The End Of Identity Politics

womens_marchFrom Victor Davis Hanson

Who are we? asked the liberal social scientist Samuel Huntington over a decade ago in a well-reasoned but controversial book. Huntington feared the institutionalization of what Theodore Roosevelt a century earlier had called “hyphenated Americans.” A “hyphenated American,” Roosevelt scoffed, “is not an American at all.” And 30 years ago, another progressive stalwart and American historian Arthur Schlesinger argued in his book The Disuniting of America that identity politics were tearing apart the cohesion of the United States.

What alarmed these liberals was the long and unhappy history of racial, religious, and ethnic chauvinism, and how such tribal ties could prove far stronger than shared class affinities. Most important, they were aware that identity politics had never proved to be a stabilizing influence on any past multiracial society. Indeed, most wars of the 20th century and associated genocides had originated over racial and ethnic triumphalism, often by breakaway movements that asserted tribal separateness. Examples include the Serbian and Slavic nationalist movements in 1914 against Austria-Hungary, Hitler’s rise to power on the promise of German ethno-superiority, the tribal bloodletting in Rwanda, and the Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish conflicts in Iraq.

The United States could have gone the way of these other nations. Yet, it is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals. […]

That is, in large part why this experiment has worked, it doesn’t matter who you are, you have got a shot. It may not be a fair shot, by any means, let alone your lights, but it’s a shot, all the same. It’s worked, and it’s worked pretty well, overall.

In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision—“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo.

A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states. […]

In doing so, she (and some before her) have gone far to negating the social contract that built America.

Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs.

The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

via The End Of Identity Politics

I’ve skipped a huge amount here, especially of his reasoning, which is sound. So, by all means, read the link. But what stands out here, is the idea of America, where we count the individual, not the group (increasingly, groups) to which he belongs. I think he’s correct, and I suspect we are going to be exploring some of the material we’ve written about lately, in more detail.

The Conservative Counterculture

Kind of funny, really. When I was a kid (in the 60s) I was a hopeless square, being conservative, and even believing in God, although I had my problems with Him, as most do. But, hey, look at us now.

Yes, I know, Infowars. But, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…

And you know, he’s right. I don’t especially like Milo, or some of his beliefs, what I do like is that he’s out there, doing it his way. Bookworm recently said this:

Milo Yiannopoulos — rude and crude, but also smart, brave, funny, and bitchy. He’s a necessary counterweight to Progressives’ lethal Political Correctness.

With a swirling debate about whether Milo Yiannopoulos will be a keynote speaker at this year’s CPAC, I have a confession: I didn’t like Milo Yiannopoulos when he first popped up on my radar. At a first, superficial, glance, he was everything that rubs me the wrong way: His humor seemed to rely on crude insults and too often to trade in racial and religious stereotypes, he relentlessly leveraged those insults and stereotypes into media face time which seemed to drag conservativism down not build it up, and he had that whole drag queen vibe. I have issues, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, with the drag queen vibe. Having reached these conclusions, I dismissed Milo. There. Done.

The thing is, if you’re a conservative, Milo is not a person who can be — or should be — dismissed. I first got an inkling of this from my teenage son. Sick and tired of being on the receiving end of misanthropic third-wave feminist tirades at his school (which cannot be challenged because doing so is an unacceptable manifestation of cisgender male privilege and domination), he headed to the internet looking for rebuttals to these feminists. Even if the school’s uber-liberal environment bans voicing the rebuttals, at least he had the comfort of knowing they were there.

My son’s research led him directly to Steve Crowder and Milo. He appreciated Crowder’s unflinching, and almost invariably funny, take Islam’s issues with the West and he was completely awed at Milo’s ability to (in my son’s words) “destroy those feminazis.” My son therefore insisted I watch Milo’s epic feminazi destruction in action. I agreed, somewhat worried that I’d get one of Milo’s unpleasant, uber-queenie, racist, shock-value moments. Instead, I got this:

I hope you see what I see: A young man in complete command of the facts, debating at a high intellectual level using arguments familiar to most conservatives, and politely, completely, and matter-of-factly destroying the feminist mantra. Without being in any way offensive, he left those two women looking foolish and uninformed.

