Le Grand Charles Did It

May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.

Let me begin with a brief reminder. Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO in 1966. France rejoined NATO in 2009 under Nicolas Sarkozy.

Tucker Carlson asked President Trump “Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?" The answer to Carlson’s question is not only politically incorrect the question should never be asked —— and never, never, never, asked by an American president:


Tucker: Why questioning US obligations to Montenegro matters | On Air Videos | Fox News

President Trump is clearly unhappy with NATO. I cannot determine how he feels about the U.S. military fighting for the United Nations.

NOTE: President Trump can send an unmistakable message to NATO, to the United Nations, and to the American people by pardoning Michael New. See this thread:


The U.S. military taking part in U.N. peacekeeping operations notwithstanding, the United Nations failed at turning the U.S. military into a universal police force. Rather than stop trying, the New World Order crowd decided to increase the number of NATO countries and slowly transfer United Nations military goals to NATO —— nation building meaning democracy.

An overwhelming majority of Americans despise the U.N., while they understand and accept NATO as a necessary barrier against the Soviet Union cum Russia. Now listen to Hillary Clinton stooge, Philippe Reines, doublespeak the meaning of today’s NATO.


Tucker vs. critic accusing him of working for Putin | On Air Videos | Fox News

First off, those 29 Montenegro soldiers are not fighting to defend the U.S. against Russia’s aggression in Afghanistan, they are fighting for the United Nations.


The war in Afghanistan is a United Nations war. Hillary’s mouthpiece all but admitted Montenegro was fighting for the U.N. when he said they contributed before they became a NATO member (2017).

Hillary’s stooge also claimed NATO kept the peace since its inception in 1949. Obviously, the stooge sees Korea and Vietnam as peace because Communists got a draw in Korea and a victory in Vietnam. I will save my comments about the other ‘conflicts’ for another day.

Note step 2 in this brief video:

In plain English NATO fights for democracy which is all the more reason for President Trump to take NATO back to its original purpose, back to its original membership —— or pick up this country’s marbles and depart. After the U.S. takes it on the giddyap the remaining 11 original NATO members can call the 17 new member states to come to the rescue.

Finally, labeling the Soviet Union’s attempt to enslave Afghanistan the “Soviet Vietnam” is disgusting. It was another attempt by America-haters to disparage the American men and women who fought in Vietnam by comparing them to Soviet troops. The U.S. did not go into Vietnam to conquer and enslave. The Soviets went into Afghanistan to do just that. Even when U.N.-loving experts say something negative about the defunct Soviet Union they say it in a way that helps American Communists from the Vietnam War era protect their phoney patriotic image. Nothing is more disgusting than watching Americans who brought defeat to their own wrap themselves in the flag.

Speaking of Afghanistan, let me take this opportunity to debunk that B.S. American Communist laid down at he beginning of the Cold War. The story that Communist apologists laid down goes like this: If every country has nuclear weapons no one will use them. There are variations on that theme, but basically that sums up their position when the U.S. is the country that is weakened. (You can bet that Communists will not sing that tune if a Communist China or Russia are the ones sitting in the catbird seat.)

p.s. At the end of WW II, Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan and showed no signs of leaving. At that time the U.S. was the only country that had atomic bombs and the means to deliver them. I cannot find the quote so I will paraphrase what President Truman told Uncle Joe Stalin: “You have 48 hours to pack your balloons and hit the bricks.” Uncle Joe knew exactly what the Man from Missouri meant. Several days later nary a Soviet soldier could be found in Afghanistan. Decades after the Soviet Union became a nuclear power, based in part on technology provided by American Communist traitors, Soviets once again tried to enslave Afghanistan.
Last edited:
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
First off, those 29 Montenegro soldiers are not fighting to defend the U.S. against Russia’s aggression in Afghanistan, they are fighting for the United Nations.


1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

plural mercenaries (noun)

1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.

2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.​

Send for Montenegro’s army. The U.S. is being attacked by Russia’s mercenaries. That should be enough to trigger a NATO response:

I don't know what Trump said during that two hours when he met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but like so many in the media, I know what I hope he said: Mr. Putin, I need you to publicly admit your complicity in our illegal alien problem.

Only if Putin owns up to deploying a vast network of Russian assets to personally direct the movements of millions of illegal aliens across the Sonoran Desert, through dozens of checkpoints and into our country, in fulfillment of his master plan to attack America's financial viability, national security and future prospects, will the media, the Democratic Party and corporate Republicans ever emerge from their stupor and admit that we have a huge problem on our southern border.

Illegal immigrants have killed multiple times more Americans than Russia has in its entire history -- or could ever hope to kill, even with a well-placed nuclear bomb.

