Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Trump’s Triumph at the U.N.


September 25, 2018
Image result for trump speech U.N. september 24 2018President Donald Trump addresses the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters, Sept. 25, 2018.(AP)
President Trump’s speech at the United Nations on Tuesday is one of the greatest political speeches ever delivered in peacetime.
Maybe you are like those members of the audience seated in the General Assembly who tittered when the president began his speech noting that, “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”
The bureaucrats shifting upon their glutei maximi upon the plush receptacles provided by the custodians of the United Nations may have found the president’s frank statement risible. But their hilarity detracts not one iota from the truth of his observation.
What President Trump said was not braggadocio. It was the unvarnished truth.
What Were They Laughing About Again?
In less than two years, the United States has added some $10 trillion in wealth to its economy. Four million new jobs have been created, and unemployment has plummeted to historic lows. Consumer confidence has soared, while tax reform has put more money in the pockets of average Americans and turbocharged American businesses.
Meanwhile, the President’s attention to the United States military has reversed the decay orchestrated by the Obama Administration, upping military spending to $700 billion this year, $716 billion next year. In short, “the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago.”
Giggle away, ye bureaucrats, giggle away.
So it is with the president’s speech. Barack Obama is reputed to be an impressive orator. But he never gave a speech that, in substance, could hold a candle to President Trump’s speeches at Warsaw, at Riyadh, before the joint session of Congress last year, or indeed his “rocket man” speech at the United Nations. And this topped them all for forcefulness, clarity, and wisdom.
The forcefulness and clarity, I believe, are acknowledged by everyone, even the president’s opponents. Emblematic passages include his description of ISIS “bloodthirsty killers,” his characterization of Iran as a “brutal regime,” the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” whose leaders “sow chaos, death, and destruction” and “plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.” All this is patently true, but one is not supposed to utter such things on the floor of the General Assembly.
This is not the usual language of diplomacy. It is the frank argot of truth: a tongue rarely heard in the echo-chambers of the United Nations with its squadrons of translators who translate clichés from one language into another swiftly, accurately, and inconsequentially. How refreshing—though admittedly, how startling it must have been to hear someone deliver an entire speech without lying.
Sovereignty Is Key
But I spoke of “wisdom,” too. Again, you may think that the conjunction of the name “Trump” and the virtue of wisdom is odd. But think about it. What, in the end, was this speech about? It was an elaboration of Trump’s chief foreign policy idea, “principled realism.”
“Realism” connotes an accurate and unsentimental appreciation of the metabolism of power. The “principles” in question involve an affirmation of who we are as a people, which turns on our affirmation of national sovereignty.
The president’s articulation of this simple, yet deep, idea is what lifted his speech out of the realm of pedestrian blather and marked it for the history books.
No one who has listened to President Trump talk about his “America First” agenda will have been surprised when he said, “America will always act in [its] national interest,” or “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy,” or “Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends.”
President Trump has made those points before, though perhaps not always so bluntly.
What was new was his meditation on the importance of sovereignty.
He was right, and in the halls of the United Nations, nearly unique, in pointing out that “responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.” More can be said—and I trust will be said—about those novel forms of coercion and domination. For now, however, we should pay attention to these key phrases in the president’s speech.
On moving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and our moving our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. The aim of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is “advanced, not harmed, by acknowledging the obvious facts,” to wit, the fact that Israel is a sovereign state and, as such, has the right to determine where its capital city should be.
On the immediate implications of a policy of “principled realism,” which means that “we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies, and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again. This is true not only in matters of peace, but in matters of prosperity.”
Translation of that last bit: “free trade” is a great desideratum, but trade that is not fair is not free. Henceforth, those who wish to trade with the United States, the world’s largest economy, must abide by the principle that “trade must be fair and reciprocal.”
The Long-Term Solution to the Migration Crisis
Let me touch briefly on one additional theme, migration (which subsumes immigration). “Uncontrolled migration,” President Trump observed, is a direct threat to national sovereignty and hence will not be countenanced by the United States. How stinging to the ears of the assembled bureaucrats must his words have been. “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.” Quite right, and worth the price of admission.
The president was also right that, “Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”
For those with ears to hear, this speech reminds one why—improbable though it may have seemed—Donald Trump is shaping up to be not just a good but a great president. Few people, least of all me, would have predicted it. But so it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the American people like the free, open, unapologetic taste of American success.
We are the richest, most generous country on earth. But we are not, despite the efforts of transnational progressives like Barack Obama, the world’s patsy. Donald Trump understands this. That is why he was elected. It is also why he will go down as one of the most extraordinary leaders this blessed country has ever been vouchsafed.

Hearing the Women, Then and Now


By Mark Steyn
September 25, 2018

Related image

Yesterday I wrote:
One day in the very near future a Republican who has taken the precaution of never having any sexual contact with anyone ever will nevertheless find that's no obstacle to being America's most notorious serial rapist.
I didn't realize the "very near future" would be that evening. Arriving for my appearance with Tucker Carlson, I watched, on the preceding show, Brett Kavanaugh tell Martha MacCallum that he hadn't had sexual intercourse "or anything close to it" in high school or in college. So, just to be precise, Martha made him confirm that he'd been a virgin in high school, and at Yale, and for all I know on the DC Court of Appeals.

