Doing so grants incalculable life experience and social skills, if one keeps an open mind.  All MLK asked of his opponents during his struggle was to keep an open mind.  50 years later, Black students in California are willing to close their minds; they want to live, learn, and socialize only with those of similar background and thought as them.  I dare say that MKL would tell them, “shame on you!”  MLK died so that these spoiled brats could have the opportunity to achieve higher learning and expose themselves to varied cultures and life experiences.

CSLA is not the only university in California offering such a quasi-segregated housing feature.  Stanford and University of California Berkley, both allegedly universities of great liberal thinking, have similar “themed communities.”  What a crock of crap.  It doesn’t matter if students of all backgrounds have access to such communities (thereby allowing universities to deny they are segregated).  What matters is there are students, and apparently officials, who feel the need for such communities to be established.  This is the type of backwards thinking facing President Trump and his supporters nowadays.

I look forward with hope for the future of the United States but with the realization that it will come at some cost.  Things will always get worse before they get better.  The cry babies will go out and riot and protest under the guise of freedom of speech.  Yet, if you disagree with them, they will either trample on your freedom of speech, or they will go hide in their “safe spaces” and “themed communities.”

Is has only been a few hours since President Trump made his inaugural address and already the liberal media is making the asinine comparisons of President Trump to Adolf Hitler.  Meanwhile their liberal followers riot in the streets.  This is the kind of back-ass-wards thinking which has become prominent in the United States today.  The election of President Trump is a step in the right direction but there are clearly a lot of mouth breathers out there working against us.  The struggle has only just begun.

 

~AD

Share This:

Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States.  The overwhelming majority of the establishment and the media would never have guessed it could happen.  When the first polls started closing yesterday, the general mood portrayed by the media was that Mr. Trump had very little chance.  Even a lot of Mr. Trump’s strongest supporters did not know if we were a silent minority or a silent majority, because to reveal our support risked alienation.  So we cast our votes and hoped for the best.  Many of us at the polls felt our votes may be in vain…how quickly that changed.

Now the whiplash has begun; particularly in the mass media.  The majority of those in the media are trying to get a hold of themselves and this “new world” they claim to find themselves in.  So too, are many of the left wing wackos who think Trump’s election is a sign of the apocalypse.  Here’s a message for those of you who are panicking out there:

Calm yourselves; everything will be fine.  No matter what President Trump does or does not do, our country will endure; just as it would if Hillary Clinton were to be our next president.  Stop buying into all the accusations that Mr. Trump and his followers are all “deplorables” hell bent on bringing the U.S. into the Dark Ages.  Stop protesting in the streets with these “resistance” signs, because you are just wasting your time and being obnoxious.  You are not part of some Rebel Alliance, holding off the evil Empire.

Furthermore, if you are one of the vapid celebrities who casually announced you would emigrate upon Mr. Trump’s election: leave.  Put your money where your mouth is because we’re calling your bluff.  Either way Americans win; we either get rid of those who are not really patriots to being with, or we reveal the fact that these self-absorbed celebrities have zero credibility outside of their artistic talents.

I therefore say to Samuel L. Jackson, Cher, Amy Schumer and all the rest of you liberal bleeding-heart entertainers: don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.  None of you will be missed.  Your material will be available to Americans no matter where you go, because you are all the same kind of hypocritical, selfish, money grubbing, work-for-profit zombies you all claim to despise.  America is better off benefiting from your material without having to deal with your hypocritical voice or your vote.

To conclude, I say this:  Donald Trump’s victory is a victory for the United States.  Just as in the case of Brexit, the establishment (which includes the media) has been completely out of touch with the wishes and values of those people they are supposed to represent.  This is why you are all so shocked.  Those of you who have called Trump and his supporters “deplorables” are now getting a wake up call.  The coddled little world you thought you were in was all in your head.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s time to Make America Great Again.

~AD

Share This:

Thanks to social media, Aleppo has recently become the worldwide symbol for downtrodden victims of war.  A major stronghold for anti-government forces, Aleppo has been the site of intense combat since 2012.  For most of 2016, anti-government forces have been under siege in the east side of the city.  Air strikes by the Assad government and the Russians have destroyed substantial parts of the city, as well as wounded and killed many civilians.  On the other hand, counter attacks and artillery bombardments by anti-government forces have also contributed to the decimation of the city and its population.  In other words…it’s war.

