Tuesday, January 10, 2017


     While Islamic terrorism rages violently at home and abroad, the two most prominent pseudo-Republicans in the U.S. Senate are busy directing their sputtering wrath against a fellow target of such terrorism:  the Russian Republic.

     Senators John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) have joined embittered Democrat allies in cultivating the canard that purported Russian "hacking" of various Democratic-operated computer systems somehow tilted the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump -- and thus undermined U.S. democracy. 

     It is hard to say whether McCain and Graham are having more fun recklessly attacking Russia or rashly seeking to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's 304-227 electoral vote presidency before it begins.  Both of them are horribly failed presidential candidates: McCain having surrendered almost without a struggle in the general election against Obama in 2008, and Graham having experienced defeat of ignominious proportions in his disastrous campaign in the 2016 GOP primaries.  It would be unfair, however, to suggest that their apparent determination to undermine Mr. Trump's incipient presidency by playing the Russia Card is motivated in any way by political jealousy and resentment.  Unfair, but not necessarily wrong.

     Whatever the motivation, these embittered cranks have indulged in Russophobic rants the likes of which have not been seen since the Red Hysteria at the height of the Cold War.

Unlike Russia's world champion lady figure skater, angry senators do not make a pretty picture to post on Splashing Rocks.  Courtesy YouTube.                   

     At recent senate hearings, for example, McCain inveighed that "every American should be alarmed" by Russia's purported meddling in the presidential election and that Russia's activities constituted "an unprecedented attack on our democracy."

     But SR is not at all "alarmed" by the fact that Russia engages in cyber-aided intelligence activities in the U.S., just as the U.S. and its allies do the same, and more, in other countries. 

     Here, for instance, is a quote from the same Washington Post that purports to be so "alarmed" by Russia's reputed cyber-spying on the feebly protected Democratic-operated computer systems during the past election period:  "U.S. intelligence services carried out 231 offensive cyber-operations in 2011, the leading edge of a clandestine campaign that embraces the Internet as a theater of spying, sabotage and war, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Washington Post."  (WP, Aug. 30, 2013). The story went on to state that Russia was among the "top priority targets" of these "offensive cyberoptions [that] can be an important element in deterring certain adversaries.”

     If the U.S. has been aggressively engaging in such widespread offensive Cyber-operations against Russia and other countries, it is hardly "alarming" or "unprecedented" that Russia engages in similar operations here.  Indeed, as documented elsewhere, Democrats in the past have sought the then Soviet Union's help in their futile campaigns against Ronald Reagan.

     Yet the enraged Sen. McCain has gone so far as to charge that Russia's purported cyber activities constituted "an act of war," with the logical implication that a proportional bellicose response would be demanded.  What particular responsive "act of war" McCain recommends is not clear. 

     In any case, it ill behooves John McCain to rage against Russia's purported distortion of a U.S. presidential election outcome when McCain's own preemptive unilateral disengagement effectively conceded the 2008 presidential election to the divisive anti-constitutional candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. 

     As a prime example, McCain perversely refused to raise, let alone press, the critically relevant issue of Obama's contemptible affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, the rabidly afro-racist preacher who was Obama's spiritual guru.  In effect, McCain deprived millions of ingenuous American voters of information that would have been crucial to an informed, moral, and intelligent vote.  McCain again diverted voters from the truth when he sought to suppress a campaign audience's entirely justifiable concerns about Obama's fitness for the presidency with this incredibly feckless campaign statement:  “But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.”  That was false; as events have proven, voters had every reason to fear the divisive, anti-constitutional Obama presidency.  In short, McCain was withholding truthful information about the dangerous, radical leftist candidate he was supposedly opposing.

     In contrast, the supposedly subversive actions attributed to Russia (and WikiLeaks) during the 2016 campaign, if true, actually enhanced the voters' knowledge of the Democratic candidate and her party.

     Although McCain's Russophobic fulminations are disturbing enough, his sidekick, Sen. Graham, has gone to even greater extremes in his anti-Russian rants -- to the point of impugning the political integrity and patriotism of any Republican who disagrees with him on the issue, while leveling ever more bellicose charges against Russia.

     In a recent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," for example, Graham engaged in the following diatribe aimed at supporters of the President-elect: “To my Republican friends who are gleeful, you’re making a huge mistake. . . . Most Republicans are condemning what Russia did and to those who are gleeful it [sic]you’re a political hack. You’re not a Republican and you’re not a patriot.” He then continued his insulting rant by aligning himself squarely with the Democrat position on this issue ("When one party is compromised all of us are compromised," which is literally false) and calling for "bipartisan" anti-Russian sanctions -- all of which falls squarely in line with the Democrat objective of elevating the importance of the Russian activities with a view to delegitimizing Trump's victory, and his presidency.

     But Graham lurched even further into geopolitical lunacy with his incendiary remarks at a hearing held to showcase the angry duo's determination to engage in brinksmanship which neither of them will have to back up with action.  Flaunting his willingness to go far beyond Obama's diplomatic expulsion measures against Russia for the alleged hacking, Graham stated (emphasis added):

          "So, ladies and gentlemen, it is time now not to throw pebbles, but to throw rocks. I wish we were not here. If it were up to me, we would all live in peace, but Putin is up to no good, and he needs to be stopped."
     Graham did not specify what he meant by "throwing rocks," but his plain implication was that we could no longer "live in peace" with Russia because Putin "needs to be stopped."

     These are extreme and needlessly bellicose statements, out of all proportion to the purported Russian activities to which they are directed.  Fortunately, both President-elect Trump and President Putin are more rational and level-headed than Sen. Graham, and neither is likely accept his invitation to a new round of escalation and brinksmanship reminiscent of the Cold War.
     Nonetheless, it is worth considering the reckless and utterly imprudent nature of Graham's impetuous rant.

     Someone should remind Graham that a genuine conflict with Russia would not be conducted by "throwing rocks."  Although Russia's conventional forces are inferior to ours, Russia's nuclear capacity is reportedly at almost exact parity with the U.S. in terms of nuclear weapons deployed on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles:  each country is believed to have about 1,640, although the details are obviously classified.  In other words, Russia remains an extremely dangerous global nuclear power, not to mention a formidable conventional arms power as well in the European theater.

     Given these realities, why would any responsible U.S. leader wish to cultivate hostile and confrontational relations with Russia except under the most severe provocation?  Although the purported Russian "hacking" of computer information carelessly maintained by various Democratic entities and persons would be objectionable, and would warrant appropriately measured response, it is far from the menacing "act of war" so glibly invoked by McCain and Graham.  As asserted in the above-quoted Washington Post report, U.S. intelligence services have likewise pursued "a clandestine campaign that embraces the Internet as a theater of spying, sabotage and war."  Under these circumstances, it seems hardly prudent for the U.S. to suddenly treat the inherently devious and subversive acts of espionage, cyber intelligence, and propaganda engaged in by the U.S. and other nations as incendiary acts of war.

