“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Robert Gilbeau is in a heap of legal trouble. In June, he became the first active-duty Navy admiral in modern history to be convicted of a felony. Next month, he faces sentencing and could land in federal prison for up to five years.

2013:


Fat Leonard and the Decline of Military Values

The officer corps was once assumed to be above larger cultural rot. No more.

Samuel P. Huntington concluded The Soldier and the State (1957)his influential study of U.S. civil-military relations, with this comparison of the U.S. Military Academy and Highland Falls, New York, the village situated just outside the gates of West Point:
West Point embodies the military ideal at its best; Highland Falls the American spirit at its most commonplace. West Point is a gray island in a many colored sea, a bit of Sparta in the midst of Babylon. Yet is it possible to deny that the military values—loyalty, duty, restraint, dedication—are the ones America most needs today?  ….  Upon the soldiers, the defenders of order, rests a heavy responsibility.  The greatest service they can render is to remain true to themselves…. If they abjure the military spirit, they destroy themselves first and their nation ultimately. If the civilians permit the soldiers to adhere to the military standard, the nations themselves may eventually find redemption and security in making that standard their own.
Once upon a time, as a young serving soldier of conservative temperament, I found Huntington’s idealized depiction of the professional military ethic to be immensely appealing. It accorded precisely with my image of myself and of my calling. Yet Huntington was describing aspiration, not reality. As actually experienced, military service differed considerably from Huntington’s ideal.
Huntington depicted an inherently conservative military profession that defended, even as it stood in tension with, an inherently liberal social order.  The values of that profession demanded that its members abjure liberalism and stand apart from that order. So Huntington believed.

Yet his juxtaposition of the bland and boring Highland Falls with the serenely ordered West Point was off the mark. Temptation lay not immediately outside the gates but further downriver in the garish glitter of Manhattan.

Liberalism per se poses a negligible threat to military professionalism. Far more dangerous are inclinations and attitudes that have seized American culture in an age when neither liberal principles nor conservative ones retain real standing, and when the gratification of appetites, whether material or sexual, has become one of the defining markers of our age. Bright lights, big city: that’s where the temptations to abandon loyalty, duty, restraint, and dedication reside.

What prompts these observations are two ongoing military scandals. The one scandal affects the Marine Corps, and involves misconduct by an anonymous group of (probably enlisted) Marines. Centering on gender, it has drawn attention from journalists and members of Congress, who assiduously patrol the gender beat. The other scandal affects the U.S. Navy and involves senior officers up to the rank of admiral. Years in the making, it attracts only intermittent attention.
In my own judgment, the Marine scandal, if by no means trivial, qualifies as the lesser of the two. An organization calling itself Marines United, perhaps involving as many as 30,000 participants, created a restricted web page on which it posted photographs of nude women, apparently without consent of the subjects. Some of those women were themselves Marines.  

This stunt qualifies as a grotesque and repugnant violation of privacy. Yet in an age where claims to privacy are everywhere besieged and when our infatuation with social media has created an online world where just about anything goes, it falls something short of shocking. The incident offers one more example of the detritus that the wondrous information age is leaving in its wake. As the journalist Christina Cauterucci acknowledged, pausing to catch her breath while subjecting Marines United to an extended rant, “This is the same tactic used by boys in middle school and high school, who create secret ‘slut pages’ on social media, where they distribute any private nude photos they get from girls in their grade.”
Just so. Such behavior is degrading, stupid, unacceptable—and everywhere. 

Far more important, in my view, is the ongoing Navy scandal, known under the rubric of “Fat Leonard.” Weighing in at an impressive 350 lbs., Leonard Glenn Francis was, until his conviction on charges of fraud and bribery, CEO of an outfit called Glenn Defense Marine Asia. GDMA specialized in providing support services to ships of the Navy’s Seventh Fleet operating in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Fat Leonard himself specialized in plying officers of the Seventh Fleet with cigars, liquor, pricey wristwatches, concert tickets, vacations, and other gifts—not to mention five-star dinners and suites in luxury hotels, often with prostitutes as an added bonus. In return, these officers threw business to GDMA, which then overbilled the U.S. government to the tune of several tens of millions of dollars.

Scores of serving naval officers became Fat Leonard’s de facto agents in this sleazy enterprise. According to an investigative report in the Washington Post, “Francis doled out sex and money to a shocking number of people in uniform who fed him classified material about U.S. warship and submarine movements.  ….  He exploited the intelligence for illicit profit, brazenly ordering his moles to redirect aircraft carriers to ports he controlled in Southeast Asia so he could more easily bilk the Navy for fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water and sewage removal.”

As of last year, 30 U.S. Navy admirals on active duty were under investigation for their suspected involvement in this conspiracy. That investigation, which dates from 2010, continues.  Earlier this week, authorities arrested Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, a recently retired Navy intelligence officer, along with four retired Navy captains and a retired Marine colonel. Previously three other admirals had been censured and forced to retire. Another has pled guilty to related charges, as have several officers of lesser rank. Almost certainly, there will be further indictments forthcoming.

Christina Cauterucci accuses Marines United of “putting U.S. national security at risk.” That’s hyperbole. When it comes to the officers who sold their souls to Fat Leonard, however, the charge fits. Yet while bringing to justice those who committed crimes at Fat Leonard’s behest is imperative, examining the underlying factors that have produced such egregious corruption qualifies as more important still.

We confront evidence of an officer corps that has lost its moral bearings, abandoning the “military standard” for something quite different. To assume that the rot is confined exclusively to one particular service would be a grave mistake.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative’s writer-at-large and a non-resident senior fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute.

100 comments:

  1. Navy officials said that, unlike other officers convicted in the case, Gilbeau was allowed to retire in October because he had filed papers to leave the service years ago as part of a disability claim.

    The Navy granted the request, but not before demoting him from rear admiral to captain. As an officer with 33 years of service, that reduced his pension by about $1,000 a month, according to Defense Department retirement data.

    The Navy also slapped him with an "other than honorable" discharge - a black mark on his military record, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Always file a disability claim to cover your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A retired Navy Rear Admiral and eight other high-ranking military officers were indicted on corruption-related counts in what authorities say was the "fleecing and betrayal of the United States Navy in epic proportions," the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego announced last week.

    According to a report by Fox 5 San Diego, Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, of Coronado, was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery and conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud.

    ...

    Besides Loveless, those charged Tuesday were:

    -- Capt. David Newland, former chief of staff to the Seventh Fleet commander;

    -- Col. Enrico DeGuzman, who coordinated Marine missions with the Seventh Fleet;

    -- Capt. James Dolan, an assistant chief of staff in charge of the fleet's logistics;

    ...


    Bribery Case

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fleecing and betrayal of the United States by politicians in Washington, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A North Korean missile appeared to have exploded on Wednesday just after it was launched, the U.S. and South Korean militaries said after detecting the latest in a series of weapons tests by the nuclear-armed state that have alarmed the region.

    ...

    U.S. President Donald Trump rebuked Kim on Sunday, saying the North Korean leader was "acting very, very badly".

    ...

    Japan's Nikkei index and South Korean stocks extended losses slightly after news of a North Korean launch broke but trade was steady overall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RISING IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE NAPOLITANO


    March 22, 2017
    Fox Throws Judge Napolitano under the Bus
    By Daniel John Sobieski

    Fox News anchor Bret Baier likes to end his Special Report broadcast with the claim that Fox News is “fair, balanced and unafraid.” Well, Fox News seems not to be fair when it throws contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano under the bus for linking surveillance of Team Trump to Team Obama’s links with British intelligence.

    Apparently, Fox News isn’t as “fair and balanced” as it pretends to be. While it endlessly repeats totally unsubstantiated claims of Trump critics of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as repeatedly dismissing Trump claims of Obama administration surveillance of Trump tower, they have dared to take Fox News contributor Judge Napolitano off the air for repeating what three intelligence agents told him -- that the Obama administration in fact had British intelligence conduct the surveillance so as not to leave a trail. As the Los Angeles Times reported:


    The former New Jersey Superior Court judge, citing unnamed sources, said that the British foreign surveillance agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, “most likely” provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s recorded calls.

    “By bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints,” Napolitano wrote in a column on FoxNews.com.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s charge last week when asked why President Trump continues to stand by his initial claim. The British spy agency sharply denounced Napolitano’s allegations, saying they are “utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."

    Fox News, along with its brethren MSNBC and CNN, apparently has no trouble endlessly repeating reports from unnamed sources of collusion between Team Trump and Russian operatives. Yet it dumped Judge Napolitano for challenging the mantra of the herd that Team Trump is guilty and Obama is innocent. Napolitano raised the British connection in a Fox News Opinion column on March 16:

    Sources have told me that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ -- a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms -- has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump’s inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family.

      Of course, American intelligence agencies, as well as the British, are denying the story. Either Judge Napolitano is doing some sloppy reporting or these agencies are lying. They have lied before, particularly about whether the American people were under surveillance by the NSA.

      Trump has been skeptical of the conclusions of Clapper and the intelligence community and rightly so. Are we to believe the likes of James Clapper, who once reassured the Congress that the NSA wasn’t conducting surveillance of the American people?

      As U.S. News and World Report noted, his recent resignation didn’t assuage critics who believe that Clapper, like other Obama administration personnel, dodged a perjury bullet when he testified before Congress on the issue of NSA surveillance of American citizens:

      Some lawmakers reacted to the long-expected resignation announcement from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Thursday by wishing him an eventful retirement, featuring prosecution and possible prison time.

      The passage of more than three years hasn’t cooled the insistence in certain quarters that Clapper face charges for an admittedly false statement to Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir" and "not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans.

      About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the answer was untruthful and that the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.

      To his critics, Clapper lied under oath, a crime that threatens effective oversight of the executive branch. In an apology letter to lawmakers, however, Clapper said he gave the “clearly erroneous” answer because he “simply didn’t think of” the call-record collection.

      Critics who say President-elect Donald Trump has no right to disparage our good and faithful intelligence servants or to be skeptical of the intelligence they gather might be willing to accept “least untruthful” answers but others are not. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in June 2013 after Clapper’s testimony:

      ...Director of National Intelligence James Clapper struggles to explain why he told Congress in March that the National Security Agency does not intentionally collect any kind of data on millions of Americans. "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no,'" Clapper told NBC News on Sunday.

      Delete
    2. Least untruthful? Lying to Congress and the American people is just that, except in Clapper's mind. And it seems to depend on the meaning of "collect," a reminder of President Bill Clinton's defense that charges of his lying depended on the meaning of the word "is."

      Are blanket collections of data, even just phone numbers, on large swaths of America a good idea? In 2006, when George W. Bush was in office, Joe Biden, in a rare moment of lucidity, told Harry Smith on CBS' "Morning Show" of the pitfalls of what the NSA is doing now.

      "Harry, I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing," Biden said. "If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talk to, I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive.

      "And the real question here is: What do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al-Qaida?"

      U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the NSA surveillance program was in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Ironically, it was Judge Andrew Napolitano who noted in Fox News Opinion:

      In the first meaningful and jurisdictionally grounded judicial review of the NSA cellphone spying program, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee sitting in Washington, D.C., ruled that the scheme of asking a secret judge on a secret court for a general warrant to spy on all American cellphone users without providing evidence of probable cause of criminal behavior against any of them is unconstitutional because it directly violates the Fourth Amendment.

      Readers of this page are familiar with the purpose of that Amendment and the requirements it imposes on the government. The Framers intended it to prevent the new government in America from doing to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists under the king.

      The British government had used general warrants -- which are not based on individualized probable cause and do not name the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized -- to authorize British soldiers to search the colonists wherever they pleased for whatever they wished to seize.

      Clapper defended and lied about an intelligence agency unconstitutionally spying on the American people. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about his conclusions and those of others on Russian hacking and Team Trump’s alleged collusion?

      Delete
    3. Clapper and others, including, apparently Fox News, may think that the Obama administration is incapable of such an act, the Obama administration that used the IRS in a way Richard Nixon only dreamed of, targeting the Tea Party movement that had arisen in opposition to Obamacare. Such an act would indeed make Watergate look like, well, a third-rate burglary. Clapper forgets as well how the NSA and the Obama administration spied on world leaders, starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and reporters like Fox News’ own James Rosen:

      President Barack Obama knew of the organization’s spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- and approved of the efforts, a National Security Agency official has reportedly told a German newspaper.

      The Economic Times writes the “high-ranking” NSA official spoke to Bild am Sonntag on the condition of anonymity, saying the president, “not only did not stop the operation, but he also ordered it to continue.”

      The Economic Times also reports the official told Bild am Sonntag that Obama did not trust Merkel, wanted to know everything about her, and thus ordered the NSA to prepare a dossier on the politician.

      Of course, the Obama administration was not above surveillance of the press and treating respected reporters as, well, criminals. Take the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen, named by the Obama administration as a criminal co-conspirator in a case involving violations of the Espionage Act:

      The Justice Department named Fox News's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a 2010 espionage case against State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The accusation appears in a court affidavit first reported by the Washington Post. Kim is charged with handing over a classified government report in June 2009 that said North Korea would probably test a nuclear weapon in response to a UN resolution condemning previous tests. Rosen reported the analysis on 11 June under the headline 'North Korea Intends to Match UN Resolution With New Nuclear Test'. The FBI sought and obtained a warrant to seize all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and an additional two days' worth of Rosen's personal email, the Post reported. The bureau also obtained Rosen's phone records and used security badge records to track his movements to and from the State Department.

      Judge Obama and the intel agencies by their illegal actions and their lying words. Judge Andrew Napolitano by his track record of impeccable credentials and unchallenged integrity. Judge Fox News by their action throwing Napolitano under the bus. Fox News – unfair, unbalanced, and very much afraid.

      Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publication

      Delete
    4. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/fox_throws_judge_napolitano_under_the_bus.html


      In the end I predict Napolitano will be looking a lot better.

      My opinion of Fox is sinking fast.

      They still have Sandra Smith....and she's enough to keep red blood American males of any age tuned in, and tuned up, too.

      A woman with a wicked smile straight out of poetry....




      Delete
    5. Why is Clapper/Crapper walking around free ?

      And Comey definitely needs to experience the inside of a jail cell.

      Delete
    6. If you believe the British 'denial' you are even more naive than Quirk, easily more so than Smirk.

      Delete
    7. .

      Another silly rant by the clown prince of idiocy.

      He puts up an extensive screed that contains everything but the kitchen sink...oh yeah...and PROOF. 20 inches of diversion, dissembling, and obfuscation but not an jot of PROOF.

      Fox afraid? I think not. They were merely cutting their losses.

      Listing a bunch of dicks and liars (along with everyone else) who say something isn't true doesn't make that something true, a simple logical premise our Idaho mensa candidate seems incapable of grasping.

      .



      Delete
  7. If totalitarianism comes to the USA it will come from the left not the right

    March 22, 2017
    A Republic, if You Can Keep It
    By Kevin Cee

    When Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the anxious citizens gathered outside, a Mrs. Powell, asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?” Immediately, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    Well, so far we have.


    We have kept it for a number of fundamental reasons. One reason is the peaceful transfer of power. When a winner is declared in an election, the other side is not happy, of course, but its adherents accept the voters’ will and begin the task of strengthening their party in order to regain power in the next election.

    Another reason is the basic trust that the people have in their fellow countrymen, in the press, and in their government. They believe, and they are willing to accept their inherited approach to governance. None always gets what he/she wants, but basically everyone trusts that the system itself still functions as established by the Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson said, Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it." A third fundamental reason is that Americans have been committed to and willing to obey the laws that govern us. The law is the law, and we believe that we should obey the law even though at times we do not agree with it. Since the founding of our nation, Americans have believed that basically our laws are good for them, for their friends and neighbors, and for their country.

    Of course, these previously mentioned tenets are not the only ones that account for our becoming a great nation, but they are fundamental and indispensable to our becoming what we have become. Because of them we have kept our republic.

    But now we cannot take the survival of our republic for granted. Now, we must ask ourselves if we can keep it. What has changed?

    Today, the leaders and soldiers of the left have declared war on their fellow Americans and on our republic. They have declared war on anyone who disagrees with them. They will not accept any view of government other than their own. In fact, the left are so completely convinced of their own infallibility that they are prepared to resist and disobey any and all laws not conforming to their own views. Those who have not seen the light that they espouse are to be vilified and silenced. Therefore, they vociferously deny the unenlightened the right to express their opinions. Any who are suspect, in their minds, are a danger to our country and do not deserve the right to express their views. Anyone who disagrees with their vision of a just society is publicly denounced.

    Goals that they cannot achieve by means of the ballot box, by propaganda from their coconspirators in the press, by indoctrination in the nation’s classrooms, by under-the-radar edicts from the shadow government bureaucracy, or by leftist judges are condemned. They are absolutely determined to eliminate any and all disagreement, including anyone who opposes them, by means of constant and aggressive intimidation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The left and their ardent followers possess the truth. They know how to eliminate all the evils that they perceive in our nation. Like all those who see the truth, they have no tolerance for any proposed alternatives or for those who may espouse other tenets. They are the “true believers”, as described by Eric Hoffer.

      Inequality must be eliminated. Social justice must be achieved. That is what they say. That is what they tell the people. However, if one watches what they do, one readily discerns that what they do does not necessarily correspond to what they say. As in Animal Farm, all the hogs are equal, but some are more equal than others. They say that they are committed to helping the American people, but they are more committed to getting their own way.

      In the present instance, they are challenging the results of the last election.

      Donald Trump won the election, but the leftists insist that he will never be their president. There has been no peaceful transfer of power. The leftists do not agree with the voters who supported Trump in the election. Therefore, based on their beliefs, they insist that he should not be president, and they are committed to disrupting the governmental process and to delegitimizing Trump’s presidency. The left is determined, by any means -- legal or otherwise, to foil Trump’s every effort in order to assure that only those programs in keeping with their own priorities be approved by the members of Congress.

      What the left is doing may make them feel good, and they may even be successful. However, in the long run they will be unsuccessful because of what they are doing to our country.

      In the first place, what will be the result if they break and discard our tradition of the peaceful transfer of power?

      In the second place, what will be the result if they create conditions in our country in which the people no longer believe?

      Delete
    2. In the third place, what will be the result if they undermine our system of laws and the model of a law-abiding citizenry? What will be the result if everyone adopts the current position of the leftists that they are bound to obey only those laws that they want to obey?

      The obvious answer to each of the questions posed in the previous paragraphs is frightening. They are frightening because the answer conjures up the inescapable outcome. In a society is in which all are free to contest the voters’ will in elections, in which the erosion of trust makes governance impossible, and in which the rule of law in no longer viable in society, anarchy reigns.

      Without the three fundamental components that have enabled us to keep our republic we will find ourselves going down a slippery slope, the slippery slope toward anarchy.

      And even though anarchy itself is unacceptable, the end result of anarchy is even worse.

      History tells us that in most societies the people will not tolerate anarchy. Not surprisingly, they prefer the order of dictatorship to the disorder of anarchy, and that is the typical historical outcome for countries in which powerful forces do not accept the peaceful transfer of power, in which they create situations to undermine peoples’ trust, and in which they refuse to obey the nation’s laws.

      Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, one of the most successful governmental systems in the history of the world.

      Can we keep it?

      When Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the anxious citizens gathered outside, a Mrs. Powell, asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?” Immediately, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

      Well, so far we have.

      We have kept it for a number of fundamental reasons. One reason is the peaceful transfer of power. When a winner is declared in an election, the other side is not happy, of course, but its adherents accept the voters’ will and begin the task of strengthening their party in order to regain power in the next election.

      Another reason is the basic trust that the people have in their fellow countrymen, in the press, and in their government. They believe, and they are willing to accept their inherited approach to governance. None always gets what he/she wants, but basically everyone trusts that the system itself still functions as established by the Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson said, Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it." A third fundamental reason is that Americans have been committed to and willing to obey the laws that govern us. The law is the law, and we believe that we should obey the law even though at times we do not agree with it. Since the founding of our nation, Americans have believed that basically our laws are good for them, for their friends and neighbors, and for their country.

      Of course, these previously mentioned tenets are not the only ones that account for our becoming a great nation, but they are fundamental and indispensable to our becoming what we have become. Because of them we have kept our republic.

      But now we cannot take the survival of our republic for granted. Now, we must ask ourselves if we can keep it. What has changed?

      Delete
    3. Today, the leaders and soldiers of the left have declared war on their fellow Americans and on our republic. They have declared war on anyone who disagrees with them. They will not accept any view of government other than their own. In fact, the left are so completely convinced of their own infallibility that they are prepared to resist and disobey any and all laws not conforming to their own views. Those who have not seen the light that they espouse are to be vilified and silenced. Therefore, they vociferously deny the unenlightened the right to express their opinions. Any who are suspect, in their minds, are a danger to our country and do not deserve the right to express their views. Anyone who disagrees with their vision of a just society is publicly denounced.

      Goals that they cannot achieve by means of the ballot box, by propaganda from their coconspirators in the press, by indoctrination in the nation’s classrooms, by under-the-radar edicts from the shadow government bureaucracy, or by leftist judges are condemned. They are absolutely determined to eliminate any and all disagreement, including anyone who opposes them, by means of constant and aggressive intimidation.

      The left and their ardent followers possess the truth. They know how to eliminate all the evils that they perceive in our nation. Like all those who see the truth, they have no tolerance for any proposed alternatives or for those who may espouse other tenets. They are the “true believers”, as described by Eric Hoffer.

      Inequality must be eliminated. Social justice must be achieved. That is what they say. That is what they tell the people. However, if one watches what they do, one readily discerns that what they do does not necessarily correspond to what they say. As in Animal Farm, all the hogs are equal, but some are more equal than others. They say that they are committed to helping the American people, but they are more committed to getting their own way.

      In the present instance, they are challenging the results of the last election.

      Donald Trump won the election, but the leftists insist that he will never be their president. There has been no peaceful transfer of power. The leftists do not agree with the voters who supported Trump in the election. Therefore, based on their beliefs, they insist that he should not be president, and they are committed to disrupting the governmental process and to delegitimizing Trump’s presidency. The left is determined, by any means -- legal or otherwise, to foil Trump’s every effort in order to assure that only those programs in keeping with their own priorities be approved by the members of Congress....


      Delete
    4. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/a_republic_if_you_can_keep_it.html

      Delete
    5. .

      I see that even your posting the same article twice didn't help it make sense.

      .

      Delete
    6. Didn't it ? Damn. Was trying to help you.

      Delete
    7. And quit with the talking with me just any time you please.

      You must ask polite permission first.

      :o)

      Delete
  8. By the way, Maxine Waters is really really really nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

    Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10-million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work."

    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/ex-trump-campaign-chair-manafort-had-plan-to-benefit-putin/article34380509/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile



    A client of yours Deuce?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      You have to wonder if he violated FARA and if so what the penalties could be.

      Then, of course, if he didn't report the income there are also tax complications and the IRS.

      It will be interesting to see the complete story.

      .

      Delete
  10. One of Quirk's assimilated seems to have attacked Parliament, or Westminster, or Buckingham Palace or somebody named Abby or one of those fancy English places. The Peers are peeing in place, so some accented man is saying.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I say, as a Parliamentarian, we realize we operate in a high risk environment, as we should say....humpf humpf...."

      Sounds like a number of chaps got gun to mush on some bridge too....

      Delete
    2. "It would not be right, under the circumstances, to continue with today's business..."

      Delete
    3. 'No one can say if it is a terrorist attack though it is the anniversary of the terrorist attack in Belgium. President Trump is being briefed.'

      Delete
    4. Any hunch about it being a terrorist attack, Quirk ?

      Delete
    5. .

      Rumor has it the guy was a tourist from Idaho.

      .

      Delete
    6. I thought London Bridge got moved to Lake Havasu City.

      Delete
    7. .

      Surprisingly, London has more than one bridge.

      .

      Delete
  11. .

    The genius of Donald Trump...

    The leader of 'the party of Lincoln' tells us, 'Most people don't know that Lincoln was a Republican'.


    You can't make it up.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of people don't. Particularly people in big cities like Detroit. They don't think he could be a Republican because he freed the slaves, and everybody knows Republicans are evil slavers.

      The 'education' system in places like Detroit really really sucks.

      The kids would do as well standing around on street corners smoking dope.

      Which is what most do anyway.

      Delete
    2. By the way, if you are so damn smart, why aren't YOU President ?

      You got enough time on your hands for the job.

      Delete
    3. .

      It would be too big a cut in pay.

      .

      Delete
    4. True enough.

      Be a real hair cut, like you get at Ye Olde Mafia Barber Shoppe.

      heheheheheheheh

      Delete
  12. .

    It appears complaints about the amount of money spent by the Obama's for travel during his presidency will soon lose their relevancy.

    The Secret Service is requesting an 'additional' $60 million for security for the Trump family most of it associated with travel.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfectly reasonable.

      The Donald has a larger family.

      Delete
    2. They are out and out hypocrites Quirk - bald faced and unashamed.

      Delete
    3. You just want The Donald and his whole family dead.

      Admit it.

      Delete
    4. After all, you little shit, you called him a 'fascist'.

      Delete
    5. You bald faced, unashamed, out and out hypocritical punk.

      Delete
  13. The women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive.

    Perhaps the prohibition should be extended to all mooslims worldwide.

    They are always driving over people to make some idiotic point or other.

    It becomes tiring....

    ReplyDelete
  14. House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected...

    'ALARMED' AS DETAILS WIDELY DISSEMINATED....DRUDGE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Polling shows we have achieved consensus. Almost everyone hates James Comey
      Mar 22, 2017 12:21 PM by Jazz Shaw

      We can all come together

      http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/22/polling-shows-we-have-achieved-consensus-almost-everyone-hates-james-comey/

      If The Donald has the power to fire that worthless turd he should do it.

      Delete
    2. John Podesta, in bed with the Russians all along
      March 22, 2017

      John Podesta's fake narrative about Russians hacking the election and Donald Trump colluding with them is about to be blown out of the water. More

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/john_podesta_in_bed_with_the_russians_all_along.html

      Delete
    3. Nunes: Intelligence Community ‘incidentally collected’ info on Trump transition officials
      Mar 22, 2017 3:01 PM by John Sexton

      “…the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition.”

      http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/22/nunes-trump-transition-officials-were-under-surveillance-after-election/

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. .

      You'll have to be quicker than that, Doug. I know how it feels. I've done the same thing.

      .

      Delete
  15. Most people don't know the name of a single Supreme.

    ...although I will never forget Diana Ross.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martha

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdvITn5cAVc

      Delete
  16. 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME?'

    Donald Trump Jnr slams London mayor Sadiq Khan for saying ‘terror attacks are part of living in big city’


    Part of the assimilation process.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3152554/donald-trump-jnr-london-terror-attack-sadiq-khan/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald Trump Jr. said roughly 2 hrs. after the attack: today:

      "You have to be kidding me?! Terror attacks are part of living in the big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan,"

      Referring to what Sadiq Khan said 6 months ago:

      "Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job,”

      ----
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/donald-trump-jr-criticizes-london-mayor-hours-attack-article-1.3005640




      and Doug gets his panties in a twist.


      Delete
    2. who has a fake news problem?

      Delete
    3. I Guess the Sun and Don Junior in this case.

      Sadiq Khan still not my idea of an ideal Mayor.

      Delete
    4. Shows how far Great Britain has fallen.

      Delete
  17. All in one convenient place -

    House Intelligence Committee
    House Intel Chair: Trump's Personal Calls May Have Been Collected
    Disclosure May Bolster Trump's Claim He Was Under Surveillance
    Nunes: "I'm Actually Alarmed"


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comey kept Obama, Clapper, and Brennan among others up to date after July 2016, but Congress was not notified until now.

      More evidence of Trump's paranoia.

      In QuirkWorld.

      Delete
    2. Trump vindicated, Quirk shamed, mocked laughed at....

      Delete
    3. Odd that the FBI is evidently not investigating the only crimes that actually DID occur:

      Unmasking Flynn and leaking to teammates in the media.

      Delete
    4. .

      :o)

      More silliness from the dynamic duo.

      How friggin stupid are you morons?

      House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected...

      'ALARMED' AS DETAILS WIDELY DISSEMINATED....DRUDGE


      Widely disseminated?

      What bullshit.

      Nunes, former Trump transition member, takes 'classified information', information he got from...well, at this point no one knows where he got it, to President Trump directly before showing it to the Democratic head of the committee or for that matter any members of his own intelligence committee.

      Timeline:

      On Monday, Nunes berated Comey for casting a cloud over the White House.

      Today, he cast a cloud over his whole committee's efforts thus spreading the cloud.

      He gets 'classified information' from somewhere. Where? He says from a 'secret source'. Good lord, do you mean from a 'leak'. Hilarious. Seems like the only 'deep state' we have here is that generated by the Trump administration.

      Then instead of notifying his committee co-chair he runs over to the White House to talk to the president.

      Then, again without telling other committee members he holds a press conference and notifies the public.

      No one has seen the information that Nunes has but Trump. Nunes does say that there was nothing illegal about the collection whatever that collection was. When pressed by reporters, he said he didn't know if the president was surveilled. He also said he wasn't sure how the information was collected. He couldn't say whether it was a wire-tap or some other means.

      Although, the new information in no way implicates Obama, Trump then says he feels partially justified. The man is either deluded or feels he has enough people covering his ass that he can get away with anything.

      I repeat, what bullshit.

      The is just another example of Trump and his team trying to obfuscate, delay, and deny. Nunes'
      effort to provide cover to Trump is as ham-handed as Napolitano's claims about GCHQ.

      Nunes has personally compromised any claims to independence of the House Intelligence Committee. The question now becomes whether Nunes has illegally released classified information. After this politicization of the process, expect more calls for an independent investigation or a special prosecutor.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      The Nunes incident adds more credence to the theory that Trump's claims that the Deep State is out to get him is just so much bull created by the Troika to hides Trump's real intentions.


      Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State


      What better way to decimate the bureaucracy than to convince Americans it’s treacherous?

      .

      Delete
    6. Politico a middle-right source in QuirkWorld.

      Delete
  18. Trump will luck out if he loses the vote on ObamaCare, says an inside source.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best course would be to pass it in the House, lose in the Senate and blame the Democrats.

      Delete
  19. .

    After all, you little shit, you called him a 'fascist'.

    Comments like this have encouraged me to follow through on my threat of making the case that Trump is indeed a fascist. In fact, I plan on posting a 3 part opus titled as follows.

    Part 1: Donald Trump a Fascist? Oh yeah.

    Part 2: Promises Made. Promises Broken.

    Part 3: Donald Trump - A Psychological Profile

    Because of the expansive nature of this expose, it will be posted in a serialized format released over a number of days.

    [Note: Readers may want to cut and paste the various posts on this expose into a separate file folder so that when it is filled in with more detail (what we in the publishing industry refer to as filler)and published in a leather bound edition, the reader can brag that they have their own set of 1st edition author's notes.]

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [Note: Readers may also want, and are advised, to scroll past the whole stew of B.S.]

      Delete
    2. it will be posted in a serialized format released over a number of days

      Giving the author plenty of time to high tail it out of Detroit.

      Delete
    3. (and go in hiding from scorn and mockery, the usual responses to this author's 'work')

      Delete
    4. Preliminary interrogatory:

      Why would a 'fascist' nominate a decent civilized intelligent center/right judge like Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court ?

      And to the swing vote position, at that ?

      Delete
    5. Follow up interrogatory: Why wouldn't he just shut down the Supreme Court and, in good fascist fashion, rule by decree ?

      Delete
    6. This is going to be fun !

      Taking Quirk apart limb from limb !

      Delete
    7. Quirk would pass a lot less high octane gas if he'd try to psychoanalyze Kim.

      Delete
  20. .

    Trump World: Alt-right Reality in an Alt-right Dimension

    PROLOGUE

    In describing Trump, the man, I have decided to examine three key factors that reflect the nature of the man, his political philosophy, his nature as a populist con man, and the psychological issues that drive the man. I have divided the discussion into 3 sections each discussing one of those three factors.

    Section 1: Donald Trump a Fascist? Oh yeah!

    Bob has taken me to task for calling Donald Trump a fascist. However, I merely meant the term as objectively descriptive not as invective or pejorative. Let's try to keep this serious discussion dignified.

    There are numerous definitions for fascist or fascism. Umberto Eco, a noted novelist who grew up in Italy under Mussolini explains why.

    http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

    It may seem to tax one word to make it account for so many different cultural manifestations of authoritarianism, across Europe and even South America. Italy may have been “the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country,” and got to name the political system. But Eco is perplexed “why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements.” For one thing, he writes, fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.”

    While Eco is firm in claiming “There was only one Nazism,” he says, “the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change.” Eco reduces the qualities of what he calls “Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism” down to 14 “typical” features. “These features,” writes the novelist and semiotician, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”


    If you run a search for the definitions of fascism you will come across a Wikipedia entry that lists a number of the more well known descriptions including that of Eco. It was his description that I used in describing Trump as a fascist.

    {…}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {…}


      In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[11] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:

      • "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism…
      • "The Rejection of modernism"…
      • "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
      • "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
      • "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
      • "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
      • "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
      • Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will...


      {...}

      Delete

    2. {...}

      continued...

      • "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
      • "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
      • "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
      • "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
      • "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
      • "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

      I will try to show how Trump amazingly displays ALL of the characteristics of a fascist.

      {...}

      Delete

    3. {...}

      Section 2: Promises Made. Promises Broken.

      In the second part of this expose, I will attempt to list all the ways Trump has played on the hopes of the poor and ever shrinking middle class in this country that put him in office and then betrayed them by not only ignoring the promises he made but by proposing legislation that would negatively affect these people leaving them worse off than ever. I will point out that he is simply an amoral con man more interested in his own interests than those of the country.

      Section 3: Donald Trump: A psychological profile.

      In section 3, I will attempt to point out the pathologies that drive Trump, where they came from, how long he's displayed them, and what we can expect his prognosis to be.

      As you can see, there is much to discuss. That's why this expose will be serialized. It will follow the outline I just presented.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      The prologue is enough for now as I have other things to do.

      The next post will be titled:

      Trump World: Alt-right Reality in an Alt-right Dimension

      Part 1: Donald Trump a Fascist? Oh yeah!

      Characteristic 1 of 14: The Cult of Tradition


      .

      Delete
    5. Start with this one, Lame Brain:

      • "The Rejection of modernism"…

      Then explain The Trump Tower, the Trump jet plane(s),the Trump choppers, the Trump escalators, the Trump Golf Courses, Trump communication equipment, and, basically, The Trump Whirlwind Tour.....etc etc etc

      He's not exactly turned his back on the wheel, the wing.....the jet engine.....not to even mention the motorized golf cart...


      Bwabwabwabwabwabwabwabwabwabwahehehehehehahahahahahahhahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    6. .

      I realize you are wetting your pants in anticipation, old timer, but you have seen the outline. You will just have to wait. Try crossing your legs.

      ,

      Delete
  21. Quirk wrote:

    "[Note: Readers may want to cut and paste the various posts on this expose into a separate file folder so that when it is filled in with more detail (what we in the publishing industry refer to as filler)and published in a leather bound edition, the reader can brag that they have their own set of 1st edition author's notes.]"









    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Straight Talk From QuirkWorld:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cff3a752e9cd2343eff4502a4c1e10e1eac3a68f4596af364fb1982511711f4b.jpg?w=600&h=195

    ReplyDelete
  23. QuirkWorld's Truth Seekers:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/white-house-unmasking-team.jpg?w=768&h=768

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bwabwabwabwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  24. .

    For What It's Worth: Poll Cites Trump's Dropping Approval Numbers

    President Trump's support among Republicans, white voters and men is dropping, according to a new survey.

    A Quinnipiac University poll finds that the president has a job approval rating of just 37 percent. Fifty-six percent of respondents disapprove of the job the president is doing.

    In a March 7 survey, the president had a job approval rating of 41 percent, compared to 52 percent who disapproved of the president.

    The recent survey found that 43 percent of men approve of the job the president is doing, compared to 49 percent who approved of the president in a survey conducted earlier this month.

    Slightly more than 80 percent of Republicans now approve of the job the president is doing, down from 91 percent in the March 7 survey.

    And 44 percent of white voters approve of the president in the latest poll, down from 49 percent.
    The poll also found that 60 percent of voters think the president is not honest and 55 percent think he doesn't have good leadership skills.

    Fifty-seven percent of respondents believe the president doesn't care about average Americans,
    according to the poll. A majority of voters believe the president is a strong person and is intelligent.

    Nearly three-quarters of voters think the president and his administration make statements "very often" or "somewhat often" without evidence to support them.

    The poll was conducted from March 16 to 21 among 1,056 voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. SEBASTIAN GORKA HAS MORE BRAINS IN HIS LITTLE TOE THAN QUIRK HAS IN HIS ENTIRE QUIRK NOGGIN

    ReplyDelete
  26. India, the US, France, the European Union on Wednesday strongly condemned the deadly attack in London that killed at least four and injured 20 people.

    ...

    Four people have been killed, including the male attacker, and at least 20 injured in the attack.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another example of The Donald's 'rejection of modernism' -

    His refusal to Tweet


    Bwabwabwabwabwabwabwahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet another of The Donald's 'rejection of modernism' -

      His refusal of the TV Interview, or even to be seen on TV


      BWABWABWABWABWABWABWABWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Po' Quirk, he's really put his shoe in the shit this time !

      Delete
  28. "Terror attacks are part of living in a big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan."

    Khan had said the threat of terror attacks are "part and parcel of living in a big city" and emphasised the value of preparedness.

    ...

    "London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life," Khan said.

    "We always have, and we always will."

    Khan became the first Muslim to be elected mayor of a major Western capital city in May 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Latest Tweet from Q-Tweeter:

    In his rejection of modernism Trump is Amish

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ciaran Jenkins, a correspondent for Britain's Channel 4, asked Trump on Twitter if he thought his remarks were "helpful".

    "Did you even read the article before goading London's Mayor during a live incident?" he wrote on Twitter. He added, "Headline is based on very first sentence, which if you'd bothered to read it could apply to any major city in the world.

    ...

    Trump declined to elaborate on his tweet later. "I'm not going to comment on every tweet I send," he said in an email.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well, well, well. Guess who got caught. As I said. They do it. They did it. Because they can.

    ReplyDelete
  32. CYA time will now accelerate the flight to safety.

    ReplyDelete
  33. In other words, risks to countries involved in the war against IS will rise as its fortunes in its so-called caliphate slide. IS is on the ropes in its Middle Eastern strongholds.

    This makes it more dangerous to Western interests.

    In London, and among Britain's allies, political leaders have hastened to express solidarity, but all would be aware that such ritualistic professions of support and concern will not provide a foolproof shield against the next Islamist-inspired terrorist attack.

    The question is not if, but when and where.

    ReplyDelete