General

First Priority — Avoid US War With Russia

/6 Comments/in /by
First Priority -- Avoid US War With Russia By Patrick Buchanan

Neocons and war hawks are taking the position that the visible defeat of the Russian army and its expulsion from Ukraine, and Putin’s humiliation and ouster, must be America’s goals. And these goals should be nonnegotiable.

Asked if the U.S. should send troops to fight beside the Ukrainians, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Sunday the time may have come.

Russian President Vladimir Putin “will only stop when we stop him,” said Coons.

“We are in a very dangerous moment where it is important that … we in Congress and the administration come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.”

“If the answer is never, then we are inviting another level of escalation in brutality by Putin.”

In response, the White House affirmed President Joe Biden’s declaration that U.S. troops are not going to be sent to fight Russians in Ukraine, as this would open the door to World War III.

Said Biden last month: “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand … that’s called World War III, OK? Let’s get it straight here, guys.”

Biden added, “We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

Since Biden made these remarks, however, the red line against direct U.S. aid to the Ukrainian military has shifted, though the prohibition against the introduction of U.S. troops and air power has remained.

The present U.S. position might be summarized thus:

As U.S. forces fighting and killing Russians in Ukraine would ignite a U.S.-Russia war, which could escalate to nuclear war, we are not going to take that first step and risk the security and survival of our country, even if our staying out of this two-month war means the defeat of Ukraine.

Call it the Eisenhower position.

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower refused to use U.S. forces to intervene to halt Russian tanks from crushing the Hungarian Revolution that had risen up against Soviet occupation and rule.

Ike was unwilling to cross the Yalta line dividing Europe and chose to let the Hungarian Revolution fail rather than potentially ignite a war in which our own soldiers and nation would be at risk.

Ike literally put America first, ahead of the Hungarians.

Where does Biden’s refusal to follow Coon’s urgings leave the rival belligerents in this Ukraine-Russia war?

Putin has suffered a series of setbacks since his invasion began.

He has failed to capture any of the three largest cities in Ukraine: Kyiv, the capital, or Kharkiv, the second largest city, or Odessa, the third largest city and principal port on the Black Sea.

Putin suffered a humiliating defeat and retreat in the battle of Kyiv and has lost a fourth of the forces with which he started the war.

The flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, the cruiser Moskva, has been sunk, reportedly by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles.

Yet Putin has had his successes as well.

If Mariupol, Ukraine’s major port on the Sea of Azov falls, as is expected, Putin will have his “land bridge” from Russia to Crimea. North of Crimea and in the west of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin has also added to the lands he has held since 2014.

Russia’s capture and annexation of the Donbas could be called a victory by Putin. Capture of Kharkiv or Odessa, the latter of which would give Putin control of the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine, making Kyiv the capital of a land-locked country, would constitute a triumph.

Which brings us to the debate now shaping up in the USA.

Neocons and war hawks are taking the position that the visible defeat of the Russian army and its expulsion from Ukraine, and Putin’s humiliation and ouster, must be America’s goals. And these goals should be nonnegotiable. Failure to achieve these ends, it is said, would amount to a defeat for NATO and the United States.

The problem with this victory scenario?

Putin has sent many signals that before he accepts the defeat of his army and country and his own removal and trial as a “war criminal” who engaged in “genocide,” he will use battlefield nuclear weapons from his arsenal of 6,000 such weapons to win the war.

Wednesday Putin announced Russia’s test of a giant new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Dissenters believe that Putin may not be bluffing, that an early and negotiated end to this war may be necessary to avoid a wider conflict that could escalate into World War III.

But, as ever, they are being charged with timidity and cowardice and letting pass a historic opportunity to administer to authoritarian Russia the defeat it invited with this invasion and that it richly deserves.

Yet, recall: To avoid war with Russia, President Harry Truman refused to breach Joseph Stalin’s Berlin Blockade. Eisenhower let the Hungarian revolution be drowned in blood and told the Brits, French and Israelis to get out of Egypt. President John F. Kennedy let the Berlin Wall go up. President Lyndon B. Johnson let the Prague Spring be crushed by the Warsaw Pact.

The sooner this war ends, the better for all.

The Pandemic Made Me Do It!

/6 Comments/in /by

The Pandemic Made Me Do It!

With the mind-boggling rise in violent crime since the Democrats turned all policing policies over to BLM, the media have become obsessed with convincing us that it’s all the fault of the pandemic. (At least they’re not blaming it on Putin this time.)

In its coverage of the subway shooting by a rage-filled black nationalist last week, The New York Times inserted its pandemic theory of crime into nearly every update (emphasis added):

— “Shootings in New York City rose during 2022’s first quarter compared with the same period last year … the continuation of a drumbeat of violence that emerged early in the PANDEMIC, and has not ebbed with the virus.”

— “This year’s first three months have also seen rises in crimes like burglaries, robberies and grand larcenies compared to the same periods in 2020 and 2021, though experts warn against short-term comparisons, particularly during the statistic-skewing PANDEMIC.”

— “Mr. Lee said reports of attacks across the city, along with the violence that other Asian Americans in the city have experienced throughout the coronavirus PANDEMIC, have left him fearful.”

(I’d like to know if Mr. Lee cited the pandemic or — my guess — the Times helpfully threw that in.)

— “The city’s police commissioner announced new figures last week that showed a 36% increase in major crimes and a 16% rise in shootings over the past year — part of a rise in violence during the PANDEMIC.”

No evidence is ever cited. The Times made no attempt to tie Frank James’ personal pandemic experience to his outburst of homicidal racism. “The pandemic caused the crime wave” is just repeated in article after article, like the sleep conditioning of infants in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

Except even in Huxley’s dystopian world, the bureaucrats only needed to repeat an idea three times a week. The media authoritatively announce that the pandemic caused the crime wave about a thousand times a week.

A spate of shootings over the weekend led to another gusher of “The pandemic causes crime” sightings in the Times. Now it’s not just crime generally, but specifically mass shootings: “Experts are pointing to multiple possible factors that could explain the upswing [in mass shootings], including the pandemic …”

I wonder if that includes any of the experts who spent the first 2.5 months of the pandemic telling us that the lockdowns had had the wonderful effect of virtually ending violent crime! That is, right up until the day George Floyd was killed, whereupon White people became guilty for everything, and Black people responsible for nothing, including their own criminal behavior.

Thus, on April 14, 2020, a month into “15 days to slow the spread,” the Times stated matter-of-factly: “Violent crime has dropped precipitously.” Two weeks later, on May 4, 2020, Politico reported: “Major crime has plunged during New York City’s coronavirus lockdown, down 28.5% in the month of April.”

Similarly, on April 23, 2020, The Denver Post reported that during the first four weeks of the pandemic, crime reports were down by a third, adding that “other large cities have seen significant drops in crime during the coronavirus.”

The very day that Floyd died, Voice of America announced that major U.S. cities had “reported dips in burglary, assault, murder, robbery and grand larceny — all due to stay-at-home orders and fewer opportunities for crime.”

How about a bigger comparison? Are there any studies of crime during the pandemic from around the globe? Why yes, there are!  A study by Cambridge University of crime rates in 27 cities across 23 countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East found that stay-at-home orders during the pandemic “were associated with a considerable drop in urban crime.”

Then, in a crazy coincidence invisible to every member of our media, on May 25, 2020, an innocent Black man, just minding his own business, bothering no one, was killed by a cop in Minneapolis, and …

BAM! As you may have seen in Twitter and YouTube videos (at least the ones that were not immediately removed by “moderators”), violent crime promptly exploded in cities across the nation.

Both the FBI and CDC report that murders were up 30% in 2020 — the largest year-to-year increase in more than a century. The next biggest increase was back in 1968, when it went up by 12.7%. In 2021, murders were up again, 44% compared to 2019.

And it all started on the mystery date of May 25, 2020. From Jan. 1, 2020, to May 25, 2020, gun homicides increased by 14%, compared to 2019. (Democrats do control the cities.) But from George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, through the end of the year, gun homicides shot up an astronomical 41%.

Obviously, therefore, one problem with the theory that the bacchanal of violence of the last two years is the pandemic’s fault is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

As we’ve seen, right up until the hysteria over Floyd’s death, the media were fairly bristling with stories about the salubrious effect the pandemic was having on crime. In addition, as a factual matter, gun homicides nearly tripled from the period before Floyd’s death (B.F.) compared to the period after his death (A.D.)

A second major problem with the pandemic theory of crime is that it requires a complete mind-wipe of everything that happened in the months after Floyd’s death: BLM. All Cops Are Bastards. Defund the Police.

Media in unison: We have no idea what you’re talking about. 

Here’s a reminder:

— Associated Press, May 29, 2020: “Minneapolis police station torched amid George Floyd protest”

— New York Times, June 12, 2020: “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.”

— 770 KTTH, Aug. 25, 2020: “Rioters tried to burn Seattle police alive, sealed door during fire at East Precinct”

— In These Times, Dec. 15, 2020: “The Best Moment of 2020: The Burning of the Third Precinct”

Throughout all this, Democrats and the media celebrated as police budgets were slashed, officers’ hands were tied, and crime after crime was decriminalized.

No wonder they want to blame the pandemic.

Still, there are less obviously false excuses for the current crime wave than the pandemic. (I’m assuming the truth is a non-starter for our media.)

You know what else happened in 2020? The Pentagon released photos of UFOs! How about replacing “the pandemic” with that? The media should start including clauses like this in their crime stories: “… a drumbeat of violence that emerged after the Pentagon released UFO videos” and “… part of a rise in violence the year UFO videos were released.”

Seriously — that’s less unhinged than blaming the current, epic crime wave on “the pandemic.”

     COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

Should We Commit to Fight Russia — for Finland?

/12 Comments/in /by

Why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?

The prime ministers of Sweden and Finland, Magdalena Andersson and Sanna Marin, both signaled Wednesday that they will likely be applying for membership in NATO.

The “prospect” is most “welcome,” says The Washington Post: “Finland and Sweden Should Join NATO.”

The editorial was titled “A Way to Punish Putin.”

Before joining the rejoicing in NATO capitals, we might inspect what NATO membership for these two Nordic nations would mean for the United States.

Finland is a nation the size of Germany, but with a population only 4% of that of Russia and a border with Russia that is 830 miles long.

Should Finland join NATO, the United States, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, would be obligated to go to war with the world’s largest nuclear power to retrieve Finnish lands that an enraged Russia might grab.

Moscow has already indicated that, should Sweden and Finland join NATO, Russia will introduce new nuclear weapons into the Baltic region.

Why is it wise for us to formally agree, in perpetuity, as NATO is a permanent alliance, to go to war with Russia, for Finland?

Given the war in Ukraine and concomitant crisis in Eastern Europe, it is understandable why Stockholm and Helsinki would seek greater security beneath the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

But why would we voluntarily agree to give Sweden and Finland these war guarantees? Why would we commit to go to war with Putin’s Russia, a war that could, and likely would, escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially if Russia were losing?

Finland was neutral during the Cold War. Sweden has been neutral since the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century.

How did we suffer from their neutrality?

In Helsinki and Stockholm, the benefit of a U.S.-NATO commitment to go to war for Finland or Sweden is understandable.

But how does it benefit our country, the USA, to be obligated to go to war with a nation that commands the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons — over some quarrel in the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Finland that does not affect us?

Asked for his view on Sweden and Finland’s campaign to join NATO, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had a note of warning:

“We have repeatedly said that the (NATO) alliance remains a tool geared towards confrontation and its further expansion will not bring stability to the European continent.”

Should Putin’s Russia clash with Finland or Sweden today, the U.S. is free to respond, or not to respond, as it sees fit, depending on our own assessment of risks and rewards.

Why not keep it that way? Why surrender our freedom of action in some future collision involving our main adversary?

History holds lessons for us here.

In March 1939, six months after Munich, when Czechoslovakia disintegrated into its ethnic components, Britain issued an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland, then negotiating with Germany over the port city of Danzig taken from Germany by the victorious Allies after World War I.

When Germany, on Sept. 1, 1939, invaded Poland, Britain was obligated to declare war on Germany over a matter that was not a vital interest of Great Britain or its worldwide empire.

Lest we forget, it was the Bucharest Declaration of 2008, opening the door to membership in NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, that led to the recent crises in Eastern Europe and the current war.

The Russia-Georgia War of August 2008, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, and Putin’s annexation of Crimea and claiming of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine all proceeded from NATO’s decision in 2008 to open the door to membership for Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine today is partly due to the U.S. and Ukraine’s refusal to rule out NATO membership for Kyiv.

No NATO nation today has a border with Russia nearly as long as that of Finland. If Finland joins NATO, will we put U.S. boots on the ground along that 830-mile border with Russia? Will U.S. warplanes fly in and out of Finnish airfields and air bases up to the border of Russia?

Collective security is said to be a good idea.

But the core of NATO security is provided by U.S. war guarantees, while most of the collecting is done by our 29 NATO allies, which could become 31 by summer’s end.

Otto von Bismarck predicted that the Great War, when it came, would be ignited by “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.”

And World War I was indeed triggered by the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo in June 1914. The Germans came in in part because the kaiser had given Austria a “blank check” for war.

What enabled America to stay out of both world wars for years after they began was our freedom from “entangling alliances” when they began.

But today we not only lead an alliance of 30 nations, but we are adding two more members, one of which has a border of 830 miles with Russia.

How long does our luck last?

In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb. Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

/12 Comments/in /by

In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb. Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

Weird that the media didn’t cite Ketanji Brown Jackson’s height and weight as her most important characteristics. When it came to THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT, it was all about her race. But after a guy shot up a New York City subway car this week, the last thing the media wanted to tell us was his race.

For more than three hours after the attack, we got urgent alerts: Suspect at large! Police request public’s help! Be on the alert for a male, about 5’8″, 160 lbs.”

In this particular case, the media’s rule of never telling us the suspect’s race (unless he’s white) was more deranged than usual. This wasn’t a carjacking. It wasn’t a shooting at a block party. It wasn’t an attack on an Asian or Jew. This crime had all the earmarks of a terror attack — smoke bombs, fireworks, a gas mask, and about a dozen people shot while trapped in a subway car.

The police desperately needed the public’s help, but most people were looking for a Middle Easterner.

At least we knew it wasn’t a white guy! If it had been, reporters would have worn out the “W” on their computer keyboards. There would have been rampant speculation that it was a Proud Boy, as top administration officials reminded us that “white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not al-Qaida — white supremacists.” (President Joe Biden June 2, 2021)

We’re always told “wokeness” is just about being polite and that those who ridicule it are trying to “discredit the claims of traditionally marginalized groups for respect.” (Thomas Zimmer, history professor, Georgetown University) Or they are engaging in “white backlash.” (Seth Cotlar, history professor, Willamette University)

[SIDEBAR: Don’t go to college, kids!]

No, wokeness is real. And it can get us killed — when, for example, off the top of my head, a murderous psychopath is on the run and the media refuse to tell us what he looks like.

At the New York Police Department’s first press conference on the subway attack, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell came up with an all-new circumlocution to convey the relevant information without saying “black male.” She said: “… we will describe him as an individual, he is being reported as a male black.”

“A male black”! That’s so much better than “black male” when identifying a criminal.

By the time of the evening press conference, Sewell had settled on an even dumber description, calling him a “a dark-skinned male.” Great, so now we’re back to looking for a Middle Easterner. Or possibly Hispanic. Maybe South Asian or mixed race. Definitely NOT “black male” (or “male black”).

The NYPD must have spent all day crafting that new euphemism, because “dark-skinned male” was the exact phrase used minutes later by the chief of detectives, James Essig. “Black” is OUT. “Dark-skinned” is IN.

Biden Appoints First Dark-Skinned Woman (whatever the hell that is) to Supreme Court!

No, “black” is fine, provided we’re talking about THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, or THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE POLICE COMMISSIONER. Such as … Commissioner Sewell herself!

— “One of Mr. Adams’ first appointments was to name Keechant Sewell, chief of detectives in Nassau County, as the first Black woman to head the NYPD.” (The Christian Science Monitor)

— “New York’s incoming mayor just made history by appointing a Black woman to run the nation’s largest police department …” (New York Daily News)

— “This is truly historic. We heard that word a lot, but it’s 176 years of the NYPD. You’re the first woman, the first black woman to lead the force.” (CNN’s Jim Sciutto to Sewell)

A black person becoming a Supreme Court justice or police commissioner makes black people feel good about themselves! But a black man being identified as the perpetrator of a heinous crime makes black people feel bad about themselves. Therefore, you can’t say it.

As is well known, the sine qua non of a well-run society is factoring in people’s feelings when reporting important events. And if New York City is not running like a top, then I don’t know what your definition of “running like a top” is.

Instead of subway cameras capturing clear photos of the homicidal brute and being broadcast out within minutes of the attack, hours later, the police were climbing up ladders to physically inspect the cameras. They weren’t working.

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the cameras, but they’ve been VERY busy promoting diversity. Evidently, “Is our equipment working?” has not come up.

Here’s the MTA’s summary of the last meeting:

3rd Quarter 2021 Report:

“The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present 3rd quarter 2021 update on MTA Agency-wide EEO and M/W/DBE and SDVOB contract compliance activities.

“Status Report on MTA Inter-Agency M/W/DBE and SDVOB Task Force. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights report will address progress made by the Task Force to improve M/W/DBE and SDVOB participation. Master Page # 6 of 108 — Diversity Committee Meeting 9/15/2021

“2022 Diversity Committee Work Plan. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present an updated Diversity Committee Work Plan for 2022.”

Another confidence-inspiring development: The New York Times reports that immediately after the shooting, “Toward the front of the train, three victims were being attended to by bystanders. A uniformed police officer approached, asking passengers to call 911 because his radio was not working.” (Emphasis added.)

The officer’s radio didn’t work. But on the plus side, he’s been through six diversity training sessions.

To top things off, at the evening press conference, the top brass COULDN’T GET ZOOM TO WORK. Mayor Eric Adams was introduced, whereupon every TV in the land broadcast total silence for a solid 60 seconds, while city officials stood around waiting for the mayor to appear. They finally gave up and patched him in later.

At least the mayor is on top of things. Hours after even MSNBC had admitted the perp was a black male, Adams was on TV, vowing to catch the man — “or woman!” — who perpetrated this attack.

Gosh, that makes me feel validated.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

Who Wins, Who Loses Gen. Milley’s Long War?

/3 Comments/in /by
Who Wins, Who Loses Gen. Milley's Long War? By Patrick Buchanan

 

For 40 years of the Cold War, Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, Bush I warned Ukrainian secessionists, who wanted to sever ties to Russia, not to indulge such “suicidal nationalism.” And though we brought 14 new nations into NATO after 1991, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama never brought in Ukraine.

Speaking of the seven-week war in Ukraine ignited by Vladimir Putin, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is warning us to expect a war that lasts for years.

“I do think this is a very protracted conflict … measured in years,” Milley told Congress. “I don’t know about a decade, but at least years, for sure.”

As our first response, said Milley, we should build more military bases in Eastern Europe and begin to rotate U.S. troops in and out.

Yet this sounds like a prescription for a Cold War II that America ought to avert, not fight. For the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, while a declared goal of U.S. policy, is not a vital U.S. interest to justify risking a calamitous war with Russia.

Proof of that political reality lies in political facts.

For 40 years of the Cold War, Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, Bush I warned Ukrainian secessionists, who wanted to sever ties to Russia, not to indulge such “suicidal nationalism.”

And though we brought 14 new nations into NATO after 1991, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama never brought in Ukraine.

Indeed, during the seven weeks of this war, President Joe Biden has refused to transfer to Ukraine the 28 MIG-29s that Poland offered to make available, if the U.S. would replace the Polish MIGs with U.S. fighter jets.

Biden has warned that this could ignite a collision with Russia that could lead to World War III. And he is not going to risk a third world war that could escalate to nuclear war — for Ukraine.

What is Biden saying by denying the MIGs to Ukraine?

That preventing Russia from amputating Donbas, Crimea and the Black Sea coast of Ukraine is not a U.S. interest so vital as to be worth our risking war with Russia. Ukraine is not only outside NATO; it is outside the perimeter of U.S. vital interests justifying war.

This crisis in Ukraine is calling forth the larger question:

For whom and for what should the United States go to war with a nation with a larger nuclear arsenal than our own, but which does not directly threaten us?

Currently, the Beltway war hawks and neocons are bristling with demands the U.S. send the MIGs to Ukraine, and the S-300 air-defense system, and anti-ship missiles to sink Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

They tell us Putin is blustering and bluffing when he suggests that Moscow might use tactical nuclear weapons rather than accept defeat and humiliation in Ukraine.

Yet, looking at a cost-benefit analysis of continuing this war, it would appear that the sooner it ends, the better.

For who would be the likely winners and the losers of Milley’s “protracted conflict” that will last “at least years for sure”?

The greatest losers would be the nation and people of Ukraine.

Already, in seven weeks, 10 million Ukrainians have been uprooted from their homes, and 4 million of them have fled the country. That is a fourth of the nation uprooted, and a tenth lost to Ukraine.

Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have died resisting the invasion. Thousands may have been murdered. Cities like Kharkiv have been horribly damaged, with Mariupol on the Sea of Azov destroyed.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s willingness to negotiate with Putin after the proven atrocities and to accept temporary occupation of part of Ukraine suggests that he knows that, from here on out, Ukraine, which has won the first battles, could steadily lose the longer war.

Indeed, if the known huge losses for Ukraine came from the first seven weeks of fighting, what will be the losses from a second seven weeks, or a third, on the bloody road to Milley’s long war?

Putin’s Russia is a second loser in this war.

The initial invasion failed to capture Kiev or Kharkiv. The Russian army around Kiev has departed and, reportedly, many thousands of Russian troops have been killed, wounded, captured or gone missing.

The Russian economy is suffering from severe sanctions.

Yet over 80% of the Russian people still support Putin and his war. And Russia’s renewed drive into the Donbas and to take the Black Sea coast of Ukraine from Crimea to Odessa is not yet lost.

But while Ukraine and Russia have suffered greatly, the U.S. and NATO have suffered barely at all. Nor has China, which stands to be the major beneficiary when a bleeding, isolated Russia goes in search of support.

What Americans have to worry about is the long war that Gen. Milley is predicting, and the possibility that Russia’s continued bleeding causes it to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to end the losses and humiliation and prevent an outright defeat.

Thus, the sooner this war ends, the better for us and our friends — even if it means having to talk to the man Biden cannot stop calling a war criminal and clamoring for his prosecution.

 

Media Go Wild for Child-Porn Friendly Judge

/3 Comments/in /by
Media Go Wild for Child-Porn Friendly Judge

These were Google’s top headlines this week about the hearings on President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson:

White House chief of staff Ron Klain hits back at Sen. Ted Cruz — Business Insider, April 4, 2022

Cory Booker demolishes GOP attempts to smear Ketanji Brown — Washington Post, April 5, 2022

Lindsey Graham Throws An Impotent S–T Fit Over Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Nomination — Vanity Fair, April 4, 2022

Wow, Republicans must have had their asses handed to them! They were “hit back,” “demolish[ed]” — and now they’re throwing “s–t fits.”

(I can trust the media, right?)

The hit-back consisted of the following: Ted Cruz said KBJ would be “the most extreme” justice on the court, and — get ready for the snappy comeback — Klain said that “nothing” in Jackson’s record “supports this assertion.”

Thank God for our free press and the reporters who dig up stories like this!

Sen. Booker DEMOLISHED Republicans (you can always trust the “Watch so-and-so DEMOLISH” headlines), according to Jennifer Rubin of the Post, with this biting rejoinder: “Sen. Cory Booker had heard enough. [HERE IT COMES!] … Booker compared Jackson’s confirmation hearings to the ‘Festivus’ holiday from the sitcom ‘Seinfeld.’ ‘There’s been a lot of airing of grievances.’”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call, “DEMOLISHED.”

Vanity Fair’s attribution of an “Impotent S–t Fit” to Graham reminds me of the sad story about liberals being dropped on their heads as children, so they can’t remember what happened yesterday, or what might happen tomorrow.

Apparently, Sen. Graham is a “petty little bitch” because, as VF’s Bess Levin put it, “Jackson is all but certain to be sworn in to the highest court in the land in short order.” And yet — DESPITE THIS — “Graham took the time on Monday to rage against her nomination.”

Good thing Republicans have never controlled the Senate during a Supreme Court vote and never will again. Oh wait — actually, just three years ago, all 48 Senate Democrats were apparently being “petty little bitch[es]” when they opposed the “all but certain to be sworn in” Amy Coney Barrett.

The media seem to believe their coup de grace against Republicans who have the audacity to vote against KBJ is that three — THREE! — Republicans voted in favor of her nomination to the D.C. court of appeals just last year!

Nuff said.

Although, now that I think about it, four years ago, as it became clear that Brett Kavanaugh’s feminist accusers were lying psychopaths, the entire liberal establishment instructed us: THE SUPREME COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM AN APPELLATE COURT!

To wit:

Ari Melber: “Today’s debate is not about removing Kavanaugh from his powerful perch on the D.C. circuit, [but] … a big decision to promote him to a big job for life.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018

Rachel Maddow: “Obviously, this is not a criminal investigation. … This is about figuring out if somebody is suitable for a big job promotion, basically.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Oct. 2, 2018

Joy Ann Reid: “So, the thing about the Supreme Court is that once you make it there, you are there for life, unless you choose to retire or you pass away.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Sept. 28, 2018

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: “We’re dealing with a United States Supreme Court nomination, an appointment for life to the highest court in the land that makes a real difference in people’s lives in the real world.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “This is about do you deserve the promotion? Do you deserve this job opportunity to be a Supreme Court justice, to a lifetime appointment, to make fundamental decisions about women’s rights for perhaps decades to come?” — “All In With Chris Hayes,” Sept. 25, 2018

So cut the crap, liberals, about how Lindsey Graham “voted to confirm her in the past, like literally within the past year” (Reid), and therefore is “humiliat[ing] himself” by “only now object[ing] to” KBJ (Lawrence O’Donnell), staging a “reversal” (New York Times) and “magnificently fail[ing]” at “consistency and Supreme Court nominations” (Reid).

You want consistency? Read your own statements from a few years ago on the GIGANTIC difference in confirming someone to an appeals court and making a “big decision to promote him to a big job for life.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Insult Diplomacy: Does Biden’s Vilification of Putin Help?

/1 Comment/in /by

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.” It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

Several weeks into the war in Ukraine, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked President Joe Biden if he agreed with those who call Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

“I do,” said Biden.

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.”

It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

What is Biden’s rationale? What is his purpose here?

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, to their eternal embarrassment, called Joseph Stalin, a far greater monster than Putin, “good old Joe” and “Uncle Joe” when they sought his cooperation in World War II and the early postwar era.

Richard Nixon toasted the century’s greatest mass murderer Mao Zedong in the Great Hall of the People during his historic trip to China in 1972. His purpose: establish relations with America’s most hostile adversary — to help Nixon advance a “generation of peace.”

But when it comes to depicting Putin, who launched this invasion of Ukraine, Biden repeatedly reaches for the nastiest of insults.

But why?

“Putin deserves it,” say the champions of a Cold War II. We need more truth and candor in diplomacy. When Biden referenced Putin in the closing remarks of his address in Warsaw, Poland — “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” — they were elated.

Biden was calling for regime change in Russia, calling for the people of Russia to administer to the “killer” and “butcher” the fate he deserves and remove him from power by any means necessary.

Within minutes of hearing their president go off-script with his call for regime change in Russia, White House aides and Cabinet officers were scrambling to assure reporters that the president of the United States did not mean what the president of the United States had just said.

Biden was expressing his “moral outrage” at the carnage Putin has unleashed on Ukraine, they said — and not making a change in U.S. policy.

For days, the president and his advisers argued over whether Biden had meant it literally when he said, “This man cannot remain in power.”

Sunday in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought to shut down the argument:

“As you know, and as you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter. In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country in question. It’s up to the Russian people.”

One problem with Blinken’s statement is that the U.S. has been deeply involved, both during the Cold War and afterward, in “color revolutions” to effect the overthrow of autocrats we did not like.

Indeed, when Biden characterizes America’s cause in the world as leading the global struggle between democracy and autocracy, what is the desired and predetermined fate of the autocrats we oppose, if not their forcible ouster?

In 2014, the U.S. helped finance the Maidan Revolution that ousted a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in Kyiv. Sen. John McCain and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland had both been seen in the square cheering on the rebels.

A second problem is that Putin is many things other than the terms Biden used to describe him.

He commands the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and 10 times as many battlefield nuclear weapons as the U.S. military. He is the man we must look to if we hope to end the war in Ukraine. For Putin alone can order the Russian army to stand down or withdraw, presumably a goal of U.S. foreign policy.

If the president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world, Putin is up there alongside him, disposing of an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could bring an end to Western civilization.

Without Putin’s cooperation, the bloodletting goes on in Ukraine.

How does it advance the goal of getting his agreement to end the war in Ukraine for the U.S. president to repeatedly call him vile names?

Already, we have paid a price.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley are finding their secure phones to their opposite numbers in the Russian government have gone silent.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov have not been picking up the phone.

In Moscow, there is talk of severing diplomatic relations with the United States because of Biden’s name-calling.

None of the aspiring peace-makers seeking to broker a cease-fire or truce in the Ukraine war are acting like this or using language like that.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel have not used the kind of public language on Putin as has Biden.

We see the cost of what Biden is doing; wherein lies the benefit?