Tuesday, August 30, 2022

Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom 8/30/2022

Biden’s Demand of ‘Unconditional Surrender’ to Russia Will Fail


backup video link:

Tucker Carlson Tonight 8/29/2022


This Energy Crisis Could Destroy the West
The Dark Ages are Here Again
Europe Warns of Energy Rationing this Winter
The Green New Deal Guarantees Poverty for All

Monday, August 29, 2022

The Libertarian Institute 8/29/2022


Joe Biden’s Demand of ‘Unconditional Surrender’ to Russia Will Fail

by Douglas Macgregor

Photo Credit: Manhhai on Flickr

When the Combined Chiefs of Staff Conference in Casablanca, Morocco ended in January 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill held a press conference. Toward the end of the press conference, FDR told the correspondents that the Allies were determined to demand the “Unconditional Surrender” of Germany, Italy, and Japan.

FDR later said that Ulysses S. Grant’s 1862 ultimatum of “Unconditional Surrender” to the Confederate garrison holding Fort Donelson in Tennessee was his inspiration. Grant was trying to speed the capture of an isolated fortress and avoid unnecessary casualties on all sides.

But FDR’s policy of “Unconditional Surrender” during a destructive global war was unwise and costly. It stiffened German resistance, lengthened the war, pushed violence to its utmost limits and rejected any resolution to the conflict other than the opponents’ complete annihilation—the kind of result that Stalin and Hitler called “victory.” Sadly, there is no evidence that anyone in the White House or the Pentagon studied the policy’s psychological impact on the German or Japanese peoples before it was announced.

Biden’s speech on March 26 in Warsaw removed any doubt in Moscow’s governing circles that Washington’s goal was Russia’s destruction: “…that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO…—we must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul…and for the years and decades to come.” In case there was any lingering uncertainty, Biden added, “For God’s sake this man [Vladimir Putin] cannot remain in power.”

President Biden’s policy in Ukraine seems equally thoughtless and it’s having a similar effect on Russia and the course of the war. Since Biden delivered his speech, Russian control of Ukrainian territory has jumped from 5 to and estimated 22%, the same portion that provides Ukraine with 85% of its GNP. Moscow abandoned the “fight and negotiate strategy” of the “Special Operation” for a new one: extend permanent Russian control over the Russian-speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine from Kharkov to Odessa. When the fighting ends, Moscow will likely control roughly 30-35% of Ukraine’s former territory.

Meanwhile, Moscow mastered Washington’s economic sanctions and, as James Rickards notes, continues to reduce the supply of natural gas to Western Europe with has resulted in Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, relying on its energy reserves as winter approaches and Russian supplies dwindle.

At home, inflation will cost the average American household more than $5,200 this year. A few days ago, Dr. Ron Paul described the situation: “Inflation is a tax on middle class and poor Americans. The wealthy—like those who run Raytheon and Lockheed Martin—always get the new money first before prices go up. The rest of us watch as the dollar buys less and less.” As Washington celebrates the commitment of more and more dollars to fighting Russia in Ukraine, the rest of America struggles with open borders and rising criminality in its major cities.

The timeless lesson is that emotionally charged speeches should never frame national policy, but Biden is in good company. Lyndon Johnson talked himself into a similar dilemma in Vietnam when he insisted, “If we are driven from the field in Viet-Nam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise, or in American protection.” Eventually, LBJ was trapped by his own rhetoric.

He discovered what Biden is discovering in Ukraine. LBJ found out the hard way that the North Vietnamese were far more committed to “victory at any cost” than were the American people. In the aftermath of North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive, American support for the war dropped dramatically and the specter of defeat plunged the Johnson administration into a crisis of legitimacy.

Biden has forgotten that a lost war, even a proxy war, weakens the right to rule of those who govern the nation. The Biden administration is ignoring the fundamental truth that proxy wars like the one Washington is waging against Russia in Ukraine are not exempt from war’s iron discipline: all wars put national existence, power and prestige at risk, making victory or defeat the only real options.

Like the North Vietnamese, Moscow is far more committed to victory in Ukraine than Washington or its European allies. Once again, U.S. support for ongoing operations in Ukraine is razor thin and growing concern in the U.S. and Europe is that Biden’s unlimited war aims could involve the use of nuclear weapons to reverse Ukraine’s defeat.

Of course, the idea of using nuclear weapons in this way runs counter to Eisenhower’s fundamental point that nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort in defense of the nation. Whether tactical or strategic, nuclear weapons have no other rational application in modern warfare. Frankly, their use for any other purpose is suicidal. Anyone inside the Biden administration or Congress who is considering their use in Ukraine should be locked up.

