Had a rather interesting day on Twitter (or is it Xitter, now?). It started with me seeing an NRO article which condemned Aldean’s tune by saying we need songs about virtue, not violence. That started me off by saying that one of the manly virtues is the use of violence to defend the community. Next up was a Tweet asserting that what ails us is that so many of the very best in the West died in the two World Wars and so we’re just breeding from the dregs. To that I objected that while it is true that the best die in the highest portion in war, what was really the poison was our lack of honoring the fallen.
Oh, to be sure, we’ll build them a monument. We’ll say we honor the troops – but we don’t honor what was most important about them: their valor. Bravery. Guts. The fact that they went into the worst situation, behaved like lions, and defeated evil enemies. That is what we should be talking about, and quite endlessly, because it is worth talking about. It is an example and an aspiration for all of us – to show even a tenth of the courage of those who prevailed in war.
But, instead, our stories are all about how lousy it was and what were we fighting for and dammit that guy died and all we want is for this to be over with. All of these are true enough sentiments as any combat veteran will tell you but they aren’t the story.
I think this stems from the aftermath of World War One and especially the play Journey’s End. Some years back I spoke about this play in relation to a recent adaptation and it really is a good play but when I saw it I felt that it was missing the key aspect of the setting.
The play, itself, is set in the days just before Operation Michael was launched by the Germans. This was the start of Germany’s Spring offensive of 1918. Their supreme effort to win the war in France before the full power of the United States could be brought to bear. The basic German plan was to destroy the British army and in service of this goal they put together an army of picked men, specially trained and equipped for the offensive. They culled out of all German divisions the very best men, gave them the best weapons, backed them up with the most massive artillery Germany could create and then launched them against a British army which was worn down by years of fighting and was being denied reinforcements from home for fear of the British command launching more fruitless attacks against the German front. It was, as Churchill wrote, the most powerful onslaught in military history. Still is to this day; no particular offensive in World War Two can compare the the power the Germans directed against British line on March 21st, 1918.
And the Brits held. Sure, they had to withdraw, pretty deeply by Western Front standards, but at no time was their front broken. At no time did the troops panic and flee. Outnumbered at the point of attack two or three to one, the British soldiers bled that German assault, with many British units fighting until exterminated. In the end, this massive attack representing the very best Germany had pushed forward into a completely useless salient about 15 miles into the British lines. It was without a doubt the most sublime defensive stand in history.
And what does the world know about it? Journey’s End – it was all just a waste.
But it wasn’t a waste. It was a victory. It was bravery. To this day young British children should thrill to oft-retold tales of their ancestors standing up to the most powerful army ever and giving it a drubbing so that freedom could live. I’ll bet not one in a thousand has ever even heard of it…and if they hear anything about World War One it was that it was just nothing but bad. This isn’t to excuse the political and military leaders of Britain or the other combatants in the war – they truly were downright awful on all sides for the most part. But to take the courage of men pitted against the fires of war and insult it is more disgusting than the worst strategic or tactical blunders of the leaders. It is a betrayal of the warriors.
And now I’ll get to the last thing which got me sitting here writing – that was after I had defended the brave and the fulfillment of duty I got the pushback that things like the strategic bombing campaign of Germany was a crime and the men who did it evil – one person actually comparing them to Auschwitz camp guards (“weren’t the guards doing their duty? Huh; what about that, smarty pants!”). And that is when it really hit me; we’ve been heavily propagandized, especially since the end of World War Two. Propaganda which has made us forget and/or denigrate bravery and doubt ourselves – “maybe we weren’t any better than the Nazis?”. It was the putting of Journey’s End on steroids. At least in the play the protagonist is shell-shocked after years at the front…but now the very best we’ve ever had sent out into the worst thing to ever happen are either pathetic victims or criminals in their own right.
This is very insidious and I have to figure it was cooked up in Moscow – because the USSR really was no better than Nazi Germany in most respects and it was terribly weak compared to us and so something had to be done to make sure America never flexed its power. What better way than a campaign of slander against our troops and against our nation? How better than to say that the bombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima were just the same as a Nazi concentration camp? The merest bit of thought shows they weren’t remotely alike. Even if we in the aftermath decide that the strategic bombing campaign was wrong, the fact remains that we did it for the right reasons: we were trying to end the war by the swiftest means available (thus reducing the overall death total) while defeating inhuman tyranny. Meanwhile, the Nazis were trying to exterminate people who couldn’t possibly fight back. Not even remotely the same sorts of actions – but they were compared, with a subtle implication that somehow we were a little worse (“we’re better than that!”).
We have to get back to honoring bravery. To look at our troops and see what they did. Sure, you can point out that they weren’t all saints, but it must immediately be said that it doesn’t matter. What matters as regards our soldiers is that they went out and fought for us and did it well and beat evil enemies. I have wondered for years why no movie was ever made about Ernest Evans and the USS Johnston – I’ve mentioned Evans before: to remind, he was the skipper of the Johnston and when he sighted the enemy battle fleet – which included the super-battleship Yamato – he immediately charged the enemy and fought like mad – him and his whole crew – until the Johnston was shot out from under them. We can’t make that movie – because all we can do with it is show how incredibly brave they all were and that isn’t the sort of story we’re allowed to tell these days. If we ever did anything with it, it would probably be to find some poor survivor who suffered PTSD over it. But it was brave; and the actions of that crew – and the crews of other small ships who also joined the charge – saved the day at Leyte Gulf…after the admirals had screwed up and got themselves decoyed by the Japanese, leaving small ships like the Johnston out on a limb, with only their hearts and their blood to stand against the Japanese.
But we must relearn those stories. We must relearn to honor heroes. It is the only way we can survive – the only way to have hope.