     Instead, it would probably be best if everyone took a deep breath and recognized the distinction between the Marxist-Leninist, atheistic, and world revolutionary Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; versus the emphatically Christian, heavily privatized, profit-loving and capitalistic, and Slavic-oriented Russian Republic.  Russia and President Putin have more interest in propping up their economy, suppressing Chechnyan and other Islamic terrorism, and securing their interests along their western border than in any kind of direct confrontation with the United States.  Not to mention maintaining the most graceful and talented array of lady figure skaters in the civilized world.

     In short, there are apt to be more areas of contained competition -- and even mutual interest -- between the U.S. and Russia than areas of irreducible conflict.

     President-elect Trump is prudent and reasonable in stating that it is foolish to denigrate and undermine good relations with Russia, as Senators McCain and Graham seem determined to do.  The U.S. faces more than enough imminent threats on its own borders and in the realm of global Islamic terrorism for it to seek confrontation and brinkmanship with Russia.


Friday, January 6, 2017


            Splashing Rocks has repeatedly exposed the mainstream media's persistent and perverse suppression of news and information revealing the widespread instances of black-on-white crime.  See here and here and here.  http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/07/obama-media-and-humpty-dumpty-method-of.html.  But this week in Chicago, four vicious black miscreants descended to a level of depravity that stands out even in the infuriating annals of afro-racist crime that has plagued the nation throughout the Obama years.

    We will not rehash the disgusting details of the self-recorded Chicago atrocity.  Suffice to say, it entailed prolonged subjugation of a mentally disabled young man (18 years old) to the most painful and humiliating abuse, accompanied by anti-white and anti-Trump insults and taunting.

            Had it been left to the likes of NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and their ilk, this grotesque episode of afro-racist hate crime would have been relegated to the dead-letter file which is the destination of hundreds of similar stories.  But we fortunately live in a time when those fraudulent media outlets – now known scornfully as the MSM – are no longer able to suppress news and information they deem politically disadvantageous to their leftist/Democratic cause.

     Hundreds of conservative on-line websites, blogs, and aggregators instantly picked up the deeply disturbing video of the crime that the Chicago perps, incredibly, were stupid enough to publish live on Facebook.  Indeed, the mind-boggling stupidity of these fools in publishing this video falls so far beyond the bounds of even minimal rationality as to defy belief.  One explanation might be that these deranged juveniles act on the basis of atavistic instinct rather than rational assessment.  In any case, it is very difficult to maintain a lawful and civilized society when such crass barbarism is as widespread as it is in Chicago and similar feral cities.
            But even after the full horror of this egregious hate crime had been exposed, MSM outlets like MSNBC and CNN were brazenly attempting to downplay and extenuate the episode.  For some reason – we can guess the answer – MSNBC and CNN rely almost entirely upon black commentators and panelists to respond predictably to race-tinged news stories like this one. 

            Drunk or Sober, Don Lemon is a disgrace to journalism -- and to decency

     CNN's "blackwashing" of the incident was particularly egregious and offensive.  In a black-dominated panel moderated by black anchorman Don Lemon, a black apologist named Symone Sanders (described as a "Democratic strategist") absurdly challenged the obvious conclusion that this self-documented orgy of anti-white torment was a hate crime.  With mind-numbing hypocrisy and audacity, Sanders scolded, " we cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”  The only "callousness" involved, of course, is Sanders so glibly contending that this patently obvious hate crime could be considered as anything less.
     But Sanders' outrageous extenuation of the Chicago outrage was soon exceeded by Don Lemon himself.  Adopting the standard leftist line that malicious crime should be considered as merely misguided youthful misbehavior when perpetrated by black juveniles, Lemon flatly stated, "I don't think it was evil."  To leave no doubt as to his moral incoherence, Lemon then repeated the same statement for emphasis, adding that it was merely a case of "young people" with "bad home training."  And on this occasion – unlike his boorish intoxication televised nationally on New Year's Eve – Lemon does not even have the excuse of being drunk out of his mind on shots of tequila.

            Lemon is so blinded by his afro-racist prejudices that he not only got his reasoning wrong, but his facts as well.  One of the depraved "Chicago Four" is a 24-year-old mother of two, and the other three are 18 – old enough to vote, make legal decisions, and serve in the armed forces.  And old enough to sink to depths of depravity that would never even occur to a genuinely youthful person. 
            There should be no doubt here:  Don Lemon's depraved and repeated insistence that this vile hate crime was not "evil" confirms beyond any dispute that he is unfit to serve as a television journalist, let alone as the anchor of a nationally broadcast news show.  Any network with a modicum of dignity and responsibility would fire him forthwith. -- even apart from his nationally broadcast tequila bender. But Lemon's blackness itself shields him from the accountability that should mandate his ignominious dismissal.

      Thankfully, the relentless reporting of the conservative on-line media made it impossible for the confused and disjointed Chicago Law enforcement authorities to minimize the revolting racist crimes that appalled all decent Americans.  Initially, clueless Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson sought to minimize the severity of the outrage with a series of inane extenuations.  “If you look at that video… it’s just stupidity,” Johnson bleated.  Not content with stupidity on a global scale, he then entered the rare realm of cosmic imbecility, when he croaked, “Kids make stupid decisions — I shouldn’t call them kids, they’re legally adults. But they’re young adults and they make stupid decisions."  Just like Chicago police superintendents make stupid statements.

     With a delusional blockhead like Johnson in charge of its police, it is small wonder that Chicago has a record-setting murder rate that dwarfs that of even urban war zones like Baltimore, Atlanta, New York, and Philadelphia.

     Fortunately, somewhere in the dark recesses of Chicago government there are some prosecutors and other officials with a modicum of sanity and sense of responsibility to the city's embattled populace.  As this blog is posted, each of the Chicago Four has been charged with hate crimes, felony aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.  Three of these lawless thugs also face charges of burglary, while one has been charged with possession of a stolen car.  And a sensible Chicago judge has ordered them all held without bail.

      It is excellent that the Chicago enforcement authorities appear to be prosecuting these barbarians with the full force of the criminal statutes.  But a crucial fact should not be forgotten:  Had it been up to the mainstream media, this disgraceful episode would likely have been relegated to a forgotten footnote, and the Chicago Four would have avoided the forceful prosecution that they now face.  Thanks to the glare of publicity engendered by conservative on-line truth-tellers, however, the Chicago authorities could not avoid the overwhelming evidence of an appalling racial hate crime that could not be blackwashed.

