Passed
Passed

Passed

Is A
Is A

Is A

Are
Are

Are

With
With

With

Sole
Sole

Sole

The U
The U

The U

Needs
Needs

Needs

Owners
Owners

Owners

From
From

From

The
The

The

🔥 | Latest

Definitely, Grandma, and Hello: coastward answered a scam call today and had the most bizarre conversation coastward scam caller: hello, how are you today? me: great! scam caller: good. I'm calling because your IP address has been compromised. I'll just need you to get in front of your computer so we can get your account fixed up me: okay! there is one thing I'm wondering, though scam caller: what? me: you really couldn't think of a better lie? scam caller: me: like, my "IP address has been compromised." How, exactly, does an IP address become "compromised"? scam caller: me: I was just wondering, is all scam caller: why did you answer? me: me: what? scam caller: if you knew this wasn't a legitimate call, then why did you answer? me: oh, I just though I would have some fun at your expense scam caller: what expense? talking is no expense to me. me: well, you're currently not accomplishing your goal scam caller: my goal? me: your goal of scamming my elderly grandmother. You're not accomplishing that. Il'd call that an expense scam caller: well, can I scam you? me: me: did you- did you ask if you can scam me? scam caller: yes. can I scam you? me, baffled: sure, you can try scam caller: you need to get in front of your computer me: yeah, that's still a problem. I'm eating tater tots right now andI really don't feel like getting up scam caller: okay. I will call you tomorrow morning, then me: I might not answer. My grandma definitely won't. scam caller: You answered today. me: .touché? scam caller: I will call you tomorrow. Have a good day. neko-ritsu Enemies to lovers, slow burn, 500K
Definitely, Grandma, and Hello: coastward
 answered a scam call today and had the most bizarre
 conversation
 coastward
 scam caller: hello, how are you today?
 me: great!
 scam caller: good. I'm calling because your IP
 address has been compromised. I'll just need you to
 get in front of your computer so we can get your
 account fixed up
 me: okay! there is one thing I'm wondering, though
 scam caller: what?
 me: you really couldn't think of a better lie?
 scam caller:
 me: like, my "IP address has been compromised."
 How, exactly, does an IP address become
 "compromised"?
 scam caller:
 me: I was just wondering, is all
 scam caller: why did you answer?
 me:
 me: what?
 scam caller: if you knew this wasn't a legitimate call,
 then why did you answer?
 me: oh, I just though I would have some fun at your
 expense
 scam caller: what expense? talking is no expense to
 me.
 me: well, you're currently not accomplishing your
 goal
 scam caller: my goal?
 me: your goal of scamming my elderly grandmother.
 You're not accomplishing that. Il'd call that an
 expense
 scam caller: well, can I scam you?
 me:
 me: did you- did you ask if you can scam me?
 scam caller: yes. can I scam you?
 me, baffled: sure, you can try
 scam caller: you need to get in front of your
 computer
 me: yeah, that's still a problem. I'm eating tater tots
 right now andI really don't feel like getting up
 scam caller: okay. I will call you tomorrow morning,
 then
 me: I might not answer. My grandma definitely
 won't.
 scam caller: You answered today.
 me: .touché?
 scam caller: I will call you tomorrow. Have a good
 day.
 neko-ritsu
 Enemies to lovers, slow burn, 500K

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Beautiful, Family, and Friends: SF SFGate GATE Before and after: The dramatic transformation of a shabby West Oakland @SFGate Feb 10 Victorian dlvr.it/QyZmYp 244 3.2K 1.8K OR4NOW Follow @Or4Now Replying to @SFGate When I first read this, I thought you were referring to the one on the right being shabby & I was in agreement. Then I realized...oh no! You think suburban beige is beautiful & Victorian funk is "shabby." Well F you, too. SFGate's daddy is shabby. Yeah I said it 8:51 PM 10 Feb 2019 15 Retweets 713 L ikes anaquana: seperis: ballsballsbowls: mysharona1987: If you don’t think the house looked cooler and more delightful before, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not to mention the house isn’t “shabby” in those pictures - the paint’s spotless, the molding’s intact, the stairs and windows are maintained.  I grew up in the rust belt and this house looks better than about 90% of the houses built before the 90s in most neighborhoods. This house has been maintained meticulously and lovingly at great expense. It’s not “shabby”: it’s a non-neutral color with intact Victorian details that you removed because how dare a house have unique features on the outside, what will the neighbors think? I say this as someone whose friends and family have to make them buy colors when shopping or my wardrobe woudl be nothing but black, white, beige, grey, and my super racy delve into brown and hates all the blue-teals like whoa…. WHO THOUGHT MAKING THE COOL TRIPPY VICTORIAN INTO A GODDAMN HELLHOUSE? