Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

Dying For Nothing Day

America, Globalism, Government, Hillary Clinton, Military, Neoconservatism, The State, War

A brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can ~ ilana (2003)

It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. My sympathies go out to Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I cannot honor that lie, or those who give their lives for it, and take the lives of others in America’s many recreational wars. I mourn for them, as I have from day one, but I can’t honor them.

I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars and assorted informal attacks. My heart hurts for you, but I won’t worship at Moloch’s feet to make you feel better.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.

I can legitimately claim to know of flesh-and-blood heroes who fought so that I could emerge from the bomb shelter (in the wars of 67 and 73) and proceed with my kid life. I always stood in their honor and wept when the sirens wailed once a year. Every Israeli stops on that day, wherever he is, and stands still in remembrance. We would have died or been overrun by Arabs if not for those brave men who defended the homeland, and not some far-away imperial project.

But can we Americans, in 2013, make such a claim? Can we truly claim that members of the American military killed Iraqis or Afghanis or Libyans so that we may … do what? Remind me?

What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

Ultimately, it is “for the love of a brother-in-arms, and ‘Big Brother’ be damned,” explained Robert Glisson. This is why they of the “Patriot Guard Riders,” his band of brothers, truly fought. Men fight for one another and not for the causes imputed to them by the cowards who send them to battle.

The military is still a government job; a career path with huge risks. How fast the so-called small government types forget this immutable truth. From the appropriately titled Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program (which the military has become):

“When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”—ILANA (Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program.)

AND, from Classical Liberalism And State Schemes:

We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.
“philanthropic” wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects, if you will. The warfare state, like the welfare state, is thus inimical to the classical liberal creed. Therefore, government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. As I’ve written, “In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because free people understand that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government (‘great purposes’ in Bush Babble), the poorer and less free the people.”

*Image credit

UPDATED (7/30): The Robert Mueller Inquisition Is The Star(r) Chamber By Any Other Name

Donald Trump, Government, Hillary Clinton, Justice, Law, Republicans, Russia, The State

No matter how you slice it, support for the The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, with its “storm-trooper tactic” and overweening, extra-constitutional powers, is WRONG, whether headed by Kenneth Starr or Robert Mueller. The moniker Star(r) Chamber stuck for good reason. Republicans conducted such a witch hunt; Dems are doing it now  Tucker the Great expresses regret for supporting the first.

Another honest man is Democrat Mark Penn.

Via Real-clear Politics:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Mark Penn was for many years one of the highest-level advisors to Hillary Clinton. He’s the author of the new book, “Microtrends Squared”, he joins us tonight. Mark, thanks a lot for coming on.

MARK PENN, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON CHIEF STRATEGIST: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, you wrote kind of an amazing piece the other day in “The Hill,” titled something like, questions I have for Robert Mueller. Tell us some of the questions that if you could ask, you would.

PENN: Well, remember, Tucker, I spent a year working with President Clinton against Ken Starr and that effort.

CARLSON: Well, I remember very well.

PENN: I just find that that was child’s play to what’s going on here. And I think Mueller has some questions about what the president was thinking when he fired Comey. Well, I certainly have some questions about what he was thinking when first he went to apply for the FBI job in the first place with Rosenstein. And then, turns around the next day, didn’t he already have a plan when he turned around.

Boy, when he put that team together, and there wasn’t a single Trump donor, what was he thinking then?

And when he looked at these dossiers and discovered that there was no foundation there, how did he deal with that? How does he justify these kinds of really stormtrooper tactics, I think is perhaps not an exaggeration, when you go guns drawn to political consultants, wiretapped all over the place over payments to porn stars?

This thing has gotten out of control. And while he wants to question the president, it seems that no one could really question either Mueller or Comey or Rosenstein, and that is precisely the problem.

CARLSON: Yes. It is the problem. And I hate to admit it since I supported the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation, and I look back in shame because of that. But that was the case that the Clinton people made at the time, there’s no oversight here. And that’s a huge problem.

And it turns out you were right about that.

In your piece, you made reference to his behavior in Boston when he worked there in the Whitey Bulger case. Briefly summarize that, if you would, because I thought it was really interesting.

PENN: Well, really the question – and I think Professor Dershowitz has really been out on this thing. But in the Bulger case, there were four innocent people in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct. And he was head of the office.

And so, you do not really find him in the legal cases, but that means he waited until the courts overturned things to release the people. And so, what was he thinking when that was happening? How did he permit that? How did he permit these kinds of gross abuses? And how does he then supervise an investigation now that seems to be filled with them?

CARLSON: Mark Penn, again, you have authority on this subject. And so, it’s nice to hear from you. Thanks a lot.

PENN: I went through it once. And I hope America doesn’t go through it again.

CARLSON: Yes. Hillary never would have allowed this. She’s too smart for this. There’s no doubt. Thank you.

An arm of the oppressor:

UPDATE (7/30): Title corrected: “An investigation in search of a crime.”

The American ‘Libya Model’ Of Denuclearization: Dishonor, Deceive, Kill

Bush, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Neoconservatism

No wonder John Bolton’s mention of the “Libya model” of denuclearization has put the negotiations with Kim Jong Un, leader of the hermit kingdom of North Korea, into speedy retreat.

Via UPI:

The Libyan program was dismantled during the presidency of George W. Bush. The process involved the transfer of Libyan nuclear equipment to a facility in the United States.
During the Obama administration, Col. Moammar Gadhafi was toppled from power and later killed by local rebel forces.

In other words, the US dishonored its agreement with Col. Gadhafi. In response to Libya’s denuclearization, America killed its leader, engaged in regime change and rendered that country ungovernable.

“We came, we saw, he died,” cackled Hillary Rodham Clinton. The gorgon who heads Caesar’s state department was gripped by a paroxysm of joy when a CBS News reporter informed her that Col. Muammar Gadhafi had been executed. “Veni, Vidi, Vici”: “I came, I saw, I conquered” is attributed to Julius Caesar in 47 B.C.

The hilarity unfolded on October 20, 2011. Backed by American drones and French fighter jets above, our Libyan buddies, “the rebels,” apprehended Gadhafi as he fled his hometown of Sirte en route to Misrata, both on the Mediterranean Sea. As they lynched their former leader on camera, the rebels emitted their version of Hillary’s blood-curdling riff: “Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.” Sophisticated enough to film their “justice,” these atavists had no qualms about tearing into a defenseless individual before summarily shooting him in the head.

FROM “Murder on Her Mind.”

Question: President Trump seemed to be looking forward to making the impressive leap toward disarming North Korea, followed by an uneasy peace with its leader—even minting a “commemorative coin of Trump and Kim Jong-un.”


Wasn’t the president aware that his national security adviser, Mr. Bolton, could destroy it all?

Didn’t Trump know about Bolton’s foreign policy bellicosity?

Did Hillary Hawk Lose Because She’s A Lot Like Chucky Krauthammer?

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, War

A new study makes the case that Hillary Clinton lost because the poor, largely white communities which pay for war forevermore, got sick of paying.

… professors argue that Clinton lost the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in last year’s presidential election because they had some of the highest casualty rates during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and voters there saw Clinton as the pro-war candidate.

By contrast, her pro-war positions did not hurt her in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California, the study says; because those states were relatively unscathed by the Middle East wars.

The study is titled “Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?” Authors Francis Shen, associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Dougas Kriner, a political science professor at Boston University, strike a populist note:

I hope so. And let’s hope Trump remembers running on a plank of no more unwarranted, aggressive unconstitutional wars. (Good move today in initiating cooperation with Russia.) However, whenever I watch soldiers selected to appear on Fox News, they’re cheering loudest for war, and damning those who object.