What the cinnamon toast fuck did we just see in Afghanistan?

There is a saying I learned in the military, it’s called the 6 Ps, “Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.” And what we witnessed over the past few days in Afghanistan is as piss poor a performance as you could imagine. This administration should have seen the warning signs; a rapidly advancing Taliban, a rapidly dissolving Afghan Army, willing to drop weapons and run when offered. I think the Afghan Army just gave the French a relief from all the jokes about being “surrender monkeys”.


This was a complete failure of leadership and intelligence, both military and civilian. There were no apparent plans to gracefully exit the country. One airbase should have been a defensive nightmare to try to penetrate. Foxholes, overlapping field of fire, indirect fire kill zones, etc… Then once it was apparent there was an imminent collapse of internal security in the country, as was apparent about 2 to 3 weeks ago, ALL AMERIFCAN citizens and Afghan nationals we were going to evac from the country should have been rallied to that secure airbase and the evacuations begun. Any attempt to attack the airfield, aircraft or the evacuees should have been met with instant and overwhelming lethal force.


You will see lots of blame being tossed around and there is plenty to go around; Bush for starting the war in the first place with no apparent exit strategy. Obama for not developing an exit strategy over his EIGHT years in office. Trump, same blame as Obama, though he only had one term worth of planning he could have done. Now Trump is catching it for even trying to negotiate peace with the Taliban, but at some point, if you want to leave a country you invaded, you must negotiate a peace. As Tyrion said in Game of Thrones “We make peace with our enemies, not our friends.” A good peace deal might have worked, even if it meant a Taliban presence in the Afghan government. Then there is the current president, Biden, well it happened under his watch so naturally he should bear a good measure as well. Not to mention he was VP for Obama for those EIGHT years. Sat in on all the same meetings. Had the same access to intel. He promised us he had plans upon plans for dealing with everything Trump had messed up. What happened here Mr. President? Where are your plans? Those contingencies for contingencies that you should have had waiting? The Pentagon planners are supposed to prepare for every possible contingency. The fact none could see this complete collapse of internal security shows it may be time to clean house in the intel and planning departments of the US Government, military and civilian. And I say this, because many talking heads on TV and radio were warning of this possibility even as Trump was negotiating a deal with the Taliban remnants to withdraw our forces in late 2019 and early 2020. They warned that if the deal was not solid and workable, a Saigon moment was in the making.

Congress needs to come together and call for an investigation into what happened. With a special focus on why so much military gear was left behind. The fact Blackhawk helicopters were left on the ground with high end drones still in carrying containers and an arsenal of firearms, among other things, shows a failure of military leadership. A complete serial number inventory needs to be conducted to determine exactly what was left behind. I’ve seen people loose rank over misplacing a gas mask. But I guess dropping a few functional Blackhawk helicopters to enemy hands or multimillion dollar drones or enough weapons to arm a small army is no big deal, right? Every field or flag grade officer that signed off on leaving all that gear behind without scuttling or rending it inoperable should be booted from the military regardless of how many bars, oak leaf clusters, eagles and stars are tossed out. Even if that includes people on the Joint Chiefs or some of the Service Secretaries. There is no excuse for leaving all that gear behind, gear that could eventually be used against America or its allies in some future attack. How many times did we see officials from the military and current administration clearly say we would not see another Saigon, or that the Taliban taking over the country was not foreseeable? All these people need to be held accountable for their lack of imagination. But Congress will circle the wagons, as they usually do, when the president is of the same party as the Speaker of the House.

I suspect, had this collapse happened under Trump, the House Managers for a new impeachment would have already been chosen and the clown walk to the Senate with the Articles in the cedar box would have already been done. More souvenir pens from Pelosi commemorating the “very serious affair” third impeachment would have been passed out after the obligatory photo op.

How Speaker Pelosi Is Force Feeding Senator Schumer A Schiff Sandwich

Let us take a moment and look back on the events surrounding the third official impeachment of a President of the United States. The quest for impeachment started as early as April 17th 2016 based on this Politico Europe article I was able to find. President Trump wasn’t even the nominee and the word impeachment was at least in the hearts and minds of the Democrats and their sycophantic media, if not on their actual lips. In Congress the first actual attempt at an impeachment resolution was done by Representatives Al Green (D-TX) and Brad Sherman (D-NY) on December 6th 2017.

