Trump Attacks a NATO Ally!!!

—Ace of Spades

That NATO Ally? Turkey, which is currently trying an American pastor for "terrorism," which is what Erdogan calls anything he feels threatens his political position.

U.S. President Donald Trump on July 19 urged his Turkish opposite Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Twitter to help release an American pastor kept behind bars in Turkey since October 2016.

"A total disgrace that Turkey will not release a respected U.S. Pastor, Andrew Brunson, from prison. He has been held hostage far too long," Trump said.

"[Turkish President] Recep Tayyip Erdoğan should do something to free this wonderful Christian husband & father. He has done nothing wrong, and his family needs him!" he added.

On July 18, a court in Turkey's Aegean province of İzmir ruled that Brunson, an American pastor being tried on terrorism and spying charges, will be kept in jail pending trial.

Flashback: Barack Obama previously hailed Erdogan as a role-model for Muslim leaders.

Was Obama a traitor? Was Obama a lover of autocrats?

Should he be arrested and tried for treason?

Just asking questions.

Afternoon Open Thread

—Ace of Spades

I'm still trying to get my brain to start working.

Cap'n Bill wants to deny the troops whose lives he's serially imperiled a parade, just to show Trump:

Ahoy, cocksucker.

The Morning Rant: J.V. Edition

—CBD

If every man is defined as masculine, then the word will have no meaning, and that is certainly not the case. Not all men are masculine, and in fact, not all men are "men." The obvious goal here is to water down traditional roles and blur the lines between effete, cowardly, weak XY humans and those who rise to the historical (and probably genetic) role of the real man, which these fools conflate with their own dislike of masculinity, probably because they fall short of the traditional measures, and they talk like fags and their shit is all retarded.

By the way, the front page of their website has only Black men as models. That is clearly racist, with the undeniable connection between bonobos (a species of great ape) and the models. Intentional or not it is a macro-aggression that should be addressed by the resignation of the CEO.

Mid-Morning Open Thread

—CBD

Le chou-fleur
Pierre Roy

The Morning Report 7/19/18

—J.J. Sefton

Good morning kids. Thursday is here and of course it's never a slow day for your intrepid reporter so lez-be on our way. First up is of course the continued fall out from the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit. On the periphery some are crowing about the president supposedly walking back his comments about our intelligence community but, as evidenced from the link, he justifiably pulls no punches in his criticism of Brennan, Clapper, Comey et al. As stated yesterday, all of the reactions from the Dem-Left-Media complex and the smart-set elite Coup-Cucks-Clan in the New Deal wing of the GOP is all pre-chewed meat; canned outrage to be used as yet another pretext to throw him out of office, give the Dems Congress in November and derail his agenda. Funny how the Brett Kavanaugh nomination has all but disappeared from the headlines, but I guarantee you it will not be long before the President's "treasonous" behavior in Helsinki will be the pretext by which America must live up to its values and promise and reject that nomination, as well as every subsequent nomination going forward. Remember, "that's not who we are!" (*pukes*). Speaking of which, in a not unrelated link, the President's nominee to take over at the CFPB politburo is being grilled, not on her experience and acumen in matters relating to banking and lending but on immigration and Puerto Rico. Jeez, who let Occasional-Cortex into the room (more on her later)? But I digress.

Everyone's also going crazy because the President is talking about letting Russia interrogate persons linked to longtime Putin foe and critic Bill Browder. Browder you may (or may not) recall investigated and uncovered all kinds of corruption with Putin, and one of his allies, attorney Sergey Magnitsky was imprisoned for 11 months and ultimately died in custody. And that led to what is known as the Magnitsky Act intended to punish Putin for human rights violations that led to the act's namesake's death. I believe that that is a non-starter, although it might be nice to have Peter Strzok take a little involuntary fact-finding mission to the Lubyanka which doubtless would greatly improve his attitude and mien. But I digress yet again.

At the risk of being repetitive from yesterday's commentary, say what you will about PDT's manner or the way he speaks, but his actions speak louder than his words on Russia and on every other damn thing since he rode down that escalator nearly three years ago. And I went into an entire litany of the Democrat-Left-Media Complex's alliance with the Soviet Union and indeed every other country, regime and ideology that would lay America low and bring them to power. And since everyone of that bent is suddenly rushing like made to replace their Che t-shirts with the image of Tail Gunner Joe and hurling the word "treason" at our President, let's take a little trip down memory lane and throw a spotlight on one of their heroes - and someone who can arguably be labeled the most destructive American citizen in our history: Edward M. Kennedy.

In 1983, during the height of the Cold War, Teddy Kennedy, a sitting United States Senator, secretly went to Moscow to collude, in every real sense of that word, with them to undermine President Reagan's SDI initiative before the 1984 elections. Here's an excerpt from the link, with a quote from Paul Kengor, interviewed by Jamie Glazov in 2008 (what a year that was, in context).

According to (KGB Chief) Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, "very impressed" with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan's SDI speech, which he lambasted as "misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes."

Even more interesting than Kennedy's diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan's (not the USSR's) "propaganda." If only Americans could get through Reagan's smokescreen and hear the Soviets' peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.

Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

You may also recall that Kennedy was the chief sponsor of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act which destroyed our orderly, legal immigration and naturalization process and flooded America with millions of illiterate, uneducated, third world indigents who had no interest really in assimilating but eagerly took everything and more Uncle Sugar could throw at them. All in exchange for forever more being loyal Democrat voters. And this is a major factor 50 years later in the dissolution of American identity and culture that we are witnessing and desperately fighting to this day.

Back to Ted Kennedy's actual dictionary-definition TREASON with the Soviets in 1983, when I read that article my blood was boiling. And these bastards have the f***ing unmitigated temerity to use the word "treason" agains this President?! The rest of my thoughts are redacted. In any case for the reasons sighted alone, let alone murdering Mary Jo Kopechne, I hope and pray that Teddy Kennedy is roasting in Hell.

In other news, on the immigration scene, Keith Ellison reveals the truth about the Dems, the Abolish Ice fiasco shows the Dems' true colors, if that were to happen blood would be running in the streets, immigration is the number one issue in a new Gallup Poll (stopping it for us, open borders for the terrorists), and VDH has a great take, as ever, on immigration and the grand plan of the Left.

On the political scene, the Democrat internal struggle with itself boils over as Joe-mentum Lieberman stumps for Crowley and the party establishment want to maintain control from the hardcore Maosits while Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex blasts those who call her anti-semitic as filthy Joo-occupiers, the Calexit bill gets roadblocked, and Fauxcahontas is trying to ram through a horrible casino deal so she can show off her high cheekbones and landlocked crab salad. Farbissiner goniff, that one.

On the international scene, PDT directly confronts Erdogan about a US priest being held hostage by the Turks, Nikki Haley slams the UN Human Rights Council and FBI Director Wray calls out the Chi-Coms as the greatest espionage threat here at home. Lastly, Denmark opens its eyes too late vis a vis the flood of "immigrants."

Interesting domestic news items, Maine governor LePage has vetoed a bill that bans gay-to-normal conversion counseling, a challenge to Texas fetal burial law could be a harbinger of a Roe v Wade battle at SCOTUS and the Janus ruling could really open the floodgates in kneecapping union political power.

Free speech news with the Facebook hearings, IBD not thrilled with the EU's Google fine, and in the UK muzzling the Muslim angle with Tommy Robinson and Rotherham.

From hither and yon, Dennis Rodman looks to take Kanye West to North Korea, comparing Lincoln and PDT and an SJW gets eaten by the tiger.

Anyway, links from around the world, across the nation and up your street. Have a better one and remain blessed.

TRUMP/PUTIN SUMMIT FALLOUT
• PDT: No Confidence in Intelligence Led by Brennan, Clapper, Comey
• House Homeland Security Chair Stabs PDT in Back; Calls Summit "Demoralizing" (GFY RINO stooge McCaul - jjs)
• White House Weighing Putin Request to Interrogate Americans Linked to Browder
• Just Like Obama, PDT's Russia Policy Speaks Louder Than His Words
• Rush: Obama Ordered a Stand-Down Against Russian Hacking in 2016
• Greenfield: Trump Stood Up to Putin, Obama Appeased Him - Just Ask Ukraine and Poland SPYGATE, MUELLER WITCH HUNT, DEEP STATE
• PDT OK'd Rosenroach's Announcement of Russian Indictments Before Summit, Per Report CLINTON SCANDALS, OBAMA SCANDALS, DEMOCRAT SCANDALS
• Did the FBI Ignore Evidence That Clinton's Classified E-Mails Ended Up in the Hands of a "Foreign Entity?"
• Ted Gennady Kennedy and the KGB IMMIGRATION, AMNESTY
• Abolishing ICE Would Free 1.4 Criminal Illegal Aliens - Triple the Population of Miami
• White House Cheers House's $5 Billion Border Wall Bill
• Keith "X" Ellison: Having National Borders is an Injustice
• Suspected San Francisco Serial Rapist in America Illegally
• Gallup Poll: Immigration is the Top National Issue
• House Passes Resolution Supporting ICE; Only 18 Dems Voted "Yes," 133 Vote "Present"
• Victor Davis Hanson: Deport the Deplorables? CIVIL WAR 2.0
• Distinguishing Civil War from Social Anarchy (the latter is the precursor to the former - jjs) POLITICS, 2018 MIDTERMS
• New Dem Party Motto Same as TX Used Car Dealer and FL Personal Injury Law Firm (stolen, shady and sleazy is no way to go through life; oh, look who I'm talking about - jjs)
• Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex Comes Up with Insane Attack on Critics of Her Anti-Semitic Remarks
• Related: Crazy-Eyed Squalor Groupie Irks Party by Undermining Incumbents, Pushing Aggressive Leftist Agenda
• Liberal Groups Protest PDT But Mostly Silent on Impeachment
• Fauxcahontas Desperate to Pass Controversial Casino Bill to Burnish Her Indian Claim... and GOP Seems Eager to Help
• California Supreme Court Blocks Bill Splitting State Into Three (with LA, SF and SD the proposed capitals, that particular plan would've been a disaster - jjs)
• California Gas Tax Repeal Organizers See Effort as Rallying Point for GOP Voters FIRST AMENDMENT, FAKE NEWS
• Facebook Sponsoring Nutroots Conference, Dem-Socialite Occasional-Cortex to Keynote
• Facebook, Google, Twitter Don't Know - Or Don't Care - if Chi-Coms Tried to Meddle in 2016 Election
• The Inthinkables
• The Free Tommy Demonstration and the Muslim Bus Driver SECOND AMENDMENT
• House Investigates Virgin Islands' Emergency Order Allowing Seizure of Legally Owned Guns FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL
• PDT Directly Confronts Erdogan on "Disgrace" of Jailed US Pastor
• US to Take "Imminent Action" After Turkey Refuses to Release Jailed Pastor, Says PDT Lawyer
• Nikki Haley Slams Human Rights Council as "Greatest Failure" of the UN
• FBI Director Wray: Chi-Com Espionage "Most Significant" Spy Threat Facing US ISLAM, TERRORISM, SHARIA, DHIMMITUDE
• Austrian State Wants to Compile List of Jews for Kosher Meat: "What Next, a Star on the Chest?"
• UK Newspaper Whitewashes Religious Affiliation of Rotherham Muslim Grooming Gang
• What's the Matter with Denmark? THE ECONOMY, STUPID
• EU's Record $5 Billion "Antitrust" Fine on Google is Really Just More Anti-US Protectionism DOMESTIC POLICY, COURTS, BUREAUCRACY
• Challenge to Texas' Fetus Burial Law Could Provide First Abortion Test for New SCOTUS
• Chicago Violence: A Tale of Two Killings
• Maine Governor LePage Vetoes Gay Conversion Counseling Ban
• New Development in McDonald's Case Could Impact Future Unionizing; Seen as Minor Victory for Big Labor
• Janus is Only the Beginning
• Dems Scrutinize Trump's CFPB Nominee's Record... On Immigration and Puerto Rico? CULTURE WARS, HITHER and YON
• Dennis Rodman Wants to Take Kanye West to North Korea
• A Hopeful Trend Among Millenials
• Hating Lincoln
• What to Learn from the Social Justice Warrior Who Was Eaten by His Own Mob

Wednesday Overnight Open Thread (7/18/18 )

—Misanthropic Humanitarian

Quote I

"Once an election is over and you win, why are you still angry?" he said. "I think it’s a lack of maturity on her part, and a lack of political acumen, for her to be that petty. We as Democrats better figure out who the real enemy is. And it’s not each other." Rep. Lacy Clay (D., Mo.)

Quote II

“The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing,” Debra DeShong, a spokeswoman for MGM Resorts

Quote III

The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. Mark Twain

Quote IV

Ellison claimed in an interview with progressive activist Rabbi Michael Lerner that America’s “prosperity is based on the want that is experienced in other parts of the world” and complained that “people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages.” Rep. Keith Ellison, (D-MN)

I guess the Koran doesn't address the 'Thou shalt not covet shit' thing.

*****

I'm not sure why you Morons send me "heart warming" stories. What part of Misanthropic don't you understand? h/t ibguy

*****

Might as well keep Russia in the discussion. Once upon a time Russian women would kick your ass.

Mariya Oktybrskaya was one of those Russian women who didn’t want to watch the war from the sidelines. She would also be one of the women who would make skeptical men to eat their words. Born into a poor Crimean peasant family, Oktybrskaya reportedly enthusiastically embraced the ideals espoused by the leaders of the Russian Revolution was a firm communist. Some accounts state that she first became interested in military matters after marrying army officer Ilya Oktyabrskaya, declaring, “Marry a serviceman, and you serve in the army.

*****

I was the mob, before the mob came for me.

Within the world created by the various apps I used, I got plenty of shares and retweets. But this masked how ineffective I had become outside, in the real world. The only causes I was actually contributing to were the causes of mobbing and public shaming. Real change does not stem from these tactics. They only cause division, alienation, and bitterness.

It all boils down to the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Doesn't it?

*****

The sky is falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Soon your internet will be gone. Or, the water is rising. The water is rising. The water is rising.

Rising sea levels may change our coastlines and give some home owners new beachfront property, but among the myriad of real problems the world will experience, we can add one more: internet outages.

New research mapped out the U.S.’s internet infrastructure and overlaid that patchwork of cables, power stations, and data transfer stations with a map of proposed sea level rise, National Geographic reports. The result was not pretty. In the next 15 years, thousands of miles of fiber optic cables will be flooded with rising ocean waters. While some of this hardware can deal with water from time to time, none of it was built to withstand the rigors of being permanently submerged.

*****

Guess these idiots "Scientists" didn't hear about this news. Who needs the Paris Climate Agreement?

From the American Enterprise Institute via Twitter. h/t to WUWT reader “Latitude”

Last year the United States had the largest decline in CO2 emissions *in the entire world* for the 9th time this century.

Don't hold your breath for the socialists to acknowledge the free market does work.

*****

The ONT Musical Interlude

July 18, 2001, KISS added another product to their ever-growing merchandising universe: the "Kiss Kasket." The coffin featured the faces of the four founding members of the band, the Kiss logo and the words "Kiss Forever." Pantera guitarist Dimebag Darrell was buried in one after he was shot and killed on-stage in Dec 2004. via thisdayinmusic.com

July 18, 1972, Members from Sly and the Family Stone were arrested after police found two pounds of marijuana in the group's motor home. via thisdayinmusic.com

Bonus Material for "The Weekend"

*****

Well, I've never been to Mary's Igloo or Wankers Corner. h/t Political Hat

And I've never been to Spain.

*****

Confidence, a wonderful thing. Sure, I want the Feds running my health care.

*****

There is a reason you were never Mom's favorite. But, you did end up as Genius Award Winner.

Saying she was angry about being left without an inheritance, a Fort Lauderdale woman fatally beat her 85-year-old mother, police say.

Gabriela Perero, 53, is facing charges of premeditated murder and aggravated battery on a person 65 years of age or older, the Sun-Sentinel reports.

*****

The American worth ethic is alive and well. So is the axiom of "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Tonight's Feel Good Story of The Day. h/t "Doc Rochester"

HOMEWOOD, AL (WIAT) - The story of a dedicated man who was willing to walk all night to be on time for his first day of work has gone viral, prompting an outpouring of community support and a generous move by his employer's CEO.

Walter Carr works for Bellhops, a moving company that was hired to help a Pelham family move over the weekend.

*****

Tonight's ONT has been brought to you by Confident 'Ettes.

Notice: Posted with permission by AceCorp, LLC. Do not return to sender. The forwarding address is petmorons at gmail dot com or the Twitter thingy.

Close it up

Reminder: The Russians Targeted Republicans, GOP, and Trump Himself In Their Spearfishing and Hacking Schemes, Too

—Ace of Spades

The media and the sillies don't like admitting this, and Mueller doesn't draw much attention to it himself in his indictment. But he does mention it on page 13.

Don't expect to see this on CNN.

Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election wasn't as one-sided as Special Counsel Robert Mueller charges in his latest indictment.

...

"RNC emails were stolen through the same spearphishing scams used against Democrats," a senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the investigation told RealClearInvestigations. "In fact, prominent Republicans were targeted and similarly victimized by the disclosure of sensitive emails during the campaign."

The indictment acknowledges this on page 13: "The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from individuals affiliated with the Republican Party."

But that is the only mention of Russian attacks against Republicans in the 29-page indictment that focuses on the targeting and victimization of key Democrats...

In fact, U.S. intelligence officials say the attackers penetrated GOP organizations at both the national and state levels, as well as the individual level, and successfully "exfiltrate" Republican emails during the 2016 election cycle. They add that Trump officials themselves were targeted by Russian intelligence late in 2016, often by phishing schemes, in which fraudulent emails seemingly from trusted sources (e.g. the government, banks or Google) are sent to gain access to personal information.

Mueller's office would not say whether the criminal breaches of GOP organizations carried out by the same bad Russian actors were investigated by his team with the same level of forensic analysis and scrutiny as the Democrat-related cybercrimes.

"We'll decline to comment beyond the indictment," Special Counsel's Office spokesman Peter Carr said.

Yeah, I'll bet you decline to comment.

Read the whole thing.

The Ukraine Was a Test Case of American Foreign Policy Moralism Vs. American Foreign Policy Realism, and Realism Won in a Rout

—Ace of Spades

The basic tension in US foreign policy theorizing is between moralism and realism. Moralism is an idealistic position that urges that we bear any burden in support of liberty. Realism is a far less idealistic position that says we'll ask ourselves -- realistically -- how much of a burden we're willing to bear in support of liberty.

There is virtually no one who is a 100% moralist and virtually no one who is a 100% realist. Virtually everyone is a mix, somewhere on the spectrum between these two poles.

The disputes come not between absolute moralists, who don't exist in any large numbers, and absolute realists, who likewise don't exist in large numbers, but between those who urge a more moralistic foreign policy, and those who ure a more realistic one.

Though those urging for more moralism are still informed by realism and those urging realism are still animated by moralism.

It's a question of degree.

My diagnosis of the foreign policy establishment's and neocons' analysis of foreign policy is that they view things through an almost purely moral lens, as if it's dirty and grubby to even consider pesky little questions like "What realistically can be done to vindicate this moral right? What can reasonably be asked of the American people to vindicate this moral right?"

And I would argue that the foreign policy establishment, and the neocons who dominate the foreign policy establishment's right-hand wing, are far too devoted to a risibly moralistic concept of foreign policy that results in immoral and perverse outcomes.

