Tom Luongo on Trump's Iran Mistake

Tom Luongo: 

I can see the argument that Iran and Russia forced the US to choose between Ukraine and Israel, I can see that the US is forcing Russia to choose between Ukraine and Syria. 

Do I think trading Ukraine for Syria a good trade for Russia? Of course, in every way. Iran can defend Syria at this point; what is NATO going to do? 

When you play out the series of moves it doesn’t end well for the United States which is exactly the plan. Iran has to take the punch in the mouth, they have to sacrifice Hamas, the Palestinians. 

Even Trump is talking about going to war with Iran. The Republican caucus here in Florida is demanding DeSantis stop his presidential campaign. Why? Because Trump just came out in favor of going to war with Iran. Meaning, there’s been a deal made.  And he’ll do this. We have four years of evidence that Trump will do whatever the British want him to do even though it was the British (Steele dossier) that brought on Russia/Russia/Russia. He had four years of these neocons running operation after operation against him and then he comes out and says this, at this moment in time, when he’s got a 50-point lead and every other neocon is dropping out of the race? When everybody who is a Republican of any note wants war,  and Trump who owns the Republican base, could have shown leadership and said, ‘What happened in Israel was terrible.....” and stopped there. We don’t have to be the 800lb gorilla going all over the world beating everyone over the head. 

The Iranians invented chess and the Russians perfected it, the British invented statecraft and now we’re going to watch who perfected that. It’s really dumb, and yet it’s where we’re headed because everybody’s incentives line up for war. Today we are closer to an absolutely ugly long-form conflict than we have ever been. 

The Gospels Show that There's No Limiting Principle to Hate

In the gospels, a scourged and humiliated Jesus is presented by Pilate to the crowds. Pilate thought this would be enough for them, but there’s no limiting principle to hate. So why am I surprised to see that pictures of dead Israelis only create marches with Palestinian signs in American streets saying “finish the job”? 

Why am I surprised that at the end of Russia hoax, there were no apologies or sack cloth and ashes? Why am I surprised that after the Kavanaugh hearing and Kavanaugh being stalked by a gun with a gun, that it didn’t mortify the Democrats? Or why, after Steve Scalise was almost murdered by a Sanders support, that that wasn’t the “come to Jesus” moment? And why am I surprised that a justice system would put hundreds in prison for misdemeanor offenses would not result in the DoJ saying, “that is enough.” 

If the crowds didn’t think it was enough for Jesus to suffer a scourging that hastened his death, then they certainly won’t be moved by a Trump supporter who trespassed on Capitol grounds or a dead young Israeli woman. The gospels are ever timely. 

As John Zmirak recently wrote that our anger should be directed at spineless Republicans and not Democrats: 

"I’m not writing about this to pump up rage at Democrats. That’s like getting angry at alligators, for trying to bite off your legs. Gators gonna … gator. That party is no longer a mainstream, patriotic organization...Their party is no longer under human control, but is instead fully operated by principalities and powers, whose hunger for the blood of the unborn and the severed genitals of children will not be denied. The only response to 'political' programs that stink of brimstone is prayer and fasting. We don’t elect men to Congress and expect them to serve as exorcists."

If Lawmakers Could Have Sex with Ukraine They Would

Interesting commentary from Mark Wauck on the mysterious allure Ukraine has for a large segment of US lawmakers:

McCarthy made a variety of commitments in order to get the votes he needed to be elected Speaker. One of those commitments was that there would be no blanket Continuing Resolutions (CR)—spending bills would be voted on in separate categories. Typically a Speaker will not bring a bill up for a vote unless a majority of his party is on board with it. However, when it came time to send more money to Ukraine, McCarthy realized that he did not have a majority of Republicans on board. To get around his own party’s majority, he violated his commitment and bundled the Ukraine aid into a CR that was then passed with the help of Dems—over the heads of the majority of Republicans.

Gaetz pulled the plug on McCarthy because McCarthy had violated his pledge, but what precipitated it was the Ukraine issue. No doubt various members had various reasons for not wanting to pass the aid to Ukraine. Some, like Johnson, wanted provisions for tracing what happened to the money that was being shipped to Ukraine. That the Deep State could not tolerate. They demanded a blank check, in a manner of speaking.

Now Johnson—third in the presidential succession—will control the process. This not only complicates funding for the Neocon war on Russia, it also complicates any scheme to remove Biden before he can run again. Interesting times.

Tale of Two Views

I recently experienced an interesting convergence of readings from two very different sources: one an erudite atheistic political philosopher and the other a Pentecostal minister and Trump supporter. 

See the convergence, first from the political guru: 

Nowadays every dog in the street know that "wokeness" aka "political correct-ness" aka "progressivism" aka "social justice" is a religion. In 2008 it was an Archimedes-tier insight. That flash of genius was so bomb-intense it gave me, like, genius Tourette's, and I wanted to run naked out of the bathtub screaming Eureka.

I discovered, back in 2008, that the prewar mainline Protestant missionary-industrial complex in the process of morphing into the postwar secular aid-industrial complex. Having shown that our supposedly secular technocracy was in fact a theocracy—and not only that, a theocracy tied to what had been the most powerful English-speaking religious movement (growing out of English Calvinism) for 400 years—felt to me like a complete and sufficient disproof of the state.

After all, the fundamental principle of modern government is the separation of church and state. Nothing could be more important! And yet, simply by evolving away its belief in God— the way a cancer cell evolves away its MHC complex, which tags it for the immune system—this new religion has become basically as powerful as Islam in Iran. Certainly, if you replace all instances of "social justice" etc. with a reference to Allah, etc., you are looking at a pretty darned Muslim country.

Tracing it to the 16th century is easy. Across time, its devotees have been called Calvinists, Brownists, Independents, Dissenters, Puritans, Unitarians, and so on. It was the founding religion of Harvard. It remains the ruling religion of Harvard. Nothing ever happens, nothing ever changes.

The truth is that every stable government is a theocracy —a marriage of church and state. The problem with modern Puritanism is not that it is too integrated with the regime. It is not integrated enough. It is superior to the state; it should be subordinate.The "woke religion" holds unaccountable power over the regime-whereas it (and all other religions) should actually be subject to the secular authorities.

And then from evangelist Lance Wallnau in his book "Chaos Code", who uses the examples from the Old Testament where renewal (including the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem) only come from the combined efforts of a statesman and a religious leader. With the Temple, there would’ve been no rebuilding without both the political statesman Cyrus and Nehemiah and Ezra. 

He brings up Pope John Paul II as an example of his changing Poland when combined with the help of Lech Wałęsa. 

The Deep State's Trump-Shaped Keyhole

Things were more boring, pre-Trump, for sure. Of course that hid a cancer that had grown inside the body politic but ignorance is bliss. It was nice being naive and thinking the Republican Party was a force for good. The temptation is to think that we could’ve limped along with Hillary or a Romney for awhile, but the other side of the coin is we had a cancer that would only grow bigger if left untreated. Trump is the chemotherapy and it’s a bitch in the short-term. It could kill the patient, or it might heal it, but either way there’s no going back at this point. 

Trump has such a unique collection of skills, and is so different, that one can’t help but feel he was sent by God to this nation at just such a time.  I remember asking in 2015 how it could be that Trump and Hillary were the two best choices we had. But Trump, amazingly, was the best choice only because of his flaws. Only he could act so blasé and immune to the danger that he faced from enemies within. Only he, with his long history of having been litigated against, could think that being prosecuted by some of the highest courts in the land was only “business as usual”.  Only he, who paid to have a porn star go away, could be “un-blackmailable” by the bureaucracy. It’s like he used the greatest power arrayed against him and turned it around as a weapon on his attacker. He almost turned J6 into a positive. 

In short, Trump has a political courage born of his narcissism that was the perfectly shaped key that unlocked the secrets of the state.

Trump’s rise reminds us that God still writes with history, and through flawed vessels.

The Demise of McCarthy

So the high political drama today was Kevin McCarthy losing his speakership; subsequently they decided to simply cancel Congress all week and into next week.

I’m worried about a potential delay in Ukraine funding. I think we should lock them all in a room like a papal conclave until blue and yellow smoke appears.


The wonder of it is that Gaetz telegraphed this six ways from Sunday starting back in January when they had the huge speaker fight. And yet there wasn't a sense of urgency on McCarthy’s part. They didn’t open congress on Monday until 6:30pm and renamed a couple post offices before concluding business. Similarly they took a six week summer break even knowing this September bill was coming due. 

To what can I attribute it to? I recall Bill O’Reilly saying the “swells” like George W Bush couldn’t imagine reversals since they’ve had so few. Seems like McCarthy’s failure to take Gaetz seriously might be along those lines?  Just figuring everything will work out even though you don’t have a plan. Or you’re betting the other guy will fold, and on the merits that usually works. Congress is pretty incompatible with a man of principle. 

I tend to agree with journalist Julie Kelly: “Just my opinion, but my sense is if McCarthy had not embraced Ukraine funding all year; formed a separate J6 committee or at least a highly functioning weaponization committee; and immediately moved to impeach Garland, or Wray, none of this happens.”

It’s sort of the toothless Republican brand that McCarthy has embodied well enough. Don’t rile up the Democrats, lose gracefully, and collect your insider trading profits. 

Ultimately Gaetz has a quintessential American aura about him of being either a great hero or a great villain. He's anything but mediocre. 

Speculation on Trans

One of the great mysteries of life is how the trans cult ignited and took off.  If we trace it back to “patient zero” we would go to Bruce Jenner. Did someone get to him and pay him off or did he come up with it on his own? 

Retracing his life we see him in quite a bit of trouble just before the big announcement in April of ’15 that he was “transitioning”. 

In December of ’14 he divorced Kim Kardashian. The gravy train seemed to be slowing.  Even more impactful was the February 2015 fatal multiple-vehicle collision in Malibu. Actress Kim Howe was killed when his SUV ran into Howe's car. Accounts of the sequence of collisions have varied, as have even the number of people injured.  Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges, but three civil lawsuits were filed against Jenner and later settled, with financial details not disclosed. 

So just two months after this horrific accident with the specter of a huge financial need coming, he goes on Barbara Walters.  Coincidence? I don’t doubt he already was into cross-dressing but did the deep state say to him, “we can make your financial and legal problems go away if you come out as a woman”?  It’s a stretch surely but it’s even harder to believe the trans cult happened organically.

How I Learned to Be A Crank and Love It

So, yes, I’m officially a crank and I relish it. It’s pretty freeing (if perhaps dangerous spiritually). It’s nice not to care what decent people think. For the first time in my life I don’t feel that Democrats have the “high moral ground” on issues like the poor or the border or “the little man”. I no longer feel Republicans need to speak their truth softly or modestly. Nope, it’s all war, spiritually and politically. 

I feel sorry for the financial person from Fidelity today. Of course she was dying to get me to talk to a financial “expert”, even after I told her we already have a financial advisor.  So here was my spiel in response (wasting her time alas, poor soul):

"That’s actually a very interesting topic. Do we really have experts any more? If you look at every institution, whether political or medical or financial, it seems like there’s this void of authority and credibility. I’m sure your team at Fidelity are great, but even the Federal Reserve doesn’t really know what’s going on so how can Fidelity?  When I grew up Alan Greenspan was like a god, the best central banker of all time, but now he’s been much discredited after bubbles he created resulted in the 2008 financial crisis which we’re still feeling the effects of.... "

She said she understood what I was saying but that her team knows sooo much, much more than she does, and they are really high quality individuals...and she left her email information. 

**

So the gift of another hot “summer” day. Reading is the magic, especially good reading. Augustine is amazed at himself and wonders why people travel to seas and mountains and pass over themselves. Chestertonian.

Few excel more than I do at doing nothing. Chesterton claimed the same, but wrote some crazy 5 million words during his lifetime so I think he’s fibbing. Fortunately for him there was no Twitter, or TV, or 24-7 news sources. 

Tammy Wynette had trouble writing songs in the happy stretches of life and I get that. Nothing produces words more than unhappiness, if only to vent. When my dog Max was driving me crazy, he inspired me to write about him. Now, not so much. Stories demand conflict, and without conflict there is no story. Which is why I wrote mostly about politics now, alas.

I’ve also written trip logs when inspired by beauty or adventure or inconveniences, but I don’t travel like I used to.  I like to write about nature occasionally but there’s no market for nature writing.

Passion and writing are intimately linked. But good writing, and useful writing, requires an audience and a passion that is meaningful.  The only subject where those meet might be spiritual writing since people are religious animals whether they realize it or not. 

One has to consume a lot of experiences of God’s love to write spiritually, I think, and I surely spend too much time reading politics which is, in some ways, anti-spiritual writing. It locks you on worldly things and, worse, it generally displays humanity at its worse (see George Soros).

**

One of the questions of our time is: “How does God win this seemingly losing and lopsided battle with humanity?”

A Bible commentary has this to say: 

“The essence of the mystery lies in the fact that our limited minds cannot fully understand how the inevitability of the success of God’s plan fits in with human freedom. Human freedom must play its part “because the beverage of man’s salvation certainly contains the power to benefit all, but if one does not drink it, one is not healed”. Nor is it possible for us to understand the mystery of how God can allow some people to be rejected despite his desire that all should be saved.

The coincidence in God of infinite justice and infinite mercy is another unfathomable mystery. All that we really need to remember is that God always offers man the opportunity to change and repent. The Church invites us, therefore, not to close our heart to God’s invitations: “O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts”... In Romans 9, Paul defends God’s freedom to be patient and merciful toward sinners, not his freedom to punish sinners."

**

A rather poetic offering from St Augustine in his most famous book, ending with how only the human can see the invisible (it’s our super power): 

And what is this? I asked the earth, and it answered me, “I am not he.” And all that was upon it answered me the same way. I asked the sea and the depths, and all creeping living things, and they answered, “We are not your God. Seek above us.” I asked the stirring air, and all of it, with all its inhabitants, answered, “the philosopher Anaximenes was deceived. l am not God." So I turned to the heavens, sun, moon, and stars, and they too responded, "Nor are we the God whom you seek." And I replied to all the things that encompass the door of my flesh, "You have told me that you are not God. Tell me something about him." And they cried out with a loud voice: "He made us." I questioned them, thinking about them, and their splendor gave the answer.

And I turned to myself and asked, "Who are you?" I answered, "A man." And behold, within me there was present to me my soul and my body, one internal and the other outside. By which of these should I seek my God? I had sought him in the body from earth to heaven, as far as I could send messengers, the very light of my eyes. But it is better to seek by the inner means, for it was like a presiding judge before the bodily messengers that reported to it the answers received from heaven, earth, and all therein, all who said, "We are not God, but he made us." 

Is not this bodily splendor apparent to all who have intact senses? Why, then, does it not say the same thing to all? Animals, both small and great, see it but cannot ask it this, for they have no reasoning set over their senses to judge the reports that they bring forth.

But men can ask it, so that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that have been made (see Romans 1:20). However, when men love them, they become subject to them, and subjects cannot judge. And creatures only speak this answer to those who can judge. 

Texas AG Ken Paxton on Why Georgia Went Blue & Texas Stayed Red

Starting around minute thirty, Texas AG Ken Paxton explains how the Texas House has prevented election fraud from being prosecuted and how close Texas was to being stolen like Georgia has been since '20. 

Riveting interview and Paxton rightly says that the number one issue is voter integrity and whether future elections will be allowed to be stolen. 

The Unrestricted Warfare of the Left

Interesting to see how prescient a book published in China in 1999 was, written by two senior colonels in the Chinese military. It described how the plan going forward was “unrestricted warfare” not confined to the battlefield.

I couldn’t help but think of parallels in our own country that’s reflected in how warfare between conservatives and liberals has reached into every area that can be engaged, from corporations, to “lawfare”, to media suppression and censorship. We’re seeing unrestricted warfare here by the Left. 

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, “the book has drawn the attention for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict: Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed....The author Qiao was quoted as stating that ‘the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden....The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it.’” 

An excerpt: 

“This is warfare in the age of globalization. Although the boundaries between soldiers and non-soldiers have now been broken down, and the chasm between warfare and non-warfare nearly filled up, globalization has made all the tough problems interconnected and interlocking, and we must find a key for that. The key should be able to open all the locks, if these locks are on the front door of war. And this key must be suited to all the levels and dimensions, from war policy, strategy, and operational techniques to tactics; and it must also fit the hands of individuals, from politicians and generals to the common soldiers. We can think of no other more appropriate key than "unrestricted warfare."

On the Wealthy Giving Up on the Wall Street Journal

Interesting commentary from Cornell's Dave Collum: 

“They say that in order to propel yourself politically, you have to succumb to the blackmail bait first. You get corrupted first and then you acquire power.  Which is why I think it’s possible that the pedophile ring has geopolitical implications - if you record someone having sex with a minor you own them forever. By the way, they say the same about Hollywood. You’re not going to get good parts until you subject yourself to the kind of control where they can say, ‘now we own you’.” 

Seems plausible since it’s obvious studios and corporations want to control their talent, which is why Fox News initial interview with Glenn Beck was so threatening. He was getting a job with the network and they were already playing hardball. 

Perhaps an analogy for government is that it’s a rock sitting on the ground. As long as you just see the rock, you think everything’s as it should. But if you turn it over you see all these worms and scorpions and rank decay. 

I always thought Mike Pence was generally upright but now wonder about his role in January 6th riots. His story has changed and he was caught in a direct lies refuted by his aides and others. And it’s not the sort of lie where you simply don’t recall correctly, nor has it been that long ago. It’s also telling that he’s the only Trump aide who is not being prosecuted by the Justice Dep’t.  I suppose if you say what they want you to say you’ll be safe. 

Ultimately the main surprising thing about Trump for me is how thin the gruel is that they got him on. Usually with that laser-like focus on him for eight years you’d think they’d come up with better, especially given how loose Trump is on just about everything (starting with his taxes). 

As it’s often been said, you can indict a ham sandwich but some ham sandwiches are more hammy than others. It’s said the average citizen commits multiple felonies a day so how much more a president living with a lot more rules?  “We live in a society that has criminalized more things than we know or understand... Harvard University professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American citizen commits three felonies per day.” 

So the wonder is that Trump was so docile that they could only get him on: 

a) Russia hoax

b) Ukrainian phone call (which turned out, in retrospect, to be perfectly reasonable given Biden’s corruption) 

c) His call to Georgia asking to try to find 11k fraudulent votes (reasonable request)

d) his role in January 6th where he said that people should march to the capitol & peacefully protest (lol)

e) that he didn’t surrender federal documents when facing a subpoena.   

Only the last one seems to be a crime and even that one is simply a product of the deep state raiding his home (probably illegal).  Hillary famously did the same thing when she destroyed her emails in response to a a subpoena.

So we face the fascinating struggle of '24 in which we have one candidate with a better presidential record and is persecuted by the government versus a rotten, corrupt candidate.  And it could be oh-so-close!! Why?Because of the fantastic array of sources that the irresistible deep state force possesses, starting with the media. 

A third of the country has been lobomotized by mainstream media, another third knows what’s going on but don’t want to say anything because it’s “against their team” (Dems or Washington General Republicans), and a third who gets it (MAGA). (Kudos, btw, to socialist Doug Lain who in Compact Magazine admitted that the Left should be deeply skeptical of the '20 election results, adding "We should take in the fact that the Democrats are attempting to imprison their main opponent.”

Even the rich don't take the Wall Street Journal very seriously anymore. From an interview with capital manager Eric Weinstein: 

"Most of [the super rich and well-connected] have given up on the retail notion of reality. If you have a worldview that allows you to listen to NPR, read the Wall Street Journal, The NY Times...whatever that point of view is, most of the very powerful rich people I know have checked out at a level that is astounding. They don’t believe that they can afford to depend on normal institutions."

The '60s Started in 1951?

I’m always fascinated by the “beginnings of our discontent”, i.e. when the ‘60s really started.  I would say the pivotal years were 1948-1954 as reflected in our art, music, film and liturgy (the canaries in the coal mine)...


The categories of when things changed: 

1. Religion (1947) This is hard to pinpoint, but changing the liturgy is, at base, an expression of dissatisfaction and it started by Pope Pius in ’47, increased in ’55, and the mass was made nearly unrecognizable by ’68. So the roots of the ‘60s discontent started in 1947 in the Church. A Mass that was stable and almost changeless for 400 years suddenly needed a lot of work and tinkering apparently. On birth control the Church started backing down in ’55 with acceptance of the rhythm method. 

2. Art (1948) In the late ‘40s we started getting ugly, nonsensical art. “Abstract expressionism” became popular. Another sign of unrest, dissatisfaction, and societal disease. 

3. Books. (1951 decline started with instant success of angsty “Catcher in the Rye”)

4. Music  (1952-53...some music critics say the last time the best music was also the most popular music came during the Big Band era of the ‘30s and ‘40s... which ended with rock and roll about 1952-ish.)

5. Movies (beginning in 1955 expressions of angst and dissatisfaction became big hits) 

6. Politics (1960? JFK appealed to an public more interested in youth/appearance than substance)

7. Family (1964) Divorces, the ultimate expression of discontent, seemed to take off about then. 

8. Television (1968); a lagging indicator. 

So really the cultural fire of the ‘60s were lit by the long fuse of the ‘50s.  I guess similarly the ‘80s return to conservatism were fueled by the long fuse of pent-up dissatisfaction that began in 1968 with the “silent majority” that elected Nixon. From ’68 to ’80 there was the fuse and then Reagan burst on the scene. 

One could say that a return to normalcy and conservatism will take 12 years based on those numbers. The pent-up dissatisfaction showed up in 2016 with the election of Trump (similar to Nixon’s ’68 win for the silent majority) but then Nixon was unsuccessful and we had Jimmy Carter. It took a dozen years to get real change. Similarly twelve years from 2016 would mean we have an opportunity for a new era around 2028 if that pattern holds. Nixon wasn’t able to get anything half-way conservative done in his years because it was too soon; similarly there was nothing Trump could do in his first term, having been handcuffed by the deep state and his own deep state appointments. 

The interesting thing is whether the elites will even allow a reformer to take office ever again. They have more tools for control than in, say, 1980. They own big business in a way they never did before, they have a very compliant press, they are better able to censor speech they don’t like and they can also inflict their will via the justice system.  Lawyers are more powerful than during the ‘70s, to the point they are able to “lawfare” people who even question election results. Almost all of Trump’s lawyers have been arrested. 

On paper, the Democrats have a series of incredible advantages in just about every way possible except for Divine approval. From legal strength, to fundraising, to having a more unified party (Republicans have split between MAGA and establishment), they hold all the cards except for the thin reed of the Supreme Court. Seventy-five percent of lawyers are registered Democrat and they are a major financial pillar within Democrat fundraising. 

“In this world you will have trouble, but worry not, for I have overcome the world.” --gospel of John

The Decline and Fall of Borders

If there’s a “theory of everything”, the cause of our dysfunction, it could be that nowadays we abhor borders of any kind.  Most obviously the border between us and Mexico. But also the border between man and woman (trans cult). There’s the border between orthodoxy and heresy, with many bishops even within the church advocating for relaxation between the border of sexuality in marriage versus gay sex. There’s the loss of border between politics and business, and between politics and our justice system. There’s the loss of border between what’s considered crime and not crime: cities often look the other way during BLM riots and have effectively decriminalized shoplifting and drug use by never arresting or prosecuting. The border between Catholicism and Protestantism is often attempted to be breached by liberalizing elements within the Catholic Church, hence the churches nowadays that look like warehouse and childish stained glass windows representing nothing. We don’t like the border between hard doctrine, like the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, softening the edges until there are no more edges. We don’t like borders in trade so we trade with China and wake up to find they make all our pharmaceuticals. We don’t like borders between people, borders that can be defended in the event of violence by self-defense using a gun, so the Left wants to inflict gun control on us. We abhor the borders of staying within a financial budget, and the government spends far more than it takes in with no notice of the nation’s balance sheet. 

A case where a border is ferociously defended is the border of the womb. No one is safe from abortion if they’re on the wrong side of that border wall. 

The DNC Civil War

Interesting commentary and speculation from Tom Luongo on the internal Democrat civil war:

This morning we learned Gavin Newsom was funneling money to Chinese biolabs with Joe Biden’s approval. This is clearly open civil war within the DNC.

There’s been a split in the DNC since they brought Obama in to be the "great black hope of globalism" and they forced Hillary to sideline herself in the primaries back in 2008. Hillary sidelined herself to be Obama’s Secretary of State because Davos (the Euro-based, Soros-ish, communistic elites) had already chosen him to be president because McCain had already been chosen to run against him and McCain was never going to win.

So Clinton drops out early and they tell her “after two terms of Obama it’ll be your turn”. And then Trump won, which is why she’s so bitter, but it also set up this weird process where Obama was president but not head of DNC. Clinton was, and she controlled all the money, the DNC was in debt to her, etc... That was the deal in 2008, Clinton stays in control of DNC while Obama becomes president. That division has been simmering for 15 years now. And every time you see Hillary come out of the woodwork, you see her attacking the Obama wing of the DNC.

She still wants to be president, to be back in the club. She’s a neocon, not a European-style neoliberal. Neocons and neoliberals basically want the same thing but from different directions. Neocons believe in going out and grabbing collateral through war; they care about war first and territorial control far more than the financial, redistribution stuff.

