Liberals online ripped into CNN correspondent Kasie Hunt after she took to Twitter to call out Democrats for their behavior ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
Hunt, who joined the left-wing network this summer, posted online Thursday amid the California recall election to share her take on the “big picture” surrounding the voting, and how she said it relates to elections next year.
According to Hunt, Democrats have issues with elitism.
As the returns for California’s special election began to come in showing Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom would remain governor, Hunt tweeted about the election’s potential national implications.
“CA GOV BIG PICTURE: One of the top Democrats in the country got caught living like an elite while everyone else suffered. Elites vs. the rest is the driving force in our politics right now and Democrats have a tough needle to thread both in California & nationwide,” she tweeted, apparently referencing Newsom.
“Democrats need to prove they can govern for EVERYBODY, and if you look at California — it’s not necessarily the best test case for national Democrats (see: concern about homelessness, crime, etc,” the CNN anchor added.
“Republicans not named Trump did learn they had unrealized opportunities with working class voters (including Black and Latino voters) as they watched 2020 returns roll in.”
Obviously California is a Special Place — but the fact that a Democratic national star in waiting *faced* a recall and then had to fight hard for it midway through the campaign does say a lot about the potential challenges Democrats face across the map (4/)
“Obviously California is a Special Place — but the fact that a Democratic national star in waiting *faced* a recall and then had to fight hard for it midway through the campaign does say a lot about the potential challenges Democrats face across the map,” she continued.
The CNN anchor concluded Democrats would face challenges “if President Biden can’t demonstrate he’s capable of getting the resurgent pandemic under control, has another competence crisis a la Afghanistan, can’t get his budget plan through Congress, etc.”
Do you agree with Hunt that Democrats are in trouble next year?
Yes: 98% (1907 Votes)
No: 2% (34 Votes)
The series of tweets did not sit well with Twitter’s army of leftists, which was not pleased to see an establishment media personality such as Hunt speaking about the state of the Democratic Party in such a manner.
One Twitter user even inferred Hunt was acting as an anti-Democratic-Party operative — pointing out she previously interviewed then-GOP House candidate Dan Crenshaw of Texas in 2018 and stated she appreciated his military service.
As regular readers may recall, much of the bruhaha surrounding the Pentagon’s June 25 report on the activities of the UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or what we call UFOs) Task Force, was kicked off by the passage of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by Donald Trump last December. The portion of the annual, “must-pass” bill that covered the UAP Task Force spawned considerable interest from the Armed Services and Intelligence committees in both the House and the Senate, leading to classified briefings that took place earlier this year.
Now we appear to be entering the next act of this highly interesting play. The new Fiscal Year 2022 bill is already in the works and it once again includes intriguing language about the UAP Task Force. But unlike the last bill, which seemed to be largely an exploratory, fact-finding measure, this version (assuming it passes) will lead to far more concrete actions. As investigative journalist Tim McMillan revealed today at The Debrief, Congress wants the Pentagon to replace the UAP Task Force with a regular office inside the Defense Department tasked with handling the study of UFOs, collecting data and reporting to Congress. As the term is used inside the government, “task forces” are temporary in nature by definition. This move would create a more formal structure under the Department of Defense, complete with funding and personnel, that would initially run until at least 2026, but could be extended further as needed.
Legislation contained within the upcoming FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act calls for the establishment of a permanent office to address “unidentified aerial phenomena” or “UAP,” more commonly known as UFOs.
“Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish an office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to carry out, on a Department-wide basis, the mission currently performed by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force as of the date of the enactment of this Act,” the proposed legislation reads.
If passed, the move would represent a monumental shift in the U.S. government’s over half-century position on UFOs and represent the first formally acknowledged and permanently staffed effort to investigate unexplained aerial activity since the 1969 closure of the Air Force’s Project Blue Book.
Tim has all of the details of this unexpected and very welcome development at the link, along with a thorough recap of what led up to this moment, so be sure to check that out if you’re not up to speed on all of this yet. The rest of the language in the proposed NDAA reveals even more intriguing details, however. The new office would be responsible for developing procedures to synchronize and standardize “the collection, reporting, and analysis” of UFO encounters by all branches of the military and other applicable agencies. They would have to develop a central repository to collect such reports from all branches of the military. Further, they would establish and coordinate cooperation with allies of the United States, which seems particularly important considering that this has been clearly defined as a global phenomenon and not one that is just applicable to the United States.
Some eyebrows may be raised by one portion of the bill saying that the new office would be tasked with evaluating potential “links between unidentified aerial phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or non-state actors.” This leaves open the possibility that the craft are not from “out there” but may still be the products of Russian, Chinese, or other adversarial nations’ technology. But until the point where we actually find out what these things are, that option was always going to have to remain on the table. After all, this is our military. Job One is evaluating potential military threats from adversaries. And that has to remain a possibility for them until such time as it can be definitively ruled out.
There will also be regularly scheduled briefings and reports, some of them public, on the work of this new office and what is known about our backlog of reports of such encounters. Just as with the last report, I’m not going to get my hopes up too far just yet, but it seems like Congress from both sides of the aisle are taking this issue seriously. I don’t get to say this very often, but… good job, Congress. I salute you.
The Idaho GOP recently killed a resolution that sought to establish support for The John Birch Society. Their major reasons for doing so highlight differences between establishment Republicans and the fervently constitutional organization.
The “JBS resolution,” which even supporters admitted was atypical, had already been adopted by two Idaho county Republican central committees — those of Kootenai and Benewah counties. That alone caused a great tizzy. It involved a county commissioner who was shown the door as he walked away from the party over its support for the JBS; it gave the local press something juicy to write about; and it created quite a flutter in the left-wing-dominated Twitterverse, where many prolific, and as some argue, irrelevant, keyboard activists congregate to protest.
The resolution was adopted to symbolically recognize the JBS for what it is — an organization dedicated to providing education and organized action “in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.” It is recognition that Idahoan JBS members and supporters have worked, and continue to work, hard to build support for constitutional principles that result in more individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Once approved by the two central committees, the JBS resolution was submitted to be adopted by the state GOP, where, advocates believe, it had the votes to pass. But it was killed by a resolutions committee before it could be voted on by the Republican State Central Committee. The JBS communicated via text, phone call, and e-mail with many involved. Resolutions Committee Chair Trent Clark said via e-mail that the resolution was tabled for the following reasons:
The JBS and the Idaho GOP are misaligned on their stances regarding a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
The committee could not obtain the JBS’ non-discrimination policy
The JBS declares itself Christian organization, which would contradict the Idaho GOP’s anti-discrimination policy
The first point is true; the second contains some murky elements; and the third is false and, further e-mail correspondence with Clark revealed, the result of a misunderstanding.
JBS Opposes the BBA & USMCA
Clark made it clear in his e-mail that the JBS’ stance against the Balanced Budget Amendment alone would have killed the resolution.
The JBS makes no apologies for its stance on working for years to prevent a BBA or Convention of States. BBA proponents operate on the faulty logic that if only there was a constitutional amendment that told lawmakers to stop spending too much money, a great, beautiful savings account would open up. There is no reason to believe this. Many lawmakers violate the Constitution in their sleep. What would make those in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — start adhering to the law with this particular amendment?
The JBS stance on fiscal responsibility is that if government were scaled back to its constitutionally permissible size, balancing the budget would become inevitable. About 80 percent of federal government spending is unconstitutional. There is no constitutional permission for grotesquely large and expensive institutions such as the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Health and Human Services, to name just a few. Not only have these institutions drained taxpayers’ bank accounts, but they’ve caused immense harm. The dismal results of public education offer a prime example of how taxpayers have been robbed to finance the dumbing-down and Marxist indoctrination of the populace. And where does one begin with HHS’ role in the medical totalitarianism Americans are experiencing?
As for the USMCA, the JBS opposes it because it provides an excuse for unaccountable entangling bureaucracy. Chapter 30 of the USMCA establishes a new governing bureaucracy in the form of an unelected, unaccountable Free Trade Commission that oversees various lower regional committees. The Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress, which completely undermines Congress’ power to regulate trade with foreign nations. Ultimately, the USMCA is part of a startling but purposeful strategy used by globalist elites to integrate individual nations into regional unions with an overarching unaccountable bureaucracy.
Disagreement between the Idaho GOP and the JBS on these issues demonstrates how the party that is supposed to preserve freedom and prosperity has been failing. National Republicans have been complicit in the erosion of liberty, national sovereignty, and wealth. And their influence reaches to the state level. Idaho Republican Party Regional Chairman Bjorn Handeen says he was told the Idaho GOP consulted the Republican National Committee prior to the decision. Clark, however, denies this. “No one ‘consulted’ with the RNC,” Clark said in an e-mail to the JBS. Whatever the truth may be, it’s clear the Idaho GOP holds the same stance as national Republicans.
JBS Anti-discrimination Policy
A major tool of establishment media has been to paint the JBS as everything but what the organization actually is — an activist organization comprised of diverse people who fight, via education and organization, for individual liberty and national sovereignty for every single American. However effective media smearing might have been in the past, it’s a tool that’s losing its edge. The blatantly dishonest nature of major media journalists, coupled with the availability of more media alternatives than ever before, has helped millions of Americans realize that just because something is in the newspaper doesn’t mean it’s true.
For the record, the JBS is an organization with members from coast to coast, even internationally, of many ethnicities and religions. This is and always has been a verifiable fact. The standards JBS members have to meet are that they be of good character and they subscribe to the constitutional principles of freedom. The JBS does have an anti-discrimination policy, one that has been utilized whenever a member or employee has violated those standards. The JBS does not tolerate racist or anti-Semitic views, or any other unethical, discriminatory behaviors.
The Idaho GOP says it tried to get information from JBS headquarters regarding the organization’s anti-discrimination policy, but was unable to. This may be true. But there is no record of that attempted inquiry. To be fair, a lot of e-mails and phone calls arrive at headquarters. But those who truly want to get a hold of someone at JBS headquarters can do so.
As for JBS declaring itself a Christian organization, which Clark said was a reason for killing the resolution, that is verifiably false. Anyone can go to jbs.org under the About tab and read the part that says, “The John Birch Society does not subscribe to any particular faith or denomination. Its membership has included individuals of such diverse religious backgrounds as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Latter-day Saints (Mormon), Jews, and more.” Clark acknowledged he misunderstood the JBS religious stance based on the initial greeting on the jbs.org, which is completely forgivable.
Conclusion: Freedom Is on the March
The fate of this symbolic resolution doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change that Idahoans are marching toward constitutionalism. It shows that Idahoans realize that the same old politics hasn’t and does not work.
Idahoans, like millions of Americans, have had enough. They’ve awakened. The JBS has warned for more than 62 years of the tyranny that is assaulting America now — the tyranny that is literally sending people to your doorstep to jab you and plans to ban anyone not getting the vaccine from the economy. That tyranny is here. The JBS has exposed, through scores of books, videos, pamphlets, and magazines, the malevolent forces that have been working to bring that day here. A network of global elites — who steer policy and culture with their connections to government, media, academia, foundations, and even financial entities — wants to destroy America and submerge the world under a global totalitarian government to be ruled by themselves. The world is experiencing in real time the attempted implementation of this plan. If Americans do not stand up, they will lose all freedom.
If you’d like to learn more about the JBS and how you can get involved in restoring liberty, visit jbs.org. Start there. Look over the action projects and get involved, subscribe to The New American, and be on top of what’s really happening. And then contact a coordinator and learn how you can join the intelligence agency of the freedom movement.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
(American Thinker) – First hydroxychloroquine, now ivermectin, is the hated deadly drug de jour, castigated by the medical establishment and regulatory authorities. Both drugs have been around for a long time as FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet now we are told they are as deadly as arsenic.
As a physician, I am certainly aware of ivermectin but don’t recall ever writing a prescription for it in my 30+ years’ medical career. Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, meaning it cures parasitic infections. In my world of ophthalmology, it is used on occasion for rare parasitic or worm infections in the eye.
Ivermectin was FDA approved in 1998 under the brand name Stromectol, produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck, approved for several parasitic infections. The product label described it as having a “unique mode of action,” which “leads to an increase in the permeability of the cell membrane to chloride ions.” This suggests that ivermectin acts as an ionophore, making cell membranes permeable to ions that enter the cell for therapeutic effect.
Ivermectin is one of several ionophores, others including hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, and resveratrol, the latter two available over the counter. These ionophores simply open a cellular door, allowing zinc to enter the cell, where it then interferes with viral replication, providing potential therapeutic benefit in viral and other infections.
This scientific paper reviews and references other studies demonstrating antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties of ivermectin. This explains the interest in this drug as having potential use in treating COVID.
Does ivermectin work in COVID? I am not attempting to answer that question, instead looking at readily available information because this drug has been the focus of much recent media attention. For the benefit of any reader eager to report this article and author to the medical licensing boards for pushing misleading information, I am not offering medical advice or prescribing anything. Rather, I am only offering commentary on this newsworthy and controversial drug.
What’s newsworthy about ivermectin? A simple Google search of most medications describes uses and side effects. A similar search of ivermectin provides headlines of why it shouldn’t be taken and how dangerous it is.
The Guardian describes ivermectin as horse medicine reminding readers considering taking the drug, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow”, saying it’s a medicine meant for farm animals. The FDA echoed that sentiment in a recent tweet, adding “Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” their word choice making it obvious who the tweet was directed to.
Perhaps the FDA didn’t realize that Barack and Michelle Obama often used the term “y’all” and that some might construe the FDA tweet as racist.
The FDA says ivermectin “can be dangerous and even lethal,” yet they approved it in 1998 and have not pulled it from the market despite it being “dangerous and lethal.” Any medication can be “dangerous and lethal” if misused. People have even overdosed on water.
It is true that ivermectin is also used in animals, as are many drugs approved for human use. This is a list of veterinary drugs with many familiar names of antibiotics, antihypertensives, and anesthetics commonly used by humans. Since these drugs are used in farm animals, should humans stop taking them? That seems a rather unscientific argument against ivermectin, especially coming from the FDA.
And healthcare professionals are not recommending or prescribing animal versions of ivermectin as there is an FDA-approved human formulation.
Does ivermectin work against COVID? That is the bigger question and worthy of investigation, rather than reminding people that they are not cows.
A study published several months ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded,
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
To my knowledge, these 18 studies have not been retracted, unlike previous studies critical of hydroxychloroquine which were ignominiously retracted by prestigious medical journals like The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Yet the medical establishment refuses to even entertain the possibility of some benefit from ivermectin, castigating physicians who want to try it in their patients. 18 studies found benefit. Are they all wrong?
Podcaster Joe Rogan recently contracted COVID and recovered within days of taking a drug cocktail including ivermectin. Was it his drug cocktail, his fitness, or just good luck? Impossible to know but his experience will keep ivermectin in the news.
Highly unvaccinated India had a surge in COVID cases earlier this year which abruptly ended following the widespread use of ivermectin, over the objections and criticism of the WHO. In the one state, Tamil Nadu, that did not use ivermectin, cases tripled instead of dropping by 97 percent as in the rest of the country.
This is anecdotal and could have other explanations but the discovery of penicillin was also anecdotal and observational. Good science should investigate rather than ignore such observations.
— Article continues below Petition —
29791 have signed the petition.
Let’s get to 30000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
Show Petition Text
With the FDA’s decision to officially approve the Pfizer COVID jab, calls to vaccinate schoolchildren and more university students will become louder and more insistent.
But, America’s children and young people must be protected from unknown future side-effects of these drugs, and parents’ rights must be respected!
Please SIGN this urgent petition which demands that COVID vaccine mandates for schools and universities be prohibited in every U.S. state.
This petition will be sent to the leaders of every state legislature and to every governor in the United States, urging them to pass emergency legislation banning vaccine mandates for primary, secondary and university students.
Students simply have the right to be educated without being forced to violate deeply held principles and their own bodily integrity!
But, unfortunately, some private schools, like the Jesuit-run Brophy College Prep School in Phoenix, Arizona, have already mandated the COVID vaccine for their students, in spite of massive parental opposition. If parents or students reject the vaccine, students face intrusive weekly testing and exclusion from extra-curricular activities.
Also, more and more universities have actually started to disenroll unvaccinated students. But, even where that is not happening, not taking the vaccine often subjects students to masking, extra testing and additional administrative obstacles.
And now, with the Pfizer jab approval, Joe Biden’s Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, is threatening more mandates.
While it is true that the FDA approval for the Pfizer jab only pertains to those over 16 years of age, the pharmaceutical industry and some state actors have been pushing to get approval for pre-teens!
So, it stands to reason that the Federal government will try to impose vaccines on schools, for those 16 and over, as well as on all university students. But, eventually, such mandates could even apply to younger and younger schoolchildren.
That’s why state legislatures and governors must fight back against any attempt to coerce school students to take a COVID vaccine against their will!
Science and logic should dictate public health policy. And both say that mandatory vaccination for children and university students is not only unnecessary, but very likely dangerous for the future health of America’s youth.
The CDC reports that the rates of death, injury, and hospitalization are very, very low for children and adolescents and that COVID transmission in schools, both from student to staff and between students, is also very low.
And a European CDC study concluded that “no evidence has been found to suggest that children or educational settings are primary drivers of COVID transmission.”
So, right now, we know that schoolchildren are at very low risk of becoming very ill as a result of COVID, or of even transmitting the virus.
But, we don’t know how a hastily-prepared, unstudied vaccine will affect the health of millions of America’s youth in the future.
Gambling with their future, and the future of our nation, should not even be entertained for one second!
Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition urging state legislatures to ban COVID vaccine mandates for schools and universities – both public and private. Urge them to respect parents’ rights, informed consent and bodily integrity.
The Japanese Medical Association recently endorsed ivermectin for COVID. The U.S. CDC cautioned against it.
There is legal pushback as an Ohio judge ordered a hospital to treat a ventilated COVID patient with ivermectin. After a month on the ventilator, this patient is likely COVID free and ivermectin now will have no benefit, allowing the medical establishment to say “see I told you so” that it wouldn’t help.
By this point, active COVID infection is not the issue; instead, it is weaning off and recovery from long-term life support. The early hydroxychloroquine studies had the same flaw, treating patients too late in the disease course to provide or demonstrate benefit.
These drugs have been proposed for early outpatient treatment, not when patients are seriously ill and near death. Looking for treatment benefits in the wrong patient population will yield expected negative results.
Given how devastating COVID can be and how, despite high levels of vaccination in countries like the U.S., U.K., and Israel, we are seeing surging cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, we should be pulling out all the stops in treating this virus.
Medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits. When FDA-approved medications are used in appropriate doses for appropriate patients, prescribed by competent physicians, the risks tend to be low, and any benefit should be celebrated. Instead, the medical establishment, media, and regulatory authorities are taking the opposite approach. One has to wonder why.
Barely a third of Republicans polled by Pew Research Center in June said that they trust the establishment media (ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, etc.) to provide them with unbiased, “fair and balanced” news. Five years ago, more than two thirds of them trusted the media as their primary news source.
Overall, fewer than three out of five Americans of all political persuasions have “some trust” in the mainstream media, down from 65 percent in 2016. There’s even been some substantial credibility slippage among Democrats as well, according to Pew. “This is,” wrote the group, “the smallest share over the past five years.”
Not surprisingly, Pew also reported that the percentage of those who don’t trust the media “at all” jumped from six percent five years ago to 14 percent currently.
This confirms what Statista.com reported on Monday: “The credibility of almost all the news media sources in [our] ranking was considerably lower in 2021 than in previous years, highlighting consumers’ growing concerns about reliability, bias, and trustworthiness in the news business.”
The media’s credibility has been slipping for years. In 2019, for example, ABC enjoyed a rating of 63 percent among those polled. Today it’s at 58 percent.
Similar declines are reported at CBS and NBC. The New York Times’ credibility has slipped from 53 percent two years ago to 50 percent at present, along with CNN. Fox News has slipped from 52 percent to 44 percent over the same period, while Huffington Post suffered the most grievous drop, from just 38 percent two years ago to 31 percent now.
Hugh Hewitt, a radio talk show host, law professor, and conservative political commentator, writes from inside the establishment media. He is a regular on NBC News and MSNBC and writes frequently for the Washington Post.
In May he declared in an article published by the Post that “the media has a big credibility problem”, adding, “Media bias has grown worse in recent years. From story selection to story framing, bias leaps off the page or screen and cannot be escaped. The hazard of this vast tilt left is the belief among millions — perhaps a majority — of Americans that [the] media cannot be trusted.”
That leaves those searching for reliable sources for their news in a quandary: where to go? Many are turning to The Epoch Times, which is enjoying a surge in popularity. So are Newsmax, OneAmerica News, and American Thinker.
The New American magazine and its website, TheNewAmerican.com, makes every effort to “tell the story behind the story.”
Richard Harwood, a former Washington Post senior editor, described the CFR as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”, adding that many members have enormous influence in the media:
The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.
They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. They are part of that establishment … sharing most of its values and world views.
Media personalities constitute only about five percent of the overall CFR network. Key members of the organization have included:
Several US Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;
Almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;
Many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;
Some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign and security policy);
Almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic Council;
Many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics and Political Science; and
Many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, and NGOs.
CFR insiders, including political journalist Richard Rovere, have revealed the influence of the CFR across the political, economic, educational, and cultural spectrum:
The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation. [I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to it.
This is what makes The New American unique: it reveals “the rest of the story” — that is, little happens domestically or internationally (e.g., Afghanistan) without CFR influence and direction.
In the instant case Pew Research merely reveals the awakening of the American consumer to the extensive bias toward collectivism but without explaining that it is a deliberate part of an agenda to lessen America’s influence in the world, preparing it for its role as a part of a world run by CFR elites and its friends in the media, the culture, government, education, and in Hollywood.
The Biden administration’s botched pullout from Afghanistan revealed many things about our nation’s government establishment. It showcased the consequences of trading true soldiery for “wokeness.” It revealed Biden’s ineptitude to supporters who had previously tried to brush aside his mental falings as mere gaffes.
And amid the tragedy of the Taliban’s ascension, there is a silver lining for those who are opposed to the globalist regime that seeks to destroy America’s freedoms from within: The realization that the empire is not as all-powerful as it seems.
In part, this is because the Afghanistan debacle put the final nail in the coffin to the globalist’s nation-building agenda. The premise that America must be the world’s policeman, that we must meddle in every foreign conflict and impose “democracy” on the Middle East — all under the false pretense of national security — has lost what little weight it still carried in the post-Trump era.
Simply put: With the exception of neocon insiders on the payroll of D.C. think tanks, Americans universally understand that nation-building doesn’t work. Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between have had enough of endless foreign wars and wants to bring our troops home.
Even the news reports of thousands of Americans still in the country hasn’t created a public desire to reinvade Afghanistan, as the globalist establishment likely hoped. Similarly, the stories of Afghan allies who may be killed by the Taliban haven’t been enough to convince the Republican base to accept the droves of unvetted refugees the establishment would love to flood the country with under the guise of humanitarianism.
Although the American Deep State takes its orders from internationalist oligarchs, it still needs some popular support for its policies or else it risks the entire house of cards falling apart. It has now lost that support for one of its key goals on the foreign-policy front.
The situation in Afghanistan also dealt a major blow to the public’s perception of the government’s legitimacy.
This sounds like a bad thing, and it would be if the government were actually legitimate. But the opposite is true today.
And that isn’t just because the presidency and Congress were stolen through a voter fraud coup coordinated by Democrats, China, the CIA, and other entities.
For long before that, the federal government has been an overreaching police and surveillance state that, in countless ways, violates the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.
The American people have been unwilling to take meaningful action to restore the government to its rightful, Constitutional role due to our natural human tendency to go with the status quo and follow what those in power say just because they have the uniforms and the guns.
But the people’s adherence to this tendency — and their belief in the government’s legitimacy — dissipates when they view that government as ineffective and incompetent. “If the government can’t even perform its most basic functions properly, why should we bow to its authority?” the people begin to think.
If you want to argue for the federal government’s incompetency, what better evidence can you ask for than the fact that after 20 years, we were unable to defeat the Taliban, to the point that the Islamic fundamentalists who were outgunned, outmanned, and outspent by the mighty U.S. military were able to take over Afghanistan in mere days following our withdrawal?
Then, add in the gross ineptitude of not being able to handle the withdrawal properly, with American weapons left for the Taliban’s use and an unknown number of American civilians left behind in the dangerous nation.
The government didn’t think of bringing American citizens home before the troop pullout? They didn’t think of not handing our weapons over to the barely existent Afghan army? They didn’t foresee that this cobbled-together army would disband and surrender speedily without the American military to prop it up?
Miscalculations on this scale can’t be helped but blow back on Biden, his cabinet, the military, and the entire Washington “ruling class,” no matter what efforts the media may employ to blame this all on Donald Trump.
The widespread disillusionment with the current illegitimate government should serve as fuel to American patriots to fight for a restoration of the constitutional republic created by the founders.
Remember: If the Establishment lost so badly in Afghanistan, they’re not nearly as smart or omnipotent as they want you to think.
We are seeing the pent-up frustration with a politician it has never had much confidence or faith in.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
T here are countless stories that will come out of the Afghan tragedy. But one of the more surprising is the extent to which liberal media outlets and the foreign-policy establishment have turned on President Joe Biden.
It’s certainly true that both groups didn’t do enough to question the wisdom of expending thousands of lives and trillions in treasure pursuing “nation-building” in Afghanistan after the Taliban were initially defeated post-9/11. But their prior investment in that position doesn’t fully explain the visceral and swift way in which they’ve attacked Biden and his aides for the moral and logistical nightmare of the U.S. …
The manifold errors of the U.S. military and foreign-policy establishment should be remembered and their self-justifications rejected.
It’s over. After 20 years, trillions of dollars, over 2,300 Americans and 200,000 Afghans killed, the Taliban won. What comes next is difficult to say. While it seems unlikely that the Taliban will suddenly become a responsible stakeholder in Afghan society, any confident predictions are likely to be defied by events.
What is certain is that Afghanistan, despite how much President Biden dislikes comparisons to Vietnam, will become the new Vietnam of our political discourse. “Who lost Afghanistan?” will become the new rhetorical hand grenade tossed between politicians. As this develops, the lesson to American voters should be clear: The foreign-policy and military establishment has failed and failed miserably. The ostensible “smart set” was anything but. As they offer excuses with their newly acquired hindsight, the American people should realize that there were specific mistakes that led to this disaster. None of this was inevitable, but the establishment made it so. Their manifold errors should be remembered and their self-justifications should be emphatically rejected.
It is true that Afghanistan always posed a major challenge for any strategic planner. It has a varied terrain, a tangled relationship with Pakistan, and a society left broken in the wake of the Soviet invasion. Yet in the face of these challenges, the establishment committed several mistakes originating from either wishful thinking or a complete lack of knowledge. The ignorance started early, dating back to the anti-Soviet campaign before 9/11. Steve Coll in his book Ghost Wars explained that the CIA had to ask Afghan mujahideen how many Stinger missiles the agency had given them, as it had no idea. This kind of elite obtuseness continued to the beginning of the invasion, as the the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, a Princeton-educated former envoy to the Middle East, had to ask even what languages were spoken in Afghanistan. Given this level of illiteracy among our supposed experts and leaders, is it any wonder that they perpetuated as many mistakes as they did?
While there are many, three errors stand out as critical; the American role in feeding Afghan corruption, the failure to commit to a working strategy for victory, and the failure to withdraw in a responsible manner. In each of these, it was not inevitable or something in the air of Afghanistan that forced these failures. It was the fault of our leadership.
The first major policy failure was in actively undermining our own interests by promoting corrupt governance in Afghanistan. While the new narrative from the Biden administration is that “no nation has unified Afghanistan,” in reality policy-makers ensured that corruption would corrode any potential for the country to return to the comparatively calm era before the Soviet invasion. To begin with, the U.S. blocked the return to power of the former king, Zahir Shah, in favor of our client, Hamid Karzai. The Business Integrity Network of Afghanistan noted in 2015 that the Karzai administration resembled a mafia clan more than a democratically elected government. The U.S. then poured billions into this swamp, more than any developing country could reasonably absorb. According to our own special inspector, this double mistake stoked endemic corruption, which then “undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan by fueling grievances against the Afghan government and channeling material support to the insurgency.” Combined with our protection for abusive and criminal elements in the Afghan military, is it any shock no Afghan was particularly enthusiastic to die to keep them in office?
Second, the U.S., when given the chance, dithered when the time came to choose a strategy for victory. Carter Malkasian, a former senior Pentagon official, now blames our defeat on the Afghans, arguing that the Taliban could never be defeated. However, this too was not foreordained but the result of specific policy choices made by the “adults” in Washington.
In reality the war effort in Afghanistan was not doomed by some mythical “graveyard of empire” but rather by two dual decisions. After invading Afghanistan, less than two years later, the U.S. government was preparing for an even grander enterprise of invading Iraq, allowing the mission in Afghanistan to wither on the vine for years, until the 2008 election.
Early on in his administration, Obama ordered a review of our policy. In broad terms, the administration was split between those who advocated withdrawal and those who advocated a new surge, a beefed-up security presence and switch to a population-centric strategy. Rather than commit, Obama, cheered on by his vice president, chose neither. The president authorized troops, but fewer than what the military requested. A smaller surge was ordered but immediately undercut by the timetables for withdrawal. Colonel Ali Jalali, former Afghan army officer and interior minister, explained in his book A Military History of Afghanistan that the new troops were in place for barely a year before being withdrawn.
This move demonstrated that we were already looking for the exits. Instead of being forced to reckon with a changed situation on the ground, the Taliban realized it could simply wait us out. Years of neglect, followed up with one year of competent, albeit frenetic, effort immediately undercut by mixed messages to the enemy does not make for a winning strategy no matter where the war is being fought.
The last mistake responsible for the current state of events was the bungled withdrawal. After 20 years of failure, it was hard to argue that America had a vital reason to spend more lives and money on a botched effort. Once again, this current disaster was not inescapable. While this particular withdrawal has many shameful details, from the abandoned Afghan translators to a lack of meaningful counterterrorism options left after the fact, the worst is that it is predicated on a shambolic peace process with the Taliban.
Senior officials in both the Trump and the Biden administrations assured us that the Taliban could be dealt with to achieve an honorable peace. This was always a fiction. The regime that refused to bend in the 1990s is the same group that conquered Kabul today. Despite this obvious fact, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad allowed themselves to be gulled into thinking otherwise. Khalilzad promised that the peace process was “making strides” and that the Taliban would not overrun the country because they needed legitimacy. Even more foolishly, Pompeo, in an interview in March 2020, told the American people that the Taliban would cut ties and “destroy” al-Qaeda. This was simple wishcasting. Despite Secretary Antony Blinken’s lectures to the contrary, the Taliban clearly believed there was a military “solution” to the conflict. Moreover, earlier this year the U.N. Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team reported the obvious. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban remained joined at the hip. Biden-administration officials will insist they were bound by the ridiculous process started by the Trump administration, and former Trump officials will pretend their policy is somehow different from what is unfolding today. Neither deserve to be listened to.
The American people deserve an honest accounting of what happened. Commentators and scholars will debate counterfactuals, policies, and premises. Some of the establishment have begun to blame factors outside of their control, casting Afghanistan as some unsolvable Gordian knot of policy. For American policy-makers across four administrations, there is something falsely comforting in the idea that the Afghan mission was doomed from the start. Like a salesman after blowing a tough sell, they will justify themselves with a variety of tropes and excuses. This is self-serving. In reality, the establishment made concrete decisions. These decisions turned a difficult situation into a complete disaster. Their policies empowered corruption, indecision, and finally failure.
For other experts, they will become more brazen in their blame shifting. Tom Nichols, self-appointed defender of experts, proclaimed that it is not they who are to blame but rather the American people. Nichols believes Americans are responsible because they were never “serious.” They once supported the war and now they don’t. The reason why the American people now support ending a failure 20 years in the making never seems to enter Nichols’s calculation. He even admits that the policy-makers failed when they “only tried pieces of several strategies, never a coherent whole,” but somehow the villains in his piece are never those responsible for their policy choices. This self-exculpation also needs to be rejected. As is usual, the simplest explanation is best. Those who made the decision to implement failed and incoherent strategies are responsible for the results of those strategies. Not those who looked to them for leadership.
The culpability for the tragedy unfolding in the news today is not in some malevolent energy deep in the soil of Afghanistan, as some imagine it, or in the apparent, ungrateful fickleness of the American people. The experts need to look inward. To paraphrase the French statesman Talleyrand, “It was worse than fate, it was a mistake.”