Aesquire, this is for you: Two Ospreys just strafed our house, so low the place shook for several seconds, dishes rattling, etc. Plenty have flown by in the past, but never quite so close - it was like they were using our chimney as a navigational aid.
The above video calls Milo an "alt right speaker"? So I would agree that he's alt right, but not in the way they mean it. He's a gay right-winger, which means he's an atypical rightwinger.
The teacher/organizer (filipina looking girl) in the video was put on payed leave for a week over the protests (vacation!).
When are these organized, financed acts of domestic terrorism going to get FBI/DHS attention as terrorism? That's EXACTLY what it is.
According to the US DOD, Terrorism- The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political. REF: JP 1-02
Read that definition one more time and let it sink in.
Milo is playing the far left by wisely refusing to pay for his own security. While they shut down his Berkeley event (and set a bonfire maybe 20 feet from the Free Speech Movement monument at UC Berkeley) he was able to get far superior coverage on the internet and on Fox News and he got to splice in video of all the excitement at a fraction of the price.
After a similar shutdown on the nearby UC Davis campus, the riot at UC Berkeley was very predictable. Maybe not to a foreigner but surely to his 'security detail.' When I studied architecture there in '89-'93 there were 3 riots which were planned events and it was common knowledge that the most violent protesters were shipped in. Students knew when and where not to be if they don't want to get swept up in it. Since this is a relatively common event in Berkeley the police know what they can't do and what they can get away with so of course they did not go he extra mile to help Milo.
Now think I see why the alt-right likes Milo so much. He is prettier, more articulate, and easier to listen to than Trump.
The writer of that piece is clearly so far removed from rational society that she fails to grasp that 99% of the armed forces are very pro-Trump and very anti-idiot.
But, it helps to consider who her target market is. Whom is she (and her boss) trying to "organize" with her (seditious?) article?
More and more people are waking up and seeing through the lies from the left. Which, of course, is a good thing.
But there are plenty of folks in our nation who are immune to logic, to be polite, and easily incited. Her piece, funded (ultimately) by George Soros, Inc., reached a lot of impressionable leftists, including, one assumes, impressionable leftists in our government. It's but one part of the current narrative from the bad guys: Trump is unfit for office (pick one of several reasons presently being pushed vigorously by the left as to why) and, thus, HAS to go.
For the good of the country (and the world), doncha know.
I assume, as do you it seems, that 99.something% of the military, up to and including the full birds, are 100% behind our new president. She suggests, regarding how to remove Trump from office, the option:
[A] military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders."
She didn't say ALL military leaders, and DID say "certain" orders.
I anticipate a far different result than the Soros revolution folk want.
Just speculation mind you, I have no intent to participate, I don't even post on my own Facebook page.
I see threats of murder and mass riots. Not in some twisted paranoid world, live on tv. Obama urges on rioters. Obama minions call for coups. Paid communist agitators post professionally printed signs on businesses they are looting.
And then there's real American citizens. A lot of the most feared people ( by the left ) veterans, union workers, people who actually make the system work. ( and listed as the greatest terrorist threat by Obama's minions )
What is the likely reaction to obvious lies and threats, by intelligent rational people?
What do intelligent rational people do when threatened by wolves?
See the leading Republican advocate for free speech and brutal honesty is a expat gay.
Is he technically an expat? Here's here on visa. I guess it depends on the definition, and really doesn't matter; sorry.
That said, Milo ought to be the poster child for the left:
- He's gay and not at all afraid to say so.
- He, quite obviously a white man, happily admits to having black lovers.
- He's here on visa.
- And he's an outspoken advocate for free speech.
That sure checks off a lot of leftist boxes.
So what's the problem?
Well, in part, he sees the left for what it ACTUALLY is and represents, and articulates his vision in a very engaging, informative way.
In larger part, it's because of his primary target market: Young people. We (I'm speaking for the bad guys here) CANNOT have YOUNG people seeing the proverbial light!
And (and I think this is important): On top of his own very-well-executed branding accomplishments, he's now also on the staff at Breitbart News.
His easily-reachable market has grown by a factor of 10 to the millionth gajillion as a result. Breitbart has a LOT of horsepower when it comes to reaching the right, AND...
...guess where Bannon used to work (as, as it happens, the boss).
I speculated during the presidential campaign, in a deliberately obtuse fashion, as to a particular reason why Bannon is so near the top of the food chain in Trump World.
Breitbart is dangerous to the left.
So is Bannon.
So is Milo.
All for the same reasons.
I love Milo (and no, I'm not his type, either).
And I continue to be intrigued, in a very positive way, about Bannon in the White House.
Trump (& Co.) must be DIRECTLY over target, considering all the flak they're taking.
The platinum irony (I so love that; well done) in all this is that by UCB (and UCB's boss, and UCB's likely-most-prominent student and his father) banning, for all intents and purposes, a free speech rally in the nation's capitol of free speech, Milo gets to introduce himself - and his viewpoints - to America last night on prime-time TV.
I loved hidden figures. I was afraid they would make it into an over simplified fairy tale of every white person is an evil idiot and every black was an oppressed superhero... which is emotionally appealing, but not particularly insightful or enlightening.
But they didn't. It didn't shy away from the racial insanity, but it didn't just paint an oversimplified and artifical fantasy about it either.
Federal Bureaucrats Go ‘Full Hillary Clinton’ with Secret Emails By Joel B. Pollak, 02/02/2017
Federal bureaucrats opposed to implementing President Donald Trump’s policies are creating personal email accounts and using encrypted messages to communicate and collaborate as they push back against the new administration, Politico reports.
Whether inside the Environmental Protection Agency, within the Foreign Service, on the edges of the Labor Department or beyond, employees are using new technology as well as more old-fashioned approaches — such as private face-to-face meetings — to organize letters, talk strategy, or contact media outlets and other groups to express their dissent.
The effort is part of what Breitbart News has called the “coup of the bureaucrats.”
The Truth About the 'Botched' Yemen Raid National Security Desk [Patriot Post], 02/03/2017
There are accusations being fomented by the Leftmedia that claim President Donald Trump’s first counterterrorism order resulted in a disastrous yet preventable episode in Yemen — the consequence, we’re now being told, of sheer negligence. Tragically, the operation took the life of SEAL Team Six’s Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens... But the situation all came to a head when Reuters reported that “U.S. military officials [said] Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.” This appears to be a blatant attempt to smear Trump’s reputation and further portray him as unsuited for the role of commander in chief.
First, The New York Times says, “Barack Obama’s national security aides had reviewed the plans for a risky attack on a small, heavily guarded brick home of a senior Qaeda collaborator in a mountainous village in a remote part of central Yemen. But Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.” In other words, the attack was planned before Trump even entered the Oval Office. So it wasn’t some hastily concocted operation.
Second, veteran David French. who has actual experience in combat, warns against buying the Leftmedia’s narrative. He writes, “Absent truly extraordinary circumstances not outlined in the report, these officials seem to be relying on reporters' ignorance and willingness to believe anything about Trump … to deflect criticism of a dangerous operation that turned out to be even more dangerous than anticipated. That happens in war. It happened all the time when I was in Iraq.”
“People who haven’t been exposed to war with jihadists tend to think of firefights as precise affairs,” French continues. “Instead, they’re extraordinarily destructive, and the battle is waged against an enemy who intentionally and flagrantly violates the laws of war.” In conclusion: “None of this sounds unusual. … [I]t’s an impressive feat of arms to assault an alert enemy in a prepared defensive position, defeat that enemy, and leave with valuable intelligence. So, no, don’t believe claims that Trump botched the raid in Yemen. He didn’t plan the operation, and we don’t want him planning operations. We want presidents to rely on professionals. But those same professionals will tell you that war is terrible by its very nature, and no president can guarantee victory without cost.”
By the way, the media outlets peddling these dubious reports are the same outlets that did everything they could to avoid covering Benghazi. Which truly was a preventable disaster.
...Reuters reported that “U.S. military officials [said]...
^ There's Reuters again. And what military officials actually LOYAL to our government would say to Reuters (or any other agent of the mainstream media), "Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.” WTF?!?
Did Reuters make this up?
Did "military officials" actually say this?
If they did, is it a mere difference of opinion with their Commander-in-Chief? Sedition? Worse? If these statements are indeed true, does it color the ability of these "military officials" to perform the duties upon which they've sworn an solemn oath?
Does it, in fact, affect their loyalty to our president?
I've read some of "educated guesses" in the past several days that intel on this raid was leaked in advance to the enemy. SEAL Team Six, in particular, has certainly taken a heavy toll to allow me the freedom to sit here and type these words...