Aleppo has been called Syria’s Stalingrad, and for good reason.  Like Stalingrad, there is a feeling of an impending winner-take-all situation for whoever is victorious.  The length and intensity of fighting is also similar, with a relatively high rate of civilian casualties.  The recent and relentless aerial bombardment by government and Russian forces is also reminiscent of the unabashed bombing of Stalingrad by the Luftwaffe.  Having said that, there are stark contrasts between Aleppo and Stalingrad; most of which are related to the difference in the global power structure of our modern time.

For one thing, the Battle of Aleppo is considerably smaller in scale, despite the existence of much more sophisticated weaponry.  For all the bellyaching of the mass media, and their constant whining over civilian casualties, the total fatalities of Aleppo amount to probably less than 5% of the total fatalities of Stalingrad.  There are also many more factions involved in the battle for Aleppo.  Furthermore, many outside powers are considerably more involved in the Syrian conflict than ever existed in Stalingrad.  Lastly, and possibly most important, there was no United Nations at the time Stalingrad was fought.

The last two points are very important because of the overall negative effect the U.N. has on such conflicts.  The U.N. gives almost all parties an equal voice.  It also gives veto power to both sides of opposition within the greater conflict (the United States and Russia).  Thusly, the U.N. has a tendency to prolong conflicts by trying to moderate them.  It could easily be argued that if the U.N. simply let conflicts continue no-holds-barred, one side would win and less lives might be lost in the long run.  In situations where survival of the fittest would otherwise rule, the U.N. repeatedly props up the underdog.

In this particular situation, the underdog happens to be Syria’s anti-government forces and the hapless civilians they use as shields.  The U.N. accuses the Russians and Syrian government of human rights violations because they are official entities.  It is more difficult to attach the same violations to anti-government forces, regardless of the fact they are equally as “guilty.”  Part of this is due to the fact the anti-government groups are basically loosely affiliated militias, tribes, and terrorist groups.  However, as a somewhat prestigious member of the U.N., Russia is forced to “listen” to its demands.

Russia’s recent halt in the aerial bombardment indicates it is either heeding the U.N. warnings of human rights violations or it is simply regrouping in order to strategize.  More than likely, it is a combination of both.  What Russia should do is bomb the so-called rebels into the ground.  Civilians should never be deliberately targeted, but collateral damage should be expected in warfare.  Tragic though it may be, it is simply part of modern war.  The alternative is letting the enemy live another day and thusly, letting civilians suffer an extra day of war.  By constantly pressuring ceasefires, the U.N prolongs the conflict and the overall suffering of all parties involved.

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it.  The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”  He was absolutely right.  Americans better start realizing what Aleppo truly symbolizes: total war.  The media can show all the photos they want of scarred up little boys in a war-torn land.  Unfortunately, that little boy is only one of millions in his local conflict.  He is one of billions in global conflicts.  And he is one of trillions in the earth’s history of global conflicts.  Overall, the Battle of Aleppo is quite unremarkable.

If you are one of the pansies who think the Battle of Aleppo is bad, you should study the Bombing of Guernica or the Siege of Leningrad sometime.  Then again, maybe you should not; it might destroy your flowery view of humanity and make you cry.  There was no international committee to cite either side for war crimes or human rights violations.  Quite simply, there were two sides in an all-out battle for survival.  When it was concluded, there was a clear winner and loser.  And when the battle war over, it was over.

~AD

Share This:

Originally, I was going to ignore this issue because I do not fancy taking part in the gossip muckraking that is the American media today.  However, seeing as how a lot of Americans seem to be reacting to the Trump Access Hollywood audio and resulting accusations against him, it is necessary to address.  Great job American media; you have brought this garbage into politics!

I have to preface this with my stance regarding Mr. Trump’s comments in the leaked audio from Access Hollywood.  This kind of thing always looks horrible taken out of context.  Sure, within a certain context, it can be seen as Trump bragging about sexual assault.  Within another context, it can be seen as perfectly innocent, if not stupid, dirty talk between two guys.  We cannot know for a fact exactly what Mr. Trump was talking about that day.  What we do know for a fact, is how men act.  For all those people out there broadcasting their horror over the comments, let me educate you because it is time you learned about the average male psyche:

Men are disgustoids in human form.  If you did not know that, congratulations; you are now old enough to learn it.  We are all adults here so let’s cut through the BS.  The majority of men take part in, have taken part in, or have been around lewd discussions about women at some point in their lives.  Guys say dumb, provocative, crude, and braggadocious things to each other about the women they encounter.  If you are a guy who has never experienced this, you are in the minority (probably because of the social circle you run in).  Good for you.  Now go forth and compete with Ryan Gosling to see who can create the most unrealistic expectations of man.

Now let’s get to these allegations against Mr. Trump popping up all of the sudden.  Basically you have a her-word-against-his  situation.  As far as I am aware, all the accusations thus far are in regard to incidents occurring years prior, with little or no witness.  The problem with that, on the part of both Mr. Trump and the alleged victims, is that it is the accuser’s word against his.  Since this is the case, it was up to his accusers to take action when they happened; whether via lawsuit or legal prosecution.

We can speculate all we want about why the accusers would wait.  If some or all of them are truthful, I would not presume to put myself in their situation because I have never been there.  I can see the argument that they would be afraid to bring it up because of Mr. Trump’s status and power.  However, to be truly fair; if we are going to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt on their timing, you must also give the accused the benefit of the doubt.  One has to acknowledge the odd timing of all these accusations during such a politically charged time.  If these women did not want notoriety, as one of their attorneys alleges, they likely would not have waited until the accused was a candidate for President of the United States.  If the allegations are true, I am truly sorry the women did not pursue cases in time, because everybody deserves justice.  Having said all this, we have to fast-forward to the facts and reality of now:

These accusers chose to wait until way too late, depending on statutes of limitations.  We do not know for fact whether such allegations are true or lies.  We probably cannot know by now.  One fact we do know, is there is now very little, if any, room to prove Mr. Trump is guilty of such things.  The problem with such allegations coming out now, is they are completely one-sided against Mr. Trump.  All we are left with now is three things: 1) no proof or evidence, 2)the raw emotion of allegedly violated women, and 3) a man raging out against both his accusers and a mass media eating up the stories and regurgitating it 24/7.

The media eats this gossip up because of the raw emotion it provokes; the typical story of the rich, powerful, playboy victimizing the poor, humble, secretary-without-a-voice.  This kind of story makes for good ratings; which makes money.  The media plays on ridiculous complaints of chauvinism, which have been stigmatized by an audio clip that does absolutely nothing to PROVE Mr. Trump’s alleged disrespect for women.  Last I heard, in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty.  If it is too late to prove guilt, you are by default innocent.  American’s probably would not want it any other way.

I do not know if Mr. Trump is innocent of such things or not.  The accusers may be lying or Mr. Trump may be lying.  More than likely, the facts can be found somewhere in between, which is why such situations need to be brought out sooner rather than later.  The fact that multiple women are making accusations means nothing.  Mr. Trump is a successful and controversial businessman and now politician, who has consequently been opened up for attack.  Accusations by themselves are not evidence.  Unless hard evidence or prosecution should ensue, there is no damning evidence against Mr. Trump.

One cannot blame Mr. Trump for his reaction, especially considering there is little or no proof of his guilt.  One also cannot blame Mr. Trump for going after the media, which has been proven to be biased against him.  At the end of the day, we can only fairly judge somebody by the facts we know.  Thus far, the facts only tell us Mr. Trump is a typical potty-mouthed man who has been accused of sexual assaults.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Share This:

In the last couple weeks, two important developments have arisen in the ever-evolving Syrian Civil War.  First, the ridiculous cease-fire organized by the United States and Russia has broken down.  This is not a big deal, as no one paid much attention to the cease-fire anyway.  However, the second development is more important; that of Russia’s deployment of an advanced anti-missile system to Syria.  This is clearly a move against the United States by the Russian government.  Russia is very quickly supplanting the U.S. as the dominant superpower player in Syria.  The U.S. needs to re-evaluate both its position and strategies in the Syrian conflict, and right quick.

This is certainly easier said than done.  There are a lot of players involved and the U.S. could take several different routes in handling the conflict.  Let’s forget the impending change in White House leadership for a moment and think outside the box about U.S. options in the region.  Let’s also pretend the U.S. will act like the hegemon it could be if it allowed itself, and not taken any option off the table.  Several options will be numbered below, though they are in no particularly important order.

Option 1) Support only the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The U.S. could choose to support the various weakened rebel groups that once constituted the FSA.  This seemed to be the overall popular choice made by the Obama administration at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War.  The administration saw a chance of replacing the tyrannical rule of Bashar al-Assad with a more moderate ruling force in the region.  This approach was benign, but extremely naive.  Not to mention the support was weak from the get go.

There are two problems with supporting the allegedly moderate anti-government forces.  First, these rebel forces have been found to be extremely unorganized and disunified.  The FSA does not exist in any significant form any more and it was never that strong to begin with.  Second, the so-called moderate FSA was made up of various rebel groups consisting of Islamic extremist fighters.  The FSA received funding from the U.S. in 2013 but no one really knows who benefited from this support.  It is possible the more extreme groups within FSA received some of those funds.  Al-Nusra Front is the largest off-shoot of the FSA groups and it is internationally recognized as an Islamic Terrorist organization.

The FSA is the perfect embodiment of the chaotic, unreliable, and tribal nature of politics within the Middle East.  Moderate groups do not last long among a tribal culture, as can be seen by the fate of the FSA.  President Obama’s move to support the FSA is an example of Western culture’s lack of understanding of Middle Eastern culture and how to deal with it.  This will be discussed later.  For now, we can conclude that the loose support FSA received from the U.S. has failed to do any good for either them, or the U.S.

Option 2) Support the Assad regime.

This is a strategy likely to be rejected by most Americans because they do not want the U.S. to be associated with supporting a tyrannical government.  This reasoning by itself is stupid, as the U.S. has supported the tyrannical government of Saudi Arabia for decades.  If you reject support of Assad on this premise alone, you better re-evaluate the U.S. relationship with multiple other governments.

Supporting Assad might not be a bad idea.  The history of the modern Middle East is a history of struggle to maintain stability against extremist forces.  Dictators are the ruthless necessity to maintain peace in a land with few resources and a lot of religious extremists.  Post Saddam Hussein Iraq is the perfect example of this.  Hussein, though despicable as a human being, was effective at crushing opposition and keeping his country relatively free of Islamic extremists.  The region was considerably more stable before his removal from power.  His ruthlessness is what provided stability.

The destabilization of Iraq has led directly to the instability in Syria.  Had Iraq not been unstable, Assad would likely have crushed the Arab Spring in Syria and resulting rebel fighters relatively quickly.  There would have been no power vacuum in either nation to be filled by extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Al-Nusra Front (effectively Al-Qaeda in Syria).  Syrians would not be as free, but Europe and the United States would be a lot more secure.  This should be the end goal anyway; let Syrians fix their own country.  

Option 3) Do nothing

This is probably the worst option altogether.  It may save American lives up front, by preventing front line military casualties.  However, it is almost guaranteed to lead to the loss of Western civilian lives in the long run.  Doing nothing will likely mean continuing civil war for years within Syria.  This will translate to a greater threat of terrorist attacks on the West by radical Islamic terrorists who will flourish in a war torn Syria.  Afghanistan is example of how war torn nations are perfect bases for terrorist training camps and supply lines.

Leaving Syria will also send a bad message internationally; that the U.S. is willing to leave the field to Russia.  Syria has become an important battleground between Russia and the U.S. for establishing dominance on a global scale.  This is a battle the U.S. is currently losing, as evidenced by the widespread disregard for U.S. Naval ships in the region by Russia and their ally Iran.  The U.S. can still easily come out ahead if we play our cards right.  Doing nothing is not a card that should be played.

Option 4) Support the Kurds and the division of Syria along ethnic/religious lines.

