Horrifying Beast from the Fiery Pit!!

Coming to destroy our country in 2024!

See it here, if you dare . . .

— MRW

‘Eisenhower’s Warning About the Military-Industrial Complex’

He told us it could endanger our democratic liberties.

Read the article from The American Spectator by clicking here. Copied below in its entirety:

by ALAN B. SOMERS

I recently read Stephen Ambrose’s excellent biography, Eisenhower: Soldier and President, on our nation’s 34th president. In the 640-page tome, Ambrose discusses the famous farewell address Eisenhower delivered the evening of Jan. 17, 1961, in the midst of the Cold War.

In his speech, Eisenhower warned that the military-industrial complex — a phenomenon he put a name to — could have “unwarranted influence” and “misplaced power.” At the same time, he recognized the need for it.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” Eisenhower said. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe had long expressed concern about the United States’ budget deficits, which had endured since the closure of World War II, and advocated balancing the cost of our national defense with other competing demands.

Eisenhower argued the military-industrial complex could endanger our democratic liberties. He said, “We should take nothing for granted; only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Eisenhower also argued that scientific research could be hijacked by the influence of federal funding, stating, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

He noted that a “steadily increasing share” of research was conducted “for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government.”

Moreover, the president warned that public policy could become “captive” to a “scientific-technological elite.”

Through his speech, the five-star general, leader of the Allied victory over the Nazis, retired president of Columbia University, and retiring president of the United States characterized the educational-governmental complex that has continued to expand into the present.

Ever the deficit hawk, Eisenhower warned our forebears and ourselves that government “must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”

Critically, he stated, “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.”

Three days later, returning from the inauguration of John F. Kennedy as the 35th president of the United States, Mamie and Ike climbed into the Chrysler Imperial she had purchased for him as a present, and he drove the two of them to their comfortable, modest retirement home in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, leaving behind wisdom that should guide us to this day.

— MRW

‘NATO’s Fraying Unity on Russia Policy’

Maintaining a stance of knee-jerk support for Kiev is not a winning political strategy.

Read the commentary from The American Conservative by clicking here. Copied below in its entirety:

By Ted Galen Carpenter

The Biden administration’s policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war was built on the assumption of widespread international support for a coercive response to Russia’s invasion. Even during the early weeks of the conflict, however, there were indications that Washington’s belief was faulty. Biden’s boast that the world stood united in its opposition to Russia’s “aggression” was little more than wishful thinking. Barely a week after the onset of the war, there were extensive defections from a United Nations General Assembly vote calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces. In addition to the five nay votes, there were 35 abstentions—even though the resolution did not commit U.N. members to take any substantive action.

Most of the abstentions came from Africa and Asia, and the vote proved to be a harbinger of widespread indifference to the war, combined with tenacious opposition to Washington’s drive to isolate and punish Russia. As time passed, the problem only grew worse. Aside from NATO and longstanding U.S. allies in East Asia, the global map showed almost no support for economic sanctions against Russia, much less for economic and military backing for Ukraine. 

During the early months of the war, NATO did appear to be reasonably united behind Washington’s policy—with some notable exceptions, such as Hungary and Turkey. The contrast between NATO’s perspective and the position that countries elsewhere in the world adopted was glaring. Hudson Institute scholar Walter Russell Mead provided an apt summary of Washington’s lack of success in broadening the anti‐​Russia coalition beyond the network of traditional U.S. allies. “The West has never been more closely aligned. It has also rarely been more alone. Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plus Australia and Japan are united in revulsion against Vladimir Putin’s war and are cooperating with the most sweeping sanctions since World War II. The rest of the world, not so much.”

Despite massive U.S. diplomatic pressure on such key players as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, that lack of wider support has not changed.

The administration could take some consolation in the apparent unity within NATO and in the fact that Russia’s actions in Ukraine impelled Sweden and Finland to abandon their traditional policies of neutrality (in Sweden’s case, a policy that had endured for 170 years) and seek membership in the alliance. NATO’s existing members joined Washington in applying harsh sanctions against Moscow, and many of them also participated in the U.S.-led campaign to provide Kiev with an abundance of sophisticated weaponry.

Nevertheless, fissures in NATO’s unity on Russia have become increasingly visible. As aforementioned, Hungary and Turkey were never fully on board. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban made it clear from the beginning that his country would never send weapons to Ukraine. In addition, his endorsement of even the mildest economic sanctions against Russia was tepid and typically occurred only after delays resulting from his efforts to dilute the sanctions that NATO and the European Union were able to impose.

Orban’s opposition to the West’s overall anti-Russia policy has become noticeably more vocal, as he insists that democratic Europe is causing needless problems for itself by reflexively embracing the hardline approach Washington demands. His criticism spiked in mid-July when he contended that the E.U. had not just shot itself in the foot but had “shot itself in the lungs” by joining the U.S. crusade to coerce Russia with economic sanctions, especially the sanctions on natural gas and other energy supplies. If those measures were not reversed soon, he argued, they might well wreck Europe’s economy and cause widespread suffering.

Turkey’s deviation from Washington’s policy is even greater than Hungary’s apostasy, especially with respect to sanctions on energy supplies. Almost from the beginning, Ankara has given higher priority to ending the war in Ukraine as soon as possible rather than trying to coerce, weaken, and humiliate Russia. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly offered to play the role of mediator. Ankara also is not above profiting from the soaring energy prices caused by Western sanctions. Turkey has positioned itself as the middleman in marketing Russia’s oil exports, frequently selling them to fellow NATO members—at, of course, a substantial markup.

Erdogan also is becoming decidedly more outspoken in his criticism. In early September, he railed against Turkey’s fellow NATO members for engaging in repeated provocations toward Moscow. Conversely, he hailed Ankara’s “balanced” policy, which he pledged to continue. 

That pragmatic, albeit somewhat cynical, approach stands in marked contrast to the strident, uncompromising attitude of the Biden administration and pro-Ukraine hawks in Congress. Leading a congressional delegation to Kiev in early May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told President Volodymyr Zelensky that “we are on a frontier of freedom and your fight is a fight for everyone. Our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done.” Washington’s willingness to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian has not waned. During his official visit to Kiev in early September, Secretary of State Antony Blinken pledged lasting support for Ukraine. “We will support the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Blinken said in a statement, which accompanied a new military aid package.

There is growing uneasiness among European populations about the wisdom of using Ukraine to wage a proxy war against a nuclear-armed power, and that uneasiness has begun to creep into the political establishments in some countries other than Hungary and Turkey. Perhaps even more important, it has become exceedingly apparent that the strategy of imposing economic sanctions on Russia has backfired. That is especially true with respect to the energy sector. In August, Russia exported a record amount of crude oil. Russia’s state-owned energy company, Gazprom, has doubled its revenue in 2022, despite sending far less natural gas to Europe. Higher prices and new markets elsewhere in the world have more than offset the loss of European customers. Such developments indicate that Russia is hardly on the verge of economic collapse because of Western sanctions. Indeed, populations in NATO member countries are now at risk of experiencing more pain than the Russian people from those sanctions as Moscow retaliates. 

The resulting strains on European unity are increasingly evident. There is a noticeable split between what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once described as “old Europe”—longtime NATO members in Western Europe, such as France and Italy—and the alliance’s newer members along Russia’s western flank. The latter, especially Poland and the Baltic republics, remain fully committed to an uncompromising policy toward Moscow. Poland’s level of economic and military aid to Kiev is second only to the amount Washington is providing. On a per capita basis, Estonia is the largest contributor among NATO countries of aid to Ukraine. 

Western European powers have resisted adopting extreme measures toward Russia, with Paris and Rome emphasizing that NATO’s goal must be to facilitate a peace accord, not humiliate Vladimir Putin. Economic strains are producing political changes that undermine support for Ukraine. In July, one party pulled out of Italy’s governing coalition, citing “the terrible choice” that Italian families face “of paying their electric bill or buying food.” The defection forced the resignation of Prime Minister Mario Draghi, who in June had traveled to Kiev to reiterate Italy’s support for Ukraine. 

Even the German government, headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has quietly backed away from its initial enthusiastic support for the hardline policy that Washington favored. The proliferation of protests in German cities against skyrocketing prices is pressuring Scholz to adopt a more pragmatic policy. Such angry demonstrations are hardly confined to Germany. In early September, 70,000 people took to the streets of Prague to oppose not only the government’s energy policies but the overall EU and NATO confrontation with Russia.

European governments have scrambled to ease the economic pain resulting from the West’s sanctions against Moscow. Emergency financial aid programs for hard-pressed populations have been the most common measures. Some governments also have imposed price controls on fuel and other energy supplies, despite the long historical record that such controls only lead to shortages and black markets. 

Under intense pressure from Washington, the G-7 adopted price caps on imports of Russian gas and oil. Violators supposedly would be subject to sanctions. The measure was the ultimate exercise in futile symbolism. Putin responded by threatening to cut off all energy exports to the West if the price caps violated existing contractual commitments. Moreover, not only were key international economic players, such as India and China, demonstrating no support for the West’s latest anti-Russia scheme, even some NATO and E.U. members balked. At least 10 of those countries voiced objections to the new G-7 controls, and the E.U. has thus far failed to implement those caps.  

Indeed, the principal response at its September meeting was to approve, in principle, a “windfall plan.” Although the details of that policy remain to be fleshed out, the windfall plan would see governments skim off excess revenues from wind, nuclear, and coal-fired power plants that can currently sell their power at record prices heavily influenced by the cost of natural gas. E.U. governments would then use the money to soften consumer bills. The scheme entailed more than a small degree of irony. European governments proposed to seize some of the profits of nuclear and even wind power plants, which environmentalists had long touted as “clean energy” replacements for oil and natural gas. 

Concerns about possible energy shortages mounted when leaks caused by explosions were discovered in both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. The evidence pointed to sabotage. Russia and the European powers exchanged accusations of culpability. Whoever was the culprit, the effective result has been to increase the prospect (and the fear) of more serious shortages for European consumers. 

Viktor Orban appears to be right: democratic Europe is now suffering from serious self-inflicted economic and social wounds. If Russia continues to withhold or even substantially reduce gas supplies in the coming months, it could lead to a very dark, cold winter in several European countries. Discontent about high prices and the uncertain availability of fuel already is mounting throughout Europe, and public opposition to sanctions is likely to increase as winter approaches. The probable governmental response would be to shutter factories and other commercial firms to preserve scarce supplies to keep homes heated at least at minimal levels. Strict energy rationing has already begun in some countries; however, further restricting commercial operations—which are already impacting firms, including food companies, in some countries—would virtually guarantee a nasty economic meltdown throughout the E.U. Indeed, it would likely intensify an emerging global recession.

Unfortunately, both the Biden administration and its deferential allies among Europe’s political elites continue to be deaf to the rising anger of beleaguered European populations. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg epitomizes that attitude. Writing in the Financial Times, Stoltenberg stated that even though Europeans will face sharply rising energy costs this winter after levying sanctions against Russia, the continent has a “moral responsibility” to support Ukraine. “There are tough times ahead, but we have faced tough times together before,” Stoltenberg wrote. “The cost of not standing up for our values is always greater. For Ukraine’s future and for ours, we must prepare for the winter war and stay the course.” 

Corrupt, increasingly authoritarian Ukraine is not worth anything approaching the level of sacrifice now being demanded of the European people. (Emphasis is mine — MRW) Many European elites are still apparently willing to blindly follow Washington’s anti-Russian policies, but populations in several countries are defecting. If they wish to survive politically, leaders in Central and Western Europe will have to do the same. Even the pro-war elites in the Baltics and other East European countries could discover that maintaining a stance of knee-jerk support for Kiev is not a winning political strategy. As Europe’s dark, cold winter arrives, the NATO unity that the Biden administration loves to tout may be nothing more than a faint memory.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the American Conservative, is the author of 13 books and more than 1,100 articles on international affairs. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

— MRW

‘Pelosi attacker David DePape was a psychotic homeless addict . . .’

See the commentary from the New York Post by clicking here. Excerpt copied below:

And, as I soon discovered, DePape lived with a notorious local nudist in a Berkeley home, complete with a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and an LGBT rainbow flag, emblazoned with a marijuana symbol, hanging from a tree. A closer look reveals the characteristics of a homeless encampment, or what Europeans call “an open drug scene.” In the driveway, there is a broken-down camper van. On the street is a yellow school bus, which neighbors said DePape occasionally stayed in. Both are filled with garbage typical of such structures in homeless encampments. People come and go from the house and the vehicles, neighbors say, in part to partake in the use of a potent psychedelic drug, ibogaine.

Neighbors described DePape as a homeless addict with politics that was, until recently, left-wing, but of secondary importance to his psychotic and paranoid behavior.

“What I know about the family is that they’re very radical activists,” said one of DePape’s neighbors, a woman who only gave her first name, Trish. “They seem very left. They are all about the Black Lives Matter movement. Gay pride. But they’re very detached from reality. They have called the cops on several of the neighbors, including us, claiming that we are plotting against them. It’s really weird to see that they are willing to be so aggressive toward somebody else who is also a lefty.”

The Berkeley home where DePape lived with a local nudist and others. (David G. McIntyre for NY Post)

NO, definitely NOT a MAGA Republican . . .

— MRW

Santa Monica (CA) Observer opinion piece:

The Awful Truth: Paul Pelosi Was Drunk Again, And In a Dispute With a Male Prostitute Early Friday Morning.

See it by clicking here. Copied below in its entirety:

By Stan Greene

“Paul Pelosi stated that he doesn’t know who the male is but he advised that his name is David and that he is a friend.” Yeah, right.

As SF’s gay bars closed at 2 am, two gay men met in a bar and went home together. Happens every night in the City by the Bay. Except one of these two men, was married to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

I might disappear for telling you the truth. If I do, you’ll all know why. But here’s what really happened early Friday morning in San Francisco. IMHO

According to SFPD “RP [Reporting Person] stated that there’s a male in the home and that he’s going to wait for his wife. RP stated that he doesn’t know who the male is but he advised that his name is David, and that he is a friend,” the dispatch official said. “RP sounded somewhat confused.”

It’s been a rumor for years in SF that Paul Pelosi is gay. David Depape is said to be a Castro Nudist. “The lunatic who allegedly assaulted Paul Pelosi is a Berkeley resident and a ‘Former Castro Nudist Protester’ and hemp ‘jewelry maker’ …sounds totally MAGA Republican to me. 🤣🤣” this from Twitter.

Ok, so here’s the theory, as related to me by a source: “Castro Nudists are a group of really radical gay male prostitutes that parade around naked with c–k rings. First of all, the Police did not come in response to an alarm. They come in response to a “wellness check”. So someone called them to check on Pelosi.”

“When he didn’t answer the phone, the cops broke the sliding glass door to get in. Pelosi was struggling with the suspect, who was in his underwear.

Pelosi owned the hammer. Not Depape. Or, the male prostitute was doing something Pelosi didn’t like.”

“And then there was the press conference when they didn’t know the mic was on. During that, a reporter confirmed that the suspect was a gay Castro Nudist, but they told him he couldn’t use it.”

“Now tell me something. This people are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nancy is third in line to the presidency. You don’t think they have the most amazing security? And by the way, when Pelosi was in that drunk driving accident, he had a young man with him, and that too was covered up by the police and the press.”