Here was a young, hip, edgy, gay, Jewish/Greek/Catholic guy attacking the Leftist shibboleths that so irritated my son. Without my putting any pressure on him, my son regularly hunted down both Milo’s and Crowder’s videos. (Incidentally, my focus on Milo here is not meant to denigrate Crowder’s virtues. It’s simply that he’s a less controversial figure, so I don’t feel compelled to go to his defense.) No wonder, then, that my son, unusually for a kid his age in my “true Blue” county was remarkably sanguine when Trump won.

All very true, in my experience. So we had the kerfluffle yesterday when Milo supposedly defended pedophilia. But did he? I doubt it. Book updated that post, here is what she said.

[And timing is everything. The day after I wrote an encomium to Milo, who speaks forcefully about (among other things) gender dysphoria and the danger to children in bathrooms, PJ Media claims he supports gay pedophilia — or, at least, being a provocateur, provocatively says things he implies he does. Milo is certainly firm in his outrage against the accusation. His defense makes sense to me, especially given how familiar I am with gay culture thanks to growing up and working in SF. This new data point doesn’t change the main points below. Here’s the deal: gay culture is different and one of Milo’s strengths is that he says America should not subordinate itself to gay culture.]

UPDATE: Milo seems to have been destroyed. Despite his books status as a best seller, Simon & Schuster has dumped it. Breitbart is silent about him.

As best as I can tell, thanks to Stephen Green’s research, these are the two worst things Milo said that would lead to an accusation that he’s a pedophile:

Milo’s money quote, which was edited out of the video, is this:

The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

And this was edited out as well:

“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty… That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

In other words, Milo never said that he had sex with little boys or that he intended to do so. What he did say was that older gay men often introduce younger gay men into sex. I certainly saw that enough when I was living and working in San Francisco. It was too common practice for sexually confused 20 or 22 year olds to be taken under the wing of a 30 or 40 year old gay man. It was not pedophilia, it was gay mentoring and it’s obvious that Milo is referring to that practice.

As for Milo’s comment about pedophilia being a perverted passion for children who have not gone through adolescence, he’s correct. He’s also correct that children mature at different speeds. In my neighborhood, one kid at 12 had a nascent mustache and a voice deeper than my husband’s. Another finally got his growth spurt when he went off to college, although he’s still not shaving. Having said that, Milo made it clear that, given this variability, he has no problem with the current age of consent laws.

It’s very disturbing that this take-down of one of the most effective voices for conservativism came from the #NeverTrump crowd having a petty pique fit over Milo’s invitation to CPAC. Having said that, the information was out there, and if the renegade right hadn’t published it, the Lefties would have and in a way that was even worse.

I’ve heard from friends that Lefties are already piling on to this man who did nothing wrong other than making observations about the realities of the gay world and the physical maturation process. More than that, I find it incredibly ironic that this tut-tutting comes from the Left. These are the same people who demand that condoms, birth control advice, and abortion information should be given to kids as young as 11 in their schools, and who insist that a child can get an abortion with an adult okaying it something that is, of course, the best possible way for a true pedophile to destroy any genetic evidence of his crime.

And by the way, if this seems familiar, you’re seeing the same takedown that the Left and #NeverTrumpers did to Trump. He observed accurately enough that, if you’re rich and famous, women will indeed let you do anything to them. He did not say that he took advantage of this reality, yet he was instantly called a molester and subjected to the harshest castigation. And of course, most of the screaming came from the same side that was fine with Clinton raping women and using the pressure of his fame and power to coerce a women young enough to be his daughter to engage in a sordid workplace affair.

This whole thing sickens and disgusts me. We are in a political sewer in our country.

Yep, and so here you see what happens, Book, a nice Jewish lady in her 50s and me, a conservative Christian in my 60s, defending a brash young Brit, because he was essentially set up – again. We’ve both seen it time and time again, and enough is enough. I don’t agree with anyone, all the time, but I’m not the guy, and neither are you, that has, or should have the power to tell them, “sit down and shut up”. It used to be a free country, and with luck, and people like Milo, it will be again.

Do read her post linked above. But here’s the thing, what’s happening to Milo is exactly what the establishment tried to do to Trump. Trump is a well-known quantity, and because of it (and his personality) is known well enough to withstand it, even thrive on it. Milo maybe isn’t yet. He’s the same sort of brazen, in your face guy, but he works in an area that causes discomfort to many of us older guys, me included. But, my discomfort is no reason for him to be silenced, by anyone, neither is yours. What we call “Freedom of Speech” would be better named “Freedom to Offend” because that is what it is. If Milo had done actual pedophilia (and his definition is correct, ages of consent are a modern thing, because not all mature at the same rate, and we have wished to protect those that mature slower) that would be one thing, one that objective law would deal with, saying things, even things we may find distasteful or wrong is not.

The fact that this happened is even more proof that the puritans of the left (including many Republicans) simply can’t handle dissension. That is why Freedom now lives on the right, and Milo is one of its spokespeople. The left has become ‘the Man’ and this is the sound of people speaking truth to power. Deal with it. Because conservativism, no matter what the pearl clutchers think (even the #never Trumpers), has become the counterculture.

Paul J. Watson wrote about this recently in Canada Free Press and you should read that as well.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”  This long overdue counter-reaction is, in fact, (as Milo and PJ Watson note) the vanguard of a new counter-culture—conservatism.

Let me be quick to point out that I am not referring to “conservatism” as it has been understood in the past—and the new conservatism should by no means be confused with the so called “neo-conservatives” (neocons), who are, of course, left wing big government globalists posing as right-wing conservative Republicans.  (Many of the Republican #NeverTrumpers come from their ranks).

Although the new counter-cultural brand of conservatism that I am talking about carries with it many key elements of traditional conservatism—such as a passion for freedom, patriotism, capitalism, religious freedom, and tolerance—it tends to be more pragmatic and less ideologically obsessed, more open-minded and less dogmatic than traditional conservatism.  Sort of libertarianism on a leash, with a dash of brash impertinence.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom.  As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.  Academia has become, in a word, repressiveMuch more repressive than they ever thought of being back in 1968.

American academia has morphed into a purveyor of Draconian thought policing that is diametrically opposed to what the counter-culture of the late 60s purportedly fought for.  Perhaps the strangest of the leftist campus reversals is from a “If it feels good do it” hedonism to a type of hysterical pearl-clutching puritanism.  In any event, it is way past time for a radical shift in direction.  I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

The “long march through the institutions” created not [a] collectivist utopia, but privileged elites in media, academe, and government whose stock portfolios, bank accounts, affluent zip-codes, and tony life-styles [are] indistinguishable from those of the robber-baron capitalists they demonized.—Bruce Thornton “Leftism:From Bloody Tragedy to Therapeutic Parody

via Hip Conservative Counter-Culture Vs. Repressive Liberal Establishment

It’s awfully late, but we’ve finally become the cool kids, just in time, I think.

Jane Rowe, RIP

norma_mccorvey_jane_roe_1989_cropped-269x300It has been announced that Norma McCorvey, who we all know as Jane Roe has died. We all know that her lawsuit, pushed all the way to the Supreme Court (mostly by feminist activists who used her) was the case that allowed abortions in the United States. What isn’t so well-known is the rest of her story. Gene Veith wrote the best I’ve found on it, which is far better than I could.

Norma McCorvey, who went by the name of “Jane Roe” in the infamous Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, has died at the age of 69.

After winning the Supreme Court case, McCorvey became active in the pro-abortion movement.  But the kindness of a pro-life demonstrator at an abortion clinic led to her conversion to Christianity.

She then became a pro-life activist, battling the abortions that in another life she made legal. […]

She became involved in a lesbian relationship, but after she became a Christian, they became celibate.  After her conversion, she was an evangelical, but she later become Roman Catholic.

Her life is a remarkable testimony to the grace of God, who redeems sinners and changes them.

via The death and new life of “Jane Roe”

I couldn’t agree more, the grace of God is very strong in her story. Gene also excerpted the AP obituary, which I’ll also copy.

Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision that legalized abortion but who later became an outspoken opponent of the procedure, died Saturday. She was 69.

McCorvey died at an assisted living center in Katy, Texas, said journalist Joshua Prager, who is working on a book about McCorvey and was with her and her family when she died. He said she died of heart failure and had been ill for some time.

McCorvey was 22, unmarried, unemployed and pregnant for the third time in 1969 when she sought to have an abortion in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except to save a woman’s life. The subsequent lawsuit, known as Roe v. Wade, led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that established abortion rights, though by that time, McCorvey had given birth and given her daughter up for adoption.

Decades later, McCorvey underwent a conversion, becoming an evangelical Christian and joining the anti-abortion movement. A short time later, she underwent another religious conversion and became a Roman Catholic.

“I don’t believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it’s still a child. You’re not to act as your own God,” she told The Associated Press in 1998.

[Keep reading. . .] 

Rest in Peace.

Sunday Miscellany

cor-mrz021617-color_orig

It’s Sunday, I’m late (and lazy) so here’s some stuff for your education and enlightenment, without working too hard.

w1056

 

w1056-1

 

9999991

w1056-2

w1056-3

w1056-4

And, of course

w1056-5

The Republic and the Preppers

downloadOk, this kerfuffle with General Flynn is either a tempest in a teacup or it may well be the most serious threat to the Republic ever, including the secessionists back in 1860. Too soon to tell, and by the time it is, it may well be too late to do anything about it.

That means that we may end up looking stupid as hell, but we can not and must not allow this to be swept under the rug.

My friend Ooobie, spent a good many years working for the Feds, as did her husband, I’ve found her views to be logical, and rational over the last few years. I do here, as well.

I watch astounded at the audacity of ignorant thugs hired by the left wreaking havoc on our nation. They are the paid hounds of hell, loosed on our society to force confrontation between the Marxist-Leninists (aka socialists) and the deplorables, also known as right-wingers, Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists, and so on. (Did you ever notice how communists is never a dirty word for these guys?) I see that the unhinged Sarah Silverman became terrified by the neo-Nazi symbols painted all over New York. Those were, of course, utility markings that actually bore very little resemblance to a swastika. A woman contemptuous of Israel on a daily basis, she used her Jewish card to excuse her stupidity. Everything, including the tracks of slalom skiers, reminds her of swastikas, like the hiss of a snake is ingrained in a bird’s brain. Another tweeter skewered her stupidity with a series of tweets featuring “neo-Nazis” (utility workers) doing various neo-Nazi things, like raising the Iron Cross (a utility pole) that bore an obvious resemblance to “T” for Trump. He’s funny. She’s just, well, stupid.

Let’s be frank. There is a paid and coordinated effort to create public hysteria (the Russian menace; the Nazi regime) in order to feed approval for acts of subversion and treason against an elected president and the USG. They want to bring down Trump, and are happy to tear down the Constitution, individual rights and public order to do so. I worked for years for the USG, as did my husband. I have never seen this kind of open sabotage by people paid out of public funds. There was always a Democrat preference, but never the deliberate undermining of superiors. This is scary and shameful. This is unprecedented. These people want permanent power and we are the mote in their eye. […]

Another issue: the Russophobia. The degree of hysterical coverage of Russia has surpassed anything I have ever seen, which includes the entire Cold War. It is not a coincidence that this rise in public fear happens months after the USG funded a major program (under Obama) to counter Russian propaganda with US propaganda aimed at Russia.[…]

The two memes, that Russia is a major threat to the world and that they stole the US election for the evil Donald Trump, could bring an end to our system of government. We have reached a point where the rotten brats brought up in our indoctrination camps, aka public education, think a one-party dictatorship is a good thing, but only if they are it. Otherwise, “by any means necessary.”[…]

Here is what I want to see. I want to see the immigration raids continue relentlessly. I want to see the leakers tracked down and arrested and held without bail pending trial. I want an investigation of John Brennan and Mike Morell. I want an investigation into Soros funding of the rampant violence. I want both the Clinton server crimes and the Clinton Foundation crimes investigated. And I want to see the back of the Clintons (despite those ugly big saggy asses).