Let’s face it; Kurdistan is the closest thing to a shining star of success the U.S. has had in Iraq.  It is true the Kurds have their own struggles, but overall Kurdistan in Iraq has seen relative success following the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  The Peshmerga has also seen success in fighting ISIS and they have always held their own against the Turkish government.  If any ethnic group in the world has fought hard for their independence, it is the Kurds.

And as for Turkey…they can go pound sand.  If there is any “ally” in the region who has consistently failed to aid the U.S. when it really counted, it is Turkey.  Turkey would not allow the U.S. to use their bases for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  Turkey continues to support Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al-Qaeda in the region.  The government of Turkey has consistently moved away from secular rule in the past decade.  And although Turkey plays host to some nuclear equipment for NATO, they need us more than we need them.  The Peshmerga has done more in the battle against ISIS than Turkey ever has.

Let the Kurds and their allies merge Rojava (the de facto autonomous region they control) with Iraqi Kurdistan.  Let Israel keep the Golan Heights and split up the remaining territory between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians.  The downside is that war would likely ensue between any newly formed states.  The U.S. should back the Kurds in any resulting conflict, as long as the Kurds do not engage in genocide, terrorism, or anything similarly horrific.  Of all the involved parties in the conflict, the Kurds’ politics are most conducive to Western ideals.  Their rule is based in secular politics, and includes gender equality and sustainability.

Option 5) Play two sides off against each other.

The U.S. has a tremendous opportunity in Syria to let our enemies bleed each other dry.  Hezbollah and ISIS are two of the most far reaching terrorist organizations the U.S. must fight.  Luckily for us, they hate each other with a passion; possibly more than they hate Westerners.  Both of them are essentially proxies for larger opponents.  These opponents are Saudi Arabia/Sunnis versus Iran/Shiites (backed by Russia).  Saudi Arabia supports Al-Nusra, which collaborates with ISIS to attack Westerners and Shiites.  Iran backs both Hezbollah and the Syrian government under Assad (and the Alawite minority).

The U.S. should play both sides just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war from 1979 to 1989.  Let Saudi Arabia and Iran use Syria as a battleground for bleeding each other dry.  Russia should also be allowed to pour military and funds into the region, only inasmuch as they make little material gain.  The Kurds independence should be supported in this scenario also; they can be used as a wildcard to prevent either Saudi Arabia or Iran from gaining an upper hand.  They can also be used as a base for striking at threats posed by any rampant influx of terrorist fighters.

In this option, ISIS should be absolutely crushed before anything.  Raqqah should be bombed to the ground and the caliphate exterminated by a combination of special ops and air strikes.  No mercy should be shown because they do not show any to us.  Destroying ISIS will allow the Saudi Arabian/Turkish backed Al-Nusra to complete their ascension to top dog in the conflict, and thusly allow them to be used as a pawn against Hezbollah.

Such a conflict could be carried on indefinitely.  Syria could become a funnel for channelling Radical Islamists on both sides, Sunni and Shiite, to kill each other off.  Both sides will be weakened, as will Russia if they continue to support the Shiites against the odds.  Saudi Arabia and Iran have been searching for a way to destroy each other for decades.  This could be the opportunity to let them do it without jeopardizing the world’s oil reserves.

One could even hope that the Vietnam effect will take place in Iran if the conflict becomes prolonged.  Iran already suffers from a lack of support among some 80% of its population, who do not enjoy subjugation by theocratic rule.  Such an endless war could weaken the Revolutionary Guard and be the necessary spur the Iranian citizenry needs to throw off their chains.  One could hope.

 

Needless to say, these are not the only options available to the U.S.  Indeed, American’s should not be too quick to take any one option off the table.  Nor should our allies.  The nations of Western Europe are facing a wave of refugees and violence caused directly by the Syrian Civil War.  The threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorism is something all Westerners are facing.  The relatively moderate and peaceful nation of Jordan is also threatened by the chaos in Syria.  The U.S. may very well find allies among any nation that stands to lose from the violence in the region.  However, the U.S. needs to stop dancing around the problem and face it head on; because it is not going away.