But nothing will be done, unless we can prove Putin is behind it.

Our media and government want you to fixate on Russia's annexation of Crimea as the big problem facing our country, hoping you'll forget about the gaping hole on our border.

I haven't counted to see how many Americans died as a result of Putin's reacquiring Crimea -- yes, I have! ZERO. Meanwhile, Mexican drug couriers kill more Americans every week than the Communist Soviet Union did when it shot down Korean flight 007 for flying into its airspace, almost starting a nuclear war.

Obsessing over irrelevant, unsolvable problems in remote parts of the globe is how liberals prove they are intellectuals. North Korea, Syria, Russia -- that's what you're supposed to care about. Not your own country. Only Walmart shoppers care about their own country.

It would be as if in 1939, as the Nazi threat was looming, British newspapers discussed nothing but the bushfires in Victoria, Australia. How many died? Do they need our help? What shall we do? Where does the prime minister stand?

With Russia, liberals get an extra bonus of bludgeoning Trump over his nonexistent collusion with Russia -- our greatest enemy since very, very recently.

At least no Democratic president ever publicly embraced a Russian dictator, while handing him all of Eastern Europe at Yalta, so the left's conscience is clear!

Actually, no. Until all the Roosevelt statues come down, liberals need to settle down about Russia. At least Trump isn't calling Putin "Uncle Vlad" and giving him one-third of Europe, as he is being advised by two Russian spies.

While I'm sure Russia's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were a grave threat to every man, woman and child in America, Putin should also be held to account for the rape and murder of thousands of Americans on our own soil every year, as a result of apparently unstoppable illegal immigration. (Who knew a wall was such an inconceivable engineering feat?)

Where else to lay the blame for this monstrous attack but on Putin, the most evil man since Hitler?

True, liberals have spent decades lobbying for a never-ending flow of illegal aliens. But that shouldn't be a problem. They also spent decades defending Russian dictators.

Abandoning every position they've ever held to attack Trump is standard operating procedure these days.

In addition to Trump's not challenging Putin to a fistfight in Helsinki, the media have gone bananas over the fact that he cited the findings of our intelligence agencies -- but then added that Putin denied the charges.

HE'S BELIEVING PUTIN OVER OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES? Moral equivalence! Treason! High crimes and misdemeanors! Kristallnacht! Trump might as well have trampled on a portrait of George Washington. (Or, since we're talking about liberals, Stalin.)

But the way I remember it, elected Democrats -- even Democratic candidates for president -- have criticized our intelligence agencies pretty ferociously, particularly regarding the Iraq War.

The media turned that clown Joe Wilson into a national hero for ridiculing the findings of our intelligence agencies.

At the inception of the war, U.S. intelligence, British intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam Hussein had been seeking massive quantities of uranium from Niger.

But Joe Wilson was sent by his wife, a non-covert, paper-pushing CIA agent, on a trip to Niger, where he looked government officials directly in the eye and asked them: Did Saddam send envoys to this godforsaken country that has nothing to sell but uranium in order to buy uranium? Be honest! I have absolutely no way of knowing if you are lying, and powerful, nuclear-armed nations will be really mad at you if you say "yes."

It was on the basis of this conversation that Wilson concluded, as he wrote in The New York Times: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Far from condemning this unpatriotic lout for crapping on our intelligence agencies, the media made him a star! Only a fool like George W. Bush would believe our inept intelligence agencies over the word of a government official from Niger.

So doing an about-face on a previous, long-held position is no problem for liberals, provided it serves the larger purpose of getting Trump.

I don't know if liberals have noticed, but trying to work the public into a white-hot rage over Putin's annexation of Crimea hasn't been wildly successful.

Apart from the fact that who owns Crimea is of absolutely no conceivable national security interest to the United States, Crimea has been a part of Russia since forever. (Technically, since 1783 -- when they took it from the Muslims, bless them.)

Google "Potemkin village." The story is that an aide to Russian Empress Catherine II, Grigory Potemkin, tried to impress her with her newest territorial possession by setting up fake villages along their route through it. Dateline: Crimea, 1787.

The left needs something a little more consequential to make us mad at Russia -- and illegal immigration is just the ticket! The only thing liberals care about is Russia, but the only thing most Americans care about is their own country.

The solution is staring us right in the face. Convince Putin to admit that he is responsible for the millions of foreign invaders sneaking into our country, depressing wages on a good day, and raping little girls and committing sickening murders on the bad days.
In exchange, we'll give Putin Bill Browder and George Soros.

Putin Is Killing Millions Of Americans
Ann Coulter
Posted: Jul 18, 2018 8:34 PM


Similar Discussions