“How would (suspect Depape) have been able to break a window that without triggering an alarm? He didn’t. The police broke the window to gain entry. There was only one hammer, and it belonged to Pelosi. And only ONE cop said he said “Where’s Nancy?” None of the others said that he said that. Probably the police broke the window, in order to get in to conduct a wellness check.”

“And one of them could easily have broken that window. Remember, there was no alarm triggered. How would (suspect Depape) have gotten into that house without doing that? The cops smashed the glass to gain entry.”

Who called 911 to initiate a wellness check? Either Nancy or her staff, who hadn’t hear from Paul all evening and suddenly it’s 2 am. Or a neighbor, hearing a fight at the Pelosi residence.

Admittedly, David Depape is a known nutcase. He’s an election denier, says mainstream media, who has posted conspiracy theories online. That may be true, but he also lives in Berkeley, where he is a 42 year old career student.

“My law firm served a lawsuit against Paul Pelosi one time in SF after attempting to serve at other residences-Napa, Georgetown. They weren’t home, but staff were, and multiple law enforcement officers were on the perimeter. Break-in is odd given this level of security.” said Harmeet Dillon, Republican National Committee Chairman.

——————————————————————–

So, by this account the alarm system was turned off by Paul Pelosi when he brought the “friend” inside. Perhaps the friend panicked when cops made entry, and clobbered Pelosi with the hammer. Why a hammer? Never mind — we really don’t want to know . . .

I think this theory is at least as plausible as the suspected assailant being a MAGA Republican, as Far Left media outlets have reported. I don’t think we’ll ever know the real truth . . .

(BTW, this news site either needs to hire a proofreader or decent writers; I could have used [sic] several times in the article copied above!)

— MRW

Addendum: Further information here.

‘Iranian man who didn’t wash for half a century dies at 94’

See the report from BBC News by clicking here. Copied below in its entirety:

Amou Haji feared water and soap, local reports say

A hermit dubbed by media as “the world’s dirtiest man” has died at the age of 94, just months after having his first wash in decades.

Amou Haji had refused to use soap and water for more than half a century, fearing it would make him sick.

The Iranian, who lived in the southern province of Fars, had avoided previous attempts by villagers to get him clean.

But, local media say, Amou Haji finally succumbed to pressure and washed a few months ago.

According to Iran’s IRNA news agency, he became ill shortly afterwards and died on Sunday.

In a previous interview, given to the Tehran Times in 2014, he revealed his favourite meal was porcupine, and that he lived between a hole in the ground and a brick shack built by concerned neighbours in the village of Dejgah.

He told the outlet at the time his unusual choices were down to “emotional setbacks” when he was younger.

Years of not bathing had left him with skin covered in “soot and pus”, IRNA said, while his diet had consisted of rotten meat and unsanitary water drunk from an old oil can.

Amou Haji is not known to have had any family, but the villagers tried to care for him

He was also fond of smoking, being pictured on at least one occasion puffing on more than one cigarette at once.

Attempts to bathe him, or offer him clean water to drink, made him sad, the news agency said.

However, whether he holds the record for having gone the longest without taking a bath has been a matter of some debate. Back in 2009, there were reports of an Indian man who had – at that point – not washed or brushed his teeth for 35 years. What had happened to him since was not immediately clear.

— MRW

Cartoon of the day:

— MRW

‘How long will Democratic voters continue to allow themselves to be treated like fools?’

See the commentary by Miranda Devine published in the New York Post by clicking here.

Most partisans who watch political debates aren’t going to change their minds, no matter how pathetic their candidate appears. And undecided voters hoping to gain useful information in order to make a choice are probably wasting their time, but on rare occasions it pays off. This election cycle may be one of those times.

Debates have always been theater and not necessarily an opportunity to learn objective truth.