And he's still the sex beast that raped America.

A couple of hours later Jimmy Kimmel told late-night viewers that he wouldn't object to Kavanaugh being confirmed for the Supreme Court as long as his penis was cut off in public. One assumes, charitably, that this is a joke, although, upon examination, it doesn't actually have the form of a joke, does it? One might almost think it was designed simply to get a cheer from those who actually would like to chop his penis off.

Also today Bill Cosby was sentenced to three-to-ten years in prison. I note again the difference in treatment extended to his fellow Bill, credibly accused rapist William Jefferson Clinton. No matter who else gets ensnared, #MeToo never extends to him too.

So on Thursday the Senate will hear evidence of what allegedly happened in an upstairs room at an unknown house somewhere near Columbia Country Club, Maryland sometime in the early Eighties. Presumably Judge Kavanaugh will be cross-examined on how close "anything close to it" actually got. This is the pitiful state to which the United States Senate has reduced its "advise and consent" role.

It was different nineteen years ago, when I had the misfortune, briefly, to be living in Washington, DC - just for a few weeks while covering the Clinton impeachment trial. I stayed at the Mayflower Hotel, which my editors kicked up a fuss about until Monica checked in a few doors down the corridor from me and I was the only guy on the inside. Anyway, I wanted to check my recollections of that period, so I looked up the moldering pile of clippings from London's Daily Telegraph, Canada's National Post and the other papers that carried my daily trial diary. Just to set the scene: obviously, nailing Clinton is a lot trickier than Clinton nailing you. The general flavor of the times is caught in this January 22nd 1999 column:
No wonder the Senators have stopped taking notes. For, in this case, words make no sense. Consulting my own notes, I find Clinton attorney Greg Craig's defiant evisceration of the perjury charge: The President "did not deny he had misled his aides"; he said, in fact, he had misled his aides. 
So the President wasn't lying about telling the truth; he was telling the truth about lying. If, instead of telling the truth about not telling the truth, he'd lied about lying, then he wouldn't have been telling the truth. 
But, just as he'd got that cleared up, Greg complicated things: "He never said that he told them only true things." So the President hadn't lied when he said he'd told the truth because, although he lied, he hadn't exclusively lied, so therefore he was telling the truth about telling the truth, although he'd also have been telling the truth if he'd said he'd lied, and, although he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't lied, he'd have been lying if he said he hadn't told the truth.
The House impeachment managers (including current senator Lindsey Graham) did their best to struggle through all this. But what's surprising two decades on is the Democrats' more or less open contempt for the women - the "survivors" (as Senator Blumenthal calls Christine Ford). In 1999, it began with all but one of the Senate Dems moving to end the trial without testimony from Clinton's victims. No, no, no: To hear from these women, to admit them to the precinct of the Senate, would insult the dignity of the world's greatest deliberative body, and we can't have that, can we? From my February 1st trial diary:
Those various Clinton lady friends who testified anonymously in the Paula Jones depositions will not be permitted in the well of the chamber. It'll be a cold day in hell before you hear "Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, meet Jane Doe Number 5" on the Senate floor.
Even Monica could not be admitted:
In public, the Democrats' position is that Monica won't reveal anything new; in private, they worry that, even if she reads out the phone book, just her squealy, girly, giggly girl voice will make the president's conduct way too vivid for public consumption. Of course, his offence pale beside Monica's: Were she to testify, she would threaten the dignity and gravity of this august body.
A week into the trial, Dem senators could barely conceal their boredom. January 23rd.
"We're all sick of this," sneered Minority Whip Harry Reid. "This was jammed down our throats by the House"- a peculiarly vivid image.
So instead Democrats demanded and got strict limitations on the trial. January 30th:
We've always understood that the Framers of the US Constitution created very precise mechanisms that automatically come into play. Instead, they're making it up as they go along: you can have three witnesses, no African-American women, no sex questions, video only, and just for three hours. What clause did that come from? That's not the Framers; that's a frame-up.
By February 1st senators had further shrunk the parameters:
For House impeachment managers, the next three days are a last chance to come up with something new ...but they have to find the "something new" among all the old stuff, as the Senate has forbidden them from introducing anything new in and of itself. So any smoking gun will have to be found among all the previously discharged firearms the Democrats say are only firing blanks.
"It's too late now to get into Kathleen Willey," snaps Republican moderate John Chafee. Doubtless, in moments of rueful reflection late in the evening, the president feels the same way.
Even with a mere three video witnesses to sit through, Senate Democrats could barely stay awake:
"I went to the movies this afternoon," said Louisiana Democrat John Breaux, staggering out of the Senates deposition-video screening room. "Got my box of popcorn and then all I did was watch Monica, Monica, Monica! And I thought, 'you know what? I've seen that movie before.'" 
You wouldn't want to be holed up for the Siege of Leningrad with Mr. Breaux. In American public schools, when a fidgety six-year-old finds it hard to concentrate, they diagnose ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and pump him full of Ritalin. But ADD has nothing on ADD (Attention Deficit Democrats): You could douse the Capitol in Ritalin and you wouldn't keep these boys awake. 
Perjury, obstruction, witness-tampering, trashing Monica's reputation...Let's face it, it doesn't have the gripping qualities of a Senate appropriations bill with $200 million in funding for the John Breaux Institute of Trial Procedure Studies in Baton Rouge. Blasé is the order of the day, and, as the trial drifts on, Senator Breaux and his fellow Breauxmides are honing their ennui.
You don't have to find the US Senate as risibly self-regarding as I do to think this is a rather odd way to treat a wide range of women - young, old, short, tall, svelte, zaftig - with credible stories of physical assault by the most powerful man in America. Yet in the Clinton era not one of them could catch the Senate's eye. Take the solon of solemnity himself, Dem Klansman Robert C Byrd:
"Sir, it was an honour to be in your presence," Larry King told him a couple of nights back. "Coming up we'll be talking to two of your peers, though a man such as yourself doesn't really have any peers..." Come off it, Larry! Who do you think he is..? Robert Byrd isn't the dean of dignity, he's West Virginia's prince of pork. And a man who votes against hearing Monica testify live on the grounds that it would damage the dignity of the Senate really shouldn't turn up wearing a red bow tie and matching vest. He looked like a busboy at Denny's.
One of the few honest men of the left in Washington that February was Christopher Hitchens. So naturally he wasn't permitted to testify either. From my February 10th column:
I never thought the trial of the President of the United States would dwindle down to... Christopher Hitchens. But, amazingly, it has: Yesterday, in the last few moments before the Senate retired behind closed doors, Republican Arlen Specter introduced a doomed motion to subpoena Mr. Hitchens, Mrs. Hitchens, and any other journalists that White House flack Sidney Blumenthal had peddled his Monica-the-sex-crazed-stalker story to.
That's quite a long list. Through 1998 and early 1999 Clinton and his aides relentlessly trashed Monica and all the rest. On the day of acquittal, I tipped my hat to a few of them:
Hail to the Perp! And farewell, sweet Monica: In the annals of interns, you will stalk forever with all the other "crazy people, uh, troubled people" (Sid Blumenthal.) 
Au revoir, Kathleen Willey, you too-merry widow –"Are you saying she came on to you, Mr. President?" "Well, she was always very friendly..." 
Thank you and good night, Dolly Kyle Browning - prototype Clinton mistress and "an absolute nut" (presidential aide Marsha Scott.) 
And good luck to all those broads savvy enough to keep out of the way because "they've got a lot to lose...and what we do is work on getting material on them to try to induce them not to compromise the president" (Clinton loyalist Betsey Wright). 
All the above quotes come from testimony to a grand jury comprised mainly of African-Americans, but none of it matters because Ken Starr is (altogether now) "out of control" and we don't want a "sex policeman" prying into people's bedrooms, even though Mr. Starr never went anywhere near Mr. Clinton's bedroom, presumably on the grounds that it's the one room in the White House where you can guarantee there's absolutely no sex to pry into.
To be sure, much has changed in the last two decades. But some things don't: Women who accuse Republicans have to be heard and believed because they're "survivors"; women who accuse Democrats are nuts and stalkers who need never be heard.