The price of gratuitous self-righteousness is always high. Moscow will never again allow Washington and its allies to transform Eastern Ukraine into a launching pad for offensive military operations against Russia proper. Washington’s distorted view of the world and the realities of twenty-first century warfare will not alter Russia’s control of Eastern Ukraine.

President Biden’s insistence that Russia must be defeated regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs the Americans, Ukrainians, and NATO members is worse than FDR’s unconditional surrender demand. It endangers the American people, and eventually, if carried to its logical extreme, this policy stance will induce our allies and strategic partners to abandon their alliance with Washington.

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

Shaun Thompson Show 8/23/2022


This is an Audio Only podcast
The lies within American propaganda and lies within American foreign policy i.e. Ukraine

Thursday, August 18, 2022

Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom 8/18/2022

Colonel Macgregor - Ukraine & Russia Latest

Colonel Macgregor would also like to discuss the following:
US must arm Ukraine now, before it’s too late
by Debra Cagan

Wednesday, August 10, 2022


Leftists Cheer Attempted Military Coup Against Trump

Real Clear Politics 8/9/2022


Macgregor: Trump Had a Romantic View Of The Military, Thought He Was Dealing With People Like MacArthur And Patton
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date August 9, 2022

Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor said on Tuesday that President Trump had a romantic view of the military when he expected people like Generals MacArthur and Patton to be in leadership positions. Macgregor told FNC's Laura Ingraham the armed forces are in the worst shape since the 1970s and couldn't win a fight a war against a paper bag and we should do everything in our power to obstruct a military that rewards "sycophant" yes-men like Gen. Mark Milley.

DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: It is subversion of presidential authority. It is also destruction of civil-military relations that we have enjoyed in this country, almost unbroken for the last 100 years at least.

Unfortunately, I would like to say that General Milley is an isolated case, but I don't think he is, and I think he's a product of the selection process that favors the sycophant, the yes-men, and really does not focus and shape on demonstrated character, competence or intelligence.

But we've now made another step over the last 20 years from just picking sycophants to actually insisting the sycophants, the yes men assimilate and internalize this wokeism and all of these bad policies that are currently destroying the military establishment, and he is a perfect example of it.

I just think he decided that his future is aligned with -- you keep calling it the deep state, I just call it the military-industrial-Congressional complex, I think he sees his future there. He doesn't believe that anyone can come into this city as President Trump tried to do and try to change it.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Trump had kind of a romantic vision, you said this on my podcast today, he had a romantic vision, which you kind of have to admire of the generals from the World War II era.

MACGREGOR: The only generals that President Trump ever mentioned in my presence were MacArthur and Patton, he may have mentioned Eisenhower, perhaps Grant and Lee. I didn't know anything about this allegation of German generals.

I think that he thought that he was dealing with men in uniform who were of the same character and cut of those men that I just mentioned like MacArthur, Patton, and Eisenhower. And obviously that is not the case at all. There is no integrity, there is no understanding of their duty.

I cannot imagine any general officer coming out of the Oval Office and then picking up the phone and talking to a journalist about what he discussed with the president. Marshall never did it. I don't know of any Chiefs of Staff who behaved in that way...

Somebody said tyranny like hell is not easily overcome, and warned us about summer soldiers and sunshine patriots. Well, we've had too many of them. We need the real thing now, somebody needs to stand up and say we will not fund you anymore until you change these things. And frankly we know that they are not going to change it. It doesn't matter. We should do everything in our power to obstruct them.

INGRAHAM: Can we beat China?

MACGREGOR: Listen, I don't think we could fight our way out of a wet paper bag right now.

Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom 8/9/2022

Col Douglas Macgregor - Will Biden Stumble into a New World War?

Backup Video:

The American Conservative 8/9/2022


Will Biden Stumble into a New World War?


The behavior of policy-makers in D.C. today is eerily similar to that of British leaders at the onset of the First World War.

Douglas Macgregor
Aug 9, 2022

Prime Minister H.H. Asquith in July 1914. (Daily Mirror/Mirrorpix via Getty Images)

In 1979, President Carter formally abandoned the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. Carter’s action abruptly ended Washington’s commitment to defend Taiwan against attack from the Chinese mainland. Yet, in an answer to a journalist’s question about whether he would use military force in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, President Biden stated, “Yes, that's what we are committed to.”