It’s just not as easy as spending an hour or so watching TV shortly before casting your ballot, if you really want to make good decisions; you must pay attention to what politicians are doing all the time. Use your own judgment — NOT that of media talking heads. (I don’t require Miranda Devine to tell me that Fetterman is a vegetable, I can see that with my own eyes.) I quote pundits I agree with because their wordcraft is better than mine . . . Example from the article linked to above:

Zeldin bested Gov. Hochul so conclusively, it was no wonder she ran away from the media the next day. He targeted soaring crime and “DAs that let violent criminals out on the street to roam free . . . This governor still has not talked about locking people up committing any crimes.”

Hochul’s response: “I don’t know why that’s so important to you.”

Someone should have reported a murder on the debate stage.

— MRW

‘Lonely Hobo’ (1930)

Great lyrics!

— MRW

EDITORIAL: More funding, more homeless — go figure

Read the opinion piece from The Denver Gazette by clicking here. Copied below in its entirety:

(Gazette file photo)

The compassion of Coloradans knows no bounds when it comes to the homeless. An eye-opening study released Friday by Colorado think tank Common Sense Institute has concluded that more than $1.7 billion will be spent combatting homelessness over three years — from 2021 through next year — a staggering increase in funding.

Per beneficiary, it amounts to $31,428 to $61,871 a year after allowing for the ever-fluctuating total number of homeless. (Emphasis is mine — MRW)

And that’s just in the Denver metro area; it’s not counting homeless hotspots like the Colorado Springs area and Pueblo, among other Colorado communities. Assuredly, statewide funding for homelessness has been on the rise given, as the study notes, how the dramatic funding increase is due partly to a temporary infusion of federal COVID-19 funds to our state.

The Common Sense study included public funding and private charitable giving in tallying the largesse on behalf of Colorado’s wide-ranging and diverse homeless population. The findings underscore the generosity of Coloradans toward those in need.

But here’s the thing: The outpouring of compassion by Coloradans hasn’t put a dent in the region’s homelessness. The Common Sense report also found that the sheer number of homeless — especially the “unsheltered and chronically homeless” who refuse a warm bed indoors or any help with their addictions and mental health issues — keeps rising.

As Common Sense summed it up in a press statement: “The total metro Denver population of individuals experiencing homelessness grew by 13% from 2020 to 2022; over that time, the unsheltered population grew by 33% to its highest level since 2008. The unsheltered population is up 120% since 2019.”

Is it any wonder?

If, as the expression goes, you build it and they will come — then if you keep on building, they’ll come come in droves.

As we have noted here many times, the problem in addressing homelessness isn’t a lack of spending; it’s a lack of accountability. (Emphasis mine) That’s particularly so when it comes to the itinerants — typically alcohol- and drug-addicted and in many cases, suffering from mental illness — who insist on camping in parks and other public spaces in Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora and elsewhere. These are the drifters who are homeless only in the strictest sense — they don’t have permanent addresses — but in most cases it’s not because they are victims of economic circumstance. They are victims of their own bad choices.

They unquestionably need help — but not a handout like Denver’s dubious decision to pay $1,000 monthly to homeless women in shelters. Assistance should come with conditions: no substance use; rehab if warranted; accepting work and staying in a shelter.

Otherwise, Coloradans truly are throwing good money after bad.

While the study itself doesn’t explicitly draw such conclusions, its findings make the case.

“…The rise in the unsheltered and chronically homeless population reflects broader system-level weaknesses that must be addressed by a comprehensive regional strategy,” the authors write, pointing to the need for, “broader solutions to mental health, addiction, housing affordability, and educational attainment…”

The authors also note, “While the unsheltered homeless population in Denver grew by 33% between 2020 and 2022, it decreased by 19% in San Antonio and 9% in Houston.”

What policies in San Antonio and Houston could Colorado’s cities learn from? Aurora elected officials recently traveled to Texas to find out and now are developing new local efforts to reflect their findings.

Our whole state should follow Aurora’s example and fundamentally rethink our approach — before budgeting another dime.

— MRW