~AD

 

Share This:

Southern California was faced with multiple protests this weekend.  Officer involved shootings in the past week in south Los Angeles, Pasadena, and El Cajon sparked protests and/or riots in each of those communities.  Black Lives Matter spokespeople have also commented on the shootings.  In our previous article we presented BLM with the facts regarding violence in the Black community.  Now seems like a good time to offer BLM some valuable advice in regard to changing their approach.  There are some serious changes BLM could make to help more educated and intelligent Americans take them seriously.  Here are some important ones:

• BLM needs to immediately denounce the riots and violence that have permeated their protests, and those of their followers.  Whether this violence is by design or coincidence, it is detrimental to their movement receiving any kind of serious recognition.  BLM supporters disrupting traffic, engaging in property damage, and assaults only gives “the state” legal reason to incarcerate them.  Is that not what BLM is trying to prevent?  Then again, there are many BLM supporters who try to justify the violent behavior and inflammatory language.  To them, America’s past history of slavery and Jim Crow laws is justification for their followers to behave violently.  Yet none of these followers have ever experienced either of those institutions.  Nor have those victims of their violent behavior ever been perpetrators of those institutions.  Smashing store windows and tagging property with graffiti is not a way to get small business owners to support your cause.
• BLM should ditch the outrageous accusations of state sponsored genocide and oppression designed to inflame passions.  Such accusations actually alienate them more than anything.  If BLM wants to expand its support, it needs to stop accusing the establishment of being racist.  Instead, they should focus on specific changes to laws and/or policies they believe to be discriminatory toward Blacks.  They would find a wider, more legitimate, and educated support base if they did so.  Americans are more receptive to criticism if it comes in a constructive manner.
• BLM needs to promote intraracial dialogue.  Before accusing outside forces of being racist, they need to examine racism between Black Americans.  The labels of “race traitor” and “Uncle Tom” are all too commonly used to describe Blacks who dare to imply the problems facing a lot of Black Americans are self inflicted.  There is no doubt racism still exists in the United States.  However, if you want to have an honest discussion about racism between Whites and Blacks, you cannot ignore racism between Blacks and Blacks.

It is a safe bet that BLM will not make any of these suggested changes.  This is because they rely on a support base largely made up of ignorant liberal do-gooders, and/or outright criminals and anarchists.  Furthermore, they rely on videos of law enforcement engaging in uses of force against Black suspects.  These videos are usually useless as far as showing what actually occurred that lead to the use of force.  However, they are perfect in sparking emotional outrage over what appears to be a militarized police force “victimizing” a Black citizen.

Let us take the case of Philandro Castile for example.  The video circulated by his girlfriend via social media takes place immediately after the actual shooting.  Nothing about the video proves innocence or guilt on the part of either Mr. Castile or the officer who shot him.  It only provides us with the general “mood” of the situation after the shooting, where we see a distressed officer and a dying Mr. Castile.  The video is perfect for BLM use.  It gives us no facts about what led to the shooting, and all the emotion that came after.  To the ignorant eye, it shows an uncaring and violent officer and a calm, yet tragic girlfriend.

Thanks to the dominance of social and liberal media, such a video spreads like wildfire; giving the feeling that excessive use of force by police is epidemic.  Such videos are used by BLM and their supporters to advance an agenda.  People are quick to feel sad for the pleading girlfriend and feel anger for the officer who has just taken a life.  Many of these people have been told by Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton for years that they are oppressed and any contact with law enforcement is likely to lead to their death.  This fits pretty well with BLM’s message that the State is responsible for violent Black deaths.  The details of such events are either ignored or sometimes outright lied about by witnesses (i.e. “hands up, don’t shoot” in Ferguson, MO).  Without details of the shooting or knowledge of police training, the public is simply left with a dead Black man, his saddened girlfriend, and a peace officer who has just taken a life.

Maybe the other reason BLM will not make the suggested changes is because they are afraid of finding out how wrong they are.  There are little or no changes to “the state” that need to be made on the grand scale.  If one is to ask the average BLM supporter what specific changes they would make to law and/or policy and procedure, they would not be able to articulate specifically what laws or P&Ps are discriminatory.  Because BLM puts so much emphasis on police shootings, we will examine them a little more closely in the next article.  We will also get into some specific strategies BLM could use if they are truly interested in decreasing violent deaths among Black Americans.  As it stands right now, BLM will only make things worse if they continue their current approach.

Share This: