• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

America’s Chief Klutz, BIDEN, Speaks His Best!

Biden blew it speaking to the wife of a Marine killed in Kabul

By Andrea Widburghttps://f4e1eb52f3da2b541421eb9de8494c05.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

We’ve written about Biden checking his watch while he was at Dover yesterday watching the transfer of those who died in Kabul from the airplane to the hearses that will drive them to their final resting places. He also failed to understand that, as Commander-in-Chief, he should have saluted the coffins as they were carried past him, rather than putting his hand on his heart, and, as the picture below shows, he stood at “parade rest” rather than attention (although that may have been old bones protesting). It was all a telling breach of protocol and it turns out that Biden was just as tone-deaf in his dealings with the families of those who died.

Marine Lance Corporal Rylee McCollum was one of those who died. He was only 20 years old and his first child was due to be born in three weeks. It would have been tragic enough had he died in a battle that had meaning. The horror of what happened to him and, by extension to his family and unborn child, was that his death was utterly pointless.

McCollum died because Biden completely botched the pullout from Afghanistan. Even a child would figure out that you never give up your security until the last person, civilian or military, is gone. But while a child could have figured that one out, Biden and his team were unable to do so.

Although McCollum’s family was at Dover to see his body arrive, only his wife, Jiennah went to meet with Biden. The rest of the family didn’t even want to speak with him because they believe he is responsible for what happened.

The Washington Post described what happened at that meeting:

“Only Jiennah, who is expecting the couple’s child next month, stayed. But she left disappointed, Roice [McCollum’s sister] said. The president brought up his son, Beau, according to her account, describing his son’s military service and subsequent death from cancer. It struck the family as scripted and shallow, a conversation that lasted only a couple of minutes in ‘total disregard to the loss of our Marine,’ Roice said.

“‘You can’t f— up as bad as he did and say you’re sorry,’ Roice said of the president. ‘This did not need to happen, and every life is on his hands.’

“The White House declined to comment on the private conversations Biden had with families.”

I’m very sure that the White House declined to comment. Once again, the only rhetorical vehicle Biden had when dealing with someone’s loss was to express his own sorrow over Beau’s death. I’ll say again what I said before: It’s a genuinely sad thing that Beau died of a brain tumor at a relatively young age. I’m sure Biden felt that loss deeply. However, Biden doesn’t let sentiment get in the way of business.

Biden has grossly abused Hunter over the years. Hunter is obviously a deeply damaged man, with his drug addictions, sex fetishes, and self-confessed problems with parading naked around children. A child like that should be protected and helped. Instead, Biden dragged this miserable man around the world, using him as a bagman to collect massive amounts of foreign bribes, ostensibly for business deals but, again per Hunter’s own statements, to enrich Joe himself.

While Beau seemed to have been his own man during his life, he’s become a rhetorical trope for Biden since his death. Biden drags him out at every opportunity to wave before the world the fact that he’s suffered, so nobody had better try to out-suffer him. Poor Beau is the ultimate conversational tool for a malignant narcissist, which is my armchair diagnosis for Biden. Beau is so useful that it’s tempting (although cruel) to say that, if Beau hadn’t died, Joe would’ve had to kill him simply for his value as a symbol Joe can use when needed.

UPDATE: The Daily Mail has a report that shows Biden again making it all about himself when speaking with the parents the murdered American troops:

Mark Schmitz – the father of Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz – and Darin Hoover – the father of Staff Sgt Darin Taylor Hoover Jr. – spoke to Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday night.

Both claimed the commander in chief did not just check his watch once, but after every casket was removed from the plane.

Hoover also told how he refused to meet with the president at the event.

Schmitz said his own meeting ‘didn’t go well’, and Biden spent more time talking about his own son Beau than Jared Schmitz.

Schmitz said Biden spoke of losing his son Beau Biden, an Iraq veteran, to cancer six years ago. But Schmitz said that he wanted to talk about Jared instead and that he and his wife took out a photo of their son to show the president.

“I said: ‘Don’t you ever forget that name. Don’t you ever forget that face. Don’t you ever forget the names of the other 12,’” Schmitz told The Post. “‘And take some time to learn their stories.’”

But according to Schmitz, the president didn’t like that and bristled, replying: ‘I do know their stories.’

Image: Joe Biden at Dover Air Force Base. YouTube screen grab.

Has VEEP Harris Ever Been Thrown OVER To Nome, Alaska?

Kamala Harris has officially been thrown under the bus, and for good reasons

JAZZ SHAW at HotAir:

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Joe Concha has an op-ed over at The Hill this week where he seeks to answer a question that Karen Townsend asks here on a regular basis. Where’s Kamala? You still see the occasional video clip of her fending off reporters or being dispatched on some presumably important business to Central America or Asia, with the occasional, uncomfortable moment where she laughs at serious questions. But aside from that, we just don’t see much of her. Concha makes the argument that none of this is happening by accident.

He first reminds us of how Harris was supposed to be a new sort of Vice President. She would be an equal partner with Joe Biden and get big things done as the nation’s historic first female Veep. Biden’s people even sent out a directive saying that the press should refer to the current White House as “the Biden-Harris administration.” The author then runs down a list of Harris’ poor past performances, such as her failure to attract any support in the presidential primary. Her record of accomplishments is “thin” (to put it charitably) but you’d think she would be showing up as the face of the Biden administration far more frequently than she is. And yet she’s pretty much been kept off the stage. According to Concha, don’t expect that to change any time soon.

All of this helps explain why Harris has been taken off the field almost completely. Last week Harris was sent to Vietnam and Singapore amid the chaos in Afghanistan. When that trip was over, she stopped off in Hawaii to visit Pearl Harbor. Any Americans who wanted to hear why Harris supported the decision to pull U.S. forces out of Afghanistan last spring would have to wait, because the press was blocked from the event…

Since Harris took office, she has yet to hold even one formal press conference. Not one.

It’s also been weeks since Harris sat down for a one-on-one interview. There’s a reason for that: Her handlers seem to know there’s very little upside in having her say anything unscripted on the crisis at the U.S. southern border, where the migrant numbers are at 20-year highs amid a pandemic.

If the White House thinks its strategy of keeping Harris out-of-sight, out-of-mind is working, they should think again. Because we haven’t seen vice presidential approval numbers this low so early in an administration since Dan Quayle under George H.W. Bush.

The bits of business supposedly assigned to the Veep have either been catastrophic (Border Czar) or off of everyone’s radar. (What was she doing in Vietnam while Afghanistan was going up in flames?)

The rumor mill inside the Beltway suggests that Kamala Harris’ handlers are intentionally keeping her out of the limelight. Any “unscripted moments” she has with the press could cause the Biden administration far more damage than the potential help she might deliver. And most of the time she doesn’t seem to come off as very compassionate or likable. Perhaps that’s why the press was blocked off from her when she recently stopped in Hawaii to tour Pearl Harbor. Why risk having someone try to ask her about Afghanistan when she might actually try to answer?

The most recent polling numbers we have on Kamala Harris show her significantly underwater in her approval rating at 35/54. Not to put too fine of a point on this, but Donald Trump had better numbers than that for most of his presidency, though not by a lot in some cases. But still, it’s kind of amazing to see Harris racking up numbers that poor when she’s barely been visible since the day she was sworn in.

This leaves the Democrats in a tough spot, doesn’t it? Biden’s numbers have similarly been tanking of late and there is even talk of impeachment or attempting to force a resignation. But whether he leaves early or announces that he’s only planning to finish one term, the Vice President would usually be expected to be the default nominee to replace him. But with Harris’ approval numbers and general lack of visibility, she seems unlikely to be the nominee at this point, at least in Concha’s opinion.

The Invisible Veep may turn out to be more of a problem for the Democrats in 2022 and 2024 than anyone is imagining yet at this point. And this strategy of keeping her out of the public eye doesn’t seem to be helping as much as the team thinks it is.

Biden, OUR PRESIDENT, Was Well Noted As A Life Long Political Deviate from Delaware: Phony, Sly, but Rather STUPID!

‘Long-held Doubts about Biden’s Ability’

By Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker:

In National Review Saturday morning, the great and the good are affirming their “long-held doubts about Biden’s ability.”

The question that Biden’s media allies and the Washington establishment are now privately wondering: Is the Afghan disaster an aberration, or will the calculated risk they took in helping Biden into the White House prove to be an unending series of headaches and embarrassments?

So why in the world did you geniuses deep-six Bernie Sanders back in March 2020? Imagine: if Bernie had been the nominee and defeated by Trump then everything going wrong, from Afghanistan to the cruel end of the rent moratorium, would be Trump’s fault. Yum!

According to John Hinderaker, the Brits are writing scathing articles in the Daily Telegraph about President Biden “owning” the decisions and the “consequences.”

Translation: what Gaetano Mosca calls the “ruling clique” has suddenly noticed that Houston We Have a Problem.

I guess you could say that this is progress. Up till now, the only thing the “ruling clique” cared about was that Trump is a Problem. Otherwise, everything was copacetic, except that we had only 12 years to save the planet.

As for the rest of the ruling class, the credentialed and educated liberals everywhere from tech to think tanks to universities to media to NGOs and the nice liberal ladies and their virtue-signaling #WeBelieve yard signs? They don’t have a clue; not yet.

I guess I’m not that interested in Afghanistan, except in a Flashman novel, so I didn’t realize until yesterday that deposed Afghan President Ghani went to college in the U.S. and became a professor of anthropology. And he gave a TED talk(!) on “how to rebuild a broken state such as Afghanistan.” I wonder who decided it would be a really good idea to educate all the girls and give them certificates — that they are now burning. And it seems like all the other western powers were in on this folly.

Did you know there is a name for this sort of thing? That word is “colonialism.” Send in the best and brightest and lift the benighted primitives into the 21st century, old chap. That’s what this is all about.

Odd isn’t it. For all of my 75 years, lefties have been lecturing me about the horrors and the injustice and the Original Sin of western colonialism and imperialism. But if you ask me, The British Conquest and Domination of India was a walk in the park compared to this bunch.

Of course, back in the day, the Brits thought the Empire should pay for itself. That’s what the movie Lagaan is all about. The peasants paid lagaan — taxes — to the Rajahs, and the Rajahs paid taxes to the Brits and the Brits liked to play cricket of an afternoon: “I say, well hit!”

I guess our modern neo-colonialists in the global elite are much more advanced than that. Or are they just terminally conceited?

Back in 2014, after the Republicans won both houses of Congress in Obama’s second mid-term, I wrote a blog post “The Three Liberal Conceits:” the Economic Conceit that the government can run the economy; the Social Conceit that government can solve poverty; and the Moral Conceit that government can successfully “legislate morality.” Hey Afghanistan: how yer doin’ pal?

Do you notice something about our glorious global elite? They can all repeat: Trump is a problem. They can murmur: Biden has a problem. But they never ask: Do We Have a Problem?  The “we” being the global elite, les bels chevaliers sans peur et sans reproche and all that medieval romance rubbish.

You know, I hate this humiliation of America. I’ve loved this country and its people with all my heart since the first morning I woke up to a glorious Denver sunrise in December 1965. But we cannot make this country great again until our present ruling class is utterly humiliated and creeps away with its tail between its legs.

What does it take to humiliate a ruling class? It takes a humiliating defeat in war; it needs a reckless inflation that impoverishes widows and orphans; it takes a people enraged by a justice system that calls some people peaceful protesters and others armed insurrectionists.

But it takes one thing more. It takes a populace that is no longer afraid to be called racist, sexist, or homophobic. Or any other of the thousand-and-one pejoratives that the ruling class uses to lash the peasants into line.

Whaddya think, America? Is this the year when we tell our noble lords that they can take their race cards, their gender cards, and their gay cards, and put ‘em where the sun don’t shine?

Because you know what racism looks like? It looks like counting by race, affirmative action, protected classes, underrepresentation, diversity, and corrupting our kids with critical race theory.

As Cromwell said: ye venal slaves, be gone!

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also, get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Image: Gage Skidmore

Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, and “1984”; And Today’s good-old Biden Days?

Animal Farm’ Turns 75

Revisiting Orwell’s work on the anniversary of the barnyard classic.

Claudio Divizia/Shutterstock


Seventy-five years ago today, “a little squib” contributed decisively to changing American attitudes toward the Soviet Union—our ally during the Second World War—and so to launching the Cold War. That sharp-edged squib was Animal Farm, a 30,000-word satire in the tradition of Aesop’s beast fables. The author who modestly described his own work as such was British writer Eric Blair (1903-50), better known by his pen name, George Orwell, and most famous for his next and last novel, 1984.

On August 26, 1946—exactly 12 months after American planes dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the war in the Pacific—Orwell’s fable detonated on American shores, a literary nuclear weapon. Its impact on the cultural front of the Cold War proved immediate and lasting: never again would the American public speak warmly about the Soviet dictator “Uncle Joe” Stalin and his tyrannical regime.

I first read Animal Farm as the Cold War still raged, more than a half-century ago. As a boy, I was excited, as Orwell’s “fairy story” (his British subtitle) unfolded, to become aware that this barnyard tale was about geopolitical matters of much greater scope than the cruelty of a farmer toward his animals—or of pigs toward so-called “lower” animals, the beasts of burden such as the heroic cart horse, Boxer. I discovered in a state of anxious wonder that the tyrannical pigs represent the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that the diabolical pig leader Napoleon stands in for Joseph Stalin and that his eloquent rival Snowball represents Trotsky, and on and on.

I was fascinated that the book was an allegory with precise correspondences between Russian history and every fictional event and literary character. The fun and excitement of reading it was to unlock the keys to understanding the depth of this apparent “animal story.” In later years, I taught the book regularly to college students and visited high schools where it was assigned. When I saw that many junior and senior high school teachers did not know much about Russian history, I wrote a high school textbook about the complex historical context of the allegory.

Yet little did we know as schoolchildren—or anyone else, for that matter, until the 1980s—that the sensational postwar popularity of Animal Farm, first in the U.S. and then around the world, had much to do with the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret funding and distribution of the film adaptation, along with translations into more than five dozen languages. Of course, all this happened after Orwell’s death in January 1950. Nonetheless, thanks to the efforts of the CIA, he became the leading, if posthumous, Cold Warrior of the postwar West.

Would Orwell have supported this cultural war against communism? That is a question that historians debate to this day. All we can say is this: A dead man has no means to prevent the use and abuse of his work in ways that he never envisioned. My own answer is a definite, if carefully qualified, “yes.”

I have taught the fable to high school and college students as an entertaining “animallegory” with a serious Aesopian moral: power corrupts. Yet there is a danger if one leaves it at that, neglecting to study the historical correspondences closely. That neglect results in downplaying the Russian parallels, even though the allegorical links between Russian history and the fable’s characters and events are quite exact.

On the other hand, one can also focus too much on the Russian correspondences and so elide Orwell’s larger warning against not just Stalin’s dictatorship, but political tyranny in general. I witnessed this firsthand when I interviewed Chinese theatergoers who had attended a stage performance of Animal Farm in Beijing. I expressed surprise that the Chinese cultural censorship bureau had approved staging a satire about the beastliness of communism. They looked at me quizzically.

“You see, Animal Farm is an allegory,” they said. “It’s a satire of Russian history, not Chinese history.”

If I ever add a chapter to my textbook on the historical context of Animal Farm, I must remember that unsettling lesson, as if from Mao’s Little Red Book.  While Animal Farm is indeed an allegory of Bolshevik communism, it is also about evil regimes that may arise anywhere, not just in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Uncle Joe.

Yet communism meant Stalinism when Orwell was writing Animal Farm. The Soviet Union was the only communist nation on earth in the mid-1940s. (The People’s Republic of China was officially founded in October 1949, three months before Orwell’s death in January 1950.) So the wartime difficulties that Orwell faced in criticizing allied Russia and communism were different from those in later years, when communism spread throughout the world.

No less difficult for Orwell in 1944-45 was the struggle to secure a publisher in wartime England. Animal Farm was rejected by several British and American publishers on political grounds alone. British publishers deemed it “dangerous to the war effort” to criticize the Soviet Union—at least, not until Nazism was finally defeated. American publishers felt similarly when approached by his agent in mid-1945. (Some publishers were simply obtuse. For example, failing to grasp the satire, Dial Press in New York told Orwell that they didn’t market “animal stories.”)

Nonetheless, within a year of war’s end, Western public opinion toward Russia was already cooling. The timing of Animal Farm’s American publication was perfect. Critics hailed it as a modern classic equal to Aesop and Fontaine. It was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and became a runaway bestseller in the fall of 1946, selling more than a half million copies by the end of the year.

By the mid-1950s, Orwell’s squib had become a required school assignment in classrooms throughout the world and came to sell in the tens of millions—at least 40 million by 2021. Joined with the even greater success of his last book, 1984, which jolted American readers less than three years later in June 1949, Orwell’s two political satires established the framework of totalitarianism in which Americans came to perceive the shifting danger from Nazism to Stalinism—and some of the ideological language bandied in the emerging Cold War (a term coined by Orwell during the Second World War). His double-barreled satirical attack against Stalinism has defined the issues of freedom versus totalitarianism for most Americans and Britonsa battle between the so-called Free World (the West) and an evil (Orwellian) empire.

John Rodden has taught at the University of Virginia and the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent book is George Orwell: Life and Letters, Legend and Legacy (Princeton University Press: 2020).

A NOTE FROM GLENN: I was attending high school in the 1950s when Animal Farm popped out of nowhere inside of my English class….and my terrific teacher, Grace Cochran.

Being dyslexic, I couldn’t read novels. I learned to read encyclopedia topics easily enough, but stories, plots, even paragraphs of novels were beyond my absorption memory of story telling.

Today, I own a couple thousand books, some novels. George Orwell’s book,”1984″, was the only “novel” I have ever read cover to cover. I think I sensed it was like an encyclopedia or newspaper item that caused the interest and ability for reading.

Soviet Stalin died in 1953……Communist North Korea had invaded South Korea. We were all aware of nuclear weapon horror. It’s then when I decided to study Russian, the language, when I went to college…..in order to be ready to be of help to my country…..a learning I had been taught in public school during World War II mostly from my well learned, talented old maid school teachers I, and my fellow students respected so much.

There were no Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Schumer Congressional mouthy fascist lefties in Congress making trouble in those days. Commies were common teaching communism at universities during Wisconsin’s Senator, Joseph McCarthy noise. I was studying Russian without trouble.

No doubt there were a number of stupids in Washington like Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from today’s California…..but California was clean and beautiful then.

“that the FBI had nothing to do with U.S. Capitol melee”……???


More Similarities Between the Whitmer Plot and January 6

It’s almost impossible to believe, considering the deep involvement the agency had in the Michigan scheme with the same groups, that the FBI had nothing to do with the U.S. Capitol melee.

By Julie Kelly at American Greatness:

August 30, 2021

The first defendant to plead guilty in the alleged scheme to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer will spend the next several years in jail. A judge last week sentenced Ty Garbin, 25, to 75 months in prison on one count of “conspiracy to kidnap.” His five co-defendants have pleaded not guilty; their trial is set to begin October 12.

The case made major headlines right before Election Day 2020 as early voting was underway in the crucial swing state. It was useful fodder for Democrats and Joe Biden. 

“We have come to a point where, despite our shock, we are not surprised that such a heinous plot was even conceived—a plot by Americans to blow up a bridge on American soil, threaten the lives of police officers and other law enforcement officials, and kidnap an American leader, take her hostage, and stage a mock trial for treason,” Biden said October 9. Donald Trump, Biden claimed “is giving oxygen to the bigotry and hate we see on the march in our country.”

But as defendants prepare for trial, the media-crafted façade surrounding the Whitmer plot, just like the immediate designation of January 6 as an “armed insurrection,” is falling apart. Court documents suggest at least 12 FBI agents and informants helped develop the scheme in the spring of 2020; Garbin and his co-defendants were arrested on October 7 after attempting to buy explosives from an undercover FBI agent. One informant, who went by the code name “Thor,” was paid $24,000 and given a new car by the FBI for his services.

A bombshell report by Darren Beattie at Revolver News explained the FBI’s extensive role in orchestrating the most damning aspects of the kidnapping caper. “The plot’s ‘explosives expert,’ who the plotters were accused of planning to buy bombs from, turned out to be an FBI agent. The head of transportation for the militia outfit turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. The head of security for the militia outfit turned out to be an undercover FBI informant. At least two undercover FBI informants were active participants in the initial June 6, 2020 meeting in which the plot to storm Capitol buildings was allegedly hatched—meaning at least three FBI informants infiltrated before the conspiracy even started.”

A screenshot of a text cited in a defense motion shows FBI Special Agent Jayson Chambers, “Thor’s” handler, underscoring that the mission of the ragtag group is to “kill the governor specifically.” An in-depth report by BuzzFeed confirmed an FBI agent had been “assigned” to each suspect. about:blankabout:blank

How the FBI seemingly concocted the Whitmer kidnapping plot and made it public right before the election raises legitimate questions about the FBI’s potential involvement on January 6, especially considering the same “extremist” groups—the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers—are tied to both. (Whitmer, who was never in any danger of being kidnapped, told CNN’s Erin Burnett she knew about the operation weeks before the perpetrators were arrested. She complained the Trump campaign did not “check in on her” after a plot to “kidnap and kill her” went public.)

The precursor to the kidnapping ruse, interestingly, was a plan to attack the state capitol in Lansing. The parallels are uncanny.

For example, Garbin met with a few wannabe terrorists at a Second Amendment rally in Michigan’s capital on June 18, 2020, to recruit “200 people to storm the Capitol, try any politician they caught for ‘treason,’ and execute them by hanging them on live television,” according to his plea agreement. Ironically, on January 6, some protesters were heard chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and a makeshift gallow with a noose had been erected on the west side of the Capitol in a now-iconic image of that day.

The plotters, however, abandoned plans to storm Michigan’s capitol building and shifted to the kidnapping ruse.

But an anti-lockdown protest in April 2020, which involved “Thor” and presumably other FBI assets, draws even more comparisons to January 6. Wearing a wire, “Thor” went to Lansing on April 30 to meet up with members of the “Wolverine Watchmen,” alleged militia members who would later be charged in the kidnapping scheme. After “Thor” communicated with his FBI handlers, according to a BuzzFeed investigation into the case, “something surprising happened. The Michigan State Police stood down and let the protesters—including those in full tactical gear—enter the building unopposed. They could even bring their guns.”

Police stood down and let protesters wearing military garb into the building? Where have we heard this before?

BuzzFeed continued: “The Watchmen rushed to the building’s second floor. When [one defendant] spotted state troopers, he got in their faces, screaming, taking pictures of their badges with his phone, daring them to touch him. The Watchmen, meanwhile, had worked their way toward an office they thought was Whitmer’s and were banging hard on the door. Photojournalists began snapping pictures. The shocking spectacle of the militants occupying the Capitol grabbed the media’s attention.”

Almost eight months later, many of the same tactics including banging on office doors looking for elected officials were used in the nation’s capital resulting in similar images.

Now, federal prosecutors are using January 6 as a cautionary tale in court filings related to the Whitmer case. Rejecting valid arguments that the defendants could not have pulled off the kidnapping even if they tried, Andrew Birge, the U.S. attorney prosecuting the Whitmer defendants, wrote in Garbin’s sentencing memo that “we need look no further than the events of January 6, 2020 [sic] for an illustration. The rioters there failed to stop Congress from certifying the election, but they certainly demonstrated that amateurs can kill first responders and destroy property.”

“Kill first responders?” Birge, like so many prosecutors and the entire news media, continues to advance the lie that police officers were killed by Trump “insurrectionists” on January 6. And despite claims the Capitol sustained $30 million in damage, the actual figure is less than $1.5 million.

“As the Capitol riots demonstrated, an inchoate conspiracy can turn into a grave substantive offense on short notice. Such accelerationist groups are widespread and proliferating,” Birge claimed, without evidence.

Whitmer, for her part, submitted a “victim impact statement” prior to Garbin’s sentencing last week where she also raised the four-hour disturbance nearly eight months ago as part of her ongoing struggle to cope. about:blank

“The rise in violent extremism in America is one of the gravest threats we face. The violent insurrection we witnessed on January 6 is not an anomaly, it is our future if we do not work to address how we got here.” The entire nation, Whitmer laments, has been victimized by the FBI sting operation that never posed any threat to her safety. “I am not the only one who has been impacted by this kidnapping plot. It is like throwing a pebble into a pond. The ripples expand to include my family and loved ones, the state I love, the citizens I serve, the country I have always believed in and the idea of democracy itself. We have all been impacted by this.”

Given what we now know about the FBI’s Whitmer operation and how January 6 is bleeding into that case, it’s time for FBI Director Christopher Wray to account for any agents or informants involved with so-called “militia” groups before and during the Capitol protest. It’s almost impossible to believe, considering the deep involvement the agency had in the Whitmer scheme with the same groups, that the FBI had nothing to do with it.TwitterFacebookParlerShare onTwitterFacebookParler

About Julie Kelly

Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. She is the author of Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried―And Failed―To Take Down the President. Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review. She also has been featured in the Wall Street JournalThe HillChicago TribuneForbes, and Genetic Literacy Project. She is the co-host of ‘Happy Hour podcast with Julie and Liz.’ She is a graduate of Eastern Illinois University and lives in suburban Chicago with her husband and two daughters.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Political Leftist General Mark Milley, DEMANDED TO BE REMOVED!

Almost 90 Retired Flag Officers Demand Mark Milley, Lloyd Austin Resign After Afghanistan Debacle

Almost 90 Retired Flag Officers Demand Mark Milley, Lloyd Austin Resign After Afghanistan Debacle

AUGUST 30, 2021 By Jordan Davidson at the Federalist:

Nearly 90 retired U.S. generals and admirals penned an open letter asking Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley to resign from their positions following their “negligence in performing their duties primarily involving events surrounding the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

“As principal military advisors to the CINC [Commander-in-Chief]/President, the SECDEF and CJCS should have recommended against this dangerous withdrawal in the strongest possible terms,” the letter states. “If they did not do everything within their authority to stop the hasty withdrawal, they should resign. Conversely, if they did do everything within their ability to persuade the CINC/President to not hastily exit the country without ensuring the safety of our citizens and Afghans loyal to America, then they should have resigned in protest as a matter of conscience and public statement.”https://91e3e4d9581137f985f1094699ad0a93.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

This “hasty retreat,” the letter continues, not only left thousands of vulnerable Americans and Afghan allies stranded at the hands of the Taliban but also contributed to the “catastrophic” loss of “billions of dollars in advanced military equipment and supplies falling into the hands of our enemies.”

“The consequences of this disaster are enormous and will reverberate for decades beginning with the safety of Americans and Afghans who are unable to move safely to evacuation points; therefore, being de facto hostages of the Taliban at this time. The death and torture of Afghans has already begun and will result in a human tragedy of major proportions,” the letter says. “The damage to the reputation of the United States is indescribable. We are now seen, and will be seen for many years, as an unreliable partner in any multinational agreement or operation. Trust in the United States is irreparably damaged.”

This damaged trust, the retired generals and admirals argue, gives confidence to U.S. enemies who “are emboldened to move against America due to the weakness displayed in Afghanistan.”

“China benefits the most followed by Russia, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and others. Terrorists around the world are emboldened and able to pass freely into our country through our open border with Mexico,” the letter states.

The letter also points out how military leadership’s focus on “wokeness” is hurting the viability of U.S. troops and the military as an institution.

“In interviews, congressional testimony, and public statements it has become clear that top leaders in our military are placing mandatory emphasis on PC ‘wokeness’ related training which is extremely divisive and harmful to unit cohesion, readiness, and war fighting capability,” the letter says. “Our military exists to fight and win our Nation’s wars and that must be the sole focus of our top military leaders.”

“For these reasons we call on the SECDEF Austin and the CJCS General Milley to resign,” it concludes. “A fundamental principle in the military is holding those in charge responsible and accountable for their actions or inactions. There must be accountability at all levels for this tragic and avoidable debacle.”

Over the last week, multiple GOP lawmakers called on President Joe Biden to resign for “dereliction of duty that has left Americans dead at the hands of terrorists.”Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Photo YouTube/Photo


EU excludes U.S. from travel safe list of countries

by KAREN TOWNSEND Aug 30, 2021 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Three European Union officials said on Sunday that member states are being advised to remove the United States from a “safe list” beginning today. They say the action is necessary because of the surge of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations in the United States in recent weeks. And, as predicted, the EU voted today to do just that. The list is meant to unify travel rules across the EU.

This is a reversal of a decision made in June to reopen most European countries to Americans after more than a year of travel bans due to the pandemic. The new restrictions will not be mandatory, though, and it is up to individual countries in the 27-nation bloc to make decisions on imposing quarantines and testing requirements. Simply speaking, the summer pass for the sake of reviving the tourism industry is now over. After ignoring the rates of coronavirus infections in the U.S. this summer, now the EU wants to use the number of cases as their excuse to close off its member states now.

The criteria for allowing residents to travel into the EU for nonessential travel requires no more than 75 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 over the past two weeks.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total number of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. has been more than 11,000 per 100,000 for the past two weeks. Most recently, 11,810 cases per 100,000 were reported.

Though recommendations have yet to be released, the EU advisory could affect some of its member nations as they move to reopen.

It should be noted that Europeans are under a travel ban by the United States. There has been friction from frustration over a lack of cooperation by the U.S. in lifting travel bans with European countries. If a country is on the EU’s safe list, travelers from those countries can visit without quarantining. All they have to do is show proof of vaccination or a negative test. Countries not on the safe list are barred from nonessential travel. They can be subjected to testing and quarantine.

During the summer months, Americans could visit countries and help revive their economies through tourism dollars. Some countries have required proof of vaccinations to enter some venues like museums and restaurants where larger crowds likely gather.

Other countries will also be removed from the safe list – Kosovo, Israel, Montenegro, Lebanon, and North Macedonia.

The non-binding list currently has 23 countries on it, including Japan, Qatar, and Ukraine, but some of the 27 EU countries already have their own limits on U.S. travelers in place.

The decision on new EU travel restrictions for foreigners would become final on Monday should no EU country object, the sources, as well as two more EU officials, added.

The vaccination rate in the United States is trailing other countries, such as those in the EU. Last month, the EU showed a 64 percent rate of vaccination with at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine. In comparison, the U.S. is at 60 percent. How did the EU countries, after such a slow start, overtake the United States? Efforts in the U.S. peaked in April while the EU effort to get people vaccinated grew faster than those in any other region of the world. By July, the EU went ahead of the U.S. in the number of at least one dose of vaccine administered. Like in the U.S., there was resistance to the vaccines but resistance in the U.S. is more widespread. There is more resistance along partisan political lines, for example, and that is not found in EU countries.

There is no indication that the Biden administration will lift the travel ban on Europeans traveling into the U.S. any time soon. The current policy toward Europeans from 29-Schengen countries as well as the UK and Ireland is that they are not allowed to enter the U.S. without spending 14 days in a country that doesn’t appear on the CDC list of prohibited countries. Even if you have proof of vaccination with a passport, those from prohibited countries are not exempted. The US also bars citizens from China, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and India from entering the country as well.


News Desk at THE NEW YORKER:

The Veterans Struggling to Save Afghan Allies

For many who served in Afghanistan, the flawed evacuation efforts have brought feelings of shame and betrayal.

By Megan K. Stack, August 30, 2021

People standing on an airport tarmac next to a U.S. Air Force airplane.
People evacuated from Kabul walk past a U.S. Air Force plane, at Pristina International Airport, in Kosovo. They were flown in from Ramstein Air Base, in Germany.Photograph by Visar Kryeziu / AP / Shutterstock

It was past midnight, but lights burned and phones buzzed in an unremarkable office suite a block from the White House. The bland offices of a defense-contracting firm had been turned into a makeshift operations center where some dozen volunteers, on laptops and phones, were making a desperate effort to evacuate people from Afghanistan. Tactical flowcharts and lists of people stashed in safe houses on the other side of the planet covered dry-erase boards; a detailed diagram of the Kabul airport hung in the conference room; a digital clock showed the minutes slipping past in Afghanistan time.

Matt Zeller roamed the office in flip-flops, frowning into his phone, groaning out expletives, and announcing disquieting scraps of uncorroborated information to anyone within earshot. He received a report that a Taliban representative had been in the air-traffic-control tower at the Kabul airport since the day before. The gates at the airport were closed again. “He better not be asleep,” he hollered into the phone. “He better not.”

A former Army reservist and C.I.A. analyst who served in Afghanistan in 2008, Zeller has toiled for years as an advocate for Afghans endangered by their work for the United States. In 2013, Zeller and Janis Shinwari, an Afghan interpreter whom Zeller credits with saving his life in a shoot-out with the Taliban, founded No One Left Behind, a nonprofit that helps Afghans apply for special immigrant visas and resettle in the United States. But the Afghan S.I.V. program has been continually beset by bureaucratic delays and opaque vetting. By the time President Biden took office, there was a backlog of about twenty thousand Afghan families who had asked to be considered for the visas, saying that their lives would be in danger if the Taliban took over. Many of them had been waiting for years.

When Biden announced his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this spring, No One Left Behind was among an improbable alliance of refugee groups, veterans’ organizations, and U.S. lawmakers who warned the Administration that it was not evacuating allies fast enough. Now their fears had come true. The Afghan government crumbled before the United States had completed the withdrawal, leaving tens of thousands of vulnerable people entitled to resettlement in the United States with little chance of escape. In response, volunteers—many of them veterans, reservists, or active-duty military—developed sprawling, loosely interconnected rescue networks with miraculous speed. They scrambled for donations, tracked down charter planes, and enlisted old friends in Kabul to help guide at-risk Afghans onto evacuation flights. It’s difficult to know the extent of the work, but organizers say that thousands of Americans are involved.

Most of the volunteers have concentrated on the problem and promise of Hamid Karzai International Airport. As soon as Kabul fell to the Taliban, on August 15th, thousands of people rushed there: U.S. citizens, holders of green cards and special visas, young men who had no documents but were desperate enough to try their luck. The result was a miserable carnival of stampedes and shoot-outs and sewage that flooded the streets. Marines fired tear gas to try to quell the mob and closed down the gates in seemingly random patterns.

“The gates are like a terrible game of Whac-A-Mole,” Adam DeMarco, an Army veteran who, with a group of West Point graduates, engineered the evacuation of a handful of Afghan alumni and their families, and also other allies, said. “Some open. Some don’t. The times fluctuate.”

Last Monday, as the August 31st deadline to complete the evacuations drew near, the U.S. said that it was prioritizing citizens and green-card holders; on the ground, troops and State Department officials turned back S.I.V. applicants at gates and checkpoints. Another terrible twist came a few days later, when the Taliban announced that Afghan nationals would be barred from approaching the airport. The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, assured reporters that S.I.V. applicants would still be able to leave. The Biden Administration, she said, had instructed the Taliban to allow Afghan allies to pass through the checkpoints. But that statement took on a troubling cast when Politico reported that U.S. officials had given the Taliban a list of names, including those of vulnerable Afghan allies.

People in the airport were being put on planes, but that was hardly the whole story. Some charter planes took off with row upon row of empty seats. Afghans might be saved if they could reach the airport, but, by and large, they couldn’t get there.

“We’re running the D.M.V. from hell,” Zeller said.

Sitting alone in the kitchen of the defense-contracting firm’s office, looking disoriented, almost woozy, was a man who preferred to give his first name only: Nazar. A thirty-six-year-old who had started translating for U.S. troops at seventeen, Nazar had touched down in the United States that day, after an anguished escape from Afghanistan. His long-anticipated flight had come at a steep price: he’d left behind his wife and his three children, all of whom are under seven, for the simple but immutable reason that he couldn’t get them through the crush of people to the airport gates.

The whole family had secured U.S. visas and commercial plane tickets to fly out on August 17th. Two days before that, the Taliban seized Kabul, and the flight was cancelled. The family stripped their packed luggage down to a few backpacks and tried to approach the airport, suffering for hours in crowds so tight that Nazar’s wife told him she was suffocating. They returned home and tried again the next day, but the crowds had only thickened. Finally, outside the airport, they made an excruciating decision: Nazar would travel alone, in hopes that he could get the rest of the family out later.

Nazar described passing through checkpoints where Taliban guards cursed him as an infidel and whipped people with chains, and being hit with tear gas by U.S. marines. Gun battles erupted; his left thigh was grazed by a bullet. He saw an amputee getting trampled on by the crowd and a man weeping for his children, and he was ashamed because he’d moved past all that desperation and shoved his way into the airport.

“I’ve seen hell with my eyes,” he said quietly.

Zeller was nineteen on September 11, 2001. He came from a line of veterans stretching back to the American Revolutionary War; he enlisted, he said, because both his family’s history and the terrorist attacks imbued him with a sense of obligation to his country. “I bought into it. I really believed we could make a difference. And it turns out . . .,” he trailed off. “What you realize is, you come home, and you don’t come back the same person. I wasn’t prepared for any of that. And I don’t think you really can be.”

He said, of the years he’s spent trying to deliver Afghan allies to safety, “I feel like this is atoning for all the shit that I did previously.”

For many veterans of the post-9/11 wars, leaving their allies behind is a deep, even intolerable, wound. Many describe a reaction that is graver than anger or sorrow; they talk about the personal shame of having betrayed the men and women who served with them, an act that is anathema to their military training and ethos and, more broadly, undercuts the values they thought they were defending.

“Do you understand what it’s like to have people send you messages saying, ‘You promised me you’d get me out,’ ‘I’m being hunted,’ ‘You can’t get me out,’ ‘Why are you betraying me?,’ ‘You left me behind’?” Zeller said. “Imagine now it’s someone you served with and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In the early years of No One Left Behind, Zeller said that he found his staunchest supporters among Vietnam veterans, who still bore the scars of having abandoned their own allies. Zeller recalled that when he was lobbying lawmakers over problems with the S.I.V.-application process, in 2013, John McCain erupted angrily that it was going to be “another Vietnam.” For years, McCain led efforts to increase the number of S.I.V. visas. “Isn’t it unconscionable for us not to allow them to come to the United States if they want to,” he once said, “after what they did for us?”

“When we go over there in these small teams, we tell the people we work with, ‘You can trust us. We’ll be there for you.’ How many people have we looked in the eyes?” George Adams, who fought in the Middle East and Africa, said. “This is going to be a huge mental-trauma disaster for the military.”

Adams was working with vulnerable Afghans this past weekend, focussing on a few families of Afghan-American service members who remain trapped in the country. He’d already had to accept that he would not be able to evacuate the elderly parents of a U.S. reserve-services member, and he had started talking to them about strategies to stay safe for the time being.

“It’s over,” he said on Saturday. “They’re screwed. We’re screwed.”

Despite the chaos at the airport, the U.S. government had evacuated a hundred and fourteen thousand people by Sunday, and officials promised they would keep working to get more out. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken suggested that some might travel overland and cross the border into neighboring countries; the United States and other governments said they’d received assurances from the Taliban that Afghans who had their travel documents in order would be allowed to leave.

But the official promises did little to assuage the emotions of the volunteers. Jen Wilson, who usually runs a nonprofit for veterans but is now overseeing an ad-hoc mission to rescue U.S. citizens and green-card holders, Afghan allies, and other vulnerable people from the north by aircraft, told me that, in her view, the flawed evacuation efforts had put veterans into an intolerable position. “The entirety of the moral weight and the moral burden lies squarely on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform,” she said. Wilson knew of three veterans of the Afghanistan war who had died by suicide during the past two weeks. (I’d also heard this from two other sources.) One of them, she said, left behind a pregnant wife.

“It’s the most hopeless, helpless, frustrating, infuriating experience of their lives,” she said. “To them, it’s ‘If I can get him out, it won’t have been for nothing.’ ”

On Thursday, a suicide attack on the crowds outside the Kabul airport killed thirteen U.S. service members and an estimated hundred and seventy civilians. Hours later, I returned to the defense-contracting firm’s offices in Washington, where I hoped to meet Safi Rauf, the leader of that evacuation effort. At the time of the attack, Rauf had been guiding a bus with dozens of people toward the airport gate to catch a charter flight. Separately, he was coaxing a family of thirteen forward on foot. He’d quickly sent the bus back to a safe house and dispatched someone to pick up the family. Meanwhile, in an incident that Rauf still hasn’t disentangled, his cousin was shot and injured by a Taliban soldier. “Bad day,” he told me.

A slim and restless Afghan-American Special Operations veteran, Rauf was born in a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan, just across the Afghan border. He grew up crossing regularly into Afghanistan with his veterinarian father, who travelled to Khost to treat cattle. Rauf immigrated to Nebraska as a teen-ager, following an older sister, and enrolled in a public high school. He enlisted after graduation and spent years helping to hunt Taliban in Afghanistan before coming back to the United States and attending college at Georgetown. He had planned to start medical school at the University of Nebraska in the fall, but he told me he’d just decided to defer his admission for a year so that he could focus on the evacuation efforts. It disgusted him, he said, that the U.S. was leaving people behind.

I wondered what it was like for someone whose life trajectory had been sketched by the Afghan war to watch, now, as the U.S. government walked away.

“It just feels so strange,” he said. “We were at war, and they were killing our soldiers, and now it’s like we’re begging them to let us get out with a little bit of our dignity. And they’re saying, ‘Look what we did to a superpower like the U.S. We brought them to their knees.’ ”

A gloomy silence fell between us. Look, Rauf said suddenly, gesturing at the big screen where Kabul time still flashed: 7 a.m.

“It’s just daylight in Kabul,” he said. “I’m afraid of what we’re going to find.”

This post has been updated to remove the name of a security firm that assisted in the evacuation effort, owing to safety concerns.




In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on August 19, Joe Biden said the U.S. would stay in Afghanistan until every American who wants to get out is out. As of now, the U.S. is out of Afghanistan, but our government concedes that some Americans are still trapped in that chaotic Taliban-ruled country. Moreover, our government does not intend to use the military to get these Americans out.

Let’s break this down. General McKenzie, Commander of CENTCOM, said today:

I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the military mission to evacuate American citizens, third country nationals, and vulnerable Afghans. The last C-17 lifted off from [Kabul Airport] this afternoon at 3:29 East Coast Time.

On the question of evacuating all Americans who want out, McKenzie said “we were not able to bring any Americans out” on the last jets to leave Afghanistan because “none of them made it to the airport.” (Emphasis added) I think even Jen Psaki would agree that those who didn’t make it to the airport are “stranded.”

How many are stranded? I doubt that we know. However, McKenzie said he thinks the number of Americans still trapped in Afghanistan is in the “low hundreds.”

What are we going to do to get these people out? We’re not planning to use the military. John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said the administration does “not anticipate a military role” in the effort to get additional U.S. citizens out of Afghanistan.

So I guess we’re going to rely on the Taliban to get our people out. Maybe we’ll bribe them.

Perhaps this approach will work, at least for most of those who are stranded. Let’s hope so.

But it’s not what Biden promised in the Stephanopoulos interview. And it’s not the way a serious country with a decent regard for its citizens behaves.

Today’s Biden Drive For A Safer America: TANKS FREE! FOR OUR ENEMIES ONLY!

Our Afghan Nightmare:
Tanks for Nothing

Afghanistan has been reinvented as the best-equipped terrorist nation in the world, basking in the prestige of humiliating the world’s superpower.

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

August 29, 2021

Joe Biden’s scripted or no-questions press conferences, and the clean-up afterward by Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Jen Psaki, have been some of the most misleading episodes in modern presidential history—mostly in what was not said rather than was exaggerated, warped, and misrepresented. 

Biden as Commander-in-Chief

The more Joe Biden mutters “The buck stops here” or “I take full responsibility,” the more we know he will not—and not just because of his now reduced mental state, but because 1) he repeats the same opportunist messaging that he has for the last 50 years of his political career, and 2) the only true thing he could say was “I ordered a withdrawal in the most reckless manner in U.S. military history.”

When Biden then blames Donald Trump, it raises the immediate questions: 

1) If the Afghanistan deal was so flawed, why did Biden stick with it, given his other radical departures from what he inherited on the border, on fossil fuels, on the Middle East—on just about everything before January 20, 2021? 

2) So, was it good or bad to withdraw all U.S. troops? Was Trump wrong to have bequeathed him a policy of graduated withdrawal, but Biden was right to have continued it for a while—only to have accelerated it into surrender and flight?

3) Why did the violence erupt on Biden’s rather than on Trump’s watch? And was his order for a hasty flight in the dead of night from Bagram Air Base also the inherited Trump departure plan?

When Joe Biden now threatens al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, and others with revenge, he sounds, unfortunately, more like the ridiculous Joe of “Corn Pop” braggadocio with his weaponized chain, or Joe taking Trump behind the gym to womp on him, or young Joe Biden slamming the mouthy kid’s head on the lunch counter. Speaking softly with a club is preferable to being loud with a twig.about:blank

We have all heard, ad nauseam, too many of Biden’s He-Man stories. The latest rhetoric does not hide the fact that Biden had opposed the Osama bin Laden raid, criticized the termination of Qasem Soleimani, left Afghanistan in the most shameful retreat in U.S. history, and is now begging the Saudis to pump more oil after cutting back on our ample supplies and trashing Riyadh as part of his return to the Obama pivot to Iran. 

Biden loves appeasement lists. He provided the Taliban with a list of whom we wished to evacuate. (When the Taliban soon knock on the door of an American in Kabul who thinks their message will be, “We’re here to escort you to your flight”?) In the same manner, Biden provided Putin with a helpful list of institutions he wanted Putin’s satellite cyber-criminals to exempt from hacking. 

The blame for this sordid mess is threefold: 

1) The media that knew Biden was debilitated and so covered up that fact to carry the candidate across the finish line in November. 

2) The Democratic apparat that envisioned Biden lasting just long enough (the country be damned) to provide the needed cover of a sharply left-wing agenda. 

3) The Pentagon’s top brass, active and retired, who for years leaked about and obstructed Trump, sought to toady up to the press in its “wokeness,” and posed as speaking truth to power, but have now gone strangely silent when we need public voices to oppose the present Afghanistan nihilism of the administration.

Partnering With the Taliban

The Taliban are to al-Qaeda and ISIS as the Nazis in World War II were to fellow fascists of the Spanish Blue Division, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, and the Romanian Iron Guard—ethnic and ideological variants of the same radical nihilist cause. No act of terror goes on in Afghanistan without someone in the Taliban ordering or allowing it. Their “ring” around the airport is only an obstruction for whom they choose: Americans and their allies. 

The Taliban may for a moment seek plausible deniability of suicide bombings to hasten the U.S. departure in shame, temporarily disavowing credit for slaughtering Americans as they leave. But as soon as U.S. soldiers are gone, the Taliban will give free rein to its hounds al-Qaeda and ISIS, brag that they drove out the United States, and then resume their accustomed murdering and raping of civilians. We should expect lots of silent, under-the-table Bowe Bergdahl-type swaps, trades, and humiliations for the next year or so. We will likely sell out our former friends in the Northern Alliance, pay cash under the table per hostage head, and lie about a “new” Taliban. 

So, should we laugh or cry when General Kenneth McKenzie assures us that the Taliban and the U.S. military have the same agenda: Americans exiting Afghanistan as soon as possible? 

Yes, their agenda is the Pentagon exiting Afghanistan as soon as possible—but with the greatest global humiliation, loss of life, and general sense of defeat. In contrast, our agenda is to leave Afghanistan soberly and methodically, even if that means regaining Bagram for as long as necessary to achieve our own strategic goals.

The Abandoned Arsenal

The administration never mentions the vast horde of U.S. weaponry that was simply abandoned to the Taliban. Why? Is it to be “$80 billion here, thousands of machine guns there—no big deal”?about:blank

Estimates of the trove’s value range from $70 billion to $90 billion. The stockpile likely includes 80,000 vehicles, including 4,700 late-model Humvees, 600,000 weapons of various sorts, 162,643 pieces of communications equipment, more than 200 aircraft, and 16,000 pieces of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment, including late-model drones. Especially worrisome are the loss of night-vision equipment, 20,000-plus grenades, and 1,400 grenade launchers, as well as more than 7,000 machine guns—the perfect equipment for jihadist terror operations and asymmetrical street fighting. 

We can look at this disaster in a number of depressing ways. One would be to compare this giveaway to military aid given to Israel over the last 70 years, which more or less has amounted to about an aggregate $100 billion. In other words, in one fell swoop, the Pentagon deposited into Taliban hands about 80 percent of all the military aid that we’ve ever given to Israel since the founding of the Jewish state. In terms of tactical and operational capability, the Taliban may now be the best-equipped terrorist force in Asia and the Middle East.

Assume that for the next quarter-century, Afghanistan will become not just the world’s training haven for Islamic terrorists, but an international, no-questions-asked, cash-on-the-barrel arms market for anti-Western terrorist cliques. 

Or we can assess the damage psychologically. For the immediate future (possibly over the next few days or weeks), American soldiers could face the prospect of being attacked or killed by those who are outfitted in their own mirror image, and they might be blown up by their own former weapons. 

Yet the media never asked for, nor did the Pentagon volunteer, any explanation of why such stocks were simply abandoned, or at least not destroyed before fleeing, or not later bombed. Since nothing makes sense, we must strain the imagination: was the $80 billion in arms given as de facto bribe money to get our own out? 

In addition, the beefed-up U.S. embassy in Kabul reportedly cost nearly $1 billion, comparable to America’s most expensive embassy in London. It will now become a Taliban stronghold. Bagram Air Base—originally built with U.S. help and money during the Eisenhower Administration—has been updated with hundreds of millions of dollars of American investment in the last 20 years, in buildings, a new runway, personnel accommodations, detention facilities, and infrastructure. 

Although it had been the target of several Taliban attacks, Bagram was largely considered defensible. It allowed coalition and Afghan forces to enjoy 100 percent air superiority over the entire country. Biden talks endlessly of the “over the horizon” capability of distant bases and ships, while omitting that he destroyed “right over the target” current capability. Why these vital American investments were simply surrendered in the dead of night to looters first, and Taliban second, will be an object of controversy and investigation for decades to come. To think of anything similar, imagine the British surrender of Singapore in 1942 or a combination of Fort Sumter, the burning of Washington in 1814, and Wake Island, December 1941.

The End of American Stature

Regional countries will no longer wish to join the United States in any war on terror because they know they are always just one election from a radical flip-flop in American foreign policy. There is no such thing anymore as bipartisan foreign affairs, since policy is seen as an extension of the revolutionary agendas here at home. Our allies are concluding that the United States is not a bastion of sobriety and careful deliberation that takes its leadership of the free world seriously, but a mercurial, radical leftist country that in a second may self-immolate, as we did in the woke summer of 2020.

Donald Trump reportedly offended NATO members and weakened the alliance by his bombast. Perhaps, but the record shows a funny type of allied enervation, because his jawboning resulted in a much larger NATO budget, marked gains in military expenditures on the part of NATO members, and a dramatic increase in those nations finally meeting or nearly meeting their two percent of GDP military investment promises. 

And during the Trump Administration, NATO nations could claim that they destroyed ISIS in Syria under U.S. leadership, kept Afghanistan safe while reducing troops, frightened Iran, and taught Russians in Syria not to assault U.S. garrisons. For all the graduated withdrawals of the United States from Afghanistan in 2010-2020, not a single U.S. soldier had died in the 12 months prior to the inauguration of Joe Biden.  

But now? Most of the major NATO nations have condemned the U.S. skedaddle from Afghanistan. They are angry that they were not consulted, and not synchronized in the complex airlift and withdrawal. And they resent the “every man for himself” unilateralism on the part of the United States.  

We cannot expect the European NATO members to stand with the United States in trying to check Chinese aggression. The alliance will no longer badger Germany to cease its new de facto economic alliance with Russia or to stand firm against Russian bullying of frontline NATO states, or to present a unified skeptical front about reentering the flawed Iran deal. Differing views about assistance to Israel will only acerbate. NATO members, rightly or wrongly, feel they were bullied into Afghanistan by the United States, and 20 years later outnumbered the U.S. contingent by nearly fourfold—only to be left stunned as their supposed spiritual and military leader fled first for the exits, after itself surrendering the country to NATO enemies. 

The Future

In an ideal world, Biden would order a nocturnal retaking of Bagram, shift all U.S. evacuation efforts there, and provide air cover for incoming and outcoming flights as well as retaliatory strikes on terrorist enclaves as necessary. He would tell the Taliban that $80 billion of free military stuff was enough of bribes and that any more obstructive efforts will be met with bombs, not more cash and weapons.  

Joe Biden thinks August 31, 2021, is the “end” of Afghanistan. In fact, it is a new beginning of yet another chapter in the much despised “war on terror.” But this time around, the Taliban are victorious. They have been reinvented as the best-equipped jihadist nation in the world, basking in the prestige of humiliating the world’s superpower, and will take ownership of hundreds of billions of dollars of Western investment in infrastructure in Afghanistan’s major cities. 

This disaster can be attributed to Biden’s apparent desire for a 9/11 “no more Afghanistan” anniversary parade—itself to be staged to hide his multifaceted border, economy, energy, and foreign policy failures.

The Chinese are debating now whether to ramp up the assault rhetoric against Taiwan, as more Chinese voices conclude that Biden would support the Taiwanese in meager fashion, as he did U.S. contractors and Afghan interpreters. The Russians are pondering which exposed NATO country or which former Soviet republic might be probed and dissected—in expectation of a tough-guy Biden Corn-Pop lecture but not much else. Kim Jong-un is considering replaying his old role of rocket man, as he calibrates the Biden responses to more missiles launched in Japanese air or water space.  

Watch Iran especially. The theocracy believes this is the most opportune time in 20 years to announce that it is or will soon be nuclear, to unleash Hezbollah, and to step up global terrorist operations on the assumption that Biden will bow his head and declare “We do not forgive; we do not forget” and then retire for an early nap.