Following that failed attempt, the I-word was tossed around several times a week by pundits, talking heads and the subjective “news” media throughout 2018 and 2019. I defy anyone to find me a single prime time Monday through Friday broadcast week on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News or CBS News that lacked at least one person talking not just about the possibility of impeachment but rooting for it, I’ll wait…

In 2019, when the House gavel was unwisely passed back to Nancy Pelosi, there was little doubt in anyone’s mind that she was salivating to impeach Donald Trump. That little scheming gleam in beady, dead eyes, that sly side clap she rendered at the 2019 State of the Union Address and her constant denial about impeachment not being a priority, when anyone with higher brain functions knew better. She was of course biding her time, waiting for the Mueller Report to drop to give her all the starting power she needed to launch a full-throated impeachment inquiry. When that report landed with a thud and shoulder shrug by most people, it was time for Plan B, PLAN BULLSHIT.

Plan Bullshit was to find anything they could hang on Trump. This included but was not limited to: violations of the Domestic Emoluments Clause, violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, obstruction of justice, inappropriately disclosing classified information, destruction of public records, payment of ransom with federal funds in violation of international law, authorizing security clearances for people who are known security risks, failure to protect U.S. elections from foreign interference, campaign finance law violations, condoning white nationalism, using law enforcement to punish political enemies, attacking the press as “enemies of the people”, mismanagement by failing to fill vacancies, separation of immigrant children from their families and on and on. Then what should pop up for Adam Schiff, a notice from a “whistleblower” about a phone call, one the “whistleblower” did not have direct knowledge of as he or she, oh we all know it was a he, was not a participant on the call.

Supposition begins. Here is where the scheme fell apart. Schiff goes to Pelosi and tells her he has Trump dead to rights. That he has a “whistleblower” that can prove Trump tried to either bribe or extort the country of Ukraine for his own political gains by using money Congress had lawfully appropriated for Ukraine. It was at that moment Pelosi pounced and started the gears of impeachment turning. Then, in what is probably the most masterful stroke of monkeywrenching, Trump releases the call notes, stop calling it a transcript people, from the call. This totally threw the narrative by the Democrats into disarray. They were expecting to be able to frame the call in anyway they saw fit. Schiff’s opening statement of lies, or “parodies” as he calls them, about the contents of the call prove this. But Pelosi had already rung the impeachment bell, something impossible to unring. They proceeded with the investigations anyway to get Trump to just quit, to walk away, in the same way Nixon walked away. But Trump endured. And what did the House conjure up, two whole Articles of Impeachment, one for Abuse of Power and the other for Obstruction of Congress. Two of the weakest impeachment articles to ever hit the Senate since its founding. Then, inexplicably, Pelosi does not immediately transmit the Articles to the Senate. She sits on them, for reasons only known to her, but she was really trying to goad Trump into resigning. She was hoping he would step down instead of going through a full Senate trial. But again, Trump endured. Supposition ends.

Now that we are on day 9 or 10 or 200 of the impeachment trial in the Senate, a new debate has come forth about allowing John Bolton and other witnesses to testify in the Senate. This is nonsensical from every perspective. Bolton has never given any sworn testimony about Trump and his dealings with the Ukraine. Any testimony he provides would be entirely new to the impeachment investigation. This would never be allowed in a court of law at any level. If the Democrats are going to continue this charade of wanting a fair trial, then a fair trial must honor the rules of discovery or face Brady violations. Also, a fair trial would not allow the entry of propensity evidence, AKA uncharged misconduct, AKA violations of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) to take place, which they have done on numerous occasions. The only witnesses that should be allowed are those that have already provided sworn testimony about the matters on trial, whether the original testimony was acquired during the formal House impeachment investigations, the Mueller investigations or any other previous, relevant investigations. This honors the historical precedent of witnesses that have appeared in all the previous, modern Senate impeachment trials.

In closing I offer a bit of advice, an escape hatch, to Senator Schumer and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate. Put forth a resolution for a Senate vote to terminate, without ruling, the current trial and allow the House Managers to withdraw the current Articles so they may prepare a more thorough and complete record of the investigation. Inform your House colleagues it is not the job of the Senate to conduct the investigation, it is the job of the Senate to rule on what has previously been investigated by the House as required by the Constitution. This would basically force the Schiff sandwich back to Pelosi, where it rightly belongs. Let her decide the next step. Everyone knows this is going down in flames. It is unlikely the Republicans are going to allow for unvetted witnesses to testify. Be smart Senator Schumer, you have gotten a good whiff of this Schiff sandwich, you know what taking the bite of it is going to taste like.

The Impeachment Farce

After watching the first day of impeachment, only one person stood out, that was Chief Justice John Roberts. Every other player in this farce should be ashamed of themselves, this includes all the appointed House Managers, all the President’s defense counsel, Senators McConnell and Schumer and the “press”.

In the history of this country there have been 19 previously successful impeachments by the House; 15 judges, 1 U.S. Senator, 1 Cabinet Secretary and 2 Presidents. In all these previous affairs it seems there was a level of decorum that was followed; somber, serious, humorless. But with the current impeachment all of those are out the window. There is not even the thinnest veneer or façade of any of those adjectives.

The Japanese have a concept called the honne, 本音, and tatemae, 建前. The honne is what you truly feel, the tatemae is what you show for all to see. There is, or should be, a divide between these two. Unfortunately for us, all we saw in the Senate was pure honne. The actors in this farce need to honor the tatemae required for this historic event they are participants of.

The farce actually began with Speaker of the House Pelosi holding a signing ceremony to transmit the Articles of Impeachment and passing out specially monogramed souvenir pens. I do not recall a single time in which any Speaker of the House actually conducted a public signing ceremony, and on top of that passed out dozens of souvenir pens. This was a side show with prizes, not a somber or serious moment as Speaker Pelosi has claimed it to be. All honne, no tatemae.

Move to Day 1 of the “trial” and more shenanigans by nearly every person that spoke at the podium in the Senate. It was disgusting. It looked more like the Jerry Springer Show live from the Senate floor. I was half expecting to hear the phrase “baby daddy” come out of someone’s mouth in their nonsensical rantings and ravings. Every single person at the trial seemed to be looking for that Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” legacy. Again, all honne, no totemae.

Then you have the gaggle of talking heads as well that laughably call themselves “reporters” and “news people”. You do not even have to wonder which side they are going to fall on. A group of people given considerable immunity from government scrutiny and civil libel/slander prosecution are rallying around a side subjectively and selectively reporting events that support their particular points of view. DISGUSTING. Do not call yourself a “reporter” or a “news person” if you rally for a side, other than the side of facts.

There was nothing serious or somber about what went on yesterday. One can only hope that today is a different day, especially given the admonishment by Chief Justice Roberts. The House Managers and the President’s defense counsel need to remember they are not just acting for their base, they are on a global stage. Friends overseas have been asking me about what was going on, and the best I can say, in a kindly fashion, is political theater.

Here we go again… Pt Two, The Quest For More Gun Control

Yesterday evil decided to visit another school, this time in Santa Fe Texas. As of this posting 10 confirmed dead with another 10 wounded and the lunatic loser of a murderer in custody. Coincidently, whether by accident or on purpose, May 18th is actually the anniversary of the worst school massacre in US history, the Bath School Massacre. On May 18th, 1927 another lunatic loser detonated explosives at an elementary school and killed 38 children, 6 adults, and himself. He also killed his wife earlier in the day. I only bring this up because it seems the current lunatic loser also had explosives, that apparently did not work, which is an odd choice of weapons for your typical school shooter. Was this an attempt to emulate and even exceed the Bath School Massacre loss of life?

But getting back on point, again the usual suspects come pouring out calling for more gun control, except this time their standard talking points don’t seem to be forthcoming. The proponents appear to be at a loss about what to call for,except the very vague “something”. Why is this? Well quite simply,this loser upended the game and did things a bit different.

This loser broke down almost every standard stereotype about a mass school shooting; chose to use a shotgun and revolver, appeared to not be your typical loner as he was on the JV football team, didn’t appear to have any family issues, no overly troubling digital footprint, etc…

It was his choice of weaponry more than anything else that has the gun control fanatics in a box. He used two weapons the vast majority of gun control proponents think are the “good guns”.  Initially it was reported he used an AR15 by some outlets, but I think that was media whores betting the odds and trying to be “first” to report the news about this event without any REAL source for this inaccurate reporting. So drawing on my post after the Marjory Stonehouse Douglas massacre, their goto talking points by and large are lost on this event.

Neither weapon, at this time, appears to qualify as an “Assault Weapon”, so calls banning those in response to this is using a tragedy to further an agenda. But leave it to the politicians and/or their lackeys to be political ghouls, some candidates are actually fund raising off the deaths of 9 young teens and a substitute teacher.

The high capacity magazine ban, well I have not heard the type of shotgun used, but it is possible it was magazine or drum fed, but that has yet to be revealed.

The gun show loophole, as in most of these shootings, the weapons appear to be legally acquired by someone else, the murderer’s father. It appears they were purchased via a NICS check as well, so this talking point doesn’t apply.

Lastly there is the “no fly/no buy” loophole, this murderer doesn’t ever appear to have been on anyone’s R.A.D.A.R. So yet again, closing this “loophole” would not have prevented this massacre.

All this has the gun control proponents painted in a corner. There is nothing specific they can call for and demonstrate it would have even had the potential to prevent this massacre, short of a change in federal law that absolutely BANS the simple possession and/or usage of a firearm below a certain age. There is a federal law close to a ban, but it has several exemptions to it, so highly unlikely it has ever been used to prosecute anyone. So these people are just vaguely calling out for “something”, or “common sense legislation” or other such vague and obfuscatory terms.

Sadly, I suspect with the Royal Nuptials and this stereotype breaking shooting, the chattering about this massacre will fade. Ten funerals will be held, hopefully none of the injured succumb to their wounds, and this murderer will spend the next 50 to 60 years of his life in a cage. which is more than he deserves to be perfectly honest.

Very few people are going to call out for what REALLY needs to be focused on, the broken young men of our society. Why are they broken? What or who is causing them to break? When are they being broken? Can we identify the broken ones early enough to glue them back together? Even sadder is if people start asking these question, no one will support answering them. It would take longer than an election cycle to get the answers and Congress is not about to try to do anything that takes longer than two years. Congress wants something they can parade around in a campaign ad or in a town hall meeting beyond simply stating “We are looking into it!!” They would rather try to placate the masses on their particular side of the argument; either calling for more gun control, or calling to enforce the laws we already have. It is such a good thing we are not relying on the 21st century Congresses to get us to the moon. I suspect dogs and/or cats would have come up with a space program before any of the modern Congresses could get around to it.

Here we go again….

With the latest mass shooting, on cue the usual calls to action by the Democrats. They begin to whip out the golden oldies like Assault Weapons Ban, High Capacity Magazine Ban, Universal Background Checks, Gun Show Loophole, and the newest two of the bunch Terror Watchlist/No Fly List Loophole and the Bump Stock Ban. I think a thorough examination of each of these is in order to see if one or more of them might actually have an impact.

Assault Weapons Ban – To say been there, done that, got the t-shirt is entirely accurate. The federal government did have an assault weapons ban for a while, it was cheerily called the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” passed in 1994 with a ten year sunset provision, meaning unlike most legislation it would expire in 10 years if not renewed. Ah if only ALL legislation was like this. Anyway, what this did was ban so called assault weapons. Now what is an assault weapon you might be wondering? Well there is no real definition for this, it is basically a made up phase. “Assault” is the action of brining harm to another and “Weapon” is any implement that can cause harm, so by definition ANYTHING can be an “assault weapon”. I like to call it the Big Scary Gun Ban, because per the original ban, it only focused mostly on cosmetic items that had very little to do with the lethality of the weapon itself. What it classified as an “assault weapon” was any rifle with a detachable magazine and any TWO of the following:

