by JOHN HINDERAKER { } ~As Paul noted a little while ago, pro-Iran militia forces known as Kataeb Hezbollah have besieged the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. They are being referred to in news accounts a “protesters,”… but in fact they are a trained and organized military force. The attackers breached the outer wall of the embassy compound and then milled around, set fires, etc. Apparently many liberals are trying to portray this attack as Trump’s Benghazi; “Benghazi” is now the most trending word on Twitter, with 231,000 tweets. There is, of course, no analogy: President Trump has not ignored calls for help, and instead has sent Marines to reinforce the embassy’s guards and Iraqi troops. So far, there have been no American casualties. Trump has been tweeting up a storm today. Some, but by no means most of his tweets have related to the Iranian military operation in Baghdad. Many more at the link. All of this has to do with the fact that Iran’s leaders are feeling the heat of President Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Last Friday, a missile strike by Iran or one of its proxies on a military installation in Kirkuk killed a civilian American contractor and wounded several American, as well as Iraqi, troops. In retaliation, the U.S. carried out strikes that killed 25 Kataeb Hezbollah members. Iran responded with today’s embassy attack. President Trump vowed further retaliation via the tweet above. I assume it will be forthcoming.


Pentagon Sends More Marines, Army Battalion to Iraq

By Ben Werner{ } ~ The Pentagon is sending more forces, including roughly 100 Marines, to provide additional security to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad after a mob stormed the compound’s main entrance on Tuesday… Marines assigned to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command deployed to Baghdad Tuesday from Kuwait, according to the Pentagon. Addtitionally, an infantry battalion from the Immediate Response Force (IRF) of the 82nd Airborne Division are headed to U.S. Central Command, the Pentagon announced following an earlier version of this post. “Approximately 750 soldiers will deploy to the region immediately, and additional forces from the IRF are prepared to deploy over the next several days,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today.” The protesters included members of the Shia group Kataib Hezbollah militia, according to an NPR report. Group members were protesting recent U.S. military airstrikes on five Hezbollah sites in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. airstrikes were in response to Kataib Hezbollah militia attacks on Iraqi bases hosting Operation Inherent Resolve coalition forces including U.S. military personnel, according to a statement released Sunday by chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman…  VIDEO:  

Trump Calls Embassy Attack ‘The Anti-Benghazi’ ‘This Is Not a Warning, It Is a Threat’

By Joe Saunders { } ~ As much as liberals and the mainstream media will hate it, Baghdad isn’t Benghazi — and the Trump White House isn’t scumbag/liar-nObama’s… President Donald Trump issued a forceful reminder of both of those facts on Tuesday with Twitter posts declaring that he regards Iran as the instigator of Tuesday’s attack on the United States Embassy in Iraq’s capital — and vowing to protect the embassy and its personnel. “The U.S. Embassy in Iraq is, & has been for hours, SAFE,” Trump wrote. “Many of our great warfighters, together with the most lethal military equipment in the world, was immediately rushed to the site.” He also made clear that if the murderous mullahs in Tehran think they can use their Iraqi supporters to avoid the consequences for their own role in the proxy war in Iraq, they’re much mistaken. “Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities,” Trump wrote. “They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year.” In a separate post, as if to drive the point home, Trump wrote: “The anti-Benghazi.” The reference, of course, was to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the United States ambassador. To its eternal shame, the scumbag/liar-nObama White House not only made no effort to aid the outpost while the attack was in progress, but flat-out lied to the American people in the aftermath, pretending the deaths were the result of spontaneous demonstrations. As Trump’s actions Tuesday made clear, he wouldn’t follow either example when it came to the Baghdad embassy crisis. In addition to deploying 100 Marines to Iraq to reinforce security personnel at the embassy,  the U.S. military flew an Apache attack helicopter over the embassy Tuesday, firing flares as a show of force to the militants surrounding the compound. According to Fox News, paratroopers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division have been ordered to deploy to Kuwait to be on hand if they are needed…  

