B-Man

The story comes a week after six Democrat Senators and Congressmen, now known as the Seditious Six, posted a video that seemed to encourage members of the armed forces to defy "illegal" orders from President Trump. The Department of War spokesman, Sean Parnell, denied that the event had occurred. His deputy, Kinglsey Wilson, affirmed that all lethal strikes on the drug runners are legitimate and based on the designation of the drug cartels as Designated Terrorist Organizations, and a presidential declaration that a "non-international armed conflict" existed between the drug cartels and the United States. Putting aside the lack of evidence supporting this alleged event and the administration's denial that it even happened, there is a helluva lot of assumptions involved to conclude that this is a war crime. Properly viewed, this article, with its questionable provenance, is designed to provide cover for the Seditious Six and their fellow travelers so they don't get humiliated like Colorado Democrat Representative Jason Crow (CO-06) when asked for an example of the "illegal" orders they are railing against. The bottom line here is that no evidence exists that this event happened, or, if it did, that it played out as described. The fact that no other major media outlet has picked up the story is notable. And that the Post's story is essentially a regurgitation of a nearly three-month-old article from loony-left outlet The Intercept is also suspect; see U.S. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. Unless a lot more information comes out making the case that this was a crime, this article should be considered as The Washington Post doing what it always does when there is a Republican in the White House. https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/11/29/washington-post-accuses-pete-hegseth-of-illegal-order-to-kill-drug-runners-but-is-it-real-n2196655 .

In an article published in the left-wing rag, Kayyem makes a classic 'But her skirt was too short' argument to blame President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in the city for provoking the attack.

Doesn't It Always: Europe’s Peace Plan Oozes With Reliance on the US Anthony J. Constantini FTA: The trouble begins in point four, which states that a “US-led international ceasefire monitoring” infrastructure will be introduced. Already, the Europeans are telling on themselves: To monitor a ceasefire for a regional war, squarely on their continent, they foresee a US-led approach. In their own peace plan, they are not capable of envisioning themselves as leading the charge. In fact, the entire document is oozing with a reliance on the United States. Even when there is no direct mention of America, it is clear that they expect America to do the heavy lifting. Take point 10: “Ukraine receives robust legally binding security guarantees, including from the US, (Article 5-like agreement) to prevent future aggression. https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/11/europes-peace-plan-oozes-with-reliance-on-the-us/ https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/11/29/doesnt-it-always-europes-peace-plan-oozes-with-reliance-on-the-us-n3809348

.

RE: Color Revolutions There are three phases to a Color Revolution. It's important to understand this so you can see how the actions of the Sedition 6 fit into this pattern. PHASE ONE: -Form underground opposition networks. -Create strong slogans and powerful information operations as recruitment tools. -Upon a certain well-coordinated signal, well-funded, well-organized mass protests “spontaneously” appear. -The armed wing of the movement conducts carefully coordinated, precision attacks on certain government infrastructure. PHASE TWO: -Discredit military, security, and law enforcement forces through information operations, coordination with friendly media (Jimmy Kimmel? Talkin' to you, Komrade Kelly), strikes, civil disobedience, rioting, and sabotage. YOU ARE HERE -Occupy civic facilities and refuse to leave until your demands are met. -Strengthen and grow a highly organized logistics support network. -Issue ultimatums to the government, threatening violent uprisings if demands are unmet. The goal is to either have the government acquiesce or engage in violent repression, in each case thereby delegitimizing itself. PHASE THREE: -Overthrow the government in a “non-violent” manner that is actually quite violent. -Open attacks on authorities, seizure of government buildings, destruction of government symbols. -Coordinate media messaging. If the government attacks, media will accuse the government of attacking "peaceful protestors.” If the government makes concessions, it will appear impotent because protestors will not compromise. -Widespread delegitimization of the government is effective in the minds of the populace; the government either willingly cedes power or is violently removed. -The once underground opposition forces' leadership now seizes control of the government.

Nuremberg followed the total military defeat of the Nazi regime. It didn’t appear out of political frustration or anger or internet righteousness. It came after unconditional surrender and the collapse of a government through war. So when people on social media speak openly of “Nuremberg 2.0” for their political opponents, they’re telling you something dangerous. They believe they’re in a war, not a democracy. And in war, they think they’re entitled to hang the losers. Remember this for anyone slinging around “Nuremberg”. It’s reckless.

Pay attention EU, THIS is how it's done.

and @Trump_is_Mentally_fit .

Awwwwww. A fumble on the Tush-push.

Spare us your fake tears Sandy.

Inconvenient TRUTH