~Mark will be back on Wednesday evening for a triple-threat midweek:
*First, for Mark Steyn Club members, he'll be reading Part Thirteen of our latest Tale for Our Time - John Buchan's cracking Greenmantle;
*Then he'll be making a rare Wednesday appearance with Tucker Carlson live at 8pm Eastern;
*And immediately after that Mark will be joining Tucker for an hour-long live-streamed book-signing to launch his splendid new bestseller-in-waiting Ship of Fools. That's at 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific, and you'll be able to ask questions about the book that Mark will put to Tucker. You can watch this one-hour special live right here.
If you're not yet a member of The Mark Steyn Club, we'd love to have you. You can find more details here. Alas, our inaugural Steyn Club Cruise with Mark's special guests has completely sold out - but we'll soon be announcing next year's.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

RED WAR: A Conversation with Kyle Mills


The Real Book Spy
September 23, 2018
Image result for kyle mills red war
On a breezy end-of-summer afternoon here in Michigan, I connected with author Kyle Mills (after a brief technical difficulty), who has been spending time in Spain with his wife. 
Speaking by phone, Mills took well over an hour to discuss the current state of the Rappverse, a universe he took over in 2013 after the passing of literary icon Vince Flynn, turning in three novels to date, all of which have debuted on the top-three of the New York Times bestsellers list. His fourth,Red War, comes out Tuesday and is already one of the best reviewed Mitch Rapp novels ahead of its release. 
In our last conversation, Mills spoke at length about how his first Rapp novel, The Survivor(2014), was what he calls a “forgery,” meaning that he did everything he could to emulate Flynn’s writing and storytelling style. With each book, he’s put more of himself into the writing, sounding less like Vince, but staying true to the characters Flynn created. To kick things off, I asked him if he’s more comfortable now, as opposed to back when he wrote The Survivor
“Oh yeah, definitely,” said Mills. “I had to become comfortable writing this series. The question was . . . could I write this series comfortably and still please Vince’s fans, or was my comfort level just too far and different from what Vince would have done? I think I’ve gotten comfortable enough writing these books in a way that’s true enough to Vince’s vision that I’m happy, the fans are happy, and I’m able to explore things happening in the world that he never could have imagined.”
When people hear the name Vince Flynn, most think of how he broke onto the thriller scene by tackling radical Islamic terrorism at a time when the rest of the genre was still focusing on the Cold War and looking for the next big threat. Interestingly, though, as Mills noted during our talk, Flynn never even had the chance to hear about ISIS, who has since overtaken al Quaeda as the most feared terror group in recent memory. It’s an interesting anecdote because in just a short period of time, the headlines and news cycles have changed drastically since Flynn, who was so known for beating headlines during his career, passed away. 
Staying true to Vince’s characters is one thing, but I asked Mills about the pressure he feels to try and see the world the way Flynn did, or if he writes things the way he sees it himself. 
“I think the way I see it. It’s hard to say how Vince would have seen the world today. It’s changed so much since he died that it’s impossible to speculate.” 
As far as trying to remain timely and relevant, that’s something Mills works at quite a bit. “In my mind, these are political thrillers. The urgency has to be there,” Mills told me, “and they have to be addressing what people are thinking at that moment.” 
One thing people are surely thinking a lot about right now is the potential threat that Russia poses to the rest of the world, especially the United States, which is a topic that Mills covers at length in Red War
“I’ve always been really fascinated with Russia ever since I grew up on all the Cold War thrillers, and now that they’ve pushed back onto the world stage, obviously, I did that with Order to Kill (2016) to give Mitch Rapp a new challenge and, you know, as Putin keeps kind of rising up on the world stage a little bit, I kept thinking about what could start a war between these two countries. It’s hard because I follow the villains pretty closely in these books and, if you do that, they have to have a pretty clear motivation or it doesn’t feel believable. So, I had to find a way to motivate Russia to attack NATO, and this felt like a very plausible reason because you can follow Krupin and everybody would understand why he would attack a much bigger dog.”
The “plausible reason” Mills mentions here is Maxim Krupin, the Russian president, finding out he has terminal brain cancer in the opening chapter of Mills’ new book. Convinced that his political adversaries, both inside and outside of Russia, will come after him when he’s too weak to defend himself, Krupin takes preemptive measures to wipe out anyone who might mount an attack while he’s still well enough to eliminate them. That list includes his former henchman, Grisha Azarov, who plays a prominent role in both Order to Kill and Enemy of the State (2017). 
“I liked him, but I didn’t have a real plan as for how or when I would bring him back,” said Mills when I asked if he planned to keep Grisha involved following the conclusion of the last book.
“I sort of left it that he was owed a favor, and I always assumed he’d call that in at some point, but I didn’t know when. It could have been multiple books down the line but, because the Russia thing came up, it’s just hard to write about all of that without including Grisha. So, I ended up using him again sooner rather than later.” 
