In Defense of General Flynn

images (11).jpg

General Flynn did nothing wrong. Let me repeat that again. General Flynn did nothing wrong. The left are now celebrating the downfall of General Flynn as the first scalp they have claimed from the Trump administration. I have no great attachment to him and I am sure his replacement will be more than capable of filling his shoes my annoyance at this whole situation is the fake outrage that the left has been spinning in an effort to hinder President Trump. The argument from the left is that since General Flynn was speaking to the Russians it proves two things first he violated the Logan Act and second the Russians conspired to help Trump.

Logan Act

The Logan act is a 200-year-old law prohibiting individuals without authorization from negotiating on behalf of the US government. This law was made partially to ensure that the incoming administration would not block the outgoing administration. To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of a violation of this act or even been prosecuted because of it.

There is a reason no one is prosecuted for this and it is only used to smear political opponents. This law made sense 200 years ago. It took months almost a year for an incoming administration to replace an outgoing one. Things moved much slower as well so the new president had all the time in the world to start from scratch. Things have changed a lot since then. The president is expected to be able to hit the ground running and rightly so as things change globally on a daily basis. The transition happens so quickly that there is even an informal lame duck etiquette where the outgoing administration is not supposed to involve the new one in anything major during this period. Again the new team is expected to hit the ground running and this can only happen if they have had contacts beforehand.

The media and political class know this as well. The press consistently mentioned Hillary’s connections with other world leaders as one of her selling points. Do you think she would not have contacted them to discuss things after she won? None of her staff would have as well? Do you really think they would start at zero when they entered the white house? Trump himself met with the Mexican President during the campaign and everything was fine.

I would hope they actually did discuss sanctions as that is one of the main issues in the relations between the two countries.


We have the Russians again. The US election is a domestic event which impacts the entire world. Of course everyone is going to try to tilt the election towards the candidate they perceive will work better with their country. Do you think Putin was the only one trying to influence the outcome of the elections? Multiple countries gave money to the Clinton foundation and Hillary. Check my earlier article for the actual quotes, during this time multiple world leaders came out strongly against Trump in an effort to turn public opinion against him.

The Pope flat out said that Trump was not christian. The British left tried to ban Trump from coming into their country. European leaders all over wanting to stabilize the EU effectively called Trump a madman. Vicente Fox took any interview he could get to mobilize the latino population against Trump. Of course this did not only happen for Clinton. Other leaders tried to put their thumb on their scale for Trump. Farage even went to a couple of his rallies.

In continually criticizing Trump the other world leaders created an environment where there was a steady drumbeat of negative headlines that the press could use to hurt Trump with the electorate. This is the exact same situation that the wikileaks emails created. It just so happened that the emails had more impact because people trusted wikileaks more than the world leaders who spoke out against Trump. Other nations will always work for their own self-interest and everyone and their dog tried to influence this election.

Fake Outrage

The secret democrats don’t want you to know is they are not actually mad because the Russians allegedly hacked the DNC. The democrats are only mad because they lost. If Clinton won would we hear anything about Russian hacking? No the media would keep silent about it because just mentioning it would damage Russo-Us relations. Instead because it is Trump we have the media actively trying to shape US foreign policy.

The entire Russian angle has become one giant coping mechanism for the liberal press and the democrats. This is not a unique situation. Republicans only win because of gerrymandering, Republicans only win because of voter suppression, Republicans only win because the Koch brothers bought them. Every single time the left loses it is never their fault. They just could not claim the regular excuses this time as it was a national election and Clinton outspent Trump by a factor of 2 to 1. When the Republicans lost they birthed the tea party and had an autopsy. The autopsy was dreadfully wrong but at least it was made. There was some acceptance of responsibility.

Accepting that they lost this election also means accepting that they have lost the culture wars by overextending. After all how else could you lose to a racist, sexist, fascist, bigot. It has gotten so bad that even relatively benign people like Pewdepie are being labelled as racist, sexist, fascist people. So we have the Russians.

If your a democrat and want to discount everything I have said so far then fine but please pay attention to this next part. Clinton lost because she did not build a coalition. Period. Trump selected a VP from the opposite side of the party in Pence so even with all the scandals people in both factions were invested in the ticket succeeding. Clinton selected a VP from the same faction ignoring the progressive wing of her party which meant that people were ready to abandon her at the slightest sign of trouble. Incidentally this is also the reason why the Justice democrats will lose as in that case it will be the progressive wing abandoning the center. This is the one and only reason Clinton lost.

If you’re a Republican well I hope you’re enjoying the show. The collective meltdown of the left will lead more people towards the truth than ever before.


4D Chess: General Mattis



Hi everyone! I’m back and this is my first article since our friendly neighborhood God Emperor has been elected. I though I would begin by explaining some of President Trump’s latest moves from a 4d chess perspective.

As most of you know 4d chess is on of Trump’s specialties. At its core it is a move where the opposing side has no good responses. Any reaction they take would benefit Trump. I am starting with General Mattis as this one is fairly easy to explain and would help me get back into the groove of writing. In the future I will expand this to the flag burning tweet, the Boeing deal and other issues.

In articles like this ill begin by describing the issue briefly, then I will point out the specific group the move is targeted to influence. Lastly I will show the two main responses to the action by Trump and how they both end positively for him.

As everyone knows General Mattis has been appointed as Secretary of Defense. Mattis is unique in that he is one of the few appointments by Trump that the democrats could block straight out. The Republicans would most likely vote as a block to grant the exception and friendly democrats such as Manchin and Heitkamp would mostly likely vote with them. Even with these defections and defections from every other Ruby Red state the democrats would still hold enough votes to block the nomination. Yet you are already hearing rumblings that democrats are waiving the white flag on a Mattis appointment.

Who does this move target? This move benefits Trump with two possible groups. First of is the group of democrats who are already dissatisfied with the way the democratic party has been handled. These would include the supporters of Bernie Sanders who are now backing Keith Ellison. Basically the progressive wing of the party. The second group it benefits Trump with is the military and swing voters.

Mattis is nearly universally loved by the military. If you have a relative serving ask them about him and you would most likely receive glowing praise. Some of this has to do with who Mattis is and the fact that he started as an enlisted person as opposed to being an officer so he would know the struggles of the infantry. Mostly though they feel Mattis will return a sense of sanity and realism to the rules of engagement which make it hard for the military to function. Even bystanders who are initially put off by the Mad Dog moniker and the Mattis quotes you see everywhere grow to like him the more they find out.

Democrats have two basic options. Deny or grant. If you grant the waiver then you look very weak to the progressive wing of the party. They are the least receptive to an officer like Mattis and see the democratic leadership shying away from a fight it could have easily won. This of course increases the divide inside the party and increases the likely hood that these voters stay home in 2018. This is critical because there is a wave of democrats in ruby-red or swing states that do not necessarily align with the progressive side which the GOP will aim to unseat.

If the democrats deny the grant they look bad to the military and independent voters, such as the working class in swing states. Most of the military vote GOP but some still do vote blue. This alienates them further from the democrats. The swing voters see someone who is perfectly capable, in fact he may be the best pick Trump has made so far, getting denied because of partisan politics.

Either way Trump wins.