Let's look at the Ukraine.

Ukraine has always been dominated by Russia. Russia colonized it. Russia annexed it. Russia suppressed Ukrainians' own language as well as its (Christian) church.

I've known some Ukranian-Americans, and they were flag-waving patriots of both America and their beloved Ukraine. They loved Reagan, because Reagan understood Soviet evil -- an evil Ukranians had been suffering under for their entire lives.

The Ukrainians have long wished for true freedom from the bullying (and worse) of their large, powerful, evil neighbor.

And they have every moral right to that freedom.

The trouble is, while they have every moral right, they do not have the physical might to be totally free of Russia's domination.

Ukraine, while formally an independent country since it broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, continued suffering under Russian domination. Technically they were independent -- but Russia acted as a cynical colonial power interfering in Ukrainian political decisions and thwarting the will of this long-oppressed people.

In 2013, the so-called Euromaidan Revolution began.

You can read up on that as you like, but the major thrust is that Ukraine wanted to join the EU. They wanted to align themselves with free Europe, and distance themselves from Russian control.

So they kicked out the Russian puppet president of Ukraine.

Russia didn't like that. And the threat of a Russian invasion loomed.

The EU and the United States had different reactions to the Ukraine's morally-righteous but politically-provocative actions.

The EU understood that it was a nation of self-interested pacifists who would not under any circumstances do much of anything -- apart from issuing communiques and the like -- to guarantee the Ukraine's political independence and territorial integrity. Basically, the EU counselled the Ukraine to go very slow and not upset too many Russian applecarts.

Cowardly? Maybe. But while they could be accused of physical cowardice they can't be accused of the cowardice of lying to themselves. They knew damn well they would not lift a finger to help Ukraine should Russia invade, and they said so pretty clearly.

So they told Ukraine to not do anything so provocative in declaring their independence from the Russian empire that the Russian empire would reassert its dominance.

They did not lie to themselves about their willingness to fight for Ukraine, and so they did not lie to the Ukraine, either.

On the other hand, there's Barack Obama. The man who would, by the very power of the charisms God granted him, cause the oceans to recede by the power of his arrogant gaze alone.

Remember Victoria Nuland's "Fuck the EU!" phone call that leaked?

Well, the "Fuck the EU" concerned the EU's cautious, go-slow urgings. The US chose to ignore misgivings about a possible Russian invasion and encouraged the Ukraine to get into a fight with Russia that they could not win.

Well, the Ukraine got into that fight -- presumably expecting help from the US, which had encouraged it to get into a fight with Russia.

And guess how much the US helped?

Almost none at all, of course. We did the same things the EU was prepared to do -- issue Stinging Rebukes and Harshly Worded Statements.

But when the Russians began sending mercenaries and special forces troops over the border to pretend to be "native Ukrainians fighting to stay aligned with their historical oppressor Russia," what did we do, beyond offering some sweet words of support?

Nothing. We sent in some medical aid and other non-military aid.

End result? Russian mercenaries and special forces operators faked an "indigenous uprising," killed a lot of Ukrainians, shot down a passenger jet, seized control centers in the Crimea, staged a "referendum" on whether Crimean wanted to stay in Ukraine or annex themselves to Russia.

Spoiler alert on how that turned out: Armed Russian mercenaries were manning the polling places. Do the math.

In the end, the Ukrainian rebellion was met with fire and slaughter and put down. Ukraine's subordinate position to the Russian empire was reinforced. And the most strategically important part of Ukraine decided to re-join Russia in a vote that was totally fair and free of coercion.

The Ukraine is in no better a position than it was before the Revolution, except that more Ukrainians are dead and that a major part of Ukraine is now Russia.

Here's a question: Between the EU response -- go slow, do not start a fight we are unwilling to help you in -- and the US response -- go fast, start a fight, we'll be with you all the way (except we won't be at all) -- which was the more "moral" response?

The EU response looks less moral at first glance. After all, they were basically telling the Ukraine to continue putting up with a substantial amount of Russian interference and domination.

The US response looks more moral, but only at first glance. We pushed for the Best of All Possible Worlds solution. Declare your independence from Russia and align yourself with the peaceful nations of Europe.

But when the perfectly-predictable happened -- when Russia invaded with professional troops pretending to be Ukrainian freedom fighters -- we let them get slaughtered and set them down a path where they actually came out of the conflict in a worse position than they had begun it.

So which was more moral? I know it must have felt super-good when Victoria Nuland said "Fuck the EU!" and urged Ukraine to fight for its independence.

But how did it feel in the months and years that followed, with Ukrainians being bombed and shot and passenger jets being shot from the sky?

A policy impulse -- I think "impulse" is the right word here, because I can't ascribe to it enough actual thinking to call it a "philosophy" -- that felt good when announced, that felt good when it cost nothing at all, actually wound up feeling not so good at all when people started getting killed and Ukraine looked to America for actual support, support that would actually cost America something, and America said, "Here's a sternly worded letter of reprimand for the Russian mercenaries murdering you."

That's not moral.

Morality comes after wisdom, and wisdom can only be had if someone is honest with themselves about what burdens they're actually willing to bear -- not just the burdens they're glad to rhetorically claim they'll bear -- and what costs they're willing to pay.

People who lie to themselves about what they're willing to do are not wise, and, because they're not wise, they also can't really be moral. And their ill-wisdom can often lead to immoral outcomes, as they promiscuously make promises they've never thought very hard about and therefore feel free to shed at earliest convenience.

America has a limited appetite for war. Americans will go to war, but they do reach a point of exhaustion with war after some number of years.

It is silly to pretend this fact away in order to count oneself as "idealistic." People who ignore reality are not "idealistic;" they're just cowards afraid to face reality.

The fact is that Americans are tired of war and it is dangerous to write checks on America's war-fighting account that it might not be willing to cover.

The fact is that one of America's two main political parties is always willing to be part of a war at the Fun Part of the war -- the declaration of war part, the first-easy-victories part -- but which abandons every war it votes for when it sees any small political advantage in doing so.

Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrat Senators voted for the War in Iraq. Within three years, they were screaming that Bush "lied us into war" and that we must withdraw immediately.

It is insane to pretend this away. If you know Democrats will give you initial support for a war they'll happily vote you into, when doing so grants them political advantage, and then savagely turn on that war the moment they get political advantage from that, it is lunacy to even count them as allies in war.

By the way: The NeverTrumpers who sometimes claim "At least Hillary Clinton would have been better on foreign policy?" Yes, of course. The same Hillary Clinton who voted for the War in Iraq to show how tough she would be as a president, and then agitated to abandon troops in the field when she realized that opposing the war would boost her chances of becoming president.

Yeah, we need that kind of patriot as President, rather than the unamerican, immoral Trump.

In 2008, Obama campaigned on the idea that he would somehow both withdraw from Iraq and yet also "win" Iraq by withdrawing.

I was incensed by this; it was so obviously, transparently a lie and a dodge. He wasn't planning to "win" anything; he just wanted to bug out. I was angry at the media for never challenging his "Win by Withdrawing" claims and pissed off at Americans for believing this bullshit.

But they voted him into office anyway, and by decent margins. I realized that Americans weren't really tricked by Obama; rather, Obama told them a lie that they knew was a lie but they wanted some "out" to pretend they were honoring the sacrifice of the already-dead while also bugging out of Iraq.

So Obama pretended he would "win" the war in Iraq, and the American public pretended to believe him.

They really didn't.

But they did want out of the war, one way or the other, either stated forthrightly or crabwalked dishonestly, and they voted for Obama, and they voted for the dishonest crabwalk way of abandoning Iraq.

And it was their right to make that choice. Every people has a right to decide how much of war's burdens it's willing to bear.

But they did make that choice, and we cannot pretend that they didn't, and we cannot pretend that Americans' appetite for war is as limitless as internet bloviators' capacity for self-aggrandizement.

When we think of war, we must assume that Democrats and therefore 45% of the country will turn on that war by the next midterm or presidential election. The war must therefore be either a very short one, all wrapped up before the Democrats execute their predictable turn against it, or slightly longer, but still short enough to keep the support of 55% of the public, most Republicans and most independents too, and the length of the war must not be so long as to cause that support to flee as well.

These are the realistic limitations we face on America's war-making capacity.

Again, it is not "idealistic" or "moral" to pretend these limitations away. Running from reality is like running from any other obstacle: a sign of cowardice (moral, intellectual, and psychological in this case), and not a sign of "idealism" and certainly not a sign of "courage."

Wars are not #Hashtag campaigns, with an almost non-existent cost but a big boost of dopamine for Retweeting Justice. They are not just another venue for Virtue Signalling on Twitter.

I tweeted support of Montenegro on Twitter. Look at what a #Braveheart I am.

Wars have real costs and therefore they have real limitations. We do not do our war-fighters or our fellow Americans any favors by ignoring those limitations and refusing to know ourselves, to know, realistically, what we are willing to do and what we are not willing to do, how long we're willing to fight for and when we're likely to bug out and leave our allies or even our soldiers in the field without support.

I'm not against moralism in foreign policy, but honesty is an important part of morality, and being honest with ourselves about what we're personally willing to do, and what we believe our fellow Americans are willing to do, is a critical part of the candid thinking necessary for a moral, and realistic, foreign policy. One that doesn't start a lot of wars and leave them half-finished.

Wars can be left half-finished, but the dead they leave behind are all-the-way dead. I'd like to avoid more half-finished wars and more all-the-way dead Americans.

And I think an important part of avoiding half-finished, lost wars is admitting that the years between 2003 and 2016 did in fact happen -- they weren't just a bad dream, I assure you -- and we have to heed the lessons that those years taught us.

Or that those years should have taught us, at least.

Former Trump NSC Spokesman Michael Anton: Citizenship Should Not be a Birthright

—Ace of Spades

Not a cuck.