Blogs For Victory 
Off topic, but Democrats, particularly Democrat lawyers, have taken sleaze to a whole new level (hat-tip jeff childers)
They’ll rework the slap on the wrist.
That would be my guess.
This is only one of the games played by Hunter’s team.
By former federal prosecutor Will Scharf:
Based on conversations with people who were in the courtroom today, and my experience as a former federal prosecutor, I think I know the full story of what happened with the Hunter Biden plea agreement blow-up this morning.
Bear with me, because this is a little complicated:
Typically, if the Government is offering to a defendant that it will either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant’s guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). An agreement not to prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes in return for his pleading guilty to the tax misdemeanors, for example, would usually be a (c)(1)(A) plea. This is open, transparent, subject to judicial approval, etc.
In Hunter’s case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, Hunter’s plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges.
Instead, DOJ and Hunter’s lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm.
That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.
So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter’s upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn’t be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case.
Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter’s lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn’t going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.
DOJ, attempting to save face and save its case, then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter remained susceptible to prosecution under FARA. Hunter’s lawyers exploded. They clearly believed that FARA was covered under the deal, because as written, the pretrial diversion agreement language was broad enough to cover it. They blew up the deal, Hunter pled not guilty, and that’s the current state of play.
And so here we are. Hunter’s lawyers and DOJ are going to go off and try to pull together a new set of agreements, likely narrower, to satisfy Judge Noreika. Fortunately, I doubt if FARA or any charges related to Hunter’s foreign influence peddling will be included, which leaves open the possibility of further investigations leading to further prosecutions.
This is so funny. The DOJ colludes with the defense to protect Biden, gets caught in a shifty move to try to deceive the court, and in a panicky effort to appear less corrupt than it really is blows the whole thing up by saying no, we’re not only planning to continue our investigation (some of which would have been made moot by the plea agreement) but we’re going to investigate some other stuff, too. And Biden’s legal team is under the bus.
OK, so it’s not funny that our own “Justice Department” is helping cover for the corrupt son of a corrupt president*—but it’s funny that they got caught doing it and even funnier that their response ended up implicating the corrupt son of a corrupt president* in even more corruption.
here was the kicker in the diversion agreement:
The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached Statement of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts (Exhibit 1) to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day. This Agreement does not provide any protection against prosecution for any future conduct by Biden or by any of his affiliated businesses.
This is the attempt to hide the sweet deal in the diversion agreement. Hunter’s attorneys thought this was giving them blanket immunity for his prior actions, but then when the prosecutors said they were still considering things like a FARA charge, the deal fell apart.
That’s why they were laying out so many facts and setting out the Burisma and Chinese relationship in the Statement of Facts because then they could use this part in the diversion agreement to say that he should not be pursued for any potential crimes regarding any of that. That’s why it looked like they were trying to pull a fast one, why the judge put the brakes on and wouldn’t sign aboard it. She asked them to submit briefs on what they were trying to do here.
Hunter Biden’s Legal Team Is ‘Fuming,‘ Personally Attacks Judge for Exposing the Plea Deal
Hours after the hearing, Biden’s team was still fuming, suggesting that Noreika seemed intent on not letting the plea agreement go forward after deliberately questioning lawyers on both sides about the terms of the deal.
Translation: Biden’s team was fuming over a judge actually doing her job and digging deep enough to find out the plea deal was likely unconstitutional. When you garner immunity, it’s typically somewhat narrow. For example, a defendant would garner immunity from future charges stemming only from the charges they are pleading guilty to.
Hunter Biden’s team and the DOJ tried to game the system, though, by giving broad immunity as part of the diversion agreement, which exists due to the gun charge (which normally requires the pursuit of prison time according to DOJ protocol).
Former Deputy Independent Counsel Sal Wisenberg described it this way.
Finally, and most importantly, a broad immunity provision (arguably covering every crime Hunter may have committed during the relevant time frame) was hidden in Paragraph 15 of the the Pre-Trial Diversion Agreement and this was done by the parties in order that the judge could not accept or reject the broad immunity portion of the overall deal. Totally unprecedented.
In short, the judge did her job. She looked at the plea deal, saw it was likely not even legal, and pressed each side until it became clear no one was on the same page. In doing so, she showed no bias, and it would have been unethical for her to do anything but what she did. To blindly accept that plea deal would have put a stain on the court.
the judge said, “Would this [the plea agreement] include a possible FARA charge?” That’s not registering as a foreign agent. The prosecutor said no, the deal would not include that.
It was at that point that she had said to the prosecution, you know, if you are not — if you can charge that, then what does this mean? And the prosecutors — actually, she asked Hunter Biden’s attorneys about that, and he said, “Well, then, there’s no deal.”
It could not be more clear that the Bidens (a plural noun, no apostrophe please) know that a FARA charge would be a big deal, on two levels. One would be the impact on Hunter himself, as a violator of that law, but the big impact would be based on just what he could offer, as an agent for a foreign country. That, of course, would be the ability to get his father, the vice president or the president, to act as a de facto agent for that country, because Hunter alone has never had anything to offer. In other words, a FARA charge against Hunter would be a de facto FARA charge against Joe. It was also clear that Hunter’s lawyers were blindsided by the DOJ admission that a FARA charge would not be covered by immunity, indicating that protecting against a FARA charge had always been discussed and desired and the feds surprised the defense team. (You could almost hear the outrage: BUT WE’RE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!)
The judge put the DOJ and defense attorneys (as if there was ever a difference) on the hot seat, asking for a quick answer to her question, and when they didn’t have time to parse out some evasive gobbledygook they both blurted out the truth: that without immunity from being prosecuted for being a foreign agent there would be no deal. (Not that this was the only possible crime they wanted off the table.)