Friends, the Left is very clear on a couple things: ICE=Nazis, and those Nazis should obligingly ditch their masks so that noble Antifa types can track them down and mete out some frontier justice to them. What a great plan! Well, Tom Homan lays out exactly why those masks are necessary. It's the Dems/lefties themselves who have made it so!!! The fact that, just a few years ago, these nutjobs were demanding that we all be masked makes this situation extra ludicrous, needless to say.
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteIf the damn fools on the Left ever seriously studied the Nazis, they would know that if ICE were really "Nazi," that none of them (the Left) would even be alive.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Ray, either that or in Dachau. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an unfettered left might "push" for a national uniform so as to promote "equity" ( though not withstanding insignia confirming one's permanent membership in an exalted or in a pariah class). Perhaps even prebirth intervention so that we all look the same and no "privilege" is arrogated to anyone by definition "undeserving", would be mandated. Perhaps a pregnant woman would have to obtain a license to give birth. Oh yes, if you believe in "by any means necessary" to get your way, why anything is plausible.
ReplyDeleteI would , should those who bandy the term "Nazi" about with blithe abandon be otherwise arrested for violating existing public order laws, require them to read Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich before release or bail. They would have to pen an acceptable book report and oh yes, a mandatory viewing of some of those hellish death camp liberation films might disabuse the more good willed among them. I'd even give them free Dramamine( I mean we know how very "sensitive" they are). Homan: yes, he's our man!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Re the 2/14 Newsmaker broadcast:
ReplyDeleteYours was a perceptive observation that we have sometimes to blur the distinction between law enforcement and war. In considering this we have ,as civilized people, to take human life only when it is, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, necessary . Dealing death to some innocents is sometimes sadly unavoidable in defensive war. Violent self defense is a fundamental , defensible human right, both for individuals and nations.
Drug dealers , from cartels to individuals , do not embrace such a sanction on their actions and they kill multitudes, both with direct provision of deadly substances and with the attendant mayhem they generate in their enterprise. I think international drug dealers have passed the point of committing violation of our laws; they are making completely unrestrained war on us.
What would ever motivate our country to do casual and frivolous death to anyone? I'm certain that drug boats are judged as such only after painstaking care, using very sophisticated methods and yielding the closest assurance possible . Actual drug transporters must be destroyed for the very defense of our country. Even more justified: eliminating their monstrously sociopathic leaders and bases. Some of the people who crew drug boats are from settings so anarchic that they may not be able to perceive any moral wrong in what they are doing. Some are in a sense among the innocent but the onus for their deaths also lie squarely on the murderers who put them to sea in the first place.
In war if enemy bombers approached our coast we would shoot them and their dutiful crews down. Same -same with these boats.
Ray, you said it! The constant refrain that Trump is Hitler and Trump supporters (and now federal agents) are "Nazis" or the "Gestapo" is total B.S. Trump's ability to "intimidate" his political enemies is roughly nil, as far as I can tell. Someday, we may have a president who will call the Left's bluff and act with fascistic abandon. I mean, practically speaking, why not, since the pushback will be the same no matter what he actually does. But I see no evidence that Trump intends to put his innumerable enemies to the sword or junk our constitutional system. I mean, if that's his game, what's he waiting for???
ReplyDeleteHmm. I don't see drug smuggling in quite the same light, Jack. Not all drugs smugglers are the same. Not all drugs are the same. Not all drug addicts are the same. A policy of "blow them up first, and ask questions later" seems like a pretty blunt policy instrument with which to deal with a nuanced, intractable problem like drugs. I mean, if bombing these boats passes moral and legal muster, why not bomb domestic drug dens too? Why not summary executions of drug dealers on street corners? And should doctors who write opiate prescriptions willy-nilly escape our wrath? Heck, bomb the hospitals too! I'd prefer to see a more thoughtful, judicious approach... BTW, if these strikes were effective, we would see the street price of fentanyl, for instance, go way up. That's not happening. I conclude that the availability of illegal drugs has been barely affected by the campaign against drug boats.