“I like the character, continued Mills. “He compliments Mitch really well in that has approximately the same skill set, but completely different personalities. I think that’s really interesting that two people can accomplish the same thing but from completely different emotional standpoints. In this new book, they have a discussion about it actually, about how they’re motivated by really different things. Having said that, Grisha looks pretty happy with retirement, so we’ll see if he ever returns. I’m not sure.”
In Red War, Mitch Rapp pays back that favor he owed Azarov by showing up just as Krupin’s men storm Grisha’s Costa Rica compound. After barely making it out of the assault alive, both men go after Krupin who, as readers might have noticed in past books, bears a striking resemblance to real-life Russian President Vladimir Putin. It turns out, that’s no accident.
“I really laid out Krupin’s background in Order to Kill, and I basically just took that off Vladimir Putin’s biography,” admitted Mills.
Indeed, the two share a similar history, right down to the now infamous shirtless horseback riding photos of Putin, which Krupin replicates in Red War in an effort to appear healthy while trying to hide his cancer diagnosis. 
“I changed the name, obviously, but Krupin’s backstory with the KGB and how he rose to power is right from Putin. He has such an interesting background, that you don’t have to make one up. What makes these books fun is that they feel really real. I don’t like to use real people, unless they’re dead, in these books because they’re unpredictable. But the closer you get to Putin and the situation with the United States, the better. I think that makes it thrilling.” 
Image result for kyle mills red war
Krupin, as readers will soon find out, proves to be a worthy villain, right on par with past bad guys from earlier in the series. Taking a second to reflect on some of the previous antagonists, Mills and I discussed Vince Flynn’s ability to create such hateable bad guys, something he saw as one of Flynn’s greatest strengths. 
“You bring up an interesting point,” laughed Mills. “Because Vince created such an iconic character in Mitch Rapp, you forget that one of his greatest gifts was creating these bad guys that you really wanted to see suffer. They felt very real, whether they were terrorists or these awful politicians, that propelled a lot of the books. Vince was a double-threat with that for sure.”
The conversation quickly turned back to Grisha, one of the most fascinating new characters to enter Rapp’s world in over a decade. After two books, he’s quickly become a fan-favorite due to his lethal set of skills. I asked Kyle Mills if he believes Rapp needs to always be portrayed as the most lethal character, and how important that is to him. His answer, I think, will make the diehard fans of this series happy moving forward. 
“The short answer,” said Mills, without hesitation, “is yes. Mitch is the alpha in these books. That’s the way they have to be. Grisha, in some ways, was an experiment, and one that I was nervous about. I was actually nervous enough about it to call Vince’s editor and his agent and make sure everybody understood that I was going to create a character that was, to a large extent, Mitch Rapp’s equal. It had never been done before. These books are very much about Mitch’s dominance. They all thought it was a good idea, very interesting, and wanted to see how Mitch would react to something like that.
“So, certainly, he’s the alpha, and even in that battle (during Order to Kill) he won, but it was a hard one.”
In my review of Order to Kill two years ago, I likened Grisha to the Ivan Drago of assassins, complete with a team of mad scientists shooting him full of anabolic steroids and meticulously planning out his physical fitness regimen. Now, though, Azarov is in a different place, and readers might be surprised to find him slightly out of shape, at least to his own standards.
“Going into this book, I had already set up their hierarchy and established that Mitch was a superior fighter, but not by much. Now I felt like Grisha wanted to be gone from that world. He entered it, not because of anger or seeking revenge (like Rapp did), but because he was good at it. He didn’t have a real passion for it, so the idea that he would continue to train at that tempo and take drugs and stuff like that while living in Costa Rica and surfing, I mean, why would he?
“He’d still stay in shape, but not on that level. I think of him as a retired professional athlete. A guy who might have retired from the Tour de France could still go out and pedal his bike around and be the fastest thing you’ve ever seen, and still not be anywhere close to the level they were at one time.”
Hearing Mills talk about Grisha retiring, I couldn’t help but wonder about Rapp’s future and asked him how long he thought Mitch could continue doing what he does at this hight of a level. The good news is, fans shouldn’t expect Rapp to go hanging up his Glock anytime soon. 
He’s got a long time still,” Mills assured me. “Vince aged Mitch realistically. In my mind, Mitch is in his early forties. He was that age when I took over, and he still is in this book. I’m going to leave him that way until I think there’s a reason not to. There’s a lot of stories left for Mitch and I’d hate to see him go by way of Stan Hurley and be out there when he’s eighty, trotting around and trying to leap through windows.”
While readers will no doubt like hearing that about Rapp’s future, another thing sure to please fans is the return of Mitch’s longtime right-hand man, Scott Coleman. For those who didn’t read Order to Kill, the former SEAL takes a beating in that book, which left him sitting on the bench in last year’s Enemy of the State. Now though, Mills gets him back in the game, and I asked him why he thought it was important to do so. 
“I see Coleman as fundamental to the series. To me, you have two really fundamental characters. You’ve got Mitch and Irene Kennedy, and then Scott’s just a little bit lower on the totem pole but still critical and a fundamental character to the series.”
If you’re wondering why Mills left Coleman out of the last book even though he views him as “a fundamental character to the series,” he touched on that too. 
“I’ve always had this real pet peeve about secret agents taking this horrible beating and then, a half hour later, they’re fine. So, after what happened in Order to Kill, I knew he’d basically have to sit out a book because there was no way he was bouncing back from that quickly. But I did know, in the next book after that, he would return.”
Before asking about his next book, which should come out sometime in the fall of 2019, I asked Mills about his writing process, and whether or not he plans out future books in his head while working on the latest one. 
“If I’m working on an outline, I work until I can’t work anymore. It could be an hour, it could be eight hours. That’s purely creative, so it takes a lot of brain power, like, as much as I’ve got. Sometimes you get in there and get all these great ideas out, and it’ll take an hour and then you’re just exhausted and there are no ideas left. I feel really lazy sometimes because I think ‘well, I’ve only worked an hour, but nothing productive is going to happen the rest of the day.'”
“After the outline, though, when I’m actually writing the book, I tend to have a strict schedule that’s based on my deadline, and that’s almost always one chapter a day. As for planning out future books, no. I actually think the opposite is true. I don’t really like to do that at all because it makes me nervous. It splits my focus. I tend to have no idea what I’m going to write next when I finish the book I’m working on.” 
Not only does Mills not plan out or think about the next book while working on his current one, but even when he does turn his attention to the next project, he doesn’t approach it by trying to figure out how to top the book he just finished.
“No, I definitely don’t think in those terms,” he said. “I think I’d go nuts. It’s such a subjective business, you know, what’s a better book than the last one? I think if you try to think in those terms, it would be like trying to go faster. It wouldn’t work for me. I come up with a concept, and then I try to write the best book that I can. That’s what I’ve always done. That’s always been my formula.”
That formula has obviously served him well, as Mills has quickly established himself as one of the most well-rounded and best writers working in the thriller genre today. A diehard fan of Vince Flynn, even I have to admit that Mills has taken this franchise to another level entirely. In fact, I actually prefer his portrayal of Mitch over Vince’s, which feels almost blasphemous to say, even though it’s true. 
Earlier this year, after handing in Red War to his editor, Emily Bestler, Mills began working on the 18th Mitch Rapp book. Though he couldn’t share too many details just yet, the little he did say drops a big hint about the next threat Rapp will face.
“Well, it’s funny,” began M3ills, “because of the political landscape right now, I really wanted to do something non-political. I was even thinking about doing something about Mitch flying over Columbia when his plane crashes and his phone breaks, and he has to fight his way out of a drug area in Columbia. Something not political at all. Instead, that’s not what happened. 
“I actually went the opposite way because that’s what’s happening in the world right now, especially in the United States. There’s a biological threat in the next one, plus a very divisive presidential campaign, and that plays a big role. The guy running for president is a really awful guy who is bad for Irene Kennedy (as the CIA director) and bad for America. That’s all playing out in the background while the guy is manipulated by another country, and ISIS uses his campaign to try and drive Americans apart. To me, that’s what is happening right now so I couldn’t get around it.
“There’s no question that what’s going on politically in the United States, and even culturally, is on everybody’s mind. It’s almost like the elephant in the room. You either, as a writer, have to make a conscious choice to ignore it, or to address it. I tried to ignore it, but it didn’t work. Finally, I realized I had to embrace the elephant or it’s going to be a really scattered book.”
A biological threat is something readers have never seen Mitch Rapp take on, and it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. As for the political stuff, Mills assured me that he’s going about things carefully so that all fans of this series, regardless of your political beliefs, will enjoy the next installment. 
“With the next book, I’m hoping that there’s still a universal good and bad, though I’m not even sure everyone agrees with that anymore, and this new character is just so bad for America. I don’t touch on any divisive issues, though.” 
It’s a good thing Mills doesn’t stress over topping himself while working on his next book because, honestly, Red War might be the biggest mission of Rapp’s career. Never before have we seen the American assassin go after a more high-profile target than the president of Russia. 
“I don’t know that I ever thought about it that way,” said Mills, laughing, “but you’re right, they don’t really get much bigger than this.The way I thought about it, and the struggle of writing this book . . . I liked the concept of following Krupin and how this would give a clear reason for Russia to go to war with the United States as opposed to just saying ‘Russia is going to war with America, take my word for it,’ and starting the story there. So, I think, then the struggle was that the situation was going out of control on a level that one man cannot control.”
“That’s the thing about a Mitch Rapp thriller, it has to be about Mitch and how he’s going to deal with the problem. Well, now you’ve got a war, I mean there’s submarines and naval battles, things that are going on that are well beyond Mitch’s sphere of influence. How does it all draw back to him? How does he accomplish what needs to be done realistically, and survive?”
To find out those answers, you’ll have to dive into Red War, in stores everywhere tomorrow, Tuesday, September 25th. 
Related:
Review: Red War by Kyle Mills-

The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil


September 24, 2018
Image result for kavanaugh confirmation
(USA Today)
Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench are parts of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.
But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane.
President Donald Trump, who was elected by people who cared deeply about fighting the progressive takeover of the courts, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat. D.C. establishment figures on the right revere Kavanaugh, and praise his extensive judicial record. Before meeting with him or holding hearings, most Democratic senators said they planned to vote against him.
The hearings ricocheted from interesting discussions of judicial philosophy to clownish “I am Spartacus” moments and radical abortion protesters screaming about their love of killing unborn children.
Only upon completion did Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein release news that she’d sat on a claim of sexual assault for six weeks. The media then began running with uncorroborated and disputed allegations ranging from Christine Blasey Ford saying she thought Kavanaugh was trying to rape her and might kill her to Avenatti suggesting that Kavanaugh is a gang raper.
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — in part thanks to Sen. Jeff Flake, cowering in the face of a smear campaign — bent over backwards to accommodate the first accuser, no matter how outlandish her requests to delay the hearing. As was easily predictable, the media and other resistance members put forth additional claims — somehow even less substantiated than the initial one — as the days passed.
This all has political significance, but let’s take a step back and think through the ethics of destroying a man without evidence to warrant it.

Standards Of Evidence Must Be Kept High

We have rules for evidence in our court rooms that provide excellent guidance in the general culture. One of these is that the burden of proof is not on the accused but the accuser. First the accuser presents his or her case, buttressing it with all the evidence at hand. Then the accused responds to the accusation using the evidence he or she has. It is easy to make an allegation but difficult to prove one. This is as it should be.
Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the danger posed by people throwing accusations against political enemies. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does a good job of explaining some of the rights of the accused in our political system:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Kavanaugh isn’t facing criminal prosecution in part because his accusers have come nowhere near the standard required for criminal prosecution. And senators predisposed to vote against him are not the definition of an impartial jury. That does not mean disputed allegations should form the basis of destroying a man’s life, career, and reputation. It also does not mean that a precedent should be established of allowing the left to weaponize use of disputed allegations to thwart the seating of justices.

Journalists Should Not Engage In Mob Justice

No profession has as high a self-conception as journalism. And yet in recent weeks, in an environment where they are accused of being partisan activists instead of truth tellers, they have dropped their standards somehow even further.
Presumably out of a shared belief that the sacrament of abortion might be threatened by a second Trump nominee serving on the court, some in the media are running multiple stories based on reputation-destroying allegations that have not come close to meeting a journalistic standard.
The New Yorker’s laughably disreputable Jane Mayer and previously well-regarded Ronan Farrow wrote up a story claiming that a progressive activist recovered a memory of sexual assault only after being prodded by Senate Democrats to do so. Even The New York Times — which doesn’t have a sterling track record when it comes to running with wild accusations — interviewed dozens of people in an attempt to corroborate the allegation and was not able to do so. They found that the accuser Deborah Ramirez had recently told classmates she could not be certain Kavanaugh was the man who she says exposed himself to her.
Journalism can and should be an important check on declining standards. Instead of demanding that accusers make reasonable cases, they are helping them overcome the flaws in their own stories in an effort to defeat a Supreme Court nomination.

