Not Funny: Video Played At Trump Resort Conference Shows Trump Murdering Political Opponents and Media Figures

The video is an edited version of the church massacre scene from the 2014 film Kingsman: The Secret Service. Trump's head is superimposed on the body of the film's star, Colin Firth, who goes on to kill the parishioners who are depicted as media entities

A videotape (shown below) by Trump supporters has horrified Democrats and Republicans alike in depicting Trump savagely murdering his political opponents like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden while wiping out media figures. It is a take-off of the church massacre scene from the 2014 film Kingsman: The Secret Service with Trump superimposed for one of the main characters, Colin Firth. The delay in denouncing this film is only fueling the recriminations. I have previously criticized Trump for his reckless attacks on American media as “the enemies of the people.” There is no evidence that this video was approved or even known by the Trump campaign. I assume that it would have been taken down immediately if it were known (as it happened when organizers ultimately learned of its screening). However, there is a rising concern that Trump’s over-heated rhetoric against the press has fueled the anger of some supporters.

The violent video below shows a happy Trump massacring everyone in a “Church of Fake News.” It is a juvenile attempt at humor but, given the anger in this election, it is a disgraceful and dangerous parody. Trump was previously criticized for retweeting violent videos showing him attacking the media.

The video was shown at a three-day conference held by a pro-Trump organization called American Priority at the Trump National Doral Miami last week. It was attended by former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders; the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., Florida Gov.  Ron DeSantis, and others.

Given Trump’s rapid response to other news, there should already have been a statement denouncing this videotape from the President.

204 thoughts on “Not Funny: Video Played At Trump Resort Conference Shows Trump Murdering Political Opponents and Media Figures”

        1. The original movie, Kingsman grossed $414.4 million worldwide. This scene originally depicted the mass slaughter of Christian bigots in a church. That was entertainment. How dare they parody this scene with the fake news!

          The gist of the movie fantasized about the elites ruling the world, and being better fighters than ignorant commoners.

  1. To parents who have a new child on the way: 1) Do not name him Donald or Joe or Bernie or Beto; 2) If it is a girl do not name her Lizbeth, or Ukraine.

  2. But what if the lawyers are part of the problem?

    Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

    Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame
    South Bend, IN ~ Friday, October 11, 2019

    “We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

    The times are hostile to this. Public agencies – including public schools – are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

    If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously affiliated schools – it is today.

    I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

    Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

    We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

    I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort– ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties – the freedom to live according to our faith.

    Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

    1. No offense, but since your are intent on promoting your religion endlessly here, what a waste of time. Might as well sacrifice goats and stick pins in dolls. Pass on your values to your kids, but the superstitions? Teach them how to think for themselves using logic and an open mind. If they land back at your religion? Maybe it has value.

      1. No offense,

        That’s uproariously funny. Natacha’s a head case who fancies she’s normal and you have as one of your hobbies giving everyone demonstrations of insufferable arrogance (tinged with some mixture of self-deception and mendacity). Unclear on the concept, chum.

        1. Tabby, maybe you can tell us: ‘Why are we getting these religious posts every day?’ Do certain commenters mistake this as a religious blog?

          1. In his dissenting opinion in the 2005 case McCreary County v. ACLU, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

            Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

            President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


          2. Scalia continued:

            Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

            With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words.

            In his dissenting opinion in the 2005 case McCreary County v. ACLU, Justice Antonin Scalia


          3. I don’t know Peter Shill. Why do you and anon1 keep posting religious stuff?? Because, to the degree you are sincere, what you believe is as much faith-based as any snake-handling idiot from Fumbuk, West Virginia. I mean, you guys have your own Original Sin Doctrine – you call it White Privilege. You are constantly preaching your crap at people. You guys shun people who disagree with you. Just like the WCTU you think you have the right to bust up stuff. You have your Armageddon story – the whole world is going to burn up if we don’t stop fossil fuels!

            No, you aren’t complaining about religion per se, because you are full of religion. You are just having a denominational struggle with Christianity.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky, you’re saying we’re not religious because we don’t respect snake handlers’ and that’s typical of White privilege..??

              No wonder you’re still a ‘girl reporter’.

          4. Hill, both the movie and the parody glorified violence inside a church. There has been a discussion on the polarization and enmity in politics today. The original movie portrayed the Church members as bigoted caricatures of Christians, rather as how the Left portrays Republicans, and then gloried in their bloody demise. It reminded me of the slave revenge film by Tarantino, Django Unchained in which the evil slave traders and plantation owners are shot, tortured, and blown up. In fact, the plot of many of Tarantino’s films involve the great satisfaction to be found in destroying evil people, in the most painful of ways.

            Seems fertile ground to preach religion.

            1. Karen, there are bigoted, hypocritical Christians commenting on this blog.
              Then commenters like you attempt to tell us that it’s an unfair portrayal. Yet we see what they’re writing.

              1. i was reading a little “Song of Roland” today for fun Peter

                You might like it. take a look. it’s a classic of French and Western literature.


                in it, Charlemagne and other “bigoted Christians” fight to protect Europe from Muslims in captured Spain, and with utmost intolerance for diversity dare to kill them and drive them off the Continent

                the false Frenchman slimy Ganelon plays the part of “fake news” today

                did you know they still teach this work in France? I wonder how it goes over with the Algerian kids.

              2. Hill – do you believe that the original scene was OK, in which a Kingsman brutally slaughtered “deplorables”, inside a Church? If so, then what’s the difference in making a parody of this scene using the “fake news” as the bogeymen? Why would the former be entertainment? It seems like only Hollywood can claim that a violent film is entertainment. Or, what about the NY play about Caesar’s assassination, with Trump in the leading role? Was that funny? Because people paid for the “entertainment”.

                Now, I found such scenes to be in bad taste, but would not censor them unless any of the above was a specific, credible death threat.

                1. Karen, I never saw the Kingsman and I didn’t even know of that movie until today. From what I understand it was ‘not’ a big hit. So why am ‘I’ supposed to defend it???? It’s like every debate with Trumpers turns stupid really fast.

                  1. Hill:

                    You are not supposed to defend it. I gave it as an example of how Hollywood makes such violent images every year, often targeting “deplorable” caricatures. That’s considered entertainment, and people pay to see it.

                    I specifically asked you if you thought this was OK. And if you did, why is it different if it’s not Hollywood making such videos, this time targeting Leftist bogeymen. I also asked what you thought of the existence of the NY play about Trump’s assassination.

                    Are you able to answer those questions, or do you find the question unfair? You don’t have to have watched the movie, the play, or any of the long list of movies and videos depicting violence against conservatives, Christians, deplorables, etc. I asked for your comment on the double standard and selective outrage.

              1. Did I say that slave traders were slandered? Why no, I did not. I said that the scene killing deplorables reminds me of the Tarantino film Django. His films often center around revenge plots against evil people such as slavers and Nazis.