I usually have been a few years ahead of the curve in my predictions, although this year is a real drag on my average. But I’ll venture this. We are headed into a deliberately provoked civil war. Prepare for it.

For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.

via Sedition and treason stalk America | Ooobie on Everything Do read it.

There’s much I could add here, but there is little point. Ooobie is correct. This is not very far from a coup attempt, against an elected president by the bureaucracy this is why yesterday, I quoted President Eisenhower, he more than anybody else, in my lifetime, saw this coming. No doubt he thought it would be different, we rarely are given to see clearly into the future.

Then again, common sense could, I suppose, break out, and we can all go back to sleep. But I don’t think so, this time. There are too many who have been bought and paid for, by whatever you want to call that group, who adamantly oppose the very concept of the nation-state. To be honest, I see much the same happening in Britain, where the Brexiteers are often being shunted off to the side. On the continent, it’s worse, just ask Geert Wilders and others.

What’s unique this time, I think, is that it is a fair slice of the people, against the government, allied with the part of the population that has the idea that they are better fitted to rule than the people as a whole. As in Ooobie’s comment on Sarah Silverman above, and there are any number of examples, most of which I have, and will continue to, ignored. They aren’t. I’m not entirely sure they’re qualified to change their own diapers. They certainly haven’t the education to be anything but unemployed, nor have they enough social graces to be allowed in to dinner in the meanest of traditional homes.

As Ooobie said, “For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.”

I would only add, “Buy more ammunition.

Eisenhower, Flynn, and Trust

michael-flynn2-article-headerA bit more than 56 years ago President Eisenhower gave his farewell speech, he left us with a warning but first he talked about who we were.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Has anything really changed? Sure the Soviet Union is in the dustbin of history, but it seems to me we face much the same enemy now, just by another name. He also said this:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The only thing I would change in this is to add the intelligence community and the corporate news industry to the military industrial complex.

Seems to me that is what we are seeing play out now. You all know Bill Krystal, the supposedly conservative writer, well how about this?

I hate to say it, but to me, it comes pretty close to sedition.

Particularly since by all appearances, General Michaels Flynn’s ouster was nothing less than a political assassination.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline says this

I have a few thoughts about the resignation of Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn. First, I’m calling it an “ouster” because it appears to be the result of a campaign against him. Indeed, Eli Lake calls it a “political assassination.”

Lake quotes Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House intelligence committee, as follows: “”First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus.” “Put another way,” Lake adds (melodramatically?), “Flynn is only the appetizer; Trump is the entree.”

This doesn’t mean Flynn didn’t deserve to go. If there was substantial reason to believe that he intentionally misled the administration about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, this was sufficient reason to oust him. […] Trump himself has tweeted:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

That’s a question that goes to the heart of American foreign policy. Paul adds

Intelligence analysts began to search for clues that could help explain Putin’s move [his announcement on December 30 of last year not to respond to the Obama administration’s sanctions]. The search turned up Kislyak’s communications, which the FBI routinely monitors, and the phone call in question with Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with years of intelligence experience.

Whether the contents of the phone call were obtained by monitoring the ambassador or by monitoring Flynn, I think Trump is right. The leaking of those contents is a big part of the story, and a disturbing one.

The media-intelligence community pipeline is a swamp that needs to be drained. But can it be?

That is the umpteen trillion dollar question. In large measure, the future of the Republic hinges on it.

Why? Because American have always in large measure been able to trust our government to act in America’s interest. This calls that into question, and then we get to what the guys at Right Angle are talking about.

What that trust is, in large measure, is the rule of law, and that is what has allowed the Anglosphere to far outpace the rest of the world in every sphere.
%d bloggers like this: