It’s amazing how so many can see the corporate press/political machine for what it is, reject it entirely, but then still agree to play by their rules for how to conduct the political process.
Was on a bus in Denali and a crazy hiker was being chased by a bear. The bus driver stopped and let him on the bus. THEN his bear spray deployed. Not sure why he never shot it at the bear but what a miserable 60 miles back to camp.🤪
I sprayed a raccoon with a hose in our back yard, and it just stared at me. Like, "try that again." And I had a canister of bear spray available right inside the house!
'We have months of this empty noise ahead of us, and I propose that we just ignore it. Political coverage is gated and slotted; it goes through particular cultural sluices, then runs down particular channels until it evaporates into meaninglessness.'
Like the assertion on FNC that if Trump didn’t get 50.000001% or more in Iowa, that his campaign was doomed. And this AM, it’s revealed that no one in a contested race has EVER gotten 50%+ in an Iowa caucus. Notably, in 2020 Pete Buttigieg got 25% to Biden’s 14% in Iowa, this proving the “50%+”s to be FOS.
I bet Rogan or Tucker could set up those conversations. Meanwhile, Rona McDaniel is trying to get everything to go through mainstream media. And she’s totally for Haley. What a traitor!
She is the perfect example of why the Republican Party loses. Democrats would vote for a dung beetle if told to but not republicans. Oh no. They’d argue over which piece of shit was the most tasty.
" Let the first lightly moderated panel be about Afghanistan, and feature people who fought there in open discussion with some of the people who sent them there."
“Let the first lightly moderated panel be about Afghanistan, and feature people who fought there in open discussion with some of the people who sent them there.”
Only if the panelists don’t have to walk through metal detectors before the discussion.
What about a panel of journalists, talking about how thousands of name-identified journalists are running air cover for the democrats. How they're making it possible for the Democrats to limp their mentally infirmed Cadaver-in-Chief much closer to the election before he abdicates, so they can declare a "save the country" candidate and not have that person debate anyone, or answer any real questions? Journalism as a profession eliminating the idea of debate and vetting from the whole concept of "Democracy". Maybe that's what they mean by "Our Democracy"...as opposed to a real one. Setting up the big Michelle Obama bait and switch in October 2024...two weeks before the election.
Mike will be it. And you can bet all the negroes that cheated in all the swing states for cash money from fat pigs like Stacy will be out in force, making x’s on mail-ins. They’ll have little camps set up at playgrounds for kids to make out fake ballots. I’m not wrong.
The last paragraph--that's why we can't do it. The people who sent them don't want to hear from the people who went, and more importantly, an open conversation would signal that the people who did the actual fighting should have some sort of say and are, perish the thought, some sort of equals, like the people who are footing the bills and making the country limp along such as it is should have some day in its governance. We'd hate for the livestock to get ideas above their station. ;-) We'd rather distract them with loud sounds and fake glittery things.
I disagree with the “equals” comment. We do not have a direct democracy, and the Constitution directly calls the President the “commander in chief.” The military is hopefully the LEAST democratic institution in America. The salient part of the military enlistment oath is “…I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me…”
In WWII, we utterly crushed both Germany & Japan – two societies with robust cultures & homogenous peoples. Thus our postwar governance was successful because we established some “guardrails,” but didn’t alter their societies to a great degree.
Our forays into the Middle East and Southwest Asia have failed because those areas have ZERO common cultures within the artificial national boundaries drawn by the British post-WWI. It was hubris to think we could overcome those local differences. I strongly suspect there were subject matter experts at CIA and State screaming upward in their organizations that post-war nation-building was a wasteful pipe-dream.
BTW, we lost our sister in Iraq in Jan 2005; I hold the above views in spite of that pain.
So you're saying you want our soldiers to obey Biden if he tells them to start rounding up "insurrectionists"?