Pro-Iran protesters fully withdraw from US embassy in Baghdad

by AHMAD AL-RUBAYE{ } ~ Pro-Iran demonstrators Wednesday ended a sit-in outside the US embassy in Iraq’s capital after an order from the Hashed al-Shaabi military force… an AFP correspondent said, a day after their dramatic incursion. “We burned them!” the demonstrators shouted as they streamed out of the high-security Green Zone housing the embassy just as easily as they had walked in on Tuesday. Trucks picked up the tents and makeshift barricades that had been brought in for the planned sit-in.Thousands of Iraqi supporters of the largely Iranian-trained Hashed force had gathered at the embassy on Tuesday, outraged by US strikes that killed 25 Hashed fighters over the weekend. They marched unimpeded through the checkpoints of the usually high-security Green Zone to the embassy gates, where they broke through a reception area, chanting “Death to America” and scribbling pro-Iran graffiti on the walls. Iraq’s caretaker premier Adel Abdel Mahdi called on the angry crowd to leave the embassy but most spent the night in dozens of tents set up outside the perimeter wall…  

Iran-backed militiamen withdraw from siege of US Embassy in Baghdad as more American troops deployed

By Lucia I. Suarez Sang{ } ~ The siege outside of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad came to an end Wednesday afternoon after dozens of pro-Iran militiamen and their supporters withdrew from the compound… The two-day crisis started early Tuesday, when, in an orchestrated assault, hundreds of militiamen stormed the embassy compound, one of the most heavily fortified U.S. diplomatic missions in the world. As the militiamen cleared the area, smoke still rose from a section of the compound building where hours before they had lit a fire on the roof. The violent protests, which included smashed windows and sprayed graffiti on the embassy’s walls, were said to be in protest of the deadly U.S. airstrikes that targeted an Iran-backed militia over the weekend, killing 25 fighters. In turn, those strikes had been in response to a rocket attack on an Iraqi Army base that killed a U.S. contractor and injured several American troops. The protests prompted the Pentagon to send hundreds of additional troops to the Middle East. Earlier Wednesday morning, the protesters had set up around 50 tents, along with a makeshift clinic. Cooks with aprons were serving meals out of giant pots. Outside one of the gates, a Shiite cleric recited verses from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, through a loudspeaker. Elsewhere, demonstrators could be seen hurling rocks over the walls of the embassy compound before U.S. troops responded by firing tear gas from the roofs of the buildings. The Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella group of state-allied militias — many backed by Iran — called on its supporters to withdraw in response to an appeal by the Iraqi government, saying “your message has been received.” By late afternoon the tents had been taken down and the protesters relocated to the opposite side of the Tigris River, outside the so-called Green Zone housing government offices and foreign embassies. U.S. Apache helicopters circled overhead. “After achieving the intended aim, we pulled out from this place triumphantly,” said Fadhil al-Gezzi, a militia supporter, told the Associated Press. “We rubbed America’s nose in the dirt.”…  


As Wednesday night deadline looms, Netanyahu expected to request immunity

by ~ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected Wednesday to ask the Knesset to grant him immunity from prosecution in the three corruption cases against him… as the clock counted down toward a midnight deadline for him to seek the protection. Netanyahu has described his right to immunity as “a cornerstone of democracy.” However, rather than make a public announcement at a press conference, as is Netanyahu’s preferred style for key developments, and was apparently his intention at the beginning of the week, he is seeking to keep a low profile and will likely reveal his request in a social media post, Channel 12 news reported. Netanyahu and his aides are eager to remove the topic from the public agenda as quickly as possible, the report said. The prime minister has told close associates he is concerned that making the request for immunity, which must be formally delivered to Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, could impact his campaign for the coming March 2 elections, the Kan public broadcaster reported Tuesday. In addition, Netanyahu is worried that the Knesset may vote against granting him immunity or that, even if lawmakers approve it, the High Court of Justice could intervene and overturn it. A request from the Knesset for immunity is seen as unpopular among voters, even among many of the prime minister’s supporters. A poll published Sunday evening by Channel 12 news found that 51 percent of Israelis oppose such a move, while only 33% support it. Netanyahu must announce whether he wants to seek immunity by midnight or automatically forfeit his right to do so. Though the premier is far from guaranteed to get a Knesset majority to support an immunity bid, merely asking for it will likely delay any potential trial by months…   

Europe: Anti-Christian Attacks Reach All-Time High in 2019

by Soeren Kern{ } ~ Anti-Christian hostility is sweeping across Western Europe, where, during 2019, Christian churches and symbols were deliberately attacked day after day… Gatestone Institute reviewed thousands of newspaper reports, police blotters, parliamentary inquiries, social media posts and specialized blogs from Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Spain. The research shows that roughly 3,000 Christian churches, schools, cemeteries and monuments were vandalized, looted or defaced in Europe during 2019 — which is on track to becoming a record year for anti-Christian sacrilege on the continent. Violence against Christian sites is most widespread in France, where churches, schools, cemeteries and monuments are being vandalized, desecrated and burned at an average rate of three per day, according to government statistics. In Germany, attacks against Christian churches are occurring at an average rate of two per day, according to police blotters. Attacks on Christian churches and symbols are also commonplace in Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and Spain. The attacks overwhelmingly involve Roman Catholic sites and symbols, although in Germany, Protestant churches are also being targeted. The perpetrators of anti-Christian attacks — which include acts of arson, defecation, desecration, looting, mockery, profanation, Satanism, theft, urination and vandalism — are rarely caught. When they are, police and media often censor information about their identities and ethnic backgrounds. Many suspects are said to have mental disorders; as a result, many anti-Christian attacks are not categorized as hate crimes… 

Can the Union Endure?

By Christopher Skeet

{ } ~ At this point, Red and Blue America are not even speaking the same language.  We stand near the point of what divorce lawyers term “irreconcilable differences.” In increasingly strident and self-assured tones, the Left believes it is morally superior, intellectually untouchable, and wholly justified in pursuing whatever extralegal, corrupt, or violent methods available to implement their ideology.

Talk of a breaking point has been circling conservative circles for some time, with three tangible options arising from the chatter:

1) continued focus on barely winning elections, appointing “conservative” judges that uphold scumbag/liar-nObamacare, keeping Arizona from going blue, etc.;

2) a “divorce” of sorts that peaceably divides the United States into permanent blue and red territories, or;

3) civil war.

The first option clearly is the best. It is the least disruptive and preserves the Union and the Constitution, the goal that Abraham Lincoln fought our bloodiest war to support.

But what if it is sabotaged? Trump is an anomaly from both the Democrat and Republican point of view. His no-holds-barred street fighting style has been a welcome change for many Republican voters.  But once his presidency ends, is there likely to be a Trump-like figure? Rest assured, the GOP Establishment is busy re-calibrating its primary process that “allowed” Trump to win the nomination to begin with. Republican voters thinking they won’t attempt to force-feed us a rino-Romney or Jeb! next time around are fooling themselves.

At a minimum, in order to keep them honest, we need to be able to consider the other options.

The second option, that of an amicable divorce between red and blue states (and allowing for counties to switch states) seems the best option towards the preservation of the American ideal. While true that the United States of America would lose some coastline and a few radical hotbeds to the newfound Socialist Republics of Wokestan, we could permanently consolidate our strongholds, restructure our judiciary, clean the Augean stables we call public schooling, and amend our Constitution with stronger protections.

Such a “divorce” would be messy.  Questions of interstate travel, resources, airspace regulation, migration control, and a million unforeseeable disputes would need to be hashed out before we were able to cut away the deadwood.  But it’s doable. Europe is in the throes of a polygamous divorce, but it is proceeding bumpily along. Even Sudan pulled it off.

The problem is the Left probably wouldn’t agree to a divorce.  It will play the part of the jealous, manipulative, control freak husband who never loved his wife, but rather savored the power he exerted over her. The Left will delay, obfuscate, and resist divorce at all costs, even if the Right unilaterally gave up the sports car, the big screen TV, and the dog in an attempt to cut loose as quickly as possible.

The economy would unfortunately be, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, a “known unknown.” We would have to prepare for a temporary state of flux. We lose a fair amount of ports, transportation hubs, and financial sectors. The world’s two largest stock exchanges (the NYSE and NADSAQ), each of which trade over one trillion dollars a month, are both located in New York City. Silicon Valley alone, were it its own nation, would be one of the world’s richest and most productive.

But though we would have to brace ourselves to find our economic footing, we would not be without our own advantages. The Bakken Formation of North Dakota alone is estimated to hold 30 to 40 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Of the 31 states that currently produce oil, 25 (over 82% of total production) went for Trump in 2016. In addition, the United States has seen its best manufacturing boom in three decades, with over 500,000 manufacturing jobs created since Trump took office. In the third quarter of 2019, manufacturers’ biggest concern was a shortage of skilled labor to keep up with hiring demands.  This is not the concern of an industry in trouble.