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

Although the courts would surely rule such an EO unconstitutional, Anton seems to be proposing that Trump dare them to so rule it, and he also seems to be arguing that the President, who is a co-equal partner with the Courts, insist that his authority is just as strong as the courts', and basically take the Jacksonian position vis a vis the courts. (IIRC: "The courts have made their ruling; now let them enforce it.")

Seems a bit unlikely, but I like where his head's at.

For Those Insistent That We Must Fight a Hypothetical Future War on Behalf of Montenegro, Because American Honor Demands It: You Know, It's Not Too Late to Declare War on Russia for the Ukraine

—Ace of Spades

Background: Sorry for not including this. Last night, Tucker Carlson asked Trump why his (Carlson's) son should die to protect new NATO signatory Montengero. Trump expressed a lot of doubt about going to war for Montenegro.

The usual neocon suspects -- Noah Rothman, David French, etc., as well as the suddenly gung-ho-to-kill-Russkies socialist left -- are foaming about even asking serious questions about what America would actually do if Russia invaded Montenegro.

While they fulminate and salivate, I can't help noticing that Russia did in fact invade another country that the US made security guarantees to, and the US did nothing much about it, and they themselves did not advocate for War in the Ukraine. Almost as if their mouths are writing a lot of checks their asses (and political viability) can't cover.

So I do think it's fair to ask what, realistically, the US is willing to do when faced with the possibility of a war with Russia.

One big problem I have with Trump's answer is that he's talking about a country we've already made a part of NATO. Not a wise decision -- but that ship has sailed. We already made that guarantee.

However, I do think it's worth talking about this question so that we stop making guarantees to everyone in the world, and maybe get more realistic about what we'd actually do if Russia invaded a country that wasn't a part of the core original treaty group of Western Europe. Our lack of resolve in the Ukraine suggests that the American foreign policy establishment likes making guarantees it has virtually no intention of ever honoring.

...

If we're going to be serious about treaty commitments, then we have to be serious about all treaty commitments -- the commitments where there's an actual invasion going on that legally requires US action, now, and not just those more-fun-to-chat-about hypothetical future invasions.

Which are safer to discuss politically, of course, because no US troops are currently demanded for the cause.

In the meantime, the unchastened neocons choose to selectively forget that the United States made security guarantees to Ukraine, promising to protect it in case of Russian invasion, and we have chosen to ignore those obligations.

And I don't hear the neocons squawking much about that. Because, to honor those obligations would require immediate US entry into a war against Russia, which would be incredibly unpopular.

So instead they jerk themselves off about fantasy future hypotheticals about Montenegro.

How about talking about the obligations we're currently in default of honoring, neocons?

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, and the United States Of America. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Before that, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical if not operational control....

Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the US, Canada, the UK, along with other countries, stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, a Memorandum transmitted to the United Nations under the signature of Sergei Lavrov, amongst others, and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion.

Russia has interfered and has, for all practical purposes, invaded.

So why aren't the neocons demanding a declaration of war against Russia?

Oh, for the usual reasons. They're not serious people. They like talking tough but they understand that their prescriptions are wildly unpopular, so they don't really push very hard for much action; they mostly just play the weakling's favorite game talking the toughest without actually trying to get into a fight.

One trick the necons are trying right now is arguing that by making guarantees that we will fight wars on behalf of people they know damn well we will not fight on behalf of, we will somehow actually avoid fighting on behalf of the people we're not going to fight on behalf of in any situation.

First of all, this more of Obama's Red Line strategy -- and the neocons are nothing at all like Obama, they'll assure you.

Claiming you have a "Red Line" which you will go to war to defend while knowing you will not go to war to defend that Red Line projects weakness, not strength.

Second, telling people to get on board with a treaty that requires them to go to war to defend another country actually reduces the chances of having to go to war at all fails, intentionally, to prepare the country for the idea that seriously, this treaty means you have to go to war if the other state invokes its rights under the treaty.

It's like getting someone to sign a contract and agree to a contract provision against their own interest by telling them that the contract provision will never actually be enforced, and is just required to be in the contract to "satisfy shareholders."

I've heard this bullshit personally. Pro-Tip: Any contract provision adverse to you should be read as really, really real, and you should only sign if you are very comfortable having that same adverse provision applied in full against you.

Merely hoping and praying it will never be used against you is a legally ruinous strategy.

That said: If the war salesmen are telling people the treaty guarantees will not be invoked, then how can you actually try to invoke them later?

The whole point of a contract -- or a treaty -- is to have a meeting of minds on key points, actual in-fact agreement as to the terms; the neocons' hucksterism in selling Americans on treaty obligations they claim Americans will never actually be obliged to honor is dishonest -- and the American people would rightly refuse to honor such an obligation if demanded later, noting, correctly, that the people pushing on this them told them that they'd never have to actually go to war if they signed this document saying they'd go to war.

Finally -- how does making such guarantees for Montenegro reduce the chances that Russia will actually invade Montenegro when Russia has actually invaded Ukraine and we're already currently dishonoring our obligations to come to Urkaine's defense?

If we're not serious about honoring our obligations in Ukraine -- which the tough-talking neocon Chairborne Rangers are quite happy to be unserious about -- why would Montenegro assume we're any more serious?

Why would Russia assume we're serious about Montenegro if not serious about Ukraine?

So get to agitating for full war, Neocons. Your Sacred Principles demand nothing less. The only way to insure peace for Montenegro in the future is to declare war in Ukraine in the now.

Finally, a little history lesson: the other thing the unchastened, never-learn-a-thing neocons are claiming is that the only defense against war is a series of defensive treaties in which we all guarantee to go to war on each other's behalf. This will prevent war, the theory goes, because the treaty system promises such incalculably dire consequences -- a whole world at war for invading Montenegro -- that no one would actually dare to set off the spark that sets the war on fire.

This is true -- sometimes. Sometimes, the threat of the whole world going to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkans state does in fact stay everyone's hand from taking the action that will plunge us into war.

On the other hand, sometimes a complex web of treaties and defensive alliances actually causes the entire world to go to war when Russia infringes upon the territorial integrity of a small Balkans region country.

It was called the Great War. World War One. People assumed that the web of treaties in which half of Europe pledged itself to defend the tiny Balkan region state of Serbia and the other half of Europe was pledged to assist the German Central Powers and Austro-Hungary in their attempt to punish Serbia for its role (whatever that might be) in the death of the Archduke Ferdinand.

So it's not quite true to say sprawling networks of alliances always prevent catastrophically large conflagrations. It's not even true of the Balkans region, or of countries sometimes known as Yugoslavia.

Sometimes you can forestall war by making war such an unimaginably large disaster that people refrain from war.

But sometimes this doesn't work, and instead the system of alliances and ententes delivers to you the same unimaginably large disaster you were using as a chit to scare people away from a much smaller war.

One last point: They say, correctly, that when you pass a law, you should accept the fact that this law is so critical that you are willing to empower agents of the state to straight-up shoot and kill people to enforce that law.

You should not have any illusions about this; a law is, unavoidably, Force and Coercion, and when you pass a law, you must make sure that it is important enough a thing to make the killing of citizens who may disagree with that law an acceptable casualty.

The same is obviously true of treaty obligations: One must ask, before entering a war alliance, if the interests to be advanced are actually worth killing a lot of people, and sacrificing a lot of our own countrymen.

And they should be sold to our countrymen as they actually are: as formal, legal, moral guarantees that we will sacrifice our own sons for the sake of the alliance.

And people need to be told that, and have it explained to them why this alliance really is that important, to require the sacrifice of our sons.

It is unserious to present war alliances as only proofs against war. A serious and honest commentator must also tell people that this obligation to go to war for another country may very well obligate us to go to war for another country.

Selling a war alliance as a clever method of avoiding all war is the work of a dishonest swindler selling unfavorable contract terms to someone by lying about what those terms actually are.

So sure: Let's have an honest discussion about which countries we are willing to go to war for, and which we are not.

We're apparently unwilling to go to war for Ukraine. Until Trump, we weren't even willing to provide Ukraine with lethal aid with which to defend themselves; but obviously, both before Trump and after Trump, we're not willing to go to actual war for them.

Which the self-righteous, we'll-fight-our-enemies-to-the-last-man-from-the-non-political-classes neocons are perfectly fine with (given that none of them utters a peep about honoring our Sacred Obligations in Ukraine).

Which other countries are we not willing to sacrifice the last non-DC-resident-life for? Any others? Or is it just Ukraine?

More: How About Turkey? Are We Willing to Really Go to War on Behalf of the Islamist Country and NATO Member Turkey?

European Court Smashes Google With $5 Billion (With a B) In Fines; Also Directs Google to Stop Bundling Its Own Services in Android OS, or Face Even More Fines

—Ace of Spades

Steven Green thinks the last part is the most important:

As I wrote yesterday (linked above):

That Android phone in your pocket is a virtual spy, reporting back to Menlo Park on your every click, swipe, app, data, photo, email, physical location, etc. All in the name of showing you ads, which Google sells for a LOT of money. And it doesn't matter whether your phone is a Samsung, Huawei, LG, or one of Google's own Pixel phones. Because Google controls the default apps, which is what most people use.

Apple has spent the last couple of years touting (and improving upon) iOS's privacy features. Android phonemakers like Samsung have a hard time competing on privacy, because Google's default apps are, as I described yesterday, digital spies. But now Samsung, Huawei, LG, et al, can ditch Google's apps in favor of their own, and if they choose, take on Apple directly when it comes to protecting consumer privacy.

I'm not saying they necessarily will, but now at least they have the opportunity.

So this decision is a big win for Android OEMs, it heats up the competitive pressure on Apple (which has grown lackadaisical on some of its software quality), and gives Android owners the chance to perhaps take some of their personal privacy back from Google.