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  • Grenade launcher

Bayonet mounts and grenade launchers, oh come on. When was the last time some lunatic yelled “Fix Bayonet” and ran amok anywhere engaging people with a perfect form “Thrust Series”. And grenade launchers, yes while 37 mm ones are legal to own, they are for flares. If you want a real M433 HEDP lobbing capable 40 mike mike, you need to have the ATF all up in your business in the first place. These two were just stupid. Flash suppressors, okay anyone that has fired a weapon with a flash suppressor at night can confirm that it doesn’t suppress all that much. I suspect the political ninnies saw “suppressor” and thought James Bond silencer, no noise making bullets, in their minds. Now the last two do have a little, well very little, merit. A pistol grip can help a person maintain better control of their sight alignment but even without a pistol grip most practiced shooters can put rounds on target at pretty good distances. Lastly the collapsible stock, it is not like you are going to be able to hide the weapon that much more. Yes it makes it less clunky until you extend the stock, but a military style rifle is big and clunky no matter how you try to hide it. A collapsible stock does nothing to enhance the lethality of the weapon at all. So all in all what impact did the AWB have in curbing gun violence, well according to the most recent study by the DOJ, little if any.

Having said this, the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading.

High Capacity Magazine Ban – First of all it is a magazine people, not a clip. I mentally, if not physically, cringe when someone uses clip. It just screams the person knows next to nothing about firearms and this will be a very aggravating debate. But getting back on topic, the study mentioned above pretty much nails this down, but let’s put some common sense into this as well. I am guessing the theory here is that if a nutjob has to reload often that potential victims will have time to get away or charge and subdue the gunman. Anyone who thinks this is kidding themselves. It takes next to no time to change out a magazine with a little practice and preparation. It would take most people longer to realize there is an actual lull in fire than it would be for a practiced gunman to load in a new magazine and chamber the next round.

Universal Background Checks – This one is a doozy because its originates from “statistics” found in a flawed study, specifically the discussion concerning Table 3.14, of how weapons were acquired. It stated 60 to 70% of all firearms were acquired from the primary market. So of course that means 30 to 40% were from the secondary market. But this has problems, as detailed here

The survey sample was relatively small — just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

The analysis concluded that 35.7 percent of respondents indicated they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

Also consider that most of this survey period was before the National Instant Check System, NICS, was even setup. This nonsense has been regurgitated as often as people claiming gum stays in your digestive tract for 7 years. So much so that even that bastion of conservatism, PolitiFact, considers it FALSE and have repeatedly called out politicians who use it.

Gun Show Loophole – This goes hand in hand with Universal Background Checks. There is this belief that gun shows are some wild and raucous affair where military weapons are exchanged without anyone checking on anything. Well nothing could be further from the truth. The overwhelming majority of tables at gun shows have FFL dealers and FFL dealers are required to run background checks on ANYONE they sell a firearm to, even if it is from their own private collection. Would someone, ANYONE, please tell me the last mass shooter, or any shooter for that matter, that acquired their weapon by “exploiting” this “loophole”.

Terror Watchlift/No Fly List – This is something relatively new that popped up in the early 2000s and really gained traction in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, even though none of the shooters were on any of the lists in the first place. That bastion of conservatism, the Washington Post, has taken this one to task already. I will add one thing here, and that is Due Process. Before you can deny ANYONE a right, you have to use Due Process. 5th Amendment ring any bells? The ACLU has sued on behalf of Americans that found themselves put on these lists without any notice and not given any clear guidance on how to get off of them. Ted Kennedy, yes Sen. Ted Kennedy found himself on the “Selectee List” for additional screening because T. Kennedy had been put on the list and it took him communicating with the Director of Homeland Security to get it resolved. What chance do us plebs have of getting a similar issue resolved. It is not like we can call up this person and speak with them.

Bump Stock Ban – This is a direct result of at least twelve bump stock weapons being found in the Las Vegas shooting. I have never actually fired a weapon with a bump stock, but I have fired M16A1s, M249s, M60s, M2s, Steyr AUGs, AK47s, AK74s and a few other weapons in full auto mode and while fun, they are not very accurate. Cyclic fire is meant to just throw lead down range, generally for suppression. It is not meant to be, nor is it, very accurate. The same can be said for a bump stock. I would bet real money that the long term effects of fast food has killed more people in the last year than bump stocks have lead to the death of people since they were introduced.