RAY TO DR. WADDY
DeleteIn some near future article, I would be pleased to hear/see your take on President Trump's Peace Board. Thanks.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think the far left/Dems have a simple reason for vehemently opposing voter ID ,which you referred to recently: it would be the death of their party. They already depend on them and they see the newly "acquired" multitude of illegals as a massive transfusion of potential obligated and reflexive Dem voters. They probably tell people with no experience of democracy that they are required to vote as they are "advised" to do by their "benefactors" . ("By whatever means necessary - WHATEVER MEANS"). Of course voter ID requirements would play perfect hob with that . Some frantic and smoky far left/ Dems have even emoted that illegals should have a right to vote. Yeah, lets just defenestrate the rule of law and embrace whatever "feels" groovy at the moment. Provide free hallucinating goodies for all in order to hone perception of "justice" and electoral wisdom; that's the ticket!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Re the Newsmaker broadcast (as is the above) Nonassimilation due in large part to the refusal of immigrants to adopt their host culture is a largely recent , very unsettling phenomenon. The "American" far left wants to generate as much of this dysfunction and contradiction as possible in order to advance the revolutionary disorder their Marxist faith bids them to. "Bring 'em in, fill their heads with disaffected far left grievances and set the whirlwind loose. Tell 'em that resistance to their 'right 'to vote is proof of intense racial antipathy to them and that the far left/ Dems would deliver them from that onerous injustice. "
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Your comments above in answer to mine on drug smuggling are reasonable and of good will:
ReplyDeleteBut , first I wonder what International or possibly Admiralty Law might have to say about our lethal interceptions.
I think that in WWII we extended our "Home Waters" out much further than in peacetime. Within those waters we reserved pretty comprehensive deterrent rights, including destruction. As the Uboat onslaught reached its appalling peak we unilaterally (often in close cooperation with the Canadians and the Brits)established certain "fire on sight " tactics which required no formal notification to the Boche. Action was our confirmation
What if we were , in a state of defacto or perhaps even declared war on the cartels and their national supporters , to declare similiar measures? Since actual boarding requires close approach by a limited number of armed vessels , flying vehicles like patrol planes , drones and even surveillance satellites are most effective and protective of our crews' lives (the Battle of the Atlantic was decided when allied carriers brought aircraft to any point in the Atlantic). Perhaps we cannot let it really matter what kind of drugs are being transported ; if they chance our interception in such a furtive manner they are probably carrying things we cannot tolerate and they know it. In WWII we did not trouble ourselves about what weapons or methods the Uboats might use to stop or destroy allied shipping; their use of such clandestine vessels was proof enough of lethal intent.
But for dealing with domestic drug dealers, I think there are certain onerous but inescapable realities which we must face four square. First: many of their customers live lives of quiet desperation in neighborhoods made hellish by presumptuous criminals. They MUST have some relatively easily available consolation. And lets accede to the reality that modern life drives most of us to seek some kind of substantial and automatic mood modifier. So, lets legalize a wide range of recreational drugs , without undue bureaucratic blithering like that characteristically demonstrated by NY state with cannabis. Make them as available as is alcohol. They are not without drawbacks but so is alcohol and oh boy, we DID try to ban that!THEN : drop a ton of bricks on those who distribute monsterously addictive and unredeeming drugs. Let our dutiful law enforcement concentrate on those sociopathic lowlifes and put them away for good ( let our lawmakers make them routinely liable for 1st degree murder) and let all those who want to get high with a wide variety of intoxicants do so otherwise, notwithstanding necessary laws against DWI etc.
In order not to unneedfully destroy the livings of coastal commerce and fishing of countries from which drug smugglers sally forth to sea, let us declare an exclusionary zone around our own coasts, the apparently clandestine violation of which will be met with any necessary force. In WWII we, of absolute necessity, drowned and blew up the patriotic and dutiful all volunteer crews of Uboats. We had to; they were doing us death! Yes, there are some arguably innocent people among the smugglers from places which beggar our imaginations with official corruption and inhumanity (I met some of them while I was working in state prisons ) but we MUST defend our innocents! The latter are not answerable for the venal , heartless outrages EL Jefes casually force on the wretched .
Dr. Waddy from Jack : In one of my comments above I referred to". . . the disorder their Marxist faith bids them . . . ." I should have said "Marxist-Leninist " faith. Marx said such and such utopian humbug is inevitable. Lenin said, "well since it is , and since it will be so very 'just' let's not wait ; lets bring it on now, by force. " Yeah, that works real keen for the "American" far left.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I heard a creditable commentator on Fox opine today that organized drug crime has established a hold on Mexico not found in any other nation. It has extended so many poisonous roots and sprigs into Mexican civilization that it has become institutionalized and terribly vital. It cynically employs myriads in all manner of ancillary services advancing the drug trade, chiefly with the incomparably prosperous U.S.
ReplyDeleteThe commentator said this reality must be FULLY realized in forming U.S. policy toward Mexico and in the interception of these scourges . Drug misuse can destroy an established civilization ; the catastrophic effect of forced British importation of opium into 19th century China is a good example.
We cannot morally gainsay the advantage taken of our often voluptuary and almost unimaginably wealthy nation by a virtual third world country on our very border. I think most who have seen such poverty would agree. And we cannot take Mexico over.
If we intend to curb illegal drug use then WE must do it ourselves. We can start by legalizing some recreational drugs and removing them altogether from our justice system. For the rest , we must forcefully prevent them from being imported , by resolutely defending our borders . "Defend at the point of attack!": a maxim of personal self defense and perhaps applicable in this situation (?) But let's not expect of the wretchedly unfortunate that they refrain from a prime source of income for the benefit of a very fortunate neighbor(I do not include in this suggestion the sociopathic gangsters who run this enterprise). Its not in human nature to do so much, I think. We must address our shameful drug problem ourselves, firmly so. Being the most materially well off nation ever, perhaps we enter uncharted territory on this but its unrealistic to expect especially any seriously dysfunctional nation to go out of its way to aid us; that, despite our international generosity during catastrophe.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Above I wrongly stated that we enacted "fire on sight" at the peak of the Uboat onslaught, which was in 1942. We started that even before Dec. 7. At war we would naturally have fired on sight unless we were trying to capture the boat.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: We have been able to use very precise aiming systems to kill enemy individuals in the Middle East perhaps with minimal hazard to the innocent(?) If so, I do think we would be justified in so targeting the drug lord jackals in Mexico. We might well do lawful Mexicans a great service thereby.
ReplyDeleteAh, the Board of Peace! I shall have to investigate that. I guess I have low expectations for the idea of peace breaking out in the Middle East, but I'm not alone there, surely!
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm afraid there's just never been any evidence that illegals vote in significant numbers, and no red state has ever, by instituting voter ID, substantially changed the makeup of voters, so I just don't see the SAVE Act as the threat to the Democratic Party that you do. Now, it is possible that some very "low intensity" voters are essentially getting their votes cast for them by higher intensity relatives and local activists, and voter integrity measures might make this harder, but it's very hard to prove or quantify any of this...
Jack, I just don't see the "war on drugs" as analogous to WWII at all. I mean, if it were, anyone in this country who was working for the cartels would be executed as a traitor. Well, that's not how it works, and nor is it. Personally, I see a big distinction between a criminal organization and a foreign government with which we are at war.
Poor Mexico! A whole country, and a big one at that, has been destabilized by drug cartels, and it's very sad to see. Of course, it's easy for us to tell the politicians there to "man up", but who can blame them for thinking twice...