RSS
On the heels of his worst week in office, during which his crude comments about race were widely perceived as defending racism and hatred — comments that sent some of his natural domestic allies fleeing — President Donald Trump could not bring himself to articulate a mea culpa.
Instead, he purported to defend as “some very fine people” the monsters who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” (a virulent Nazi slogan calling for lands where only Aryans may live) as they clashed with those who rejected their messages in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Police failure and general government indifference about the freedom of speech permitted one of the racists to kill one of those who had come to reject the hate.
After the deceased was identified, one of the neo-Nazis there said she deserved to die because she was “fat.” It is difficult for me to accept that I am writing about neo-Nazis calling for racial purity and rejoicing in the death of an innocent — in America in 2017. But here we are. They are among us, and these subjects must be addressed.
At first, the president made a rambling statement about bad people on “both sides”; then he read a nicely worded attack on racists; and then he held a disastrous impromptu news conference in which he was so morally ambivalent that he seemed to reject his duty as president.
Rejecting, as well, the pleas of those around him to renounce his own failure to renounce his moral ambivalence — which won him a public accolade from the most notorious Ku Klux Klan fanatic in the country — Trump decided to change the subject.
Like former President Bill Clinton after his disastrous public appearance before a federal grand jury that was investigating him, Trump decided to fight a war. But the war he announced we will “fight to win” earlier this week is the longest, most misguided, costliest and least understood war in our history, and we are fighting for people who hate us.
If these phrases and ideas sound familiar, they should. They are not my words — though I agree with them — but those of candidate Trump. He articulated them forcefully to the American electorate during last year’s presidential election campaign. He actually began attacking the war in Afghanistan long before he announced his presidential candidacy.
If he has been consistent on any public issue, it has been his opposition to this useless, lawless, costly war — until he needed to change the subject.
Why war? Because nothing strengthens the presidency and its occupant or commands the attention of the public or weakens domestic political opposition as effectively as war.
No rational person will argue publicly that our troops should die or lose or lack the resources to fight even an unjust war, and often even political opponents will jump on a wartime president’s patriotic bandwagon. We will witness that scene again soon.
With the last anti-war holdout in his inner circle — Steve Bannon — gone, Trump embraced the present and former generals with whom he has surrounded himself and surrendered to their arguments.
I wish he had been faithful to his promise to the electorate to bring the troops home. Instead, he will send an unannounced number of service members and accompanying equipment to Afghanistan — not to rebuild the bridges and roads the U.S. destroyed there but to fight, to kill and to “win.”
What are we doing there?
The British tried to tame this unruly barren wasteland, which has never had a modern-day central government, back in the 19th century, and the Russians tried to do the same in the 20th century. They both lost a generation of soldiers and a fortune.
What are we doing there?
On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by 19 religious fanatics, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia. These monsters were funded by Saudi wealth.
But President George W. Bush needed some country to attack in the aftermath, so he convinced Congress that since we couldn’t attack the dead people who attacked us or our “friends” — the Saudis — who financed them, we should attack their ideological comrades residing in a safe haven called Afghanistan. Instead of attacking the 9/11 attackers’ sources, we attacked their friends.
What are we doing there?
During the Republican presidential primary debates, Trump himself savaged former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush so aggressively over his efforts to defend his brother’s decision to invade Afghanistan that the younger Bush quit the race; and Republicans voted for Trump in droves.
What are we doing there?
我们已经在那儿花费了超过1万亿美元的借款，在那儿派遣了100,000万多名士兵，在那儿杀死了无数的无辜者，在那儿摧毁了城镇，城市和古代文物，在那儿损失了数十亿美元的现金和设备； 而我们在那里战斗了16年的人仍然控制着该国40％以上的地区。
What are we doing there? How will we know if we have won there? When will we come home for good from there?
The answers to these questions are deadly but easy — when the subject has been changed here.
版权所有2017 Andrew P.Napolitano。 由Creators.com分发。
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
在过去的16年里，我们一直在糊涂，作为“一带一路”项目的一部分，中国一直在铺设从塔吉克斯坦到伊朗的穿越阿富汗的火车轨道，并开展业务。 如果我们的世界观不会很快改变，我们将失去全球的所有信誉。 我们对竞争的唯一反应似乎仅限于杀死任何对手。 经营帝国的方式不佳。
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com
首先第一件事情：
It might be a reasonable finding of fact that he was a racist, but less reasonable to say she was there to reject hate. One might plausibly argue she was there to suppress the freedom of speech of other citizens. In any case, Trump praised her effusively without any real knowledge of the person. He does that a lot.
第二：
1) Denying China easy access to strategic rare-earth minerals.
2) Distracting the Iranians by destabilizing the region.
3) Supporting the cultivation of poppies and production of heroin that is further destabilizing Iran, Russia, India, and a number of other countries in the region.
4) Testing weapons and tactics that might be employed elsewhere in the neighborhood.
5) Using up stores of weapons and munitions to justify buying more to prop up the bloated “defense” industry.
6) Misleading the American people that their government is actually doing something to fight terrorism rather than supporting it.
7) Whipping up terrorist fervor and recruiting so that we continue to have an enemy to “fight” and waste billions dollars to further line the pockets of the “defense” Industry.
8) Justify having at least 17 intelligence agencies, many of which are oriented to monitoring the American people.
Yeah, it’s a shame we didn’t go to war with Saudi Arabia, because those terror-sponsoring pu**ies would have folded like a cheap tent in a matter of days.
美国失去信誉将使美国公民受益。
让我们效仿英国的榜样，并有尊严地退出国际舞台。 我们的“领导”毁了我们。
亲爱的法官N ._________
你写，
真的，这对任何人都不应该感到惊讶。 在过去的40到50年中，大左派的联合力量一直困扰着比赛。 他们甚至还以自己的形式散布了种族主义，例如出现了来自马萨诸塞州的假印度参议员或来自州的假NAACP成员，那是哪里？ 蒙大拿？
当所有时间都与种族有关时，有些人会照照镜子并宣布 这 是他们要参加比赛的球队。 他们为什么不呢？ 当大多数政客根据您的肤色来提供恩惠和好处时，告诉这些胡言乱语他们都是错误的，您的依据是什么呢？他们应该以牺牲自己的利益为代价来支持另一种种族吗？
希望您能看到此评论并回答这个问题，因为它是由衷的提出的。
最良好的祝愿，
炉排设计
有趣的是，纳波利塔诺法官重复媒体的谎言。特朗普总统当然没有为那些高呼“犹太人不会取代我们”和“血与土”的人辩护为“一些非常优秀的人”。特朗普总统正确地指出，在拆除雕像的辩论中，夏洛茨维尔的双方都有好人和坏人。
对于任何诚实的人来说，特朗普显然指的是那些反对拆除雕像的人，他们没有暴力，没有举着火把，也没有高喊种族口号，称他们为“一些非常优秀的人”。是的，无论民主党、媒体和共和党建制派如何试图说服我们，这些人确实存在于夏洛茨维尔。
I don’t see how carrying torches or chanting “Jews will not replace us” or “blood and soil” makes one a bad white person. I didn’t know torches symbolized evil or that peaceful chants about Jews supporting policies racially replacing whites was cause for teeth gnashing and soul searching even among people on the right.
Well, I can scratch Andrew Napolitano’s name off the list of people whose opinions I’ll give a rat’s ass about ever again.
Charlottesville was a staged event, a fake protest designed to drum up popular outrage against the True Right, scheduled to coincide with the de-platforming of various right-wing voices from Youtube, Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others. The staged incident was a fiasco, but they went ahead with the de-platforming anyway.
The death of Heather “fat-ass” Hayer was not intentional. It was the result of a man in fear of his life driving his car through a crowd of belligerent rioters who were blocking the street.
It’s a fact that virtually all organized Jewish groups strongly support amnesty for illegals and replacement level immigration levels. It’s anti-semitic to notice. If this hurts the ears of American Jews then they are free to emigrate to Israel.
If the judge recoils at “blood and soil” then perhaps he can explain why the first naturalization act of 1790 restricted citizenship to “free white persons of good moral character”, or why our immigration laws were designed to favor a European super majority until 1965. Or that Operation Wetback thing in the 1950’s.
Clashed? This is an old media trick when the media doesn’t want to admit who started the fracas. More like antifa attacked the 合法的 alt right protesters with urine and feces bombs, acid, rocks and pipe and the alt righters were forced to fight back anyway they could. The judge, Bill O’Reilly and other media heavies are clearly siding with a violent, ultra left wing group who subscribe to an ideology (communism) that murdered 100 million people.
Sounds like Mr. Constitution is on board with free speech and Constitution rights for everyone except white people who don’t hate themselves. It will be difficult to take the judge seriously from this point forward given his obvious bias and lack of objectivity.
This idiot is a good example of how libertarians are simply SJW lite. People had the right to protest, they were then physically attacked by others that now are very openly are against free speech, the real scandal here is how people exercising the first amendment are now the villains.