Yes, there is a hierarchy in the military, but it's not to be blindly followed nor are the soldiers inferior human beings who should just follow the orders of their betters, especially not a military like ours that gets pimped out so much it's become more like a mercenary force. Nor are their experiences to be discounted simply because they are not up there in rank.
“I, (name of enlistee), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Please note that the “support and defend the Constitution” language comes first and is superior to the oath to obey the President and officers.
Just as you do not argue with a police officer on the side of the road, you do not argue with a commander in the field. That comes later thru impeachment, if possible.
As you've probably seen, supporting and defending the Constitution is open for interpretation. So I ask again, do you really want to suggest that a soldier should simply accept say a left-leaning interpretation that shooting insurrectionists is not only acceptable but necessary because they threaten the Constitution, or do you want to accept that soldiers are equal to their superiors and their judgment counts, even in the moment?
I apologize for the length, but you’ve asked questions in a complex area.
I would prefer a different formulation than “equal to their superiors” in the context of obedience to orders, but that personal preference aside, a soldier is always physically able to disobey an order based on his personal interpretation of what’s “lawful.” The soldier will then likely be charged under Article 90 with “Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer” or Article 91 with “Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer,” followed fairly quickly by an Article 32 hearing (equivalent to a preliminary hearing in civilian courts) the purpose of which is to determine if there is a valid basis for the charges. The defendant may present exculpatory testimony and evidence in support of a finding on “no basis.” If a valid basis for the charges IS found, the defendant will subsequently stand trial, likely in a general court martial given the gravity of the charge.
As to your hypothetical of soldiers being ordered to shoot insurrectionists: There is no legal definition of “insurrection.” Under 10 USC § 252, “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
The vital words are “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”. This means that Federal troops may ONLY be deployed domestically if the Federal courts have been prevented from working by riots, etc. That’s a pretty high bar for disorder. The Federal
Courts in Portland kept functioning throughout the 100 night effort in 2020 to burn down the Federal courthouse. And under 10 USC § 254, POTUS is required to issue a public proclamation ordering “insurgents to disperse within a limited time,” i.e., no proclamation, no Federal troops.
Now we get to the rules of war. A U.S. soldier is not permitted to intentionally shoot an unarmed person who poses no
Immediate danger. There are exceptions based on specific presidential authorizations (e.g., Soleimani, al-Awlaki), but unarmed persons, civilian or military, are off-limits.
So if an unarmed crowd is rioting, and a military commander orders his troops to open fire, that order would be unlawful, and those refusing to comply would be exonerated. The commander would likely be charged with a war crime.
OTOH, if all the foregoing conditions have been satisfied, and an armed band of fighters (“insurgents”) is detected by a Federal military patrol and refuses to surrender, it would be “lawful” to open fire on the insurgents. A soldier who refuses to do so would be convicted of insubordination and sentenced to prison. The sentence would be “enhanced” because the insubordination occurred in combat. I’m sorry if you don’t like this result. But it is the law, and has been since 1792 in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion.
But there is the larger and more likely scenario of widespread “mutiny” by soldiers against their NCOs and officers, due to their repudiation of the moral legitimacy of legally valid orders to fire on Americans. Even more importantly, senior military officers (e.g., USNORTHCOM 4 star, and Division commanding generals (2 star)) might refuse to execute such orders on moral grounds. However, the likelihood of GOs doing so is limited, given Obama’s 2011-12 purge of all officers not sufficiently enthusiastic about DEI. There may be people of character left in the officer ranks, but of necessity, they keep it well hidden.
Regardless, this would be a cataclysmic fracture in the U.S. military, unprecedented in our history.
While your explanation is thorough, you're acting as if it means anything in the world we live in.
We're also not supposed to spy on our own citizens, restrict their movements, kill them without trial (thank you, Obama), and censor their words. We've done all of that, and there have been no consequences.
So what would you rather teach soldiers? That those who rank above them are to be obeyed blindly or that they should think for themselves because they are every bit as smart and probably with less ulterior motives?
I used to go to church with Scott Walker and chatted with him a few times before he became governor of WI. What they did to him was a practice run for Trump. The man is a saint. I was thinking Rick Perry would make a good VP. But I would probably prefer Gen Mike Flynn
All the politics have done me in! The never ending insanity, has made me politically insane. Every word, I hear or read, related to the 2024 presidential election, simply makes me want to collapse, take to my bed, or simply start my hair on fire 🔥 I'm tempted to stay in bed, hibernating till the whole damn election mess is over with.
Chris, love the idea of having Marines and soldiers and other service members sit down to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan with those who sent them there. But the likelihood of that happening is roughly equivalent to my chances of simultaneously being struck by lightning, bitten by a lemon shark, and seeing the Epstein client list in full. In other words not bloody likely.
Occasional? Daily, more like. The CIA prefers the NYTs and the State Department spooks use WaPo. The connection between “intelligence” and US media is just ridiculously incestuous.
Substack is the great divide. People are reading, people are listening to independent journalists. I believe this because there’s less than 2% uptake of the covid vaccine booster now. MSM’s viewers are dwindling as we speak. DJT is gaining popularity by the day and the indictment. Just shows how the left is rabid spiraling on their own drool and hatred.
I can't even remember how much I believed from the media pre-covid, but now it's down to near zero. My husband and I have checked out of most of it and have been watching reruns of old westerns. There's a lot of shooting but amazingly, always some kind of moral conclusion, and some incredible equestrian displays. I'm just so weary of politics. As they say in Lancaster County, I'm plumb wore aught (that's "out' in Pennsylvania Dutch). I get my news from you Chris, and a few other stackers.
Pre-COVID, I believed almost nothing the media itself said, but I generally gave credence to experts (except on climate change with respect to which there are no experts). COVID destroyed the credibility of every physician/scientist who did NOT sign the Great Barrington Declaration, or worse, adhered to the gospel of Fauci.
I don’t understand why there’s even a market for “news” anymore. It changes no one’s mind. I’m not immune – Miranda Devine of the NY Post reported this AM that an Iowa caucus goer told her that he will vote for Trump even if Trump’s in jail. I thought a moment and realized “Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at too.”
My mind goes to Trump’s joke about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave, and I instantly thought “Well, Biden effectively murdered
those 13 men at the Kabul Airport (plus 167 Afghans), and no Democrat’s ever even mentioned it, as if it was only a fart in church. Compared to that, being in jail seems minor.
Hang on... are you telling me bear spray doesn't work?
No, it absolutely works. It keeps your hands busy while the bear eats your face.
That's like the old joke...
"What kind of gun do you want for protection in Alaska?" Asks one man.
"A pistol with the front sight cut off," replies the other.
"So it's faster to aim?"
"So it doesn't hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your ass."
It’s amazing how so many can see the corporate press/political machine for what it is, reject it entirely, but then still agree to play by their rules for how to conduct the political process.
While hiking in Alaska, I played my harmonica to spook the bears away. Probably as useful, not, as bear spray.
Was on a bus in Denali and a crazy hiker was being chased by a bear. The bus driver stopped and let him on the bus. THEN his bear spray deployed. Not sure why he never shot it at the bear but what a miserable 60 miles back to camp.🤪
Surprised the passengers didn’t “invite” him back off the bus!
Bells. How silly do I feel admitting I’ve used them. Which, from what I understand, the presence of little bells is how one identifies grizzly scat.
Much cheaper, too!
Slim Whitman might work...
worked on the Martians, at any rate
Harmonica totally keeps my dogs away. Can’t practice in the house.
Well, bears and dogs are next of kin among Carnivora. It might work on both.
I've heard it adds a flavor to your flesh that bears find interesting.
It works on racoons, I can attest to that. Bears are basically big, slightly more polite, raccoons.
I sprayed a raccoon with a hose in our back yard, and it just stared at me. Like, "try that again." And I had a canister of bear spray available right inside the house!
Only running faster than your companions works.
If by “bear spray” you mean a .500 S&W, then yes!
Meat tenderizer.
“What if, instead, we tried to use alternative media to open a series of wide-ranging and category-defying real discussions?”
Seems to me that’s why we’re all here on this stack…
'We have months of this empty noise ahead of us, and I propose that we just ignore it. Political coverage is gated and slotted; it goes through particular cultural sluices, then runs down particular channels until it evaporates into meaninglessness.'
Perfect.
“Meaninglessness.”
Like the assertion on FNC that if Trump didn’t get 50.000001% or more in Iowa, that his campaign was doomed. And this AM, it’s revealed that no one in a contested race has EVER gotten 50%+ in an Iowa caucus. Notably, in 2020 Pete Buttigieg got 25% to Biden’s 14% in Iowa, this proving the “50%+”s to be FOS.
The image of drawing water out of well with a leaky bucket also comes to mind.
Let vets talk to the politicians who sent them to war? I dunno, that sounds too much like accountability. We don’t do that, Chris.
I bet Rogan or Tucker could set up those conversations. Meanwhile, Rona McDaniel is trying to get everything to go through mainstream media. And she’s totally for Haley. What a traitor!
She's horrible. Horrible. She's defeat in human form.
She’s a Romney. Enough said.
I agree with Rand Paul: https://nevernikki.net/
Both of them are.
Glenn Greenwald is also an option, although he doesn't have the reach of Rogan or Tucker.
I never thought I’d admire the guy who helped Snowden escape, but here we are.
Meanwhile the latest RNC "debate" just got cancelled because two of the remaining three "candidates" refused to participate. Progress.
You should have supported the lady that was trying to take her place.
It was last year (at least), I don't remember her name, but at least she was a Republican.
Harmeet Dhillon.
Thank-you!
She is the perfect example of why the Republican Party loses. Democrats would vote for a dung beetle if told to but not republicans. Oh no. They’d argue over which piece of shit was the most tasty.
" Let the first lightly moderated panel be about Afghanistan, and feature people who fought there in open discussion with some of the people who sent them there."
Are we talking UFC-rules here?
I would pay to see this.
No rules, in a cage.
Fight!
I'm betting on the soldiers!
“Let the first lightly moderated panel be about Afghanistan, and feature people who fought there in open discussion with some of the people who sent them there.”
Only if the panelists don’t have to walk through metal detectors before the discussion.
What about a panel of journalists, talking about how thousands of name-identified journalists are running air cover for the democrats. How they're making it possible for the Democrats to limp their mentally infirmed Cadaver-in-Chief much closer to the election before he abdicates, so they can declare a "save the country" candidate and not have that person debate anyone, or answer any real questions? Journalism as a profession eliminating the idea of debate and vetting from the whole concept of "Democracy". Maybe that's what they mean by "Our Democracy"...as opposed to a real one. Setting up the big Michelle Obama bait and switch in October 2024...two weeks before the election.
Mike will be it. And you can bet all the negroes that cheated in all the swing states for cash money from fat pigs like Stacy will be out in force, making x’s on mail-ins. They’ll have little camps set up at playgrounds for kids to make out fake ballots. I’m not wrong.
The Big Mike bait and switch. Fixed it for you.
The last paragraph--that's why we can't do it. The people who sent them don't want to hear from the people who went, and more importantly, an open conversation would signal that the people who did the actual fighting should have some sort of say and are, perish the thought, some sort of equals, like the people who are footing the bills and making the country limp along such as it is should have some day in its governance. We'd hate for the livestock to get ideas above their station. ;-) We'd rather distract them with loud sounds and fake glittery things.
I disagree with the “equals” comment. We do not have a direct democracy, and the Constitution directly calls the President the “commander in chief.” The military is hopefully the LEAST democratic institution in America. The salient part of the military enlistment oath is “…I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me…”
In WWII, we utterly crushed both Germany & Japan – two societies with robust cultures & homogenous peoples. Thus our postwar governance was successful because we established some “guardrails,” but didn’t alter their societies to a great degree.
Our forays into the Middle East and Southwest Asia have failed because those areas have ZERO common cultures within the artificial national boundaries drawn by the British post-WWI. It was hubris to think we could overcome those local differences. I strongly suspect there were subject matter experts at CIA and State screaming upward in their organizations that post-war nation-building was a wasteful pipe-dream.
BTW, we lost our sister in Iraq in Jan 2005; I hold the above views in spite of that pain.
So you're saying you want our soldiers to obey Biden if he tells them to start rounding up "insurrectionists"?
Yes, there is a hierarchy in the military, but it's not to be blindly followed nor are the soldiers inferior human beings who should just follow the orders of their betters, especially not a military like ours that gets pimped out so much it's become more like a mercenary force. Nor are their experiences to be discounted simply because they are not up there in rank.
Here’s the enlistment oath in its entirety:
“I, (name of enlistee), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Please note that the “support and defend the Constitution” language comes first and is superior to the oath to obey the President and officers.
Just as you do not argue with a police officer on the side of the road, you do not argue with a commander in the field. That comes later thru impeachment, if possible.
As you've probably seen, supporting and defending the Constitution is open for interpretation. So I ask again, do you really want to suggest that a soldier should simply accept say a left-leaning interpretation that shooting insurrectionists is not only acceptable but necessary because they threaten the Constitution, or do you want to accept that soldiers are equal to their superiors and their judgment counts, even in the moment?
I apologize for the length, but you’ve asked questions in a complex area.
I would prefer a different formulation than “equal to their superiors” in the context of obedience to orders, but that personal preference aside, a soldier is always physically able to disobey an order based on his personal interpretation of what’s “lawful.” The soldier will then likely be charged under Article 90 with “Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer” or Article 91 with “Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer,” followed fairly quickly by an Article 32 hearing (equivalent to a preliminary hearing in civilian courts) the purpose of which is to determine if there is a valid basis for the charges. The defendant may present exculpatory testimony and evidence in support of a finding on “no basis.” If a valid basis for the charges IS found, the defendant will subsequently stand trial, likely in a general court martial given the gravity of the charge.
As to your hypothetical of soldiers being ordered to shoot insurrectionists: There is no legal definition of “insurrection.” Under 10 USC § 252, “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
The vital words are “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”. This means that Federal troops may ONLY be deployed domestically if the Federal courts have been prevented from working by riots, etc. That’s a pretty high bar for disorder. The Federal
Courts in Portland kept functioning throughout the 100 night effort in 2020 to burn down the Federal courthouse. And under 10 USC § 254, POTUS is required to issue a public proclamation ordering “insurgents to disperse within a limited time,” i.e., no proclamation, no Federal troops.
Now we get to the rules of war. A U.S. soldier is not permitted to intentionally shoot an unarmed person who poses no
Immediate danger. There are exceptions based on specific presidential authorizations (e.g., Soleimani, al-Awlaki), but unarmed persons, civilian or military, are off-limits.
So if an unarmed crowd is rioting, and a military commander orders his troops to open fire, that order would be unlawful, and those refusing to comply would be exonerated. The commander would likely be charged with a war crime.
OTOH, if all the foregoing conditions have been satisfied, and an armed band of fighters (“insurgents”) is detected by a Federal military patrol and refuses to surrender, it would be “lawful” to open fire on the insurgents. A soldier who refuses to do so would be convicted of insubordination and sentenced to prison. The sentence would be “enhanced” because the insubordination occurred in combat. I’m sorry if you don’t like this result. But it is the law, and has been since 1792 in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion.
But there is the larger and more likely scenario of widespread “mutiny” by soldiers against their NCOs and officers, due to their repudiation of the moral legitimacy of legally valid orders to fire on Americans. Even more importantly, senior military officers (e.g., USNORTHCOM 4 star, and Division commanding generals (2 star)) might refuse to execute such orders on moral grounds. However, the likelihood of GOs doing so is limited, given Obama’s 2011-12 purge of all officers not sufficiently enthusiastic about DEI. There may be people of character left in the officer ranks, but of necessity, they keep it well hidden.
Regardless, this would be a cataclysmic fracture in the U.S. military, unprecedented in our history.
While your explanation is thorough, you're acting as if it means anything in the world we live in.
We're also not supposed to spy on our own citizens, restrict their movements, kill them without trial (thank you, Obama), and censor their words. We've done all of that, and there have been no consequences.
So what would you rather teach soldiers? That those who rank above them are to be obeyed blindly or that they should think for themselves because they are every bit as smart and probably with less ulterior motives?
I used to go to church with Scott Walker and chatted with him a few times before he became governor of WI. What they did to him was a practice run for Trump. The man is a saint. I was thinking Rick Perry would make a good VP. But I would probably prefer Gen Mike Flynn
All the politics have done me in! The never ending insanity, has made me politically insane. Every word, I hear or read, related to the 2024 presidential election, simply makes me want to collapse, take to my bed, or simply start my hair on fire 🔥 I'm tempted to stay in bed, hibernating till the whole damn election mess is over with.
Chris, love the idea of having Marines and soldiers and other service members sit down to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan with those who sent them there. But the likelihood of that happening is roughly equivalent to my chances of simultaneously being struck by lightning, bitten by a lemon shark, and seeing the Epstein client list in full. In other words not bloody likely.
Yeah, I know. But I'm trying! I've proposed it to some people who could actually pull it off. We'll see.
Joe Rogan's podcast?
Bill Ackman and Elon Musk egging each other on over Twitter?
Yeah, I could do with more of that.
That sounds like actual journalism.
We don’t do that in America anymore.
Integrity and genuine public-spiritedness doesn’t pay as well as selling your soul to satan.
Infotainment is the business of the talking heads these days...with the occasional CIA-written talking points penciled in here and there.
Occasional? Daily, more like. The CIA prefers the NYTs and the State Department spooks use WaPo. The connection between “intelligence” and US media is just ridiculously incestuous.
Substack is the great divide. People are reading, people are listening to independent journalists. I believe this because there’s less than 2% uptake of the covid vaccine booster now. MSM’s viewers are dwindling as we speak. DJT is gaining popularity by the day and the indictment. Just shows how the left is rabid spiraling on their own drool and hatred.
I can't even remember how much I believed from the media pre-covid, but now it's down to near zero. My husband and I have checked out of most of it and have been watching reruns of old westerns. There's a lot of shooting but amazingly, always some kind of moral conclusion, and some incredible equestrian displays. I'm just so weary of politics. As they say in Lancaster County, I'm plumb wore aught (that's "out' in Pennsylvania Dutch). I get my news from you Chris, and a few other stackers.
Pre-COVID, I believed almost nothing the media itself said, but I generally gave credence to experts (except on climate change with respect to which there are no experts). COVID destroyed the credibility of every physician/scientist who did NOT sign the Great Barrington Declaration, or worse, adhered to the gospel of Fauci.
Agreed.
I don’t understand why there’s even a market for “news” anymore. It changes no one’s mind. I’m not immune – Miranda Devine of the NY Post reported this AM that an Iowa caucus goer told her that he will vote for Trump even if Trump’s in jail. I thought a moment and realized “Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at too.”
My mind goes to Trump’s joke about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave, and I instantly thought “Well, Biden effectively murdered
those 13 men at the Kabul Airport (plus 167 Afghans), and no Democrat’s ever even mentioned it, as if it was only a fart in church. Compared to that, being in jail seems minor.