Russian Foreign Minister says U.S. is "directly at war" with Russia. Why wasn't I informed?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made an interesting comment during a press conference he hosted recently in New York City.  A journalist asked him when Western involvement in the Ukraine conflict would escalate to the point that the US and its allies were at war with Russia.

Lavrov responded that the United States and its allies are “directly at war” with Russia right now.

What? The U.S. is at war with Russia—a nuclear power? Why wasn’t I informed? Is it time to start building a bomb shelter in my backyard? Should I cancel my plans to visit Spain next year?

No, of course not. Obviously, Mr. Lavrov is misinformed. The United States is not directly at war with Russia. Nevertheless, I understand how Lavrov and the Russians might get the mistaken idea that America has gone to war with Russia without a formal declaration.

After all, The US has given Ukraine Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, F16 jets, and missiles capable of sinking Russian ships in the Black Sea. General Mark Milley has been helping the Ukrainians manage their counteroffensive against Russia and providing intelligence to assist them in planning their drone attacks on Moscow. America has given Ukraine cluster munitions to kill Russian soldiers more efficiently. And we're going to provide them with depleted uranium artillery shells.

On second thought, maybe the United States is at war with Russia; we've just been so distracted by more important matters that we haven’t given the war much thought. For example, Secretary of State Antony Blinken is probably looking for another transgender person to be the International Woman of Courage award for 2024. The U.S. Senate is pondering whether its members should be allowed to wear gym shorts on the floor of the Senate.

As for President Biden, he’s probably been tied up planning General Milley’s retirement party.

Give me a minute to slip into something more comfortable.

 

 

NYC may remove George Washington's statue: But what if George was transgender?

The New York City Council is pondering whether to remove statues around the city of people linked to slavery or other evil deeds. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus are on the chopping block.

The Big Apple already removed a statue of Theodore Roosevelt from its prominent place in front of the Museum of Natural History. It seems inevitable that Columbus, Washington, and Jefferson will be carted off to the dustbin of New York City’s history.
All that could save them now would be some exculpatory evidence showing that some of these historical figures were woke.

Penelope Birkenstock, an assistant professor of herstory at Vassar College, recently published a paper arguing that George Washington was transgender. According to Birkenstock, Washington was born a biological female (or birthing person) named Charity Washington. While in junior high school, Charity’s teachers encouraged her to explore her sexual identity. 

As Birkenstock has documented, Charity was highly self-conscious about her height. She was over 6 feet tall and often teased by other colonial school girls. Although she excelled at basketball, Charity couldn't get an athletic scholarship to Harvard because Harvard didn't admit females. 

At age 15, Charity sensibly declared herself a male and changed her name to George. Birkenstock also established that Washington’s preferred pronouns were they, we, and them.

Perhaps Birkenstock’s research may cause progressive scholars to reevaluate Washington’s role in US history. It appears that he (or she or they) is (or are) the nation's only transgender president.

As for Jefferson and Columbus, however, it seems inevitable that these racist scamps will be erased from the history of NYC.

And there is more to come. Henry Ford was a famous anti-Semite, which may require Ford automobiles to be renamed in New York City, along with the Ford Foundation, which has its headquarters in New York.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. was heavily into eugenics and believed that Anglo-Saxons were superior to other races. There goes Rockefeller Center and the Rockettes.

Critics may say that the New York City Council is just a bunch of loons for wanting to expunge various prominent historical figures from the civic landscape. But I say go for it!

New York City has already distinguished itself as a sanctuary city that will accept illegal immigrants from anywhere in the world except Texas. It has also broken new ground in the field of law by releasing violent criminals onto the streets while prosecuting citizens who object to being pushed in front of subway trains. Tearing down statues seems a natural step on New York City’s road to becoming the nation’s capital woke city.

Goodbye, Teddy. We hardly knew ye. Photo credit New York Post

Is Ukraine fighting Russian mercenaries in Sudan? Say it ain’t so, President Biden

CNN ran a story a few days ago suggesting that “Ukrainian special services were likely behind a series of drone strikes and a ground operation directed against a Wagner-backed militia near Sudan’s capital . . . ." As CNN reported, “Covert strikes by Ukraine in Sudan would mark a dramatic and provocative expansion of Kiev’s theater of war against Moscow.”