Are Our Senators All Children?

Democratic senators announced at the outset of the Kavanaugh nomination that they would do what it took to stop him. They have held to their word, believing that any means necessary is morally defensible.
Republican senators, however, seem to lack the discernment to understand when they’re getting played by people who hate them and want them destroyed.
It’s not just that they’re losing a political battle, but that they’re allowing Democrats and the media to destroy a man and his family for political gain. There is no virtue in allowing a man to be smeared without evidence.
Wielding Political Power Morally
When President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the closing months of his presidency, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the Biden Rule, named after the former senator’s view that Supreme Court vacancies in the waning months of a presidency should be filled after the election. It was the use of raw political power, even one with precedent, and it angered Democrats. That anger is at least defensible.
But thank God that Republicans didn’t kill the Garland nomination by tearing down the man and spending months trying to find high school classmates to claim attempted rape and near-death experiences.
At some point one must consider whether evil means are justified for progressive ends. The bottom line is that this media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply can’t be the standard by which we destroy people. Watching this miscarriage of justice is radicalizing those who care about rule of law and political processes that have a semblance of sanity.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at@mzhemingway

Monday, September 24, 2018

Bono Can't Give the EU a Soul


By Tim Black
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bono-cant-give-the-eu-a-soul/21819#.W6jfv9QrL4b
24 September 2018

Image result for U2 eu flag
(U2.com)
Explaining why U2 were going to wave the EU flag during their current world tour, Bono said the EU ‘deserves songs written about it’. He added: ‘There may be no romance to a “project” or sexiness in a bureaucracy, but… to prevail in these troubled times Europe is a thought that needs to become a feeling.’
To be fair to Bono (which is never easy), he is on to something. The EU is an opaque project. Its ‘citizens’ do not identify with it emotionally, intellectually or culturally. They don’t feel it.  Even the EU’s symbols mean little, be it the EU anthem or the flag, punctuated by 12 stars, tellingly shining alone rather than in union.
Which is where U2 come in. For four decades now, these good, middle-class Christian boys from Dublin have cultivated themselves as the soul in a soulless world. While they talk up their punkish to post-punk origins, U2, in temperament and tone, sit more easily alongside the likes of Sting and Bob Geldof, earnestly supporting supposedly worthy causes. And like Sting and Geldof, U2 were often mocked for it. Theirs was a sanctimony so swollen with hubris, it asked to be pricked. Which the Pet Shop Boys duly did with the scathing 1991 single ‘How Can You Expect to Be Taken Seriously?’.
Yet, irony came to U2’s rescue. That, at least, is certainly how it looked by the time of Achtung Baby (1991), with Bono embracing the character of ‘The Fly’, a hodge-podge of sleazy Jim Morrison-style messianism and the crotch-thrusting clichés of rock’n'roll excess. U2 looked to every over-educated music journo as if they had abandoned earnest humanitarianism and gone full-on postmodern. But in the industrialised, distorted guitar licks of ‘The Fly’, and the lyrics of ‘Even Better Than the Real Thing’, an anti-hymn to coked-up consumerism, Achtung Baby exposed the death of rock’n'roll transgressiveness and reckoned with the only thing seemingly left: shopping and watching MTV.
Nevertheless, there was still room in their world, it seemed, to feelAchtung Baby was made in Berlin in the immediate aftermath of reunification. It dealt angstily with the uninspiring triumph of vaguely liberal capitalism, but was willing to embrace it, too – provided one had an outlet for being a good soul, whether that was in the uplift of a soaring, lighter-aloft chorus, or in supporting fairtrade. And it is this album and this outlook that brought U2 into alignment with post-Cold War political and business elites.
A year after Achtung Baby was released, the European Union was born. And right on cue, U2 duly serenaded it with their first attempt at an EU anthem, Zooropa(1993). On the title track, Bono croons, affirmatively, ‘Zooropa better by design / Zooropa fly the friendly skies / Through appliance of science / We’ve got that ring of confidence’. But there is doubt and critique, too, especially on its first single, ‘Numb’, a downbeat, angst-ridden response to supposed information overload.
This was U2 at their creative, critical and commercial height during the 1990s – critical cheerleaders of the new, post-Cold War world. They were like the Corporate Social Responsibility arm of a global corporation, the caring yin to the capitalist yang. Bono nuzzled up to the global political and business elite at every opportunity. To this day, wherever there is a G8 summit, Bono is there, next to whoever is leading the world at that point, from George W Bush and Tony Blair to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill and Melinda Gates.
By the mid-to-late 2000s, it became difficult to disentangle U2 from the elites who flattered them. This is reflected in the music they produced after 1997’s Pop, a last creative hurrah as it turns out. The music becomes stodgy, sentimental and predictable – and increasingly irrelevant. The irony and angst is gone, and, with it, the distance from the powers-that-be. U2 simply now mirror the elites: they are globalist and cosmopolitan in outlook, far happier bestriding the world on tour, than residing at home; and they are no longer very popular.
That U2 thinks it is their job to provide the EU with feeling is hardly a surprise. The problem is that U2’s moral credentials, like those of the political and business class, have taken a battering over the past decade. It was easy to enjoy ironically the boons of capitalism during its post-Cold War, credit-fuelled boom; but to strive to continue doing so, after the crash, as U2 did when minimising their tax liabilities, was always going to play badly. They now look as self-interested as politicians.
Perhaps, at some subliminal level, hidden deep beneath his swollen ego, Bono is aware of this. Perhaps he knows that his time, like that of the political and business class, has come to an end. Perhaps that is why, on the opening night of U2’s tour in Berlin, Bono lost his voice.
Tim Black is a spiked columnist.

Sunday, September 23, 2018

How Feinstein is conspiring to destroy Kavanaugh




https://nypost.com/2018/09/22/how-feinstein-is-conspiring-to-destroy-kavanaugh/

September 22, 2018

Image result for feinstein kavanaugh

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, responds to reporters' questions on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh amid scrutiny of a woman's claim he sexually assaulted her at a party when they were in high school, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, September 18th.(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Democrat leaders and their liberal aides, along with professional agitators, are all intermingled and conspiring together to achieve the same objective — in this case, to spike the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Hill Republicans claim Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein engineered the knee-capping of Kavanaugh from both inside and outside Congress — and they have a strong case, though Feinstein insists she merely dealt cards she was handed.
For starters, they argue that Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate committee vetting Kavanaugh, orchestrated an “11th-hour ambush” of the conservative nod by withholding a letter from the committee’s Republican majority alleging sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh until the day the panel was preparing to take a vote to confirm him — almost two months after receiving the letter and well after the vetting and hearing process.
“You chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment,” a furious Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) scolded Feinstein in a letter dated Sept. 19.
“I cannot overstate how disappointed I am in this decision,” he added. “It has caused me to have to reopen the hearing.”
Grassley suggested that the last-minute allegations were “deployed strategically for political gain.” Democrats are hoping to delay the hearing until after the Nov. 6 congressional elections to give them a chance to win back enough Senate seats to defeat Kavanaugh. Indeed, Feinstein said, “We should delay this hearing.”
But Republicans point to other skullduggery as well.
This spring, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign press secretary Brian Fallon hired one of Feinstein’s top aides on the Judiciary Committee to help tank President Trump’s Supreme Court picks from the outside. Together, he and Feinstein’s aide — former deputy general counsel Paige Herwig — launched a liberal non-profit group called Demand Justice to lead the left’s attack on GOP nominees.
In early July, after Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the high bench, Fallon stated that their primary goal was to “delay” confirmation hearings for him. Meantime, he outlined plans of attack, including ginning up questions about what Kavanaugh “knew and when he knew it” about allegations of sexual misconduct by a federal judge he once clerked for.
Later that month, a letter alleging Kavanaugh was involved in an “attempted rape” while in high school was hand-delivered to Feinstein’s office.
Curiously, Feinstein did not raise the accusation during confirmation hearings earlier this month. Throughout the hearings, however, Demand Justice dispatched protesters claiming Kavanaugh sought to deny women rights, while running attack ads warning he planned to “overturn Roe [v. Wade] and criminalize abortion.” The ads appeared in Alaska and Maine to try to sway those states’ moderate pro-choice Republican senators to vote against Kavanaugh.
The scare tactics didn’t work. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) sent strong signals they would back Kavanaugh, prompting Demand Justice to concede it might be unable to stop the Senate from confirming him.
Then, just days before the committee planned to vote for Kavanaugh, the letter that was handed to Feinstein was, in turn, leaked to the media and the accuser was identified. Christine “Chrissy” Blasey Ford, a registered Democrat and donor from San Francisco, claimed Kavanaugh tried to pin her down and sexually assault her at a party while the two were in high school. But her details are sketchy. She can’t remember exactly when or where the alleged incident took place, and she concedes she didn’t tell anybody about it at the time, making it hard to corroborate her story.
Kavanaugh, for his part, has categorically denied the allegation both publicly and during a committee staff interview conducted last week “under penalty of felony.” Grassley is trying to negotiate a public hearing to air the charges.
Last month, Blasey Ford took and allegedly passed a polygraph test conducted by a former FBI agent, and hired a law firm headed by major Democratic donors and activists who are working with Demand Justice to smear Kavanaugh as a sexual predator. They’ve created a Web site, IBelieveChristineBlasey.com, that encourages voters to call their senators and ask that they vote against Kavanaugh. The site maintains that “Brett Kavanaugh is NOT credible in his denial. Kavanaugh’s nomination is on the ropes; he has everything to gain by lying. He has already lied, multiple times, under oath before the Senate. There is no reason to trust his word now.”
Blasey Ford’s lead attorney, Debra Katz, at the same time heads a leftist advocacy group funded by liberal megadonor George Soros, who also is funding Demand Justice, which has raised $5 million to sink Trump’s high-court picks. In a new attack ad, the group compares Kavanaugh to “child predator” Judge Roy Moore.
Who paid for Blasey Ford’s polygraph, and who is covering her legal bills? Who leaked her letter to The Washington Post? Katz and Demand Justice did not reply to requests for comment. Nor did Feinstein’s office.
But one thing is for sure: Feinstein and her former aide’s fingerprints are all over the smearing of Kavanaugh — and that’s an ironic shame, given that Feinstein was swept into Congress as a reaction to the then-Democrat Senate’s mishandling of the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas sex allegations. The San Francisco-based senator has made her own missteps some 25 years later.