Tag Archive | ISIS

Neo-Cons Didn’t Corrupt Trump

I must confess that I’m pleased to see the general condemnation from Trump supporters of the attack against Syria, motivated primarily by incredulity over the absurd claim that Assad, to better fight a war that he’d nearly won, saw fit to do something that would certainly drag the West into the war and thereby assure his defeat. The whole thing stinks, for several reasons. I suppose first among those is that Assad surrendered all of his chemical weapons to Russia, as overseen by the United States and United Nations. This would mean that any chemical weapons since constructed couldn’t have been made by Assad’s forces, who were being monitored by the UN as part of the agreement that John Kerry accidentally forged with Assad.

It’s also alarming that we, the United States, killed 230 civilians, and no one retaliated against us for the atrocity. We escaped unpunished, and that we murdered 230 civilians is an undisputed fact. Meanwhile, Assad allegedly kills about a hundred civilians, and we hypocritically take it upon ourselves to punish him, thereby handing an endangered city directly over to Isis.

It should be a cause for concern that McCain, Hillary, CNN, NBC, and others who have long demonized Trump are applauding his actions. If McCain gives you the thumbs up, then you’re doing it wrong.

Now Rex Tillerson has openly stated that our goal for Syria is regime change.

I never expected better of Trump, but, for unknown reasons, a lot of people did. We knew that Hillary would put us on this path, and I’ll admit that Trump was a bit of a wild card–based on what he said, I don’t blame the people who fell for his seeming policy of non-interventionism at least in Syria, but he backpedaled, lied, and contradicted himself so much during his campaign that anyone who took anything he said seriously might be a little touched in the head.

Yet here we are, preparing to go down exactly the same road that Hillary would have led us down, although we might have gotten here a few weeks sooner under President Hillary Clinton. It’s hard to say, honestly. Trump hasn’t even been President for three months, and he’s already getting us into a war to topple a Middle Eastern regime. One would expect the tragedy that is the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan would have taught us better, but we seem to have a remarkable inability to admit when we’re wrong. As long as we can’t admit that we screwed up, we can’t learn from the screw-up.

The similarities between Syria and Iraq are too much to ignore, especially given that ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. This is an organization that first appeared in 1999 in Iraq, but was unable to generate any momentum, especially with the world’s most famous terrorist bin Laden being part of Al Queda. A competing terrorist group just wasn’t going to get much coverage, as Boko Haram learned a few years ago, around the time that Al Queda fell. Remember them? They were going to replace Al Queda in the west’s zeitgeist of organized terror perpetrated by the government against its own citizens, but they failed to inspire us to give a shit.

It’s no coincidence that the vacuum of power we created when we deposed Saddam Hussein and then vacated the region allowed Isis to come forward and fight against the western-friendly government we had installed. When rebels began fighting against Assad in Syria, we “humanitarians” that we are took it upon ourselves to arm the rebels and help them, while Russia and Putin attempted to crush the rebellion. It’s probable that if we hadn’t gotten involved–much as we had during the Iran-Contra affair–then Russia wouldn’t have gotten involved.

Anyway, this new vacuum of power allowed ISIL–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant–to spill over into Syria, at which point its name was changed, although “Levant” was always a reference to eastern portions of Syria, if my memory serves me correctly. I do have a good memory, but it’s honestly hard to keep track of all this shit that we’ve done and caused.

Suddenly that civil war between Assad and governmental forces with Russia’s backing against rebel forces with our backing had a new combatant, which had grown powerful in the chaotic Iraq and seized the confusion in Syria to establish footholds there.

It’s comforting, for what little it is worth, to see Trump supporters criticizing Trump for his actions, and Infowars has finally taken Trump’s dick out of their mouths long enough to criticize the attack against Syria for playing right into Isis’s hands by further destabilizing the region, weakening Assad, and allowing them to take more territory. They rightly point out that it’s absolutely absurd to think that Assad–who publicly surrendered his chemical weapons while the entire world was watching–would have used chemical weapons in a war that he had all but won, considering that he knew the reaction it would have and considering that even Putin, gremlin though he is made out to be, condemns the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

However, these people contend that Trump has been “corrupted” by the Neo-Cons in his cabinet.

The cabinet that Trump himself appointed.

It’s an argument that is truly facepalm worthy. Trump appointed the very Neo-Cons who are now supposedly corrupting him. This means he wanted them to be where they are, and he wanted them to influence him. People he personally selected are advising him. It’s not like he inherited his advisors and cabinet from Obama and George W. Bush. It’s not like the cabinet came with the job, and he was totally unable to remove the CFR members and Goldman-Sachs executives. Quite the opposite–those people left with Obama, and the entire idea of “draining the swamp” was that Trump would refrain from bringing a bunch of CFR globalists, Goldman-Sachs executives, and neo-cons back into power. Yet instead of draining the swamp, Trump brought those people right back in and gave them jobs.

He didn’t get corrupted by them. He brought them in to advise him, and they gave him the advice that he clearly wanted and expected from them when he appointed them. It’s not like he appointed Ron Paul as his Defense Secretary, and Ron was assassinated with Trump receiving a letter that read in letters cut out from newspapers and magazines, “The next will die, too, unless it’s one of Cheney’s friends.”

It’s like if I went out with a bunch of friends to get ecstasy and have a good time, and someone said that those friends “corrupted me” when I was caught buying MDMA. It’s a blatant denial of responsibility. Trump chose those people, knowing who they were and what they represented. They didn’t corrupt him. They did exactly what he knew they would do when he chose them.

Trump wasn’t corrupted by the Neo-Cons in his staff. He wasn’t corrupted by the Deep State. He wasn’t unduly influenced by the CFR globalists in his cabinet. He hand-selected those people. Trump is to blame for this. He picked those advisors and cabinet members. He appointed these people.

So now Trump supporters have this idea of their savior being corrupted against his will and cajoled into taking actions that he doesn’t want to take by evil, corrupting Neo-Cons. It would be funny if this wasn’t what they evidently think. The swamp didn’t corrupt Trump while he was desperately trying to drain it. Trump dived headlong into the swamp the first chance he got, and that was his choice. He’s not the non-interventionist that people think he is, and he’s not the anti-establishment president that people think he is. He fooled such people, and it’s time they admitted that.

Stop making excuses for him. He marketed himself as a quasi-sorta-but-not-really-non-interventionist, although he did say some things that did lean a little bit in that direction, and he marketed himself as an outsider, someone who would fight the system and drain the swamp. Continuing to deny the fact that he lied to you and played you is not going to avoid war with Syria. He’s not being manipulated and [neo]conned by his cabinet. He’s doing exactly what he wants to do, and following the advice of people he appointed to give him exactly the advice they gave him.

Dumb Shit Roundup

Guantanamo Prisoners Don’t Appreciate Indefinite Imprisonment?!

Evidently a few recent ex-Guantanamo prisoners have taken up arms and joined the battle, writes the Guardian, and it would seem inevitable that shouts of “We should never have released them in the first place!” will echo across the internet in coming days. I’m particularly looking forward to seeing the “libertarians for Trump” using it as an attack against Obama.

The truth, however, is murkier and not as simple.

To be sure, Obama should have kept his promise to shut down Gitmo, and it breaks my heart that there is not a word said about the illegal military prison in this election. Thankfully, President Obama ostensibly ended the unforgivable torture of prisoners (euphemisms like “detainee” allow us to obscure simple truths that shouldn’t be obscured), but that was only one demand we millennials had of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack I’ll-bomb-ya, and we’re not entirely sure it’s been kept. Without the transparency we were also promised, we can only take the administration at its word, and the American government has never said a word that I’m willing to accept on faith.

Of course, shutting down this one unconstitutional military derailment of rights and liberty would have done nothing to solve the problem. The prisoners would simply have been moved to one of our Bastilles in Libya, Iraq, or Sudan. We’ve known for years that we have these moral outrages scattered across the globe; without a change of fundamental policy, closing one means nothing. It sets no one free, and it solves nothing. Worse, it serves to placate us, as the public example is stripped down, leaving us with only vague whispers of sister facilities that we can’t campaign for closing because we can’t prove they even exist.

I would be mad, too, if I had been imprisoned for several years, up to a decade, without a trial, without an attorney, and without justice. If I was tortured throughout those years by being forced to listen to pop music, deprived of sleep, and having feeding tubes shoved down my nose when I exercised the only method that I had of protesting, I would be angry, too. If I was forced to stand for 43 consecutive hours, waterboarded, drugged, and beaten, I would be a little pissed off, too.

So as Americans gear up to enjoy their typical circular reasoning that we have to bomb countries to make them into terrorists, then imprison them and torture them, but never release them because then they might become terrorists, I’d like to politely remind everyone to ask themselves:

Wouldn’t you be mad, too?

How many years of unjust imprisonment do you think it would take before you were ready to take up arms against the state that imprisoned you?

I certainly don’t advocate the initiation of violence, but you’d have to be certifiably insane to think that the U.S. weren’t the ones who initiated violence.

“How Dare You Try To Help Me?”

Students who borrowed money to go to ITT Tech are protesting and refusing to pay back the loans, saying that they now have useless credentials. It wasn’t terribly long ago that I talked with someone on Disqus about his student debt, how it wasn’t fair, and how he shouldn’t have to repay it. I pointed out to him that no one made him take out loans, and that college doesn’t have to be expensive. I incurred no debt from going to college, and neither did my aunt (the only other college graduate in the family), who has a master’s degree.

In the fifth grade, I was receiving stuff from Duke University. I stopped caring about school and stopped applying myself, but I could have applied myself. I just didn’t realize how important it was. Even being from a dirt poor family in Mississippi, I could have gone to Duke University on scholarships. I probably still could if I tried really, really hard, but it would be because I’m transgender rather than because of my merits.

I left college with zero debt. It’s not impossible to do. It’s not easy, but it’s certainly not impossible.

Someone once suggested that I go to ITT Tech. I do, after all, have a degree in the Management of Information Systems. That’s right up ITT Tech’s alley. But I didn’t. Instead I opted to attend a child school of the University of Mississippi, and then the University of Mississippi itself. Why? Why did I make that choice?

Because I trusted Ole Miss. There was no reason to trust ITT Tech.

I could very easily be one of the people faced with student loan payments with a degree from a school that is not useless. Jesus, hyperbole much? ITT didn’t lose its academic standing. It lost the ability to take students with the state paying the tab. Your degree is exactly as valuable as it was a year ago.

In Personal News

I interviewed Monday for a slot tech position at one of the nearby casinos. While I’ve not yet heard back, I’m confident in the interview and would say there’s a 70% chance I’ll get the job. That would be incredible. After six months I’d qualify for a transfer to another property, and could simply transfer to their property in Vegas. Additionally, the increased wage and regular hours would give me more than enough money to do it.

I was also contacted by an agent Saturday morning requesting the rest of Dancing in Hellfire, which is phenomenal news. First, this is the agent who I initially sent it to, and who I believed would want to take the manuscript. Two months passed, so I began to think I was wrong in that assessment, but she revealed that I was correct. There is still one hurdle left, since she has to read the rest of it, but I’m absolutely confident in that.

It appears that Dancing in Hellfire: The Life of a Transgender Woman From Mississippi will soon have an agent, and that will open a floodgate of possibilities, considering all the other manuscripts I have in waiting, if it sells well. Given the topic and the political climate, I firmly believe it will sell exceptionally well, and possibly New York Times Bestseller well. Hey, dream big, you know?

Having Dancing in Hellfire do well would change my life forever. A million copies would leave me free to be me without pressure for the rest of my life. I don’t know what the royalties would be, but Amazon offers 30%, which means that, using that as a baseline, 12,000 copies is all that I need to sell in order to get to Vegas. However, there’s also the selling fee and stuff I’ll get, but none of that is important.

The point is that the bar is low, and I have every reason to believe Dancing in Hellfire will raise way above that bar.

Thank you to everyone for your support, encouragement, advice, and criticism.

28 Dead Civilians

President Obama has added North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to a U.S. sanctions list, and cited human rights abuses as justification. Of course, this caused the retarded dipshit in North Korea to start blustering, and they’re saying that they view it as an act of war, but I don’t really care about that. Realistically, he’s not wrong, and Ron Paul pointed this out years ago: sanctions are not an alternative to war. They are a prelude to war.

Anyway, what strikes me as amazing as that this is quite clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know if Mr. Obama has noticed, but he has quite a lot of blood on his hands. In fact, I would wager that Obama has more blood on his hands… than Kim Jong Un has. We know that Obama has personally ordered airstrikes that killed as many as 64 people, and the figure as of July 1 was 64 to 116, but most other governments (read: not the Obama Administration) place the number much higher, at around 900. I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect the Obama Administration to tell us the truth about how many civilians it has killed.

Some people say this makes me paranoid. I say that makes them stupid.

We have Obama saying “No, look, I only killed like 116 people, tops.”

Then we have other governments saying, “No, he killed more like 900 people.”

Are you seriously so naive that you think Obama is likeliest to be telling the truth here?

We can also add 28 dead innocent people to that list, as a drone strike in Syria has killed twenty-eight civilians.