Neither Ukraine nor the United States have acknowledged that Ukrainian forces are fighting Russian mercenaries in Africa. However, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba made this provocative statement: “Our strategy is not to replace Russia but to free Africa from Russia’s grip.”

What would it mean for Americans If the CNN hypothesis is correct— that Ukrainians are fighting Russians in Africa?

First, it would mean that some American armaments and money sent to Ukraine are being used to support a Ukrainian military adventure on the African continent.

Secondly, it is inconceivable that Ukraine would be fighting Russians in Sudan without US approval and support.
Therefore, the United States has enabled the Ukrainians to fight Russian mercenaries in Africa— far from the European theater of war.

The Biden administration needs to come clean with the American people. If, in fact, the United States is backing Ukrainian military operations in Africa, Biden needs to inform the public about this new initiative. More importantly, President Biden should explain how it is in anybody’s interest for America to allow Ukraine to open a second front on the African continent in its war with Russia.

Image credit: Youtube &  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiPoQxCQ_EA

David Ignatius comes to praise Joe Biden AND to bury him (WaPo is bailing on the Big Guy)

Marc Antony, Shakespeare told us, came to bury Julius Caesar, not to praise him. David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post, did Marc Antony one better. In a recent op-ed essay, Ignatius came to praise President Joe Biden and to bury him.

Ignatius’s column began by heaping obsequious praise on the Big Guy, even complimenting him for how he handled the Ukraine crisis. “In foreign policy, Ignatius effusively writes, “[Biden] managed the delicate balance off helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war.”

And then Ignatius slipped a knife into old Joe's back, writing that Biden and Vice President Harris should not run for reelection. Why? Two reasons. First, a majority of Americans believe Biden is too old to run for a second term. Second, most Americans disapprove of Kamala Harris, who would be Biden's running mate if he sought a second term.

Ignatius’s op-ed essay is a coded memo to the mainstream media and the progressive left. Joe Biden is finished. He will probably escape impeachment and a criminal indictment, but his days in the White House are numbered.

Some Americans may believe that the Ignatius column is no big deal. After all, Ignatius is only expressing his own views, not the views of the Washington Post. But think about it. Ignatius’s essay would never have seen the light of day without authorization from the highest level at the Post and perhaps with the tacit approval of the White House.

Now that Ignatius has said that the emperor wears no clothes, other left-wing influencers can jump on the bandwagon. It will not be long before stories appear in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Associated Press that undermine Biden. Now that Ignatius has spoken, Anderson Cooper and the other CNN hacks can begin criticizing good ol’ Six-Pack Joe.

Americans will see some fancy footwork in the coming weeks. Somehow, Biden's handlers will need to ease Kamala Harris off the stage. The upper echelons of the Democratic Party have already chosen Biden's successor, and that person will need to be introduced to the guileless public. Who will that person be? Perhaps Gavin Newsome.

Meanwhile, like a hurricane forming in the Atlantic, Donald Trump is getting stronger and stronger. The Democrats are using all manner of legerdemain to drive a stake into Trump's heart—to destroy him and put him in jail.

Nevertheless, Trump will almost certainly be the Republican nominee for President. I foresee violence and turmoil in the coming months. Meanwhile, our government is conducting a proxy war with Russia, a major nuclear power. 

You should buy your popcorn before the show starts because you don't want to miss a single minute of this upcoming adventure movie.

Image credit: Global Vision Conference

New York Times: Don’t worry your pretty little head about the Ukraine war

New York Times reporter Vanessa Friedman published a story last month with advice about what American tourists should wear when vacationing in Europe. It’s okay to wear sneakers, Friedman assures us. However, Americans should wear low-top running shoes to avoid being spotted as tourists. Good to know!

The New York Times’s shoe article contains a subtle, hidden message: Don’t worry your pretty little head about the Ukraine war.

It’s true that a half million soldiers have been killed or maimed over the past 18 months in the fight between Ukraine and Russia. And millions of civilians have fled the war zone and are living as refugees. But the war won’t interfere with Americans’ plans to get drunk at Oktoberfest this fall or smoke dope in Amsterdam. Just be sure to wear the shoes that the Times recommends when you’re frolicking in Europe.

And don’t worry about the money our government is sending to Ukraine. Uncle Sam has plenty of money and can always print more if he runs out.

America’s legacy media has broadly supported the Ukrainians in their senseless war with Russia. The Times and the progressive news outlets have downplayed the fact that Ukraine is losing this war.

But again, don’t worry your pretty little head about it. After all, who cares which side wins the war in Ukraine so long as it doesn’t interfere with our vacation plans.

War in Ukraine? Will it interfere with my vacation?

The Dixie Apocalypse: An Aventure Tale About Post-Apocalyptic Texas

In this near-future, post-apocalyptic novel, retired lawyer-turned-professor Willoughby Burns finds himself trying to survive against hunger and deadly threats in southern Louisiana. The Dixie Apocalypse takes place in an America ravaged by natural disasters, lack of petroleum, plagues, and terrorism. What is left of the United States is controlled by martial law. Life itself becomes primitive and favors those who can grow their own food or handle firearms. 

Will befriends US General Merski stationed in Baton Rouge, LA, and founds a farming community of fifty farms on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River due south of downtown Baton Rouge. General Merski enlists Will as a civilian commissary officer in charge of carrying out errands for his troops without arousing suspicion. Readers join Will on his travels through Louisiana and Texas as he seeks to establish a sense of order and peace in the South.

Midway through the novel, Willoughby, a native Texan, meets Cole Goodnight. a descendant of Charlie Goodnight, and together, they organize a movement for Texas to leave the United States and become an independent nation governed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Dixie Apocalypse is a fast-moving adventure tale with touches of humor and a happy ending. It is also an affectionate tribute to the popular culture of Texas with its rich heritage, vibrant music, and distinguished cuisine. The book can be purchased on Amazon.com.

George Will’s incoherent defense of the Ukraine war

I began reading George Will's columns back in the 1960s when I was in junior high school. My parents subscribed to Newsweek magazine, and every week, I would turn to the issue's last page to read George Will's commentary. His well-reasoned defense of conservative principles and use of historical references to buttress his arguments impressed me.

That was 50 years ago, but Mr. Will is still a powerful and persuasive political commentator. I was disheartened, however, by Will's recent column in support of American involvement in the Ukraine war.

Mr. Will’s arguments were based on two false premises. First, he said that Russia's war is an attempt to annihilate Ukraine. I don't think that's accurate. Russia's initial assault was a drive toward Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. Putin may have thought his invasion would topple the Ukrainian government and bring Ukraine back into the orbit of Russian power.

However, it's evident that Russia is fighting a defensive war in Ukraine, and its territorial goals are modest. First, Russia is holding on to the Donbas, where Russian separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian army for seven years.

In addition, Russia is firmly entrenched in Crimea, where it has long maintained a substantial naval base. Surely everyone realizes that Russia has a legitimate strategic interest in the Black Sea and that its ability to protect it would be severely crippled if Russia lost Crimea.

Will's main argument for supporting the Ukraine war is the claim that the U.S. promotes Ukrainian nationalism and the concept of nationalism as a vibrant political idea. Will writes:

 Cosmopolitanism has its virtues. But so does nationalism Because the nation-state is essential for protecting self-government, and pride in one’s cultural inheritance impedes the blandness of cultural homogenization.

Mr. Will is wrong to say that American involvement in the Ukraine war is motivated by a desire to promote nationalism. On the contrary, President Biden's administration is pursuing a globalist agenda that seems intent on weakening the United States on the world stage and dismantling America's traditional national values, such as patriotism, the nuclear family, and self-reliance.

Moreover, Will's journalistic home, the Washington Post, and all the legacy media are globalists--not nationalists.  Like the Biden administration, the mainstream media seems intent on stamping out America's national and cultural identity. Indeed, patriotism is seldom mentioned by the progressive elites, and the patriotic impulse has been redefined as "Christian nationalism" or "white nationalism"--code words for fascism.

As I read George Will’s defense of America's Ukraine policy, I sensed his heart wasn't in it. Unlike most of his prose, this particular essay is incoherent and unpersuasive. Perhaps on an unconscious level, Will knows that the Ukraine adventure weakens the United States as a world power and that the prime beneficiary of this disaster is the defense industry.

America's Ukraine project is going to blow up in our faces. And when the autopsy is complete on the disaster that befell Ukraine, the fingerprints of the nation’s political and intellectual elites will be all over the body. 

Mr. Will has a fine mind and a keen sense of decency. He should think of his reputation before allowing himself to be branded as an apologist for the Ukraine disaster.