                The original Kingsman scene featured caricatures of “deplorables,” whose violent murder was an enjoyable revenge fantasy. I have repeatedly objected to the mischaracterization of all Trump supporters as evil, in the same category as Nazis, etc.

                You entirely missed my point.

                1. No, I didn’t miss the point.

                  Karen wrote:

                  “The original movie portrayed the Church members as bigoted caricatures of Christians, rather as how the Left portrays Republicans, and then gloried in their bloody demise. It reminded me of the slave revenge film by Tarantino, Django Unchained….”

                2. Hi Anon:

                  Since you are having a hard time, let me spell it out for you. Pay attention:

                  1. The original movie, directed by Matthew Vaughn, glorified the savage and prolonged slaughter of “deplorables” caricatures in a church
                  2. This puts that scene squarely in the revenge fantasy violence genre against evil people
                  3. This portrays “deplorables” in an exaggerated fashion, putting them in the same category as evil people like slave traders
                  4. And then glories in their mutilations and murder inside a church, because Christianity is bad
                  5. Thus putting Christian Trump voter cliches in the same category (or basket) as Nazis, slave traders, and the like portrayed in the completely different filmmaker Quentin Tarantino’s revenge fantasy movies, fueling the bigotry against Trump voters
                  6. Which is entirely in line with my oft repeated arguments that Democrats claim that Republicans are evil, deplorables like Nazis, and therefore deserve to die

                  I actually liked Django Unchained, although, like some other Tarantino films, I had to keep my eyes closed during the gory scenes.

                  Maybe you shouldn’t read my posts with your own eyes closed.

                  1. Me: There is Leftist bigotry against Trump voters, labeling them “deplorables” comparing them to villains like Nazis, which is not fair.

                    Anon: So you think that revulsion against Nazis is unfair?


                    1. Anon – you falsely claimed that my position was that the slavers have been maligned, and then you doubled down on it.

                      So, yeah, I’m calling you out on it. No matter how many times you repeat an untruth, does not make it true.

                      Really despicable, Anon. I mean, I know you like to sling mud and false accusations around, but really, what a disgusting slander.

                    2. Sober up Karen. That last post makes no sense.

                      You specifically linked and conflated what you think was unfair targeting of conservative church goers in one movie- I like to go to the movies but I’m more selective than that and have no idea if your characterization is accurate or not – with that of slave traders in another movie. If that isn’t what you meant a simple apology and clarification will suffice.

                    3. “ Anon1 says: October 16, 2019 at 5:46 AM
                      Sober up Karen.”

                      Anon1 is back to work already after 6 hours of sleep. Yabadabadoo! Fred Flintstone would be impressed

                    4. Anon, it appears you would have us all believe that you lack the mental acuity to understand that it was wrong and hypocritical to have a bloody revenge fantasy scene against caricatured “deplorables” in a Church, and then complain about its parody using Leftists. Plus, you find the entire explanation of what the “revenge fantasy genre” means.

                      Bless your heart. If you just can’t grasp the situation, then it must be too taxing an endeavor on your faculties.

                    5. Anon1 – the fact that you are getting your movie reviews from Tiger Beat makes a lot of sense. You write at about a 6th grade level.

              2. Wait, what? The original “slave traders” were African tribal chiefs who marketed fellow Africans to Arab slave traders who marketed the aforementioned fellow Africans to British shippers who delivered those fellow Africans to British slave dealers in the British colonies who sold them to British planters.

      2. Well I don’t like you promoting your Satanism & your support for paedophilia, etc., but Turley lets you post here.

      3. Maybe it has value.

        Others have commented on the chronic Axis II Cluster B traits which you present on this forum consistently. These Rxs might have value for you:

        1. Petition Darren for a refund to your subscription. I can’t find the link for that option on this forum but perhaps you have it handy

        2. Contact your employer’s Human Resource Dept and file a claim for Workman’s Comp since your injury is troll, um, work related.

        3. I would suggest reacquainting yourself with the First Amendment but you, Natch, et al have already shown utter disregard for the US Constitution so that might not be very efficacious

        4. Have you tried Mindfulness?

        5. When all else fails, Priscilla Queen of the Desert has some sage advice for your symptoms


          1. Ewe expressed outrage (chuckle) at my quoting the top lawyer in our nation re: religion, but here ewe are saying religion is irrelevant

            Ewe really are easier to manipulate than sheep

          2. look closer anon1 at the map. that’s “The West” that’s less affiliated. it looks like the “middle east” and “africa” aren’t in the category.

            and where “pray tell” are the birthrates highest?

            hmmmm what does this mean….. use math

    2. From what I’ve heard so far of these last AG Barr’s comments are Great.

      When I’ve the time I’ll be back through them.

      1. I can’t find the video that recorded Barr’s speech to ND so maybe if you find it you can post the link.

        I’m currently working through Antonin Scalia’s “Scalia Speaks” book. I don’t know if he and Barr ever crossed paths but reading Barr’s speech at ND, I “heard” Scalia all the way through.

          1. Thanks Oky1. Wow. I just saw clips and he does not hold back. We will watch it tonight at home after dinner. Should be a treat.

            If only more attorneys were like Barr and Scalia

          2. I’ve watched about 20 minutes as the enabler of an amoral pig longs for the old days of religion, lynchings, segregation, high crime rates, and child factory labor. Yeah, those days were great.

            What a fool.

            1. What’s interesting about you is that for some time you’ve been walking around with the illusion that your utterances are perspicacious.

            2. But you’re a fool if you think that’s what most of us are think & you’ve shown yourself a racist, a pedo supporter & an America hater, but no telling what you can add to that list tomorrow.

              BTW: High Crime Rates, those are disarmed Commie /Nazi American hating Blue State controlled areas. But CNN doesn’t give a damn, just hate Trump/Trump/American people, quote! lol

              Why has CNN registered as a Foreign Agents as they are?

    1. Plenty of protesters got beaten up at Trump rallies. There’s plenty of idiots on both sides.

      1. Show us the video. You condone that crap? You deserve a swat in the head yourself you son of a bitch.

        1. I don’t condone any of it, against that woman or protesters getting beaten up at Trump rallies. Google it you c..s….r.

          1. Oh no, I’m straight. However, your fixation on a man’s penis is causing me some concern for you.

        2. Notice the Anti-Trumpers are mostly not violently attacking Trump supporters in Trumps states that have a 2nd Amendment, but only attacking in Commie/Nazi Blue states.

          Mespo’s new flag petty much says it all: Trump 2020 No More Bullsh*t.

          I read it to mean enough of being attacked just because they don’t agree with Pro Trump/Pro American supports. The Anti-Trump/Anti-American supporters have had enough time to get over their butt hurt so now it’s right on a fine edge the next time some Anti-Trumper attacks they could have to pay a huge price on the street as those they attack Defended themselves.