     Addendum.  Just when you thought that the MSM could not sink any lower in its malicious, anti-white misrepresentation of inter-racial crime in America, this happens:  A vile CBS radio outlet distorted its description of the above afro-racist hate crime in such a way as to indicate that it was an attack on a black victim perpetrated by white Trump supporters -- the complete opposite of what occurred.  The insidious leftist media continue to follow the legacy of  Joseph Goebbels, namely, that the Big Lie is the most effective way to distort reality in favor of the liar's viewpoint.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016


     At year's end, Splashing Rocks finds itself appalled by so many episodes of moral and mental vacuity at home and abroad that settling upon a single dismal subject for vilification simply won't do.  So, departing from our usual penetrating in-depth essay format, we resort to a more cursory exposition of a variety of disturbing developments that plague us as we look forward to better times under a new administration -- and, perhaps, a new era of sense and sanity.

     Merkel Madness in Germany.  Earlier this year, SR called attention to the three brave female leaders -- the Le Pen's of France and Frauke Petry of Germany -- who offered the prospect of some desperately needed backbone in standing up to the de facto Islamic invasion of Europe.  The urgent need for the steely measures proposed by these intrepid ladies and their nationalist parties was  underscored this week by the preventable terrorist murder of at least twelve Germans by a Muslim asylum-seeker in Berlin.  The Tunisian "refugee" who drove a hijacked truck into an open-air Christmas market had already been identified as a serious terrorist threat by the so-called authorities of Angela Merkel's government.  Yet they  inexplicably let him roam Germany at will until he executed the slaughter that his arrest would have prevented. 

     The Berlin killer, one Anis Amri, easily evaded Merkel's feckless minions inside Germany.  Then, courtesy of the EU's crass open border policy, Amri effortlessly crossed into France and Italy before a plucky rookie Italian policeman fatally shot him in Milan.  Meanwhile, the poltroons of Merkel's bootless security agencies are doubtless misdirecting their confused attentions upon the righteous wrath of German citizens against the Islamic invasion within, instead of upon "refugee" terrorists like Amri. 

  Frauke Petry and the AfD: "Coming ashore" to Germany's rescue?

     Waiting in the wings, however, Frauke Petry's Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party rightly condemns the Merkel government for inviting Islamic terrorism into Germany under the cover of the million Muslim refugees whom Merkel ordered Germans to embrace.  A more deadly embrace would be hard to imagine.  If lethargic Germans continue to reject the AfD's urgent warnings and again ratify Merkel's failed policies of abject appeasement -- Germany's federal elections are to be held next fall -- they can only expect a future of ever more deadly Islamicist incursion. Like Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, Ms. Petry and the AfD, in alliance with like-minded patriotic elements, may be Germany's only hope against the forces of the dark side.

     Russia, WikiLeaks and an Alternative FOIA.  Democrats and the deranged left -- but I repeat myself -- have outdone McCarthy era Republican Red-baiters in their odd obsession with the "Russian Menace" in the wake of their election humiliation at the hands of Donald Trump.  They are blaming their defeat upon purported Russian hacking of Democrat- and government-related computer targets -- like the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton's notorious "secret server," and Clinton operative John Podesta -- and the damaging release of hacked e-mails by Julian Assange's shadowy WikiLeaks organization.  Assange flatly denies that Russia was Wiki's source, but the political and media left persist in their foam-flecked rant that "the Russians" insidiously and successfully subverted the U.S. elections in favor of Mr. Trump. Much can be said to refute this contrived nonsense, but space limits us to these main points:

        1.  Even if Russia acted as alleged, its supposedly aberrational intrusion into U.S. affairs was little more than business-as-usual in the cut-throat realm of international intelligence and cyber- and propaganda warfare. In the shadowy world of global espionage as practiced by the likes of the CIA and the KGB, it was about as "shocking" as the gambling in Rick's Bar in Casablanca. 


    Democrats and their media are "shocked" that spies are spying

        2.  Indeed, it ill behooves the Obama administration to over-react to alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics when Obama's agents have engaged in similar intrusions into Russia's internal affairs -- and this is only what we know of.  Some readers will recall the obnoxious Russian performance artists called Pussy Riot, who engaged in a grossly sacrilegious performance in a Russian Orthodox Cathedral to mock President Putin.  After the group was justly convicted and sentenced (a lenient 2 years imprisonment) for their outrageous desecration, the Obama White House sought to exploit the episode and embarrass Putin politically by falsely accusing the Russians of human rights violations and "disproportionate" sentencing.  Further, Obama's leftist UN Ambassador, the insufferable Samantha Power, subsequently conspired with Pussy Riot members to amplify U.S. support of the group's campaign to undermine Putin.  In other words, any Russian hacking of U.S. political groups could just as likely have been retaliation for U.S. interference in Russian domestic affairs rather than some kind of absurdly Quixotic attempt to manipulate a U.S. election.

        3.  Far from subverting the U.S. election, if Russia and WikiLeaks caused the disclosures attributed to them they would deserve a degree of credit for facilitating the free flow of information that Clinton and the Democrats sought to suppress.  It should not be forgotten that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's secret computer server was designed to insulate her e-mails and other communications from State Department records that would have been subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  If Russia in fact facilitated public disclosure of material information that Clinton and her political minions were seeking to suppress, they were supporting the free flow of information that Clinton and her allies were seeking to block.  In short, Russia and WikiLeaks were providing an unofficial shadow FOIA while Clinton and the Democrats were subverting the actual FOIA.

     The Depressing Venality of Christian McCaffrey's Sun Bowl Cop-Out.  Though sports may seem trivial measured against global issues of war and peace, the impacts of Big Time Sports in America cannot be so lightly dismissed.  SR has previously noted that the artificial significance of professional and major college sports has supplanted religion as the "opiate of the people," providing a dysfunctional distraction from the genuinely important issues of personal and public life.  A recent episode involving an admirable college football star aptly illustrates the profoundly corrupting effect of our grossly inflated and mercenary sports culture upon American society and values.

     Stanford running back Christian McCaffrey was the subject of an earlier piece on this blog noting his unusual achievements in a position almost exclusively dominated by swift black athletes (McCaffrey is white, fast, and the scion of an especially gifted athletic family).  His performance in 2015 was so outstanding that he was runner-up for the Heisman Trophy and honored as the AP's college football player of the year.  Although his and Stanford's performance dropped off a bit in 2016 (he was briefly sidelined with injury earlier in the year), McCaffrey has nonetheless again drawn extensive national attention, but for different and disturbing reasons.  He announced that he would not play with his teammates in their Sun Bowl matchup with the North Carolina Tar Heels.on December 30.

     McCaffrey's abrupt abandonment of his team before their bowl game was not due to injury (he is fully recovered from his earlier mishap), a death or illness in the family, or some other extenuating personal crisis.  Instead, his sole justification was that he wanted to "begin my draft prep immediately."  He was referring to the draft of the corrupt and politicized National Football League (not the U.S. Army) which takes place on April 27-29 of 2017 -- four months after the Sun Bowl game.
UNC Quarterback Mitch Trubisky won't leave teammates in lurch for NFL "draft prep"  
     But McCaffrey has been in sufficiently good playing shape to excel at the highest levels of NCAA football for the past several months.  So there is no apparent reason why he could not delay whatever "prep" he needs until after one final game with the teammates whose support enabled him to become a star in the first place

     The grotesque player cattle show known as the NFL Combine does not take place until early March, so McCaffrey would also have ample time to "prep" for that after the Sun Bowl.  Any advantage he would gain in that regard by skipping the bowl game would be minimal at best.  McCaffrey's claim that he needs to skip the Sun Bowl to prepare for the draft is patently bogus.

     Another justification widely seized upon by McCaffrey's defenders is that even the slight risk of a career-threatening injury is not worth participation in what they describe as a "meaningless bowl game." Reduced to its essence, this reasoning would militate against participation in almost all college football games by serious pro prospects like McCaffrey.  Playing in his last regular season game against California posed just as much injury risk as playing in the Sun Bowl, and no conference or national championships were at stake in that game.  In effect, McCaffrey's defenders would relegate all the historic bowl games that were not part of a national championship playoff to the category of "meaningless exhibition games" that are simply not worth playing in the case of serious NFL prospects like McCaffrey.

    But North Carolina's star quarterback, Mitch Trubisky, apparently failed to read the memo absolving top NFL prospects of any obligation to join their college teammates in playing a final bowl game.  Trubisky's NFL prospects are even greater than McCaffrey's, as he is rated the No. 1 quarterback prospect in the next NFL draft.  Yet Trubisky apparently does not regard the slight risk of injury, or the need for a few more weeks "prep" for the draft, as justification for dropping out of the Sun Bowl.

     This underscores a factor that the NFL-obsessed sports media types either disregard or consider unimportant in their monolithic defense of McCaffrey's cop-out:  There is no strong reason why all college players with NFL prospects should not, by their reasoning, pursue the same course and opt out of any game they consider "meaningless."  Thankfully, there are still players like Mitch Trubisky who have not completely abandoned their team spirit and youthful zest for pure competition to the venal mercenary demands of the NFL juggernaut.

     There was a time when principles of duty, loyalty, esprit de corps, and simple team and college spirit would have rendered the desertion of one's team on the eve of a bowl game unthinkable.  Not so today.  Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of response to McCaffrey's cop-out, especially in the soulless sports media, has been that his decision was a so-called "no brainer" because the avoidance of any risk to his mercenary pro football prospects obviously outweighs the value of joining his teammates in a mere college bowl game.

     The irony in this reasoning is rich indeed.  On the one hand, college football programs like Stanford's are considered so important that their coaches are paid multi-million dollar salaries dwarfing those of university presidents and the most prestigious faculty; colossal stadiums of Caligulan extravagance are erected to stage a mere six or seven games a year; and many universities flaunt their fabled football programs as the chief enticement to attract prospective students.  Yet the same feckless sports commentators who devote hours of fawning coverage to the college games now dismiss them as "meaningless" when weighed against a few privileged players' speculative fears that playing in one final game with their mates could somehow jeopardize their mercenary NFL prospects.  To these venal characters, time-tested virtues of loyalty, honor, and personal sacrifice for a team or a school are laughably obsolete when balanced against the inflated wealth and celebrity of an NFL career.
     The NFL has become a grossly inflated economic and social monster that has now been further corrupted by afro-racist politics, as evidenced by the Colin Kaepernick anti-anthem protest and the grotesque spectacle of players scornfully flaunting black power salutes as they race onto the field.  Despite this blatant mockery, millions of feckless white fans persist in spending thousands of dollars on tickets for the "privilege" of cheering the very afro-racist athletes who are thumbing their nose at them. 

     That a seemingly well-grounded and well-educated Stanford stalwart like Christian McCaffrey is willing to abandon his teammates, his university, and the most basic principles of loyalty to embrace the deeply corrupted NFL is a sad commentary on the inverted and venal values of our age.


Friday, December 9, 2016


     The Maine University basketball team recently ventured into Duke University's intimidating Cameron Indoor Stadium to play Duke's powerful Blue Devils.  Predictably, Maine was demolished, 94-55, even though Duke played without several of its best players.

     Although losing badly to Duke on its home court is no disgrace, Maine's performance was nonetheless disgraceful and disturbing for reasons having nothing to do with the rout it suffered on the court.

     The entire Maine squad wore "rainbow-themed" warm-up jerseys in ostentatious and provocative solidarity with the most extreme elements of the LGBT/transgender movement.  It appears that the obnoxious politicization currently infecting the NFL and the NBA is spreading inexorably to other athletic forums.

     The purpose of Maine's gay jersey display was to protest a law (designated as HB 2) passed by the North Carolina legislature in order to, inter alia, protect innocent girls from sharing their bathrooms and showers with nasty, leering men claiming to "identify" as women. 

     Maine's players failed miserably in putting up a respectable showing against Duke on the court, but they sure showed the world they could stand tall on the side of brawny transexuals in their quest to violate the modesty and privacy of girls who -- quelle horreur! -- want to be left alone with other girls in their restrooms and showers.

      Transgender activist lays down the party line for submissive Maine players

     HB 2 applies to government and public university facilities in the State of North Carolina, and has no application to either Duke (a private university) or to Maine, its university, or any of its players.  In short, HB 2 is none of Maine's or Duke's business, let alone the business of their highly privileged 19-21 year-old scholarship athletes.  Who, by the way, enjoy the most comfortable, privileged, and private locker rooms and showers.

     HB 2 was enacted to prevent local governments in North Carolina from passing radical legislation that gives privileged treatment to homosexuals and transgendered persons beyond what is provided by the state's ample antidiscrimination laws.  In particular, it prevents local governments from adopting laws that would entitle burly biological males, for example, from using girls restrooms as long as they purport to "identify" as females. 

     Under the lunatic LGBT doctrine that the Democratic left seeks to impose on society, any brawny male who "identifies" as female can demand to be treated as such and to use female restroom and shower facilities.  You know, the places where it was once safe for nubile young females to undress free from the leering eyes of any biological male who claims to be a female in spirit.  But under the prevailing coercion of the LGBT juggernaut, a modest female's claim to privacy must yield to the obnoxious demands of the transgender intruders.  That is precisely the kind of grotesque legal and social absurdity that HB 2 is intended to combat.

     But a twisted collectivist mentality has so deeply infected American society that something as basic and straightforward as maintaining separate restrooms and showers for females and males is now considered contemptible.  Overnight, the social justice fanatics of the LGBT movement have managed to upend millennia of civilized social norms with barely a whimper of resistance from the society at large.  The U.S. has indeed become a Nation of Sheep.

     Ironically, nowhere has the surrender to the demands of the LGBT totalitarians been more abject than in the fields of collegiate and professional athletics -- a cohort where one would expect to find rugged and manly characters who are not readily intimidated by the LGBT radicals.  But, sadly, that expectation would be wrong.  Where is Chuck Bednarik when we need him?

     After mediocre defensive end Michael Sam became the first openly homosexual player drafted by the NFL, the media swooned in raptures of slobbering celebration.  Many news outlets eagerly  flaunted shock-value photos of Sam kissing his reputed boyfriend in celebration (all celebration turned out to be premature, however, since Sam failed to make the cut as an actual NFL player). 

     When a red-blooded Miami Dolphins defensive back named Don Jones expressed revulsion at these provocative pictures  -- he responded by merely tweeting "OMG" and "Horrible" -- the Dolphins' management promptly pounced on him like Soviet commissars punishing a deviant cadre in a Stalinist purge.  Jones was instantly fined; banned from team activities until he had completed "sensitivity training;" and forced to publicly apologize. 

     The similarity to the methods used to enforce political correctness in the former Soviet Union and in Maoist China could hardly be plainer.  Jones was forced to engage in the same kind of "self-criticism" that has long been a staple of ideological brainwashing in totalitarian societies. 

     Jones is black.  Had be been punished in this way for insulting, say, a police officer instead of the LGBT monolith, the media would have indignantly arisen in his defense and reflexively raised the specter of racism.  Instead, they reflexively raised the phony specter of homophobia and pounced in unison on the hapless Mr. Jones.

     And Jones is hardly the only pro athlete who has been forced to kowtow to the relentlessly pro-LGBT agenda of the NFL and the NBA.  Just ask NBA players Kobe Bryant, Roy Hibbert, Joakim Noah, and Rajon Rondo, each of whom was forced to apologize in Soviet-style self-criticism for uttering so-called "gay slurs." Bryant was even fined a cool $100,000 for his casual offense against the pro-gay juggernaut.  In short, when the NFL and the NBA are not cravenly approving their players' provocative afro-racist demonstrations on the field, they are harshly penalizing any players' deviation from their pro-LGBT collectivism.

     Which brings us back to the hapless members of the rainbow-clad Maine basketball squad.  Where, one wonders, did these young men come up with the improbable idea to drape themselves in LGBT/rainbow t-shirts to protest a distant state's efforts to preserve the sexual privacy of restrooms and showers?  Is that what strapping young athletes discuss when they sit around the locker room or the dining hall?  Did they choose this course of action themselves, or were they chosen?

     SR has examined Maine's team roster and found it consists of a more diverse international collection than the typical Division 1 basketball squad -- several Serbs, a Turk from Istanbul, blacks from Louisville, KY, Brooklyn, and Bethlehem, Pa., and a predictable number from Maine itself.  One thing is certain, however:  In such a diverse collection of presumably normal young male athletes, there were undoubtedly some who would not be troubled at all by the notion that restrooms and showers should be restricted to persons of the same biological sex.  Like the ones who have little sisters, or nice girlfriends.

     Although one Maine player was quoted in express support of the rainbow-shirt protest, it is by no means clear, and probably doubtful, that members of the team voluntarily and unanimously actively favored this presumptuous demonstration.

     On the contrary, it appears that the Maine demonstration was orchestrated and subtly coerced by a combination of the LGBT activist "You Can Play" organization, the American East Conference, and Maine's administration and/or head coach.  As shown by the above photo, someone in the university hierarchy evidently shepherded the team into a conference room for a televised brainwashing session on HB 2 and other LGBT/transgender issues by a formerly female transgender activist named Chris Mosier.  Given these overwhelming institutional pressures, and the atmosphere of conformity to the most radical LGBT doctrines prevailing at most U.S. colleges, it is sadly unsurprising that none of the Maine players openly objected to the anti-HB 2 demonstration.

     If multi-millionaire superstars like Kobe Bryant cannot stand up against the overbearing LGBT enterprise, I suppose we cannot expect anonymous hoopsters at a mid-level college program to do so.  In any case, that is how low our expectations of principled individuality have descended.

     The sad fact is that a perverse collective conformity on issues concerning homosexual privilege, so-called same-sex marriage, and, most recently, transgender entitlement has taken hold in American society at large.  The organized sports world is merely a prominent and visible manifestation of this demoralizing tendency.  The values and standards of successive legions of parents, grandparents, and ancestors, grounded in nature, religion, and social order, have been upended and eviscerated with startling rapidity. 

     In this way, the unquestioned inviolability of women-only restrooms, showers, and dressing rooms has been demolished overnight in society's craven rush to codify a norm -- the "right" to self-select one's sexual identity and force others to accept it -- that barely a decade ago would have been considered utterly laughable. 

     By merely attempting to preserve a protective social norm long ingrained in civilized societies, North Carolina finds itself boycotted and vilified by the NBA (All-Star Game moved), the NCAA (championship events relocated), and even State governments (New York's obnoxious Gov. Cuomo, e.g., has banned non-essential state travel to NC for this absurd reason). 

     Eager to join in this orgy of collectivist insanity, Duke's spineless and unspellable Coach K-shefski (misspelled on purpose, since spelling this jerk's annoying name correctly isn't worth the trouble) has declared from his profound knowledge of the law that HB 2 is "embarrassing." 

     What is really embarrassing is when an overpaid custodian of over-privileged and pampered athletes, like those athletes themselves, presumes to impose his ill-informed snap judgments on others.  It is just possible that North Carolina's elected legislators have a better grasp on the legitimate social standards of their states' people than privileged athletes, ill-informed coaches, or the radical social activists who lead them by the nose.

     Although contemporary New England may breed docile conformists like those of the Maine basketball program, it once produced rugged individualists like Henry Thoreau.  The sports community and the society at large are both in dire need of a jolt from some latter-day rebels like Thoreau who "march to the beat of a different drummer" and are ready to scorn the demands of the LGBT juggernaut and other totalitarians of the left.

