Tag Archives: politics

Time to Fire Flag Officers and Dismiss them from the Army

Posted on by
Reply

The management of the US Military Academy—West Point—has decided the Academy’s mission no longer includes inculcating concepts patriotism, sacrifice, obligation, and honor in our future Army officers.

The US Military Academy at West Point removed the “Duty, Honor, Country” motto from its mission statement.

It’s bad enough that the managers at the top of the Department of Defense think proper pronouns, and equal outcomes regardless of merit, and skin color—wokeness—are more important than training our military men and women how to defend our nation, how to kill our enemies if they attack us. Now the managers of what used to be a premier military academy don’t even think officers satisfying their obligations, displaying and acting on precepts of honor, and putting our nation’s needs ahead of their personal convenience (or pronoun preference) needs to be trained at all.

Of course, those worthies do intend to maintain the phrase as a motto. Whoopty damn do.

And this from West Point spokesman Colonel Terence Kelly:

Duty Honor Country is West Point’s motto and the foundation of our culture as it has been since 1898. As we have done nine times in the past century, we have updated our mission statement to now include the Army Values, loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

Weasel words. “Duty, Honor, Country” are those values. If the academy [sic] managers truly meant those words, they’d keep the overarching phrase.

Four flags that come to mind as being ripe for relief and dismissal are US Military Academy Superintendent Lieutenant General Steven W Gilland, Dean Brigadier General Shane R Reeves, Commandant of Cadets Major General Lori L Robinson, and US Army Chief of Staff General Randy A George—the latter for allowing this to go through.

Home Defense and Property Rights Get a New Tool

Posted on by
Reply

In Florida, at least.

The Florida Legislature unanimously passed a bill that would allow police to immediately remove squatters—a departure from the lengthy court cases required in most states.
…
The legislation, which passed both chambers earlier this month, would allow police to remove squatters without a lease authorized by the property owner and adds criminal penalties. Landlords, under the current law, typically have to wade through a long and expensive legal process to remove squatters.

The bill now goes to Governor Ron DiSantis (R) for signature and final enactment.

If the Florida legislation becomes law, intentionally presenting a phony lease would be designated as a misdemeanor, and selling or leasing someone else’s property would be a felony, as would causing more than $1,000 in property damage.

This is a good move. Squatters of this sort are nothing other than criminals, slow-motion home invaders.

This Time I Disagree with Bjorn Lomborg

Posted on by
Reply

But only a little bit. Lomborg (among other things, Copenhagen Consensus President), in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, writes absolutely correctly about the need for climatistas (my term, as is “doomsayers” below) to consider much more than their simple claim of climate change and the imminent destruction from their claimed change. Lomborg, though, concentrated on the economic destruction the doomsayers’ policies would inflict even as those worthies ignore technological advances that would mitigate their claims’ outcome, even were their claims in any way accurate.

Where I disagree is in the lack of discussion of the larger, and more important, context within which today’s alleged climate disaster is supposedly developing.

From the subheadline of Lomborg’s piece:

Climate policy needs to take into account the costs of draconian measures….

The doomsayers need to do more than that. They need to reconcile their claims of impending disaster with some facts that provide longer range context. Facts like Earth, 11k years after the last Ice Age, still is cooler than our planet’s geologic warming trend line (noisy as the data around the trend line are). Facts like there have been a number of epochs in our past where Earth was much warmer than it is now, and life was lush; there have been a number of epochs in our past where atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is now, and life was lush; and those sets of epochs do not correlate with each other.

Some other facts: our climate changes do correlate, roughly, with orbital changes (small) and rotation axis precession (relatively dramatic). Beyond that, we’re about halfway through the current axial tilt from one direction to the opposite, and we tilt—our northern hemisphere, where most of the oceans are—toward the sun in winter and away from the sun in summer. How do the doomsayers plan to deal with the situation in a few thousand years (roughly equivalent to half the time that has passed since that last Ice Age, and a bit shorter than the time since we started our first civilizations) when our northern hemisphere tilts toward the sun in summer, away from the sun in winter, and the seasons get dramatically more extreme as a result?

Lies of Progressive-Democratic Party Politicians…

Posted on by
Reply

…and their supporters. Here’s the latest batch, via Just the News.

  • FBI agents took allegations from Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the midst of the 2016 presidential election and provably misled a court [the FISA Court] by omitting key information, in one case even doctoring evidence.

The FBI as a supporter of one political party? Yes, the agency has chosen a side and abandoned the requirement for it to be a coldly objective investigator of criminal behavior regardless of the behaver.

  • Fifty-one intelligence experts who derived their credentials from American taxpayers signed a letter cheered on by Joe Biden’s campaign to falsely portray Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation when the FBI had already corroborated it as authentic.
  • An official congressional select committee [the J-6 Committee, for those following along at home] concluded a White House aide’s third-party hearsay account that Donald Trump tried to violently commandeer his presidential SUV on January 6 was more credible than the Secret Service driver’s firsthand account—which it suppressed—that such an event never happened.
  • A White House official [Ian Sams, White House Office of Counsel to the President] used the power of the bully pulpit to insist it was a “significant error” for journalists to report Joe Biden “willfully” kept and disseminated classified information when in fact that is exactly what the Biden Justice Department’s appointed special counsel had concluded.

And this one from Party’s communications arm, the press guild:

…”[ABC News‘ George] Stephanopoulos said 10 times, on 10 separate occasions, Donald Trump was found ‘liable for rape’ in the E Jean Carroll case. He specifically said that the jury found Trump ‘liable for rape’—now that’s important. In fact, the jury specifically found Trump not liable for rape,” [Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron] York told Fox News Digital.”
…
“[I]t’s just a fact that the court asked the jury, ‘Do you think Miss Carroll proved by preponderance of the evidence that Donald Trump raped her?’ And they said, ‘No.'”

This is what’s a stake this fall. Will we be reigned over by an intrinsically dishonest political syndicate, or will we succeed in electing a Conservative government that would be markedly less dishonest, if not itself precisely lily-pure?

Soviet Canada

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Justin Trudeau government that’s reigning over Canada wants to lock Canadian citizens away for the crime of speculating—thinking—in ways Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds personally objectionable.

On February 26 Mr Trudeau’s Liberal government introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which targets so-called hate speech on the internet. One of its provisions would enable anyone, with the consent of the federal attorney general, to “lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” an offense. The judge could then issue a “peace bond” imposing conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring, on the defendant merely because it’s feared he could commit a hate crime.

Enhancing this attack on Canadian citizens’ liberty, Trudeau wants to pay individuals for denouncing their neighbors.

The commission [the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the central government arm charged with enforcing the Denouncement Law] would have the power to levy [fines] of up to 20,000 Canadian dollars (around US $15,000), payable to the complainant, not the treasury.

Is Trudeau moving to reduce Canada’s Provinces to the status of soviets under the control of the central committee?

On the other hand, given Trudeau’s…thought processes…maybe some concerned citizens might lay an information before an Ontario judge, provide the Ontario Provincial Police with the peace bond for enforcement, and see Trudeau confined to 24 Sussex adorned with an electronic monitoring device.

Nah. With his government determining what constitutes unacceptable thinking, Trudeau is proof against enforcement. Laws are only for the disdained bourgeoisie.