Neoliberals on the other hand, with roots to old Europe, still believe in a colonial-style, mercantilist system to enslave commodity producers. Neoliberals are far more communist in their ideology than neoconservatives and have a chip on their shoulder as a lot of them have direct times to Ukraine. The Clintons, by comparison, are just Arkansas grifters who made good. Obama v Clinton is old European Davos versus Victoria Nuland types.  The dividing line is Israel, and what Israel wants vis-a-vis Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was Obama’s thing, it was Europe’s thing, whereas the neocons in the US were hopping mad about this because they let Iran off the mat. Democrats have been fighting about this since 2014, and on how to destroy Russia.

The knives are out for Biden on both sides, both parties within the DNC want him out. The question is how to deal with the succession? So the things you seeing hitting the media at this time, the stories and headlines, are the evidence of move/countermove chess game. It’s clear that one side wants to replace Biden with Newsom but they have to sideline Harris and I’m not sure she wants to be replaced. No one likes her but who cares? No one liked Joe Biden and he wound up president. Biden was forced to step aside to allow Hillary to take job in ’16, and now they want the same thing to happen this time with Harris stepping aside to allow Newsom to run but I don’t know that Harris has that in her. The headlines coming out now about Newsom funding biolabs in China suggest somebody is getting in on this thing - could it be Kamala? It might be.

The Clinton side want to control the White House. Biden was the perfect go-between - a neocon all of his life, dirty as all get out in Ukraine, and Obama’s boy. So the perfect vessel for everybody to get what they want. The idea was, “we’re going to restore power after four years of Trump.”

But all Kamala has to do is refuse to resign, and if Kamala’s daughter suddenly takes an internship overseas then Harris is definitely not stepping aside, so that’s something to watch for.

Most Disappointing (And Pleasant Surprises) Among Leaders Over Past Decade

Pondered my “most disappointing individuals” list over the past decade (and most positively surprising list). The criteria has to start with my familiarity with them and my sense of their moral character. Thus Anthony Fauci is out since I knew nothing about him prior to the pandemic. 

George W. Bush is sort of the pinnacle of disappointing leaders. 

I would say two that are very high on the list would be Francis Collins, a Christian believer (and liar) at the head of the National Health Institute. He resigned in disgrace not long ago. 

Another would be Bill Barr, who had given a speech at Notre Dame on religious and moral character but who has audaciously lied and covered up over the past few years. Few people are as powerful and as disappointing in combination. 

Some would say Mike Pence, and he certainly would qualify if I thought he was smart enough to be wicked. I think he comes by his being used by the deep state “honestly”, meaning dumbly. But I could be wrong given his naked ambition in wanting to be VP and now running for potus. 

Some would say Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney.  Romney, yes, I suppose although I never trusted him that much to start with given his powers of changing with with the wind. Mitch is mostly about keeping power, so I’m not disappointed in him either. Turtles gonna turtle. 

If you look at the big corruptions of the last decade: Covid, FBI, and elections, you’d have to add James Comey who supposedly is Catholic. 

Jonah Goldberg (now of the Dispatch but it mostly applies to those at National Review too) is high on the list given his total disinterest in the rule of law with regard to Jan 6rs, social media censorship, Russia hoax, etc... As a group were remarkably comfortable with the Deep State as long as it was targeting Trump which as such show they have few principles. 

Biden certainly qualifies since he was so much worse in terms of character and ideology than I ever suspected but he wouldn’t make the top cut since, after all, he’s a Demoncrat. 

Donald Trump surprised me on the upside, so he’s one of the few who were better than I’d expected post-2015 (he benefitted by starting from a low base with me). Matt Gaetz is shockingly better than I ever thought he’d be; I had inadvertently ceded my opinion of him to the zeitgeist and the deep state. Rand Paul I knew was great already and most of the covid-era heroes were unknown to me beforehand. Darren Beattie and Revolver News came out of nowhere so I couldn't say they surprised me. 

In the end I would go with these as the Most Disappointing:  

1. Francis Collins

2. Jonah Goldberg 

3. Bill Barr

4. James Comey

5. Joe Biden 

And I would go with these as Most Surprising to Upside: 

1. Matt Gaetz

2. Donald Trump

3. Epoch Times newspaper 

4. Steve Bannon 

I'm surely missing a lot of people on both lists.