I just don't want any more people to be murdered.

I just don’t want any more people to be murdered.

“Casualties,” they call them, as though there is something casual about the unjust murder of 28 people, a crime for which Obama will never be held to account. Let’s take a moment to remember and appreciate the fact that Barack Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike that killed 28 civilians in an area that we had killed civilians in the week before–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize. The man who authorized a drone strike at a wedding that killed 12 civilians in Afghanistan–that man has a Nobel Peace Prize.

If the Nobel committee cannot retract its prizes, then this should serve as a stern reminder that they should never give out Peace Prizes in anticipation based on what they think someone will do. I was an Obama supporter in early 2009, but the only promise he kept was to end torture; he didn’t fulfill any of his other promises, and thus I stopped supporting him. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize, I was still a supporter, but even I was shocked and embarrassed that it had been given to him. It was such a transparent and gross political statement, and now look what we have. The man who is responsible for the murder of 28 innocent people… has a Nobel Peace Prize adorning his mantle.

Today’s family members of civilian “casualties” are tomorrow’s terrorists.

Women and children were just murdered in Syria by American bombs guided by American aircraft piloted by Americans, and the attack was authorized by the President of the United States. Whatever delusions people harbor that allow them to persist in their insane belief that we have some sort of moral high ground must be fully jerked out from under their feet.

I would not ever make the foolish and false argument that “we” are the government and thus “we” are responsible for what Obama and his military have done, but it is time that we took a serious look at examining our Commander-in-Chief and impeaching him. If this was an attack that killed 28 Americans, how would we react?

Not nearly as kindly, I think, and Republicans would be screaming impeachment. Yet because they’re not Americans, we’re not going to hold our President to the same high standard, and that’s messed up. These were people, human beings, innocent men, women, and children. They are now dead, and they are dead by our President’s hands.

It is not fearmongering to say that Hillary would be even more liberal with authorizing drone strikes than Obama; Hillary is a well-known hawk when it comes to foreign policy, and I would urge anyone who supports her to take a look at what she and Bill did to Haiti, Sudan, and Rwanda. Neither Trump nor Hillary will solve this problem in any way that would satisfy a just and compassionate heart.


All I want… is for the United States to stop murdering people.

People are so fixated on things happening within the United States. Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, feminism, wage gaps, education costs, health care, immigration, unemployment, inflation, racism, police brutality… And I’m as guilty as anyone. Most of my content in the past three months has been directed largely at one of these issues.

Part of the problem is that our media doesn’t spend much time talking about the civilians left murdered by American bombs. The murder of innocent people has just become… a casual matter. Our media will tell us about it, and the headlines will have the front page for a few minutes, but then Trump will tweet something, Kim Kardashian will set a wine glass on her fat ass, or police will shoot someone, and everything will get pushed to the side as the new story is brought to the front. The story of the 28 dead civilians is pushed into the background, and no one hears about it.

28 people had their lives mercilessly, brutally, inhumanely, viciously, and barbarically cut short by the United States, its military, its drones, its bombs, and its President.

That is a statement that should not be pushed from our minds by something trivial.

The murder of 28 innocent people should be the primary factor when people determine for whom they will vote, and they should all look at the matter objectively, accept the facts, and be honest with themselves. After all, lives are on the lines. Lots of them.

And the truth is that Trump is unlikely to be very restrained with the drone strikes. Trump would surely be more liberal with the attacks than Obama, but probably attack less frequently than Hillary. Between Hillary and Trump, Hillary is by a wide berth the most hawkish. Trump is no non-interventionist, but he does have some non-interventionist policy running through him, and it comes out on occasion.

I can’t say that I would trust Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, on foreign policy matters, either. The official Libertarian answer to Isis is not a particularly good one–“Leave them alone and stop bombing the Middle East” is essentially the Libertarian Party’s position on the matter, and that’s not really applicable to this situation. Isis is not Al-Queda, and treating them as though they are will leave us weaker. Al-Queda was a rebel group resisting foreign occupation and using religion as a front. Isis is a religious group; Islam is more than a front to them, and it is their primary motivator.

Finger-quote-wink-wink “Liberterian” wink-wink-finger-quote Gary Johnson has other problems anyway.

To be honest, the only one who I’d really trust (other than McAfee) to handle Isis would be Jill Stein. This is because of her character, and not because of any particular policy. Alas, however, a candidate like that doesn’t exist.

Trump and Hillary are our de facto choices.

Let the oceans boil red with the blood of the innocent.