Saturday, October 29, 2016


     Anyone familiar with 20th century Chinese history knows about the notorious "Gang of Four," the insidious cabal who made bad things even worse during the last years of Mao Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in the mid-1970's.  Led by Mao's wife, Jiang Qing, these political miscreants stood out even among the rampant villainy of that dark era in China. 

     Jiang Qing, more easily referred to as Madame Mao, was a former actress who joined up with Mao and first established her Maoist credentials during the dark years in the Caves of Yenan in the mid-1930's.

     When Mao later unleashed the madness of the Cultural Revolution, Madame Mao and her three powerful collaborators -- Wang Hongwen, Yao Wenyuan, and Zhang Chunqiao -- played a key role in fomenting and sustaining the extremism of the Red Guard cadres who roamed and ransacked the nation at will. The substantial power they wielded toward the end of the GPCR (it pretty much had lost its steam at the time of Mao's death in 1976) was derived primarily from their ability to manipulate the mass media, the arts, and the education system.


 Madame Mao and her Gang of 4 could set a creepy precedent

     Madame Mao was the undisputed head of the Gang.  With her background in the arts and as Head of the Film Section of the CCP's Propaganda Department, and as a member of the Politburo, she was especially well positioned and equipped to mold and manipulate the turbulent political currents of the times. 

     More importantly, as the Wife of Chairman Mao himself, Jiang could wield the derivative prestige of the First Lady of the People's Republic of China.  She and her fellow Gang members used that prestige to incite and direct some of the worst excesses of the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards.
     Suffice to say, any country that falls into the clutches of something resembling the Cultural Revolution's Gang of Four is in for grim times indeed.  When a political clique grounded on nepotism, manipulation and control of the media and political culture, and the blind support of millions of rampaging young thugs establishes paramount political power, national disaster is apt to follow.

     However dismal America's current political condition, it obviously differs in kind and severity from the murderous madness that prevailed in China during the GPCR.  Nonetheless, there are certain ominous parallels that could find America facing the nightmare of a 21st Century Dynastic Gang of Four in the event Hillary Clinton, a latter-day Madame Mao, seizes power in the upcoming presidential election. 

     Perhaps the most ominous parallel is a leftist First Lady exploiting that position to achieve paramount political power to be shared only with a nepotistic clique of like-minded authoritarians.  Additionally, the prospective American clique suggested below would be able to exercise influence and control over a captive media and culture comparable to that wielded by Madame Mao and her nefarious clique.


     Could a new and nightmarish Gang of 4 be in store here?

     This ghastly prospect first occurred to SR upon noting the appalling spectacle of Mrs. Clinton and the insufferable Michelle Obama appearing together at a recent campaign rally.  The shamelessly hypocritical fawning of these nasty left-wing viragoes reached its nadir when Mrs. Obama condescendingly endorsed the former Secretary of State and First Lady as "my girl."

     The alert observer will understandably wonder exactly what Mrs. Obama meant when she possessively described Clinton as "my girl."  Did she mean that Mrs. Clinton, once a political rival of the Obamas, was now safely in the fold and would effectively extend the policies of the Obama administration?  Or that she and Clinton had forged an alliance as political BFF's?  Or that "my girl" Hillary was in the Obamas' pocket, like a New York City mayoral candidate would have been in the pocket of Tammany Hall?  What Mrs. Obama meant, if nothing else, was that Hillary needs the Obamas' patronage, and she better not forget it.

     If Mrs. Clinton is elected, we know for certain that husband and Ex-President Bill (who made Hillary's political career just as Mao made Jiang Qing's) will be lurking around the West Wing like a latter day American Regent.  Anyone who knows anything about Bill Clinton  knows he will never "go gently into that good night."  That makes at least a Gang of Two.   

     Then there are the Obamas.  Rarely has America seen a presidential couple (other than the Clintons, of course) that so enthusiastically and shamelessly exploited every perquisite and prerogative of the presidency as these two classless arrivistes.  They will not lightly depart into anything resembling political or cultural obscurity, least of all if the Democrats retain the presidency.

     We now know, after all, that Michelle Obama considers Hillary Clinton "my girl."  And Mrs. Clinton has made it quite clear that she regards Mrs. Obama's enthusiastic support as an especially inspiring element of her otherwise lackluster and listless campaign.  Meanwhile, President Obama has abandoned any pretext of "presidential" distance and dignity -- in sharp contrast from the politically apathetic George W. Bush -- and has campaigned with fierce partisan intensity in support of Mrs. Clinton. 

     In short, Hillary Clinton will be deeply indebted and beholden to both Obamas if she is elected.  And depend upon it, the Obamas will not be shy about "calling in" their political chips.   Both are still relatively young, energetic, and intensely political, and they will retain enormous prestige and influence among the Democratic faithful even if Mrs. Clinton becomes president.  Moreover, Mrs. Clinton will be a deeply compromised and insecure president due to the legal problems that will linger even if she is elected, thus rendering her even more dependent upon the good will and support of the Obamas.

     The Obamas continuing political influence in a putative Clinton presidency would be amplified by their political primacy with the Democratic Party's most critical and cohesive constituency -- the Afro-American community.  One word from the Obamas indicating that a President Hillary has not been sufficiently deferential to black demands -- including the radical, afro-racist demands of the Black Lives Matter movement -- would severely undercut Clinton's prestige and popularity with black Democrats (which means the vast majority of blacks). 

     All these factors indicate that the Obamas will be able to wield enormous influence with a potential Clinton presidency, even if it is an entirely unofficial capacity.  The same goes, only more so, for the restless political animal who would hold the unprecedented dual role of Former President and First Spouse, the politically irrepressible Bill Clinton.

     So consider the prospect and gag upon it:  Hillary Clinton.  Michelle Obama.  Barack Obama.  And Bill Clinton.  All sitting around a table in the West Wing, forging the Nation's policies and prospects.  A Gang of Four from Hell that could be America's worst nightmare.


Wednesday, October 19, 2016


     What could prove to be a disastrous presidential election looms ominously on the November horizon. 

    After eight years of insidious leftist rule by the Obama regime, a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Dark-side Democrats would bring down the curtain on what is left of a once decent and democratic America.  Four, and more likely eight, years of Clintonian rule would impose a pall of leftist totalitarianism that would obliterate the last vestiges of the constitutional republic passed down to us by the brilliant Founding Fathers who are so deeply despised by Obama, Clinton, and their mindless minions.

     Looking ahead, the prospects for averting this calamity are either fairly feasible or illusory, depending upon which prognostications and polls one believes.

