Biden is a Clear and Present Danger to National Security and We Are At War With Russia

Enjoy your weekend!

Headline at Powerline this morning: HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THIS GO ON?

From the article, by Steven Hayward:

Back in 2010, P.J. O’Rourke said the Republican mid-term landslide was a restraining order against Obama. Maybe this year’s likely mid-term GOP blowout will be understood as a national intervention, in which the people will tell Democrats that it is time for Biden to be put out to pasture and the Democratic Party sent to rehab.

I ask myself: how incredibly fortunate are we that the Butcher in the Kremlin as not already acted against America and taken advantage of the fact that we have no functioning leadership? Joy Pullman at the Federalist summed it up with a reference to the Potemkin villages of Russia:

The term “Potemkin village” arose in Russia to describe empty buildings set up as propaganda, to give a false impression of industry and life. The fake villages were intended to hide the regime’s mass mismanagement and infliction of suffering upon its own people.

In 1949, The New York Times described Moscow as a “Potemkin village” because its apparent vitality and strength, artificially boosted to both provide the corrupt elites a comfortable place to live and foreign visitors a misleading portrayal of the nation, was “unrepresentative” of the typical Russian’s everyday life under Joseph Stalin.

The phrase was allegedly named after Grigori Potëmkin, an imperial Russian military official who reportedly first deployed the tactic. (Soviet “history” is untrustworthy, especially when it appears to blame-shift evil deeds onto monarchs and capitalists instead of national socialists.) According to CIA archives, the Soviet Communists widely deployed the deceptive tactic, of course.

The glorious Oxford English Dictionary gives examples of the term being used to describe everything from political situations to personal libraries. It dates the origin of the term to 1787, and today defines Potemkin as: “Sham, insubstantial; consisting of little or nothing behind an impressive facade.”

That is precisely what the U.S. federal government has been now for many years.

Here is our Potemkin “President” being told what he cannot say and where he must go — by the Easter Bunny:

If someone had written that horrible and horrifying scenario into a novel, any editor worth the name would have taken it out immediately as simply too ludicrous for even the most gullible reader to accept! The Easter Bunny telling The President of the United States of America who he can talk to and what he can and cannot say? C’mon, man!

While I urge a complete reading of Ms Pullman’s sobering analysis, here are a few of her concluding thoughts:

This is what you call a Potemkin Congress. We have a Potemkin president, a Potemkin Congress, and a partially Potemkin Supreme Court. And it’s leading to an entirely Potemkin government and a partially Potemkin people.

***

Joe Biden is a symbol of the entire federal government: Its dangerous incompetence, corruption, and utter disrespect for the American people and the rule of law.

Her piece is entitled “It’s Not Just Joe Biden. The United States Has A Potemkin Government” and can be accessed here.

Another instance of this dangerous incompetence was discussed by Karol Markowicz in the New York Post, entitled “Biden’s decline is obvious to everyone but the press”, here. Discussing the dreadful Easter Bunny incident, she said:

On Easter Monday, a reporter at the White House asked Biden about Afghanistan. As he started answering the question, a staffer in an Easter bunny costume appeared, waving her arms in front of Biden’s face and ushering him along to a different part of the event.

It’s funny, sure, but it’s also kind of scary. Who is really running the show at the White House? The president often makes comments about what he’s “allowed” to say, how many press questions he’s permitted to take and which specific reporters he can call on. Who is making these decisions? Is Joe Biden the president or not?

As to that last question, I’m sure we all have our own answers as well as ideas about who is really running the show. So, for what it’s worth (as we said long ago in New Orleans, this and a quarter will get you a ride on the St. Charles streetcar, but with inflation it’s now up to $1.50!) my gut feeling is that Obama continues as the actual President, with the assistance of those two execrable Marxists from his former administration, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett.

It seems, from all of this evidence, that we are in something of a trap as we are faced with a group of people arguably even more incompetent than Biden, if that is even possible, waiting in the wings in the line of succession: Harris, Pelosi, Leahy. It is no exaggeration to say that we desperately need that “national intervention” Steven Hayward referenced above.

Oh, as Columbo would so cleverly put it on that superb show, by the way, just one more little thing before I go — if all of this is not enough, we are now, under any reasonable definition of that term, at war with Russia, the owner of the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Karl Denninger, in his blog The Market Ticker, makes this point with some very compelling evidence in a piece entitled “We Are Now At War With Russia”, here. A few of his thoughts, troubling, nightmarish and terrifying to say the least:

Good God, I hope everyone in Congress recognizes what this bill, which apparently has now passed and Biden will sign it (seeing as he asked for it directly), means.

Let's recap. Per our Constitution the military is under civilian control. That is, the actions of the military, including weapons used by same or suitable for same, are under the control of Congress and The Executive.

Congress must authorize anything that leads to expense, and such must come from The House. Again, this is basic Constitution stuff.

Now Congress has explicitly authorized, and Biden will sign, this bill that specifically permits the transfer to Ukraine of basically anything other than nuclear material. Seriously folks -- that's the only real exception found in the referenced definition.

By agreeing to provide direct weaponry that can be and will be used in the waging of war by one of the two parties to same we have entered the conflict.

***

We are now a belligerent in this conflict having crossed the line when we went from providing food, medical assistance and similar to military goods and the definition in this act does not draw a distinction, not that there really is one that is internationally recognized in the first place, between offensive and defensive arms.

There was some dispute whether we have already done that, of course -- particularly as regards whether we were the enabling intelligence and actionable information that led Ukraine to be able to hit certain things thus far.  But up until now there was reasonable plausible deniability to our actions.

NOT ANY MORE; this is not implicit or hidden at all, it is IN YOUR FACE, public, and with no apologies or weasel-words.

Again folks: As of this point in time we are now a belligerent in the Ukraine-Russian conflict.

This sounds very, very persuasive to me and I fear, more than I can adequately express in words, that the Butcher of the Kremlin will also see our insane actions for what they are: an entirely unlawful, unconstitutional, irresponsible declaration of war against his Nation’s sovereignty. The day he does realize this, at a time and hour in which he decides to strike back at this new belligerent, we should all understand that all hell — in the most vivid possible embodiment of that phrase — possibly (probably?) is going to break out.

Call me Gloomy Gus if you will, but I would so welcome any ideas, arguments, analyses, thoughts, etc., which will put a lighter and brighter gloss on these observations. I have never in my life so wanted to be wrong about something.

God Bless America!