Category Archives: War Commentary

Culture Of Corruption

An email that requests that the State Department “take care” of a Clinton Foundation donor. And surprise, surprise! Hillary didn’t turn over all of the emails discussing interactions between State and foundation donors.

More from Mark Tapscott. Can there be any doubt, at this point, why she set up the personal server?

[Update a few minutes later]

Hillary’s pay-for-play scheme at the State Department. No one who paid any attention in the 90s would be surprised by any of this, when they peddled the White House for donations. Just ask Johnny Chung.


Reagan sent them a cake and a bible, but Obama shipped them $400M in cash. But don’t call it ransom!

[Thursday-morning update]

Why did the mullahs want the ransom in cold hard cash? The question answers itself:

Don’t the Iranians trust us? After all, they know we’re good for it, even if we have a national debt of 19 trillion. Of course, we do have a history of withholding payments from Iran, not that they don’t deserve it. Or maybe they just wanted to stick it to Obama-Kerry at the last moment, show who’s boss.

Well, they did that, but I suspect there is another reason – the great flexibility and usefulness of cash, something that can be distributed hand-to-hand without having to go through the banks and their nosey wire-transfer tracking. Like the Mafia, the mullahs are not keen on transparency. They like to keep to themselves how they use their money.

I’m sure that Valarie Jarrett is pleased.

[Update in the evening]

The Justice Department objected to the cash transfer, but was overruled.

Hillary And The Democrats

They’re very nervous:

While the Electoral College may give her an advantage, party leaders and strategists say they remain concerned that Clinton is a tough sell when a majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track and want to shake up Washington.

“The most important thing is there is a bias for change and there’s an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll where people express that bias even when they don’t know what the change is going to be,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and now advises Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton super PAC.

That July survey showed a majority of voters, 56 percent, prefer someone who will bring major changes to government even if they don’t know what those changes will be. Only 46 percent wanted a candidate who would bring a steady approach to government.

It helps explain Trump’s success, and the strong challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary from Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Away from the hoopla of the Wells Fargo, Democratic officials and strategists say it’s a major concern.

“I’m nervous. The country is in a bad mood. It’s such an unpredictable year,” said a Democratic National Committee official who requested anonymity to speak frankly about Clinton’s prospects.

Other concerns include the possibility of an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats — Trump got more votes in the GOP primary than any candidate in history while Hillary received fewer votes than she did in 2008 when she lost — and a possible “October surprise.”

One labor official fretted that more hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee may surface later in the campaign and hurt Hillary.

You don’t say. And there’s a reason for it:

I have thought for a while that pretty much everyone’s mind is made up about Hillary, after all these years. But Gallup finds a remarkable fall from grace, with Hillary having been at 59% favorable as recently as last year. Apparently the FBI’s finding her to have been ‘extremely careless’ in handling classified information, together with ongoing focus on her Libya/Benghazi failings, have seriously hurt her in the eyes of many Americans. That, plus the fact that she is always most popular when out of sight. When people see Hillary, as during the current campaign, they tend not to like her.

Contrary to what Obama said in 2008, she’s not only not “likable enough,” she’s not likable at all. And like many politicians, she is sociopathic in her lust for power:

There has to be a lot of resentment. The stories of screaming matches, thrown lamps, and the rest are credible to me because Hillary has endured a level of private humiliation at her husband’s hands, in ways overt as in all the extracurricular sex, but also in ways completely unintended, the product of her negative charisma. The result of all this is a burning desire to surpass Bill, to occupy the Oval Office, and get revenge for his casual ease at being liked. And the facial expression? I think it is a window into the intensity of Hillary’s desire, buried deep within her soul, and rarely allowed out. Professor Althouse chose to compare Hillary’s picture to The Scream, the famous painting by Munch. I think that comparison makes my point.”

She comes across as a corrupt, ethicless, lying, incompetent hack. But that’s only because she is.

[Update a few minutes later]

The Clinton campaign refused to cooperate with an FBI investigation into hacking of their computers. Of course they did. [Update: Hillary exposed as a Commander-in-Chief who can’t even protect herself] Like math, cybersecurity is hard, Commander-in-Chief Barbie.

I Deleted The Truth

[Update a couple minutes later]

“My God, she’s running as Hillary Clinton!” It’s kind of ironic, given that she was a Goldwater Girl. (For those unfamiliar with it here is the classic reference)

[Update a few minutes later]

Nate Silver says it’s officially time for Democrats to panic. I love the smell of Democrat panic in the morning.

Brexit And Trump

What do they have in common with Rob Ford?

I think this is right. I wish very much that I didn’t think this is right:

…for the people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines, Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War… it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity recovered and move on, often in better shape.
At a local level in time people think things are fine, then things rapidly spiral out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this it is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another. During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people.

My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

Then after the War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred. Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.

That was Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe, and so many more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people, in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists last century in which 20–40 million people died. It seems inconceivable that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of people die without reason, but we do it again and again.

But at the time people don’t realise they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before, most people cannot see it because:

1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future

2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally

3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge, or hear opposing views

Trump is doing this in America.

Yup. Read the whole thing, despite how depressing it is.

It is similar to people who think that the climate is going crazy, because they didn’t live through the 30s, or the 50s. Let alone times farther past.