Our new economy would be stabilized by stable tax policy, deregulation, America-first trade negotiations, audits of the Federal Reserve (assuming we keep it), and deference to supply-side, free market principles. And assuming Wokestan pursued the socialistic policies they preach, now unencumbered by such antiquated annoyances like constitutions and elections, their economy would free fall.

Silicon Valley is already bleeding residents to more tax-friendly states like Colorado, Texas, and North Carolina. Predictably, problems arise when they refuse to concede that their progressive policies were what caused their home state to go bankrupt. In our new America, gone would be the days when blue state progressives are allowed to migrate to red states, bringing their ignorant voting patterns with them. America could focus on God, freedom, family, and productivity. Wokestan could focus on socialism, homeless encampments, needle programs, and post-birth abortions. A wall would surely be built, either by us to keep them out, or by them to keep them in.

The third option is civil war.

Suffice to say, victory in such a war would be a foregone conclusion. Antifa punks fancy themselves brave while terrorizing progressive cities whose socialist mayors green light their thuggery, but when met with actual force they always skitter away. In a civil war, during which the American side will enjoy the support and firepower of the vast majority of the military, the police, the food and energy sectors, most of the blue-collar class, and over 100 million gun owners, it’s doubtful gaggles of black-masked, androgynous incels would offer much “resistance.”

We won the first Civil War, and we would win a second. This time around, the slavers have no Robert Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or James Longstreet, but rather the likes of Messers Manning, Bergdahl, and Vindman. Long gone are the days when Trotsky led the Red Army full of dedicated shock troops into battle. Today’s Left lacks the discipline, the courage, and the spirit of self-sacrifice necessary to muster up enough volunteers for a national army.  Men who micturate aghast at the torment of doing their own laundry don’t win wars.

Still, I would argue against this path, which can and always does lead to unintended consequences. Increasing numbers of conservative thinkers appear open to the idea of civil war. Most do so hesitatingly, but others seem to relish the prospect, and chortle at the idea of plunging the rest of us into the abyss.

Even for the winning side, the cost of both innocent victims and the quality of life endured by the survivors is far greater than those clamoring for war care to admit. Internet tough guys who’ve never seen what a bullet does to human flesh can let me know in the “Comments” section just how big of a pansy I am. That’s fine. But to more mature readers who ponder their own capabilities for wanton bloodshed more judiciously, I implore you to seriously reckon the ramifications upon our civilian population that civil war would entail. Sherman’s March to the Sea will seem, by comparison, a sweet dream.

Civil war in present-day America would not consist of professional armies mowing each other down across empty fields. It would be a house-to-house, street-by-street massacre, more akin to Hotel Rwanda than the battlefields of the American or even the Russian and Spanish civil wars.

The majority of the fighting would be carried out not by professional armies, but by private citizens, vigilantes, partisans, ad hoc neighborhood units, and the like. People on both sides would use the breakdown of order to settle private scores and commit crimes of opportunity. Others would kill indiscriminately based on “offenses” such as voting records, yard signs, etc.

Schools would close. Hospitals would become graveyards for the untreated. Water purification plants, oil refineries, and transportation hubs would be sabotaged. Even in red states, food and energy supplies would be unreliable. Sympathizers would be targeted, mobs would destroy, and homes would burn. Bombings that bedeviled Great Britain during the Troubles or present-day Afghanistan would become the norm here.

I freely admit this is all conjecture. Maybe it will be Grenada 2.0, like the neo-cons told us Iraq and Afghanistan would be. But when contemplating war, especially war in our own streets and neighborhoods, it behooves us to err on the side of caution. Wars usually go worse than predicted, and we have no idea what it would unleash here. Despite the aforementioned advantages we would retain, the last century has proven that the Left possesses an unfathomable capacity for atrocity, cruelty, and mass murder in the furtherance of its ideology.  Progressives will burn this nation to the ground before letting anyone enjoy it free from their benevolence. They wouldn’t hesitate to murder their own children on their altars, and would hesitate even less about murdering yours.

In between today and this hypothetical civil war is the option of divorce. Knowing the Left, it will only be dragged to the arbitration table kicking and screaming. But we should at least attempt it before delving blindfolded into slaughter.  


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *