by baldilocks

I’m old enough to remember when it was considered a lunatic conspiracy theory to assert that a government entity would knowingly and intentionally allow drugs to enter the United States and, thereby, allow drug cartels to become filthy rich.

Politico:

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Over the next eight years, agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies. (…)

[A]s Project Cassandra reached higher into the hierarchy of the conspiracy, Obama administration officials threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way, according to interviews with dozens of participants who in many cases spoke for the first time about events shrouded in secrecy, and a review of government documents and court records. When Project Cassandra leaders sought approval for some significant investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions, officials at the Justice and Treasury departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests.

The report is very long, but well worth the read.

Among certain circles, it’s assumed that, in the 1980s, government agencies – possibly the CIA and the FBI – sold drugs and weapons to the big city street gangs with the purpose being to weaken and reduce the population of minorities. (Friends who were in 1980s Los Angeles  – my hometown and present location – tell me that South Central was a violent vision of Hell; I was in the USAF at that time. One personal casualty of 1980s LA: my first boyfriend.)

I used to think this was ridiculous.

And, as I think on this further, I wonder if allowing the Hezbollah drug syndicate to operate here was the former president’s method of paying America back for the alleged government ruination of blacks and browns.

“Ruin us and we’ll ruin your whole country.” Tank the economy of the country, fuel an opioid crisis among whites, and voila! Vengeance.

And the Clintons were supposed to keep the party going. No wonder they’re mad.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

I thought dictionaries were apolitical. Unfortunately, some have assumed a decidedly leftist tilt that I failed to realize until recently.

In a public relations gambit, several dictionaries recently announced their “Words of the Year.”

Since I make my living as a writer and writing teacher, I, like many others, see words as a critical part of our democracy. The proper use of words can be enlightening; the misuse of them can be extremely damaging. Sometimes words can be particularly toxic.

In a year when Trumpism, fake news, and myriad conservative terms held sway throughout the world, I am trying not to sound conspiratorial. But the dictionaries chose some liberal words to proclaim as the words of 2017. Merriam-Webster chose “feminism.” Dictionary.com went with “complicit,” while the Cambridge Dictionary anointed “populism.” These choices seem troubling, but Oxford Dictionaries went with something else worse: “youthquake.”

I am happy to say I have never heard someone use youthquake, which is defined as a “significant cultural, political, or social change arising from the actions or influence of young people.”

Former Vogue editor Diana Vreeland apparently coined “youthquake” in the 1960s to describe the youth culture of London back then. The word fell out of favor until this year when its use increased dramatically, according to an analysis of the Oxford English Corpus, which collects roughly 150 million words of spoken and written English from various sources.

The use of the word surged first in coverage of the British parliamentary elections in June before spreading to political commentary to the United States and elsewhere.

Youthquake triumphed over a politically leftist list that included “Antifa,” “broflake,” “kompromat,” “white fragility,” and “Milkshake Duck.”

Broflake is an attack against conservatives who use snowflake to describe leftists.

Kompromat is based on a Russian word, which means compromising information collected for use in blackmailing, discrediting, or manipulating someone, typically for political purposes.

According to Oxford, kompromat has been used in English since about 1990. Until recently, it was entirely unfamiliar to most English speakers. That all changed when the word arose in connection with an error-ridden file about President Trump.

I am still not certain what Milkshake Duck means despite some research. Here is DaTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/arts/milkshake-duck-meme.html

I’d like to suggest a word for next year. Well, actually two: post turtle.

A post turtle, which is a synonym for a politician, is when you see a turtle sitting on top of a fence post. You know he didn’t get up there by himself. He doesn’t belong up there. He doesn’t know what to do up there. He’s elevated beyond his ability to function. And you wonder what kind of dumbass put him up there to begin with.

Words count. When basic research tools like dictionaries become politically slanted, it provides a hidden ideological training ground for the left.

That’s why it is fascinating how the left has gone ballistic about the Trump administration’s decision to eliminate certain words from budget documents of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

These words include “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” and “fetus.”

Trump may not have won the battle of the dictionaries, but the elimination of these politically packed words with more neutral ones is far more important.