Is It Time For A Drone Strike On Mar-a-Lago?

That's the interesting question that lefty loon has been talking up this week--two days in a row. Her concept seems to be, Hey, we won the election so why not? 

You think I'm exaggerating? Not really. Read on.

First of all, a hat tip to Newsbusters for these transcripts of former Bushie Wallace on MSNBC on Thursday and Friday.

On Thursday Wallace brought on ex-FBI wack job Clint Watts.  "According to Watts's bio, he's 'a national security contributor for NBC News and MSNBC.'" Get a load of this:

NICOLLE WALLACE: I wouldn't waste my breath with them [Republicans.] And I'd say to Democrats, it's time to roll out a terrorism-era choice for Republicans. And this should come from every Democrat: you're either with them [domestic "terrorists"], or with us. There are not two sides to be taken on the question of incitement. 

And Clint Watts, I'd like you to speak about fighting terrorism, just generally, and as an art and a science. I don’t know of any examples where they simply go to the crime scene and deal with the person who was radicalized to carry out violence. It always starts at the other end of the fish’s head, and goes to the incitement, the people sending out messages. How do you deal with a domestic-terror threat without dealing with those inciting it and spreading it?

CLINT WATTS: Nicolle, you can’t. You’ll always be on your heels, you'll always be reactive. We had a period after 9/11, where we were trying to get "left of boom" as they would say in counter-terrorism. Which is, can you get way up, up the stream of an attack and start to root out all of the confluences which bring about that attack?

So, as Myles was talking about, he's exactly right. If you took what President Trump said, and you instead put it in Anwar Awalki’s mouth, we would be talking about a drone strike overseas. So that's one aspect of our political leaders talking about this rhetoric. 

So, we're dealing with rhetoric here--"incitement". Wallace tees it up for Watts by stating that Republicans have no actual choices--if they don't side with the Dems then they're "with them [domestic "terrorists"]. Presumably, siding with domestic terrorists makes you a domestic terrorists yourself. After all, you're giving "aid and comfort" to domestic terrorists, "sending out messages" that encourage them, which makes you guilty of treason, right? And if the Republicans are giving aid and comfort to domestic terrorists, she asks Watts, how do you deal with that?

Watts eagerly piles on and ties it right in to Trump. Of course you have to "root out all the confluences" which led to the January 6 event. So what's a "confluence"? Watts isn't a bit bashful about explaining what he means. He means Trump's words. Trump's words, Watts says, are the kind of words that would lead to a drone strike on anyone else--the ckear implication being that we're being way too soft on Trump by not doing a drone strike on him.

I don't know exactly what words Anwar Awalki used before we took him out. According to Obama:

[Awalki] repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.

And Watts thinks these words of Trump are equivalent to that:

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated — lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your votes heard today.

So, building on the concept of bringing a gun to a knifefight, Watts would bring a drone to a peaceful and patriotic demand that Congress do the right thing. I'm missing something here, but it does make one wonder whether the FBI's famous "profilers" ought to be directing their efforts inward as much as outward. How did an obvious nut like Watts ever get through the FBI screeners?

Wallace was apparently much struck by Watts' goofy ideas. The next night she launched into a jawdropping rant that concludes with what seems to be a call for the Zhou Baiden regime to launch a drone strike against Trump:

NICOLLE WALLACE: There's a bulletin released to all law enforcement earlier this week, that there is, until the end of April, a persistent threat of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism carried out in the ideology and around this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the Covid restrictions are unnecessary. All of those ideologies pushed by Donald Trump.

But my question for you is around incitement. We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years, and under the Obama years, of attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, and in the case of Anwar Awlaki, an American, a Yemeni-American, with a drone strike for the crime of inciting violence, inciting terrorism.

Mitch McConnell was in the Senate then. He was in the Senate after 9/11 too. How does Mitch McConnell, who understands that the way you root out terrorism, is to take on, in the case of Islamic terrorism, kill those who incite it. How does he not vote to convict someone that he said, on the floor of the Senate, incited an insurrection?

In other words, Wallace is lamenting: What ever happened to the good old days when we had that policy of "going after and killing ... with a drone strike" inciters of what she calls "terrorism"? To Wallace it's obvious: If someone is inciting terrorism you kill them. True, she seems to envision in the final paragraph a Senate vote to convict Trump before launching the strike. That would be due process enough for her.

OK, I'm having a bit of fun with Wallace's craziness, but look at that first paragraph again. Bear in mind, that she's all for killing those who incite terrorism, and she appears to be on board with Clint Watt's idea of rooting out "all of the confluences" that lead to domestic terrorism. As we've seen, that includes those whose rhetoric incites others. Who are those people in our current context? Wallace has the answer for that. The "ideology" that leads to domestic terrorism, Wallace says, is:

this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the Covid restrictions are unnecessary.

How these "beliefs" constitute an "ideology", how the two aspect are in any way connected--I'll leave that up to Wallace. I think what she's trying to say is that these are "beliefs" that have no basis whatsoever in fact. Her own "belief" that the election was not fraudulent, that the Covid restrictions are absolutely necessary are so factual as to be utterly beyond dispute--and they also form the basis for the projected New Normal and the Great Reset. 

In fact, the last time we took note of Wallace she was urging that Republicans who appear on talk shows should not be allowed to say anything until they renounce any doubts about the election:

A further extension of this ploy, working off the Big Tech censorship of online speech, is the coordinated tactic of the Left that was first put forward, to my knowledge, by (ex-Bushie) Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC. Her suggestion was that Republicans should be required to "speak the truth first" or "admit the truth first" before being allowing to say anything else in interviews. In other words, Republicans would be required to state that the new DC regime-- installed behind razor wire and a massive and unprecedented military presence--had won a free and fair election and that claims to the contrary were the real fraud. 

In fact, a few days later the smarmy George Stephanopoulos tried that exact tactic out on Senator Rand Paul:

This tactic was deployed yesterday by the smarmy George Stephanopoulos in an interview of Senator Rand Paul. Here's how the interview started--with a "threshold question", meaning that this "question" would determine Senator Paul's veracity as regarded all else:

Let's start with a threshold question for you. This election was not stolen--Do you accept that fact?

Senator Paul, to his credit, didn't bat an eyelash and handled it all admirably ...

Now Wallace wants to up the ante. If you won't give us the answer that we demand, she says, that means you're supporting and even inciting "domestic terrorism." And she's quite prepared to bring drone strikes into the conversation. Rather than be content for the Zhou Baiden regime to shelter behind the New Army of the Potomac in the Imperial City, Wallace is cheerleading for launching an offensive across the fruited plain, led by drone strikes against those who harbor doubts about the election and about Covid policy.

Strange days. I don't think I have to point out what would be the consequences for any conservative who said anything remotely like the things Wallace continually puts forward on MSNBC. What stands out to me is how much what we're seeing in these escalating efforts by Big Media, Big Tech and also the federal government to squelch all dissenting views smacks of a close coordination.