  3. William Barr is right: Society suffers as religion declines, and the ‘militant secularists’ are to blame

    “The campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has coincided, and I believe has brought with it, immense suffering and misery. And yet the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy,” Barr, a Catholic, said.

    The result has been a “moral upheaval,” he said, all in the name of “progress.”

    “But where is the progress?” Barr asked. “Those who defy the [secular] creed risk a figurative burning at the stake: social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.”

    Look around us: Why did Donald Trump, a narcissistic adulterer, win the presidency? Why are our politicians choosing corruption over principle? Why are opioid-related deaths skyrocketing in the Midwest? Why is fatherlessness plaguing America’s families? Policy has undoubtedly affected and shaped these societal woes. But policy has only exaggerated problems that existed long before the progressives came to power. Could it be that these problems have a deeper cause, as Barr suggests?

    Instead of turning to their communities, churches, and faiths, Americans are turning to the government for answers, though it has none to give. And the militant secularists are to blame.

  4. I must’ve missed it, I’ve never seen an apology from the left for the shooting Steve Scalise. I don’t believe any of the media have ever apologized for the comedians decapitated head routine with President Trump. I’m really certain that nobody’s ever apologized for chasing Sarah Sanders, Ted Cruz and others out of restaurants they were dining in with their families.
    I don’t condone this video, but the smell of hypocrisy coming from the left is overwhelming.

    1. No one’s required to apologize for the video except whoever produced it or displays it.

      JT owes an apology for posting it.

      1. And Turley completely missed the point about why the Meme was made in the 1st place was Mocking the fact that the film was promoting Christian Church shooting that did increase after the film.

        Turley, others said nothing back then.

        When will Turley Renounce his position of this topic & what about that Fake Fox News Anti-Trump Poll last week?

        Anyway, whatever, some people just can’t say/admit they were wrong.

  5. Curiously this cartoon Trump is slim and fit; unlike the actual Trump who resembles a tub of lard. Perhaps one of the first creative decisions here was to ‘stylize’ Trump’s body so he would be more believable as an action figure.

    Even more curious is that tag at the end featuring a clip of Barrack Obama from an interview that probably aired in 2014. In said interview Obama strongly discourages residents of Central America from sending their children north to enter the U.S.

    The producers of this cartoon film aspired, perhaps, to ’embarrass’ liberals by showing that even Obama spoke out against migration. Yet the clip suggests that the recent border crisis was ‘not’ Obama’s fault; a point that may have been lost to the makers of this cartoon film.

    1. Well Obama deported a lot of illegal immigrants he deserves credit. And family separations are by necessity. The Left and its partisans ignores that.

      Here’s Obama’s Homeland Defense Tsar Jeh Johnson touring cages in Nogales AZ in 2014

      now what Obama policies caused the spike? Probably DACA, plain and simple. Oh, btw, did the DEMOCRATS who now control the House ever vote a fix for DACA? let me know the bill if they voted one up, I must not have heard.

      1. Kurtz, perhaps the question should be if the Republican controlled Senate would be willing to fix DACA. It’s hard to believe that nobody in the House put feelers out to the Senate regarding DACA. Like they just ‘forgot’..?? I don’t think so.

      2. You need to look harder Kurtz. The House has been hard at work passing bills, unlike the Senate, or both houses from 2017-2018.

        “June 4, 2019 at 6:55 p.m. EDT
        The House on Tuesday passed a bill that would offer a path to citizenship to more than 2 million undocumented immigrants, including “dreamers” who were brought to the United States as children.

        The vote was 237 to 187 for the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, which would grant dreamers 10 years of legal residence status if they meet certain requirements. They would then receive permanent green cards after completing at least two years of higher education or military service, or after working for three years.

        Cheers erupted in the chamber when the bill received the necessary votes, along with chants of “Yes we can!” Seven Republicans broke ranks to join all 230 Democrats present in backing the bill….”

        1. Anon1 – that is a feel good bill. Tell me when the House passes something substantial.

          1. Paul, the Dreamers don’t matter? Just screw them all?

            It’s just like a Trumper to dismiss a group of people as beneath any concern or consideration. Then Trumpers wonder why the media portrays them in a negative light.

            1. Hill – I have taught “Dreamers” and I have mixed feelings about them. They are here illegally, but it is not their fault. However, if we send them back, they have no connection to their home country. However, they do not deserve to go to the front of the line for citizenship. The Democrats are just looking for votes for 2020. They really don’t care about the kids.

              1. Paul, most of these kids have grown up in the U.S. and speak unaccented English. What’s the problem with granting them citizenship and access to U.S. colleges?

                Your contention that ‘Democrats don’t really care about these kids’ is just unsubstantiated nonsense. It’s just a twisted dismissal by a Trumper to justify the mean-spirited nature of Trump’s presidency.

                1. Hill – for Democrats they are buying votes. What is wrong with making sure there is NO chain immigration tied to them? What is wrong with sending them back to their country of origin?

                  1. Paul, in many, if not most cases, these kids would essentially be foreigners to the countries they were born in. And I’m sure you understand that. Yet for the sake of this debate you pretend that it should be no problem for the Dreamers to start fresh in a foreign country where they have no connections whatsoever.

                    1. Hill – I have two friends who will be retiring to Mexico within the next 6 months. Neither speaks Spanish. They don’t even speak Spanglish. If they can do it, those kids can do it.

                    2. I’m for cutting them slack just because they’re national security threats if they get deported. this country has a lot of weak spots in security that mostly just people who live here a long time understand

                      I’ve been for cutting a deal on the DACA people. trade them for more wall funding and Border Cops and immigration judges. we need about 200% more immigration judges than we have already. years backlogs. it’s ridiculously bad.

                      of course it’s the incompetence of our national government that let all their parents in, the first place. you can say no new amnesties, but they’re here and still here and might as well retrench somehow and approach problem differently. however, i doubt that can happen since the Democrats have burnt all bridges and gone towards total conflict for 3 years, no deal is possible with their scorched earth approach. this problem languishes like the infrastructure deal.

                      Democrat leadership sees this as a demographic contest. you can say ooh that’s raciss but yeah it’s also fairly obvious. wonder where alt right and new generations of militant white people come from? not just “hate” on the internet but cold hard facts of demographic replacement. yes.

                      a lot of people don’t get it because they’re out in white suburbs or other ensconsed voluntarily segregated parts and places. they don’t see the teeming hordes so to speak.

                      see the massive migration population centers are the big cities, metro areas and low value sprawl areas. it’s a big country. out of sight out of mind. numbers are meaningless these days. folks have no clue how numerous 13 million illegal immigrants really is. or more perhaps. that’s more than the entire population of several different countries. that’s about twice the size of el salvador’s entire population for example. see, it’s big wide country., but if you go to certain places it’s painfully obvious.,

                      anyways, i have no problem with DACA amnesty in exchange for a wall and massive increase in immigration judge and BOP funding. no problem!

                      the wall is good but small step. there are tons of things to be done. Democrats have blocked deals that could have been done, because they see the big city type system, as their key to permanent demographic overwhelming power. Hill’s on here talking about it all the time, especially when they hammer on the electoral college. but without the massive immigration the past 30-40 years, the big cities would have relatively less power than they do now. growth patterns in cities have been fueled by immigration infill of bad neighborhoods. Chicago is a perfect example. Mexicans have replaced the white people who left, and pushed blacks out of neighborhoods too. Pilsen for example

                      like every other battle between social groups, this political rivalry, is a long term conflict of attrition and numbers. and guess where the fastest rising immigration is coming from?



                      i can see Republicans eating into the asian vote and the third generation hispanic vote easily over time. but the immigrant african vote? tough sell man. and a lot of them are Muslims too. big fans of Ihlan Omar I expect!

                1. Squeeky – just finished a good psychological thriller “Silent Patient”. Lots of twists and turns. Enjoy Larsen. 🙂

          1. Well, I know it pales next to legislative accomplishments like the “Repeal and Replace Obamacare act of 2017”, the “Build the Wall bill of 2017”, and who can forget the “Eliminate the Deficit Bill of 2018” and “End Executive Actions Act of 2018”. You guys are celebrating still, no doubt!

  6. If trump’s base can’t tell the difference between pure BS, and facts, how would they know satire from anything they read or see on the net. Hell, they can’t even tell that their dear leader and stable genius with unmatched wisdom doesn’t know what the hell he is even doing?

      1. Truth like trump is a good business man? One billion lost in the 90’s. Build the wall with mexican money? Not a inch. Smarter than his general’s? Better ask the middle east. Your right, the truth you tell is funny.

  7. You see it’s like this….

    Prof Turley , many politicians, including the Trump’ WH, Judges, colleges all suffer from “Cognitive Dissonance

    (In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. )

    On one hand they said nothing a year or so when this Cartoon Meme went public, but when the cartoon made to a pro Trump venue all those people, Trump haters, Turley, WH, etc…, felt they needed to condone the cartoon in case some lil 15 year old Dutch girl was offend or others.

    Yet on the other hand they are all mostly ok with sending the military around the world bombing the hell out of stuff in other countries, & that sometimes non-combatants, women, kids etc.. are killed.

    But the troops/pilots can’t paint “We’re Fuucking Stuff Up again today” or other curse words on their equipment.

    See, I can’t even write fuuck here because we wouldn’t want to be uncivil while our Govt & Corporation are busy Ph’in Stuff Up.

    LOL) Oh the paradox of this life.

    1. Likely most could see I made another typo, but in case they didn’t:

      On one hand they said nothing for a year or so when this Cartoon Meme went public, but when the cartoon made to a pro Trump venue all those people, Trump haters, Turley, WH, etc…, felt they needed to (( Condemn)) the cartoon in case some lil 15 year old Dutch girl was offend or others.

  8. It is all a misunderstanding

    Vox said as such about the film “the Hunt” were liberals hunt and kill Trump supporters The Vox loved it and said it will be released eventually in spite of “right wing” pressuring its cancellation


    ”All involved with the movie have dubbed it a satire, but some on the right have taken it deadly seriously, despite having only seen a trailer.”
    – the Vox

      1. Kurtz:

        I have observed a rising fantasy in Hollywood that women are stronger than men. It’s been going on for years. We see diminutive ladies easily blocking a hulking male’s claymore. Women outboxing men. Superhero women.

        I am beginning to think that Hollywood believes that women are inferior due to sexual dimorphism, which explains our smaller size. Nurturing is considered inferior. Stay at home mothers are considered to be wasting their lives. Everything that was traditionally “female” is now insulting.

        Hollywood does not understand my gender at all.

        Hollywood is throwing out a double edged sword. On the one hand, it sends a clear message that women are not as good as men unless they can beat them in a fight. On the other hand, boys are being raised on movies where they see women punched in the face in a “fair fight”, where she can kick the men’s butts. This is all getting incorporated into their psyche. What effect will this have on them as men in society? Will they consider it fair play to beat a woman? Because there certainly is no more societal pressure to be chivalrous around women. No more watching their language, opening doors, or being protective of women. In fact, women are acting like men in many ways, including on dating apps. There is now little impetus to court a woman. You can just swipe left or right, and find someone willing to go for the night. Women do not expect anything from men anymore. Not a commitment, protection, monogamy, an opened door, respect, walking on the street side, an effort not to curse, or financial support when they have children.

        It’s the women who get harmed by this decay in our culture.

      1. Hutom – I have a masters in theatre and did my thesis on the satirist Ben Jonson. I do know what satire is. It may be in poor taste, but it is satire. It is clearly protected speech.

  9. “Reckless”

    Is not there because of anything President Trump has said

    Or for that fact anything anyone else has said

    “Reckless” is there because of the 2 tier judicial system we have here in America

    Where Republicans walk on eggshells

    And DemoKKKrats get away with murder

    1. Finally you agree. We dont.

      “videotape (shown below) by Trump supporters has horrified Democrats and Republicans alike in depicting Trump savagely murdering his political opponents:”

      in the largest and richest and most powerful empire in history, do you seriously believe it might not come down to this?

      ask yourself this Natch. Will they fight back?

      a day late and a dollar short, maybe. but eventually, yes

      you may think: our arrows will blot out the sun
      we say: ‘then we fight in the shade”

    2. There is nothing wrong with it in the slightest.

      You should come over to my ranch and let me show you my target practice shooting. I will even give you a running head start

      “ Trump Freaks Out Over ‘The Hunt,’ a Satirical Film He Doesn’t Understand, as U.S. Reels From Mass Shootings”

      As the country grapples with two deadly mass shootings in one weekend, the president took time out of his busy Friday to rant about a movie that Fox News has also obsessed over.

    3. It’s not that it’s wrong; it’s what’s expected from the left. They lie about Trump daily. What else is new? Schiff wrote a completely fabricated version of a phone call and read it in congress and on national tv. That’s worse in my opinion as it looked real and the stupid people may have believed him. Nancy did.

          1. It is called the truth, learn from it. Never having to remember your talking points just speak the truth.

        1. You bloody idiot. Shiff did no such thing, and you’re lying when you say so. And I’m quite sure you know that.

          1. You stupid mfer, know what you’re posting before typing.

            Schiff –

            “Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates. We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here.”

            1. In no way does that comment on shiff’s part identify his remarks as parody. You’re an idiot just like your hero. You’re also an a hole, again just like him

            2. Anon – it most clearly was not the essence of the conversation. He said nothing of the sort. Implied nothing of the sort. It met the definition of lying.

              It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat an untruth. It doesn’t make it true.

    4. You mean, like this?

      Trump’s assassination in a play.

      I am curious. Did you think that only the Left would engage in this behavior? After awhile, everyone throws mud. The outrage seems hypocritical. Is it only entertainment when Hollywood and theatre does it?

      I find it in bad taste, and worth discussing, but certainly would not censor it.

  10. As a Republican and Trump supporter, I can see the humor in it. It’s obvious to the viewer that the heads were photoshopped. It’s a little bit funny. Trump lost fifty pounds as well as Hillary. Look on the bright side. Much better than the severed head done by Griffin. But is still embarrassing to the Dems.

    1. he’s an old fashioned liberal who believes in free speech and open dialogue about current issues that’s why

      you’re not, you are a partisan who also believes in propaganda and its effectiveness, in either direction

      i recommend the works of Carl Schmitt. theory of the partisan and concept of the politcal.

      those contain the “whys” for why you don’t like what turley chose to post,
      and the “why” for why the video clip in question works as propaganda too

      turley’s school is liberalism.
      your school is post-modernity. in a word.

      if i had a school it might be called “conservative revolution” which is why i like heidegger and schmitt and nietzsche

      classic old fashioned liberalism comes before both.

      liberalism (and what is called neoliberalism alike) is the ideology of capitalism. both post-modernity and conservative revolution strive to exceed the boundaries of what is stipulated by liberal capitalism, and essentially agree to the need for a strong state to counteract the power of international capitalism

      the difference is that in post-modernity, the aim of overcoming capitalism, is to “uplift the oppressed,” or something like that, but in conservative revolution the aim is to revalorize the organic human forms of older social orders prior to the social disorder which characterizes capitalism.

      1. it’s not clear whether donald trump, in the end, will be considered a figure that was reactionary to guard certain aspects of liberal capitalism, or if he was merely Napoleonic, a sort of superficial reaction to social chaos, or, if as many hope, he was something of a conservative revolutionary.

        we will see

        he does seem to use a lot of shtick from the “post-modernist” playbook however ,which is why you guys hate his guts so much. he does the sort of naughty things which you thought only you were allowed to do. like fib. or self aggrandize.

        1. Among your problems with perception of Trump is that you see his chronic, habitual lying, self-aggrandizement, arrogance, racism, xenophobia and bragging about assaulting women as “naughty things” other people long to do but can’t. You haven’t a clue, but even expressing this sentiment is evidence of person you aspire to be. YOU wish you could get away with grabbing womens’ crotches, lying all of the time, being arrogant, crude, obnoxious, imprisoning vulnerable people in cages, including their babies. All naughtiness, according to you–some version of calculated “in your face-ism”. You are wrong. First of all, this is not how a POTUS should behave.

          Secondly, there is literally no method to his madness–no playbook involved at all. Trump is seriously mentally ill, and he has been symptomatic for most of his life. See the A&E Biography on the Trumps next time it airs. Part of his problem stems from the fact that his father favored Fred, Jr. over him, even though Fred, Jr. was an alcoholic. His arrogance, braggadociousness and need for attention and adulation speak to deep-seated insecurities, and are not evidence of “a conservative revolutionary”. He has a total lack of empathy for the feelings and plight of others–another sign of this disorder–he could care less about the slaughter in Syria, for example. He has profits from 2 hotels in Instanbul at stake, and the President of Turkey told him to get US troops out, so we are out. Never mind our agreements or even the ethics of turning our backs on the Kurds after they helped us contain ISIS. No reason to consult military experts or our allies, either, because protecting his hotel interests come first. Did he solicit help from the Ukrainian President? Of course–he needs to “win the victory”, just like his campaign gave Russians information to use to help him cheat to get into the White House. The only standards are those that make him appear to be “winning”, successful, the best. News media must be fake because they don’t say nice things about him. That’s why he wouldn’t find this video offensive.

          1. Natch:

            you have told us many times that you KNOW what is in the heart of various foreign leaders such as Trump Putin and others. I have met such remarks with a chuckle and light teasing.

            But when you refer to me: “YOU wish you could…” & then attributing criminal intentions to me is defamatory

            I say firmly:

            STOP DEFAMING ME

          2. “Secondly, there is literally no method to his madness–no playbook involved at all. Trump is seriously mentally ill, and he has been symptomatic for most of his life.”

            You are defaming Trump too, per se, not that he cares. Don’t worry, you’re mostly “Free” under NYT v Sullivan to do so.

            I’m not a public figure, however. Be careful of your tortious choices!

            1. First of all, you don’t publish your real name. Secondly, you have many times expressed admiration for the traits most people find offensive in general, and shockingly so when exhibited by the POTUS. That is what I base my comments on. Trump can’t be defamed–he is a public figure–plus the fact that his mental illness is documented and commented upon regularly. I would have no problem locating psychologists who would testify to his mental illness.

              1. Natacha – I bet I could get five psychologists to attest to your mental illness. And, BTW, you do not use your real name. It is really hypocritical to call someone else out for it when you don’t do it. Oh, just for the record, Trump can be defamed, it is just harder to make the case.

                  1. Prove it. Truth is iyou canpt prove either one of you are humans. Just Ad Machinas of The Collective.

                1. Really? What is my mental illness? What are my symptoms? Favor us, please, Dr. Schulte with your diagnosis, and please describe my symptoms. And, BTW, psychologists have written numerous articles describing Trump’s mental illness and the implications for national security, so this is not a novel concept. Of course, they don’t publish that on Fox or Breitbart.

                  You don’t seem to be able to follow topic threads, so I’ll help you out here: In response to the implied threat by Mr. Kurtz to be careful not to slander him, I pointed out that we don’t even know who he really is because he doesn’t use his real name. Therefore, how is it possible to slander someone when you don’t even know their real name? THAT was the point, not whether it is wrong to use a nom de plume. I do so because some of you Trumpsters could be dangerous. Just today one of you threated to use me for target practice.

                    1. The inability of right wing posters here to counter on point Natasha’s reasoned posts

                      If you fancy she’s ever offered anything resembling a reasoned post, you’re a bigger fool than I’ve taken you to be. (To take another example, you see above another three paragraph whinge about Kellyanne Conway, who is the object of one of her pathetic obsession. Kellyanne Conway is a public relations apparatchik of scant interest to anyone not inclined to hire her or book her).

                  1. And, BTW, psychologists have written numerous articles

                    Natacha’s been reading those internet ads which start with ‘Top Doc Says…”

                    Really? What is my mental illness?

                    I don’t clinical terms, Natacha. You’re incapable of being concise, recycle the same phrases from one post to another, continually allude to nonsense long debunked, have an obsession with trivia, have an unhealthy and quite gratuitous rage at Kellyanne Conway, have another fixation on Sean Hannity (who is alluded to here by no one but you), manufacture biographical fictions to try to score points in arguments, and are perfectly shrewish and charmless in any and all circumstances. You have no interest in public policy and just show up here to vent about the President. It hasn’t occurred to you that this is not normal behavior, because, well, you’re a head case. We have many partisan Democrats on our Facebook circle, none of whom ever say anything intelligent. However, there are just two whose voice has a slim resemblance to yours. One’s diagnosed bipolar and likely has a drinking problem as well. The other is hankering for gender reassignment surgery, has served time in the tank for DWI in recent years, and has had meltdowns at work that have cost her two jobs in the last four years.

                    1. Kellyanne Conway perfected the pivot. During the run up to the 2016 election, if she was asked a question, she ignored it and went into a rant about Hillary Clinton or the Democrats, never responding and when the questioner tried to refocus her on what was being asked, she simply talked over them and accused them of being rude. Now that’s what Trump and his entire administration do. He does something questionable, illegal, immoral, unethical or whatever and instead of responding, immediately the discussion turns to someone other than him, and there is never any response on the merits to his conduct. This sort of behavior had not been seen before Trump started running for President. Kellyanne is not invited to appear on most media because she simply will not respond to the gist of what is asked and turns every opportunity into a chance to campaign for Trump and against some Democrat. Observing this phenomenon and attributing it to the source is not raging or having a fixation. Hannity is even worse: he is smug, deceitful, repeats talking points provided by the Trump campaign and harps on simpleton misleading phrases such as: “no obstruction…no collusion” or “no quid pro quo”.

                      What facts to you have to accuse me of “biographical fictions”? You don’t like what I write, but I don’t make things up or threaten people. Shrewishness and charm are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but I am an American patriot, and see Trump for the arrogant windbag that he is. Call me names if you like, disagree with me about opinions, but the facts are what they are, and I don’t make them up.

                    2. You ever wonder if ‘Natacha’ is actually some prankster with a bunch of macros?

                    3. I don’t find Nurse Lawyer natacha mentally ill. I find her loud, annoying and self-indulgent. . So much so that I never read her screeds anymore (a practice I’d recommend to others). I compare her to a neighbor’s dog who continually bayed at the moon every night until finally the community got up in arms over the annoyance. The neighbor, finally sensing the growing animus, confined the dog to the garage where it annoyed only him. That self-sacrifice is how I view this blog. Hopefully her stupid is confined to us and not the community at large.

                    4. The inability of right wing posters here to counter on point Natasha’s reasoned posts is amusing and leads to one personal attack after another. Of course fellow magpies join in while they overlook much more promiscuous posters from their side who lack even a whiff of her cogency and ability to present.

                    5. Anon1 – I do not ever remember agreeing with Natacha about anything, so she is incapable of a reasoned argument. Just because you can spurt out word salad doesn’t mean it makes a cogent argument.

                    6. anon1 says:

                      “The inability of right wing posters here to counter on point Natasha’s reasoned posts ”

                      I make a habit of adding daily relevant content and links on this comments section in case any of you want to discuss something beyond your talking points. i don’t expect people to rely on my word for it so I post links habitually. i also post links to stimulate conversation. the effort mostly fails.

                      right now anon1 is the only one that shows any sign of even reading the other comments as opposed to just coming back the next day with the same copy and paste content against Trump, Fox, Hannity, and Kellayne Pivot (Natch) or today’s Wapo editorial (peter).

                      i’m not the only one. just for example, Ivan elaborated the difficulties in the Turkey Kurd thing at length. as a group, you guys don’t debate, you mostly just show up and call names

                      the last time I remember you giving any meaningful exchange was related to climate issues. the only other thing that you’ve taken much interest in, is the democratic potus candidate field. that’s fine, your interests are what they are.

                      but don’t pretend she’s being ignored because she’s just overwhelmed us with her rhetorical brilliance. that would not be the case. it’s just a daily grind. puxxy grabber, outrage over this, outrage over that, russians russians russians, what world leaders think in their hearts, because you all watch hannity and faux news, trump supporters bad too, blah blah blah.

                  2. Natacha – it is hard to place any faith in an occupation that keeps changing the definitions of mental diseases every couple of years. When Barry became prez, suddenly narcissist disappeared as a mental illness. Homosexuality was a mental illness (I have a friend who was institutionalized for it), now it is a badge of honor. How do we trust these people???????

                  3. Nutchacha asks what are my symptoms

                    …disregard for and violation of the right’s of others, those right’s considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:

                    A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.

                    B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.

                    C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.

                    D. Repeated assaults on others.

                    E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.

                    F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.

                    G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

                    David Brock requires his paid trolls to meet 5 of the above diagnostic criteria for Antisocial PD to keep their jobs

              2. plus the fact that his mental illness is documented and commented upon regularly. I


                1. Commenting regularly on intentional lies furnished by a DNC programmer operative is not proof. The only thing factual is the regular commenting but there is still no proof trom the machine parts of the Collective of The Party. Tsktsktsk my don’t the mensheviks look more stupid with each passing day. Again. Since you can’t prove hominem status just take your botox three in one mix and continue being ….. .nothing.

              3. As to number First can you prove you are a real human? When your programmer ensures the term ad machina comes to mind.

                Once again machine tool of the collective where’s your proof for your facts? None? Again? As Usual? Seig Us no Heils Ad Machina.

              4. WILLARD (quoting Kurtz): As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid lying morality, and so I am beyond caring.


                  Who Killed Thai Khac Chuyen?

                  Not I, Said the CIA
                  Friday, Sept. 05, 1969

                  Silence and secrecy are articles of faith and a way of life in the high-security halls of the Central Intelligence Agency. It took a murky internecine dispute with the U.S. Army to force the CIA to step forward last week to tell its side of the strange story of Thai Khac Chuyen, a supposed Vietnamese double agent killed late in June. Eight members of the U.S. Special Forces, including the Green Beret commander in Viet Nam, Colonel Robert Rheault,* are under arrest in Long Binh.


                    Oh, What a Lovely War by Jeff Stein (1991)

                    The whiff of political assassination is in the air again, as President George Bush toys with the future of Saddam Hussein. It seems as good time as any for him–and other Americans inclined to embrace “simple” solutions for complex foreign affairs–to remember that old chestnut, “What goes around comes around.”

                    Twenty-two years ago this June, a Green Beret intelligence unit in Viet Nam decided on a “simple” solution to the discovery of a suspected North Viet double agent in their ranks: after seeking approval from the CIA, they took him out in a boat, wrapped him in chains and tire rims, shot him in the head, and dumped him into the South China Sea.

                    In that single act, one among many during more than a decade in Viet Nam, their lives and careers were ruined.

                    It could have been me. The so-called Green Beret Murder Case broke into the news when I was running my own military intelligence operation out of the French colonial villa in Da Nang, a once-lovely port city on the South China Sea. Just when the Green Beret case surfaced, I received evidence that my own agent was working for the other side. I pondered what to do.

                    In the Green Beret case, the Army had announced only that it had arrested Col. Robert Rheault, commander of all Special Forces troops in Viet Nam, and seven of his men, on charges of first-degree murder of “a Vietnamese civilian male.” The press soon reported that the victim had been working for the Green Berets in sensitive espionage operations in Cambodia when a captured photo showed him in the company of high-ranking North Viet officers. His name was Thai Khac Chuyen.

                    My own agent had just failed a polygraph examination dealing with his allegiances. When we asked him if he was “loyal to the government of South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu,” his affirmative answer showed attempts at deception–lying.

                    The Green Beret case made me wonder what I should do if, in fact, my own spy was really working for the communists. Under the rules, the very existence of our operation was supposed to be kept secret from our South Vietnamese “allies”; turning him over for prosecution and trial was impossible. Would I take him out in a boat and shoot him in the head with a silencer-equipped pistol, as the Green Berets had just been charged with doing?

                    As anyone who spent time in-country knows, it was nearly impossible to establish the truth of these matters in Viet Nam, where a kind of frontier justice prevailed.

                    I had been in Viet Nam long enough, and I spoke the language well enough, to know something about the society and its history. I soon learned that the political loyalties of most Viets were splintered along family, clan, religious, and multiple ideological faults. It had been foolhardy to try and fit Viet Nam into our Cold War box. It was impossible to define any Viet, with certainty, as “procommunist,” pro-Saigon,” or “pro-U.S.” (which, viewed from the perspective of Nguyen Van Thieu, might define such a person as a traitor), unless they were in uniform and armed. That, in a nutshell, was the whole problem of the war: defining who the enemy was.

                    Sad to say, and it has been said many times, the U.S. failed utterly at culling the communists from the crowd, but that didn’t keep us from trying through such odious methods as the Phoenix Program. Meanwhile, with an initial guilt that soon gave way to desperation, the U.S. bombed and strafed rural villages (concluding that the murder of innocent civilians was worth the price of a few dead communists).

                    So it was that the arrest of Rheault and his men in July 1969, at the height of the war, sparked widespread curiosity and cynicism among us in the war zone. Why would the Army arrest such high-ranking Green Berets for executing one North Viet double agent? Wasn’t that their job?

                    The Army’s straight-faced explanation that the defendants had violated the Geneva Convention and killed someone they weren’t sure was an enemy spy rang hollow. The idea that the Green Berets should have turned their suspected spy over to the South Viets for a trial was laughable. To U.S. intelligence in Viet Nam, the Saigon government was every bit as much the enemy as the Viet Cong–often they were the same thing.

                    Yet the Rheault case was troubling. The summary execution of the suspected spy seemed to symbolize the anarchy that had overtaken much of the conduct of the war. While one part of the war was being fought above-ground with uniforms and rules, the other was being carried out in the dark with terror and assassination. The killing of Thai Khac Chuyen and the later sight of his grieving widow and children begging for justice outside the United States Embassy rang the knell once again that it was time to leave.

                    To others, however, the Army’s prosecution of the men seemed to symbolize the political limits Washington had put on winning the war. If only the Green Berets could be encouraged to execute more spies, the argument went, the U.S. might win.

                    Both sides, in their own way, were right. And wrong.

                    All this went through my mind as I pondered my own spy’s fate in the late summer of 1969, as the Green Beret affair bloated into a spectacle in Saigon and the Army announced a date for the courts martial of the eight men. The Viet Cong, to whom assassination was old hat, were having a propaganda holiday with the case.

                    Would I kill my own spy, I wondered, if it turned out he was working on the other side, if the lives of all my other agents were thrown into jeopardy? My own commander, I was sure, would not want me to ask him what to do.

                    Luckily for me, the decision was aborted when further interrogations revealed that my agent had not “bounced” the polygraph because he was a communist, but because he was a member of a right-wing political movement conspiring against the Saigon government! Such were the perilous currents of Viet politics that a 22-year-old college dropout, as I was then, was supposed to fathom.

                    The CIA, as it turned out, had no appetite for a Green Beret court-martial that would have put a spotlight on the agency’s own record of assassination in Viet Nam (or anyplace else). It finally persuaded President Nixon to quash the charges. Revelations about the “excesses” of the Phoenix Program and other seamy intelligence activities were left for another day’s scandal.

                    Like most veterans, I came home and tried to forget about the war. The Green Beret case continued to haunt me, however, with its beguiling paradox of defining moral standards while in the service of illegal, government-sponsored, activities.

                    The Cold War romance of the time, fed by James Bond and other patriotic caricatures, held that assassination was a necessary and even glamorous concomitant to the West’s twilight struggle for democracy. That began to crack with the Viet Nam war, and was obliterated by Watergate.

                    For me, however, it was demolished by the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The classified study, leaked by Pentagon consultant Daniel Ellsberg, revealed that the main product of America’s Cold War obsession with intrigue and deception in Viet Nam was self-hypnosis: The government had talked itself into believing it knew what the Viet Nam war was all about, and how to solve it–even as it discarded one losing strategy after another, lied to Congress, and ignored wiser heads.

                    The Pentagon Papers, along with the Nixon administration’s invasion of Cambodia, finally spurred me to get off the sidelines and I began writing articles on U.S. intelligence operations in Viet Nam (despite the security pledges I had signed never to discuss such subjects). My first pieces were on the U.S. intelligence connection to the Cambodian coup plotters who ousted Prince Sihanouk.

                    I soon enrolled in a graduate school with the goal of trying to find the roots of our appalling ignorance and folly in Indochina. On a more personal level, I was searching to understand how I had ended up carrying out such fruitless and morally questionable activities myself. Not surprising, I found the answer in our corrosive addiction to secrecy and deception during the Cold War.

                    The case of the Green Berets was never far from my mind. In 1978 I saw a movie, Breaker Morant, that reignited my interest in the affair. It was a true tale of Australian commandos executed for carrying out an approved assassination while serving in the British Army during the South African Boer War. The story seemed to mirror the Green Beret case in its portrayal of a government frame-up. I took a stab at getting the Green Beret documents declassified, but the affair remained deeply buried in secret government archives.

                    A few years later I learned that the character of Kurtz played by Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now was modeled on Col. Rheault, the enigmatic former commander of the 5th Special Forces Group and chief defendant in the Green Beret case. Like Kurtz, Rheault was a product of Phillips Exeter Academy and West Point, fluent in French, with a Master’s degree in international relations from the University of Paris. He was a paradigm of the Kennedy-era Green Berets, in fact, an upper-class, brilliant soldier as comfortable in a classroom as the straps of a parachute, a guy who could kill in five languages while discoursing on the virtues of Sun Tzu. With the advantage of a post-Viet Nam war, post-Watergate hindsight, I saw him as a metaphor for the kind of hubris that led us into the swamp of Viet Nam.

                    In the early 1980s, I took another stab at finding the former defendants, but they had scattered to the winds, and the word was that none of them would ever talk about the case, especially the stoic Rheault, whose career and marriage had been ruined by the affair.

                    Finally I heard he was running an Outward Bound program for troubled Viet Nam vets in Maine. I began writing letters, to which he politely, but firmly, responded with no interest in a book. He had no interest in digging up an episode that reflected so badly on the U.S. Army, he said, which he had loyally served for 26 years. He wanted to get on with his life, he said, and who could blame him?

                    I respected his reasoning, I told him, but I argued that in the era of Top Gun and Rambo, and an astonishing (to me) enthusiasm from liberals for the Contra War in Nicaragua, a generation that had hardly been born during the Viet Nam war needed to know what counterinsurgency war was really all about.

                    Finally, one day in 1989, the telephone rang at my desk at UPI, where I was the foreign news features editor. It was Rheault, calling to explain once again why he didn’t want to cooperate with a book on the Green Beret affair. As we talked then and in subsequent conversations, however, it became apparent that he had shed his hawk’s feathers long ago.

                    “The Cold War was a waste, a fraud, and a hoax,” he now said. He explained that his suspicions had grown over many years of personal study, but it was capped by a trip to the Soviet Union in 1988, where he led a joint wilderness expedition of Viet Nam veterans and Soviet veterans of Afghanistan. During days of mountain climbing and nights around the fire, his conversations with the once-feared Russian enemies convinced him that the Soviet threat had been deliberately overblown by the Pentagon and the CIA. For their part, the Russians said the Red Army had drummed the threat of an American invasion into their heads, too.

                    Reluctantly, over several more conversations and correspondence, Rheault finally agreed not to stand in the way of a book on the incident that had caused him, and his beloved Special Forces, so much agony and pain. Now, with their former commander’s green light, the other defendants who I had located also agreed to talk.

                    Finally, in 1990, a thick brown package containing nearly all the once-secret Army documents on the case arrived in my mailbox. Heavily blacked out, the documents only hinted at the government’s treachery in the case. It would take scores more interviews and documents to establish that the CIA had indeed encouraged the Green Berets to execute Thai Khac Chuyen–it was “the most efficient solution,” as one CIA agent admitted to an Army detective. Yet when the Army initiated the prosecution, of course, the CIA denied any responsibility for the killing. The Army command, eager to rein in the rambunctious Green Berets, went along with the lie.

                    The Green Beret case thus stands as a cautionary tale for those who would seek to get rid of Saddam Hussein by the “simple solution” of assassination. Most likely, a military unit would be picked to carry out the hit for the CIA. And when the inevitable flap comes, the military guys will be hung out to dry.

                    The overwhelmingly positive reaction to A Murder in Wartime: The Untold Spy Story that Changed the Course of the Vietnam War, has been gratifying, especially since it was a labor of love for my country, as well as younger generations that may be called on to carry out spurious operations in some far-off country for ill-defined goals. Young Americans especially deserve to know what our diddling around in the murky politics of, say, Iraq, is all about. (Certainly, by now, the hapless Kurds do.)

                    For me, the circle has already been closed. A year ago, halfway through my research, I learned that it was the Army’s inept handling of the Green Beret case that prompted Daniel Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers. What a great surprise! It was a perfectly ironic ending not only to the book, but to my long, personal odyssey in this affair: Except for Ellsberg’s stunning act, I probably would not have become a journalist. And I would not, of course, twenty years later, have written this book.

                    Even more stunning, if not for the Pentagon Papers, Nixon might not have loosed “the plumbers” on Ellsberg and later, the Democrats at Watergate. The debacle that followed, of course, ruined the president, but it also opened the CIA’s sewers for all the world to see.

                    All because of the Green Beret case.

                    There is an easy lesson in this for George Bush, the CIA, and of course, a future hit squad of Green Berets. Just remember. What goes around, comes around.


                    AND HERE WE ARE IN 2019 50 YEARS LATER

                    STILL MORE “RUSSIANS” BOGEYMEN



                    etc, etc

          3. “No reason to consult military experts or our allies, either, ” I just pick this one ignorant assertion out from the haystack to consider.

            1- you dont know whom he’s consulted you just ASSume. but you return every day with your crystal ball, and arrogant assertions of knowledge of world leaders’ hearts and deliberations

            2- Turkey is an important NATO ally

            here, instead of trying to correct you, I will let an NGO paper picked from a suitable search of cyberspace, educate you a little bit on Turkey as an ally, since, woefully ignorant Natch


      2. OK, let’s get the Kathy Griffin head hunter video up here. You know,. free speech.

        Also, I don’t understand what is meant by the Man-Boy Love organization pornography and think we should speak freely about it. Can we get JT to post some here?

        Give me a break.

        1. It’s beyond understanding that the left has no facts, proof or arguments other than porn but it is easily proved those ad machinas have no humanity.

  11. James O’keefe Project Veritas has a whistleblower video inside the top management of CNN.

    The Alex Jones Show will have the videos & O’keefe is coming up.

    Also Jones is having the Carpe from on regard this over a year old Meme JT posted here that he doesn’t seem to get.

    It does seem to be when they don’t get the joke that they become the butt of the joke. 😉

    Have a nice day CNN!

  12. So I guess P Turley was equally outrage at the last 4 years of Trump supporters being Lied about & being violently Attacked & some even Murdered. ( ElPaso/Ohio/ BigPharma/AMA)

    Oh that’s right I don’t remember that.

    Is Hamilton still playing with it’s depiction of an assassination of Trump.

    Remember all those Repub congressmen your guy shot the hell out of? We do!

    You sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.

    Remember Rep Maxine Waters… You get in their face, tell them they are not welcome here etc.

    Well, that backfired on that tyrant piece of Trash.

    The real truth is that by the old Fake Corporate News Media, the Fed/State Courts & by the actions of the Totalitarian Dims/Rinos Reps past 4 years action makes that video hilarious.

    If you & your people are looking for someone to blame just look in a mirror

  13. Hmm, that was amusing. I like Lynrd Skynrd too. This is not even close to Brandenberg V Ohio. It’s thought provoking political satire and metaphor!

    “Watergate does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?”

    1. I guess Trump called up the Marines to DC early this month because he thought they might be bored & that they could have a good time hiking Billygoat with JT.

      The American Hating Trash, Anti-Trumpers, best pray no harm comes to Trump or those around because my sense is that they have 100/150 million people going after them.

Comments are closed.