When it comes to defense and foreign policy, there are very few stone-cold realists in Washington’s policy-making circles. Since 1945, with a few notable exceptions, most American presidents have tended to put short-term political celebrity or ephemeral liberal causes ahead of tangible, concrete national interests in America’s relations with other nation-states. Biden is no exception to the rule.

Guided more by impulse and emotion than reason or knowledge of the facts, President Biden, like most of Washington’s ruling political class, may be privately pleased with Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taipei. When Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is viewed in the context of Biden's self-evidently thoughtless remark, however, it is clear that the combination is having a negative impact across Asia.

Japan's top government spokesman, Hiroakazu Matsono, expressed a view that is widely shared across Asia when he said, “Peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is important not only for the security of Japan but also the world.” When asked if Japan, arguably America’s most important strategic partner in Asia, supports Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, Matsuno responded, "We are not in a position to comment." President Yoon of the Republic of Korea (ROK) simply declined to meet with Pelosi. 

These developments should not surprise Americans. The speaker of the House is not a foreign policy voice unless authorized by the president and the secretary of State. In an age when the president’s comments are so often walked back by his spokesmen, this lack of clarity adds to the tension that arises from grandstanding senators and congressmen who bear no responsibility for events beyond America’s borders. Americans should also be leery of politicians who exploit crises overseas to grab headlines at the expense of U.S. national strategic interests. Such behavior is dangerous to the nation.

Sound foreign policy and military strategy must involve more than treating every potential conflict as a great moral cause in which all the values of American civilization are at stake. In other words, don’t engage in empty gestures that could result in an armed conflict for which the U.S. Armed Forces are not prepared. Don’t initiate military action unless the ensuing conflict’s true purpose is understood, its demands on the American people are accurately identified, and the conflict’s desired end state is not only defined but attainable. While these points must seem self-evident to the casual observer, history demonstrates that they are not.

On August 1, 1914, the day Germany mobilized for war with Russia and France, the leading members of the British Cabinet opposed joining the war against Germany. The eventual decision to fight, however, was not the product of a long, complex decision-making process. Sir Edward Grey, the foreign minister, claimed that Britain had a moral obligation to uphold Belgium’s neutrality.

Sir Winston Churchill, the first Lord of the Admiralty, contended that the British electorate demanded action. He would later say that the Royal Navy was the only force that could lose the war to Germany in an afternoon; that is, a single decisive loss for the British fleet would have determined the outcome of the entire war. Churchill’s attitude encouraged the Cabinet ministers to believe that Germany would opt to fight at sea on terms that favored the British Empire.

Britain’s prime minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, finally concluded that if his government did not declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, his political opponents would replace his government with a new one that would. On August 4, after the British government had declared war, General Kitchener, the newly appointed chief of the British Imperial general staff, delivered the bad news: the war, insisted Kitchener, would last at least three years, and demand the commitment of British armies of millions to a long, exhausting engagement on the continent. The ministers were stunned.

The British decision to go to war with Germany and Austria-Hungary was not guided by an objective evaluation of the two sides’ respective strategic strengths and weaknesses. Those in Washington urging confrontation with China are likewise guided more by emotion than reason.

Beijing expects that the immediate threat to China will come from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet and America’s Air Force. Consequently, Beijing invested heavily over the last two decades in the combination of layered air defenses and a vast arsenal of ground-based tactical and intermediate range surface-to-surface precision-guided missiles, rockets, and loitering munitions linked to persistent space and terrestrial-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR-Strike) platforms. 

In a confrontation over Taiwan, the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet would have to operate far from China’s coastline to avoid the PLA’s missile strikes, severely limiting the surface fleet’s ability to influence events ashore inside China. Washington could still blockade China’s Pacific Coast, but to do so, it would have to rely primarily on its nuclear-powered attack submarines in deep water. 

But a blockade would not nullify China’s principal strategic advantage. The depth of its continental position with a friendly, resource-rich Russia to the north suggests that a blockade is unlikely to succeed. Based on the expenditure rates oft munitions and precision-guided weapon systems of all kinds in Ukraine, current U.S. inventories of precision-guided missiles and munitions would be exhausted quickly. Unrealistic thinking about the demands of modern warfare combined with a false sense of moral superiority irreparably harmed the British Empire, and eventually reduced Great Britain to the status of a second-rate power. The question for Americans is whether the leadership in Washington, D.C. is not unlike a brontosaurus with a body that’s 50 yards long and a brain the size of a pin. With each passing day, it becomes more critical for Americans with common sense to replace the pin-brains running the show inside the beltway before they march Americans down the ruinous path the British took in 1914.


Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.

Thursday, August 4, 2022