     The patently tilted polls flaunted by the establishment media outlets (like CNN, NBC, and CBS) show Clinton with a comfortable lead that seems to leave little prospect of a Trump victory. 

     These polls are a perfect illustration of the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy.  They are skewed to include a disproportionate  share of Democratic respondents, which assures that Clinton will always have a substantial lead.  The aim is to create and reinforce the impression that a Clinton victory is a foregone conclusion, thereby discouraging prospective Trump supporters from contributing to his campaign and, ultimately, from voting. 

     Like Star Trek's insidious Borg Collective -- which it closely resembles, though without the gothic charm  -- the Democrat/Leftist Establishment aims to persuade Republicans that "resistance is futile."

                            Resistance is not always futile

     On the other hand, a different class of polls -- the daily tracking polls run by the LA Times, Rasmussen, PPD, and IBD -- tell a different story.  These polls indicate an evenly divided electorate, with some of them indicating a very slight Trump advantage.  These polls contemplate a neck-and-neck election in which turnout and voter enthusiasm could be decisive.

     In either case, the prospect of the perfidious Hillary Rodham Clinton's election to the presidency is depressingly real and revolting. 

     The 18th century British sage, Dr. Samuel Johnson, famously observed that "when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."  In the same vein, when decent Americans realize that a deeply deranged, dishonest, and vindictive virago may be elected President in a fortnight, it should concentrate their minds wonderfully upon the following harrowing consequences that would follow, and move them to rally and vote in massive support of Trump's election. 

     In brief, Clinton's election would expand and consolidate the leftist totalitarian control of this nation initiated by the Obama regime in at least the following particulars:

  • Clinton's appointment of at least three or four more left-wing justices to the Supreme Court would complete and consolidate the Court's destruction of constitutional government initiated by the current Court.  An ideologically and politically corrupt Supreme Court would be guaranteed for about 25 years.
  • This Clinton Court would abolish capital punishment, consolidate and expand reverse race discrimination in perpetuity, obliterate all remnants of traditional marriage and sexual morality, distort separation of powers doctrine in whichever direction favors the Democrats, and eviscerate what remains of states' rights and constitutional federalism.  The text of the Constitution would have no more force than a fallen and withered leaf in the wind.
  • The Clinton regime would "double-down" on Obama's policy of immunizing criminal violence by black urban vandals and felons by perpetuating and reinforcing the canard that police bias against blacks justifies such riotous violence.  The current epidemic of inner-city lawlessness will seem relatively benign compared to the carnage that awaits under a Clinton regime's pandering to the most radical elements of the Black Lives Matter movement and similar hate groups.
  • Second Amendment rights will be severely undermined, if not nullified altogether.  The Clinton Supreme Court would restore the false doctrine that the right to keep and bear arms pertains only to the "militia," thereby clearing the way for federal and state laws and regulations to criminalize the possession of most firearms.  Clinton's election would thus effectively nullify the citizens' fundamental right to defend themselves.  How justifiably angered armed citizens would react to this is unclear, but it would not be pretty.
  • As has already occurred in Europe and Canada, free speech will be restricted at both the federal and state levels under the guise of prohibiting what is fraudulently labeled as "hate speech."  The expression of personal opposition to media- and government-induced "norms" of sexual license and racial reparations will be ruthlessly suppressed and sanctioned.
  • The evisceration and emasculation of the U.S military begun under the Obama Regime will be consolidated and expanded, leaving a military force devoted more to the indoctrination of its personnel in politically correct attitudes and policies than to training warriors how to ruthlessly destroy the enemy.  The disciplined military machines of China and Russia will miss none of this deterioration and will quickly prepare to exploit their resultant advantage.
  • Worst of all, the U.S. will increasingly assume the status of a dystopian totalitarian state.  Government at both federal and state levels, news and entertainment media, public schools, universities, professional and collegiate sports institutions, medical and hospital services, the legal profession, and even religious organizations and institutions will continue and accelerate their merger into an ideological and cultural leviathan that imposes leftist political values and standards upon the entire society.  We are seeing this even now in the government/media/Democrat monolithic alliance to guarantee Clinton's election by any means necessary.
     This and much more is what is at stake in this election.  Those who purport to oppose these dire national consequences, and yet decline to vote for Mr. Trump because of his admittedly exasperating personal flaws, will have much to answer for if the appallingly corrupt Mrs. Clinton (in alliance with her indisputably degenerate husband) is elected and seizes the reins of power. 

     Even from the standpoint of personal character and decency, Clinton is far and away the more repulsive candidate.  She is a proven national security criminal, willing to compromise sensitive classified information in order to shield her own corrupt communications from public disclosure, while brazenly subverting the Freedom of Information Act.  She and her family have exploited the fa├žade of a "charitable" foundation in order to enrich themselves and advance their personal agendas.  Her sneering and scornful mistreatment of Secret Service protectors and other persons forced to serve her is well-documented, and demonstrates the basic nastiness and pettiness of her termagant personality.  And, in utter disregard for truth or justice, she endorses and exploits the most extreme racial libels leveled against honorable police officers and, indeed, against white Americans in general, in order to appease the radical demands of Black Lives Matter and other afro-racist groups.

     By comparison, Donald Trump's ribald remarks and misbehaviors of decades past shrink into insignificance when measured against the dismal consequences of the policies and programs Clinton would impose on the nation -- let alone against the proven corruption and nastiness of Clinton's character.

     Given all this, rarely have American voters had more reason to "concentrate their minds" upon the prospect they face in the next fortnight or so.  It might not be the gallows, but if decent Americans do not "hang together" and reject a Clinton presidency they may suffer separately under a demoralizing regime of leftist totalitarianism.

Thursday, August 25, 2016


               Most Americans are familiar with Vice President Joseph Biden's tendency to stumble in public with gaffes and misstatements that induce either embarrassment or hilarity, depending upon one's attitude towards the man and his party.  Whether he is insulting Indian-Americans with awkward 7-Eleven jokes, inviting wheelchair-bound people to stand for a bow, blurting obscenities into an open microphone (. . . this is a big f****** deal"), or losing track of what state he is speaking in, Biden continues to provide proof that even a loopy third-rate political hack can reach the heights of power in this confused and ill-informed country.

                 Fortunately, much of Biden's verbal buffoonery is relatively harmless, so that the joke is generally on him rather than on the appalled or amused public.  But one recent example of Biden's verbal and mental ineptitude was far from an innocuous gaffe.  On the contrary, it was a reckless insult of one of America's most important allies and its people.  Moreover, it did not arise from mere geriatric forgetfulness or confusion, but rather from profound historical and legal ignorance, exacerbated by political malice.

                 The pernicious remarks arose from Biden's attempt to mock Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump's observations regarding aspects of U.S. policy towards Japan.  A bit of background is necessary to appreciate the episode in question.

                 Ever since the U.S. occupation of Japan following World War II, the U.S. has effectively guaranteed Japan's national security with the presence of American military forces and bases and with the so-called "nuclear umbrella" that serves as a formidable deterrent against aggression by truculent neighbors like China and North Korea.  At the same time, the pacifist provisions of Article 9 of Japan's constitution -- which the U.S. Occupation authorities largely drafted -- prevented the country from establishing a conventional national military force. 

                 With half a century having passed since the end of the Occupation, Japan has gradually developed a so-called Self Defense Force (JSDF) that actually compares quite favorably with the regular armed forces of most world powers.  Even so, because the JSDF is constitutionally confined to only defensive capabilities, and because even now extensive U.S. forces remain stationed in and around Japan (mostly on the southern island of Okinawa), it is fair to say that Japan enjoys what approximates a "free ride" from the U.S. in terms of its national and nuclear security.  In short, the U.S. continues to bear a disproportionate share of Japan's defense burden.

 Japan's Prime Minister Abe's (here with F-35) Views on Art. 9 Differ from Biden's 

                 In light of Japan's enormous financial and technological capacities, Donald Trump has joined many national security experts in suggesting that the time has come for Japan to relieve the U.S. of at least part of this inordinate strain on its limited and overtaxed capacities.  Indeed, Trump has argued that both Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) could both expand their military strength and expenditures, allowing the U.S. to reduce both its financial and military burdens and contract the sphere of its vastly over-extended global responsibilities.

                 It was in this context that Mr. Trump has observed that both Japan and Korea at some point may need to consider obtaining nuclear weapons.  Trump has further noted that Pakistan, China, and most ominously North Korea all possess nuclear weapons in the East Asian theater.  Consequently, the prospect that Japan and South Korea may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear programs for self-defense and deterrence hardly seems ridiculous.  Japan may well consider that perpetual reliance upon nuclear protection from a country led by the likes of Obama or Hillary Clinton is a bad bet, especially in an environment that is bristling with hostile and unpredictable nuclear powers.  Indeed, irrational North Korea's looming potential to hit Japan with nuclear-warhead missiles is being reported in the Japanese press even as we write.

                 In short, Mr. Trump has merely suggested the obvious.  Since the U.S. cannot and should not disproportionately bear Japan's national security burdens indefinitely, Japan must either underwrite  a much greater portion of U.S. costs for its defense, or get ready to assume its own defense by expanding its own military power and capacities.  And in today's world, that would include nuclear capability.

                 It was in response to these entirely plausible suggestions that Mr. Biden felt compelled to blunder into the discussion with his usual boorish ineptitude.

                 With the galling arrogance of the ill-informed, Biden waxed indignant at Mr. Trump's reasonable consideration of the prospects for Japanese military expansion.  Biden sputtered that “he [Trump] talks cavalierly about encouraging other nations … to develop nuclear weapons.”  Then the man who famously lied in a failed presidential campaign to conceal his ineptitude as a law student (he graduated near the bottom of his law school class at Syracuse, a woeful No. 76 out of 85) had the audacity to lash out at Mr. Trump of the elite Wharton School as follows:

                 “Where was he when in school? . . . . Someone who lacks this judgment cannot be trusted . . . . He’s not qualified to know the [nuclear] codes. . . . Does he not understand we wrote Japan’s constitution to say they couldn’t be a nuclear power?” [emphasis added]

                 Biden's remarks were ignorant, inept, and diplomatically offensive  on many levels.

                 First, there is the sneering contempt for the Japanese in the statement "we wrote Japan's constitution to say they couldn't be a nuclear power."  Biden's implication is that, because the U.S. played a dominant role in drafting Japan's constitution -- of which Trump is well aware -- the provisions of that constitution are somehow forever binding on the Japanese people. 

                 His offensively blunt statement ignores the fact that, while Occupation lawyers were the primary drafters, Japanese lawyers and politicians contributed to the drafting as well.  Moreover, the draft document ultimately had to be approved and adopted by the Japanese Diet, which amended it in some respects before final adoption. 

                 But more importantly, Art. 96 of Japan's constitution provides that amendments can be made if approved by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of the Japanese Diet, and then by simple majority of the Japanese people in a referendum.  Biden's claim that the U.S. role in the creation of the Japanese constitution entails some form of permanent restraint on Japan's sovereignty is not only a gross violation of diplomatic protocol, but is insulting to the Japanese people and their leaders.

                 Thus, it was Biden, not Trump, who demonstrated historical, political, and legal ignorance in this public discussion of the Japanese rearmament issue. 

                 To borrow Biden's own rhetoric, "Does he not understand" that Japan's leaders and voters are currently in the process of considering whether, and to what extent, modifications of Art. 9's restrictions on Japanese military capabilities and missions may be needed in today's world?  Does he not know that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe strongly supports reinterpretation, revision or repeal of Art. 9 and that his Party's (the LDP) success in recent Upper House elections significantly enhances the prospects for some form of Art. 9 reform?  Or that the vastly expanding strength and mission of the JSDF (now with a defense budget of about $41.6 billion annually) shows that Art. 9 can be circumvented without repeal in any event? See  http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/16/will-japan-become-the-next-big-military-superpower/.  Apparently not.   

                 Biden's intemperate statements reveal his archaic and jingoistic view that the U.S. role in drafting Art. 9 forecloses consideration, let alone action, that would allow Japan to develop nuclear capacity under any future circumstances.  Although Japanese political sentiment remains deeply reluctant to take the "game-changing" move towards developing nuclear weapons (which Japan's technology could likely accomplish in a New York minute), that is a matter for the Japanese people and their leaders to decide; it is not foreclosed, as Biden seems to think, by constitutional restrictions that the U.S. helped draft sixty years ago.

                 Biden's crass and patronizing assertion that the U.S. had effectively dictated perpetual non-nuclear status for Japan triggered an understandably appalled response in the Japanese press (the LDP government was too diplomatic to respond in kind to Biden's undiplomatic blunder).  For example, the Asahi Shimbun declared that Biden's statement on this issue "was unprecedented in its insensitivity." 

                 Indeed, the Asahi Shimbun was too kind and diplomatic in its comment.  Biden's remarks went beyond insensitivity, and reflected not only ignorance and misunderstanding of the constitutional restraints on Japan's ability to expand its military missions and capacities, but a chauvinistic disdain for the Japanese nation's sovereign right to provide for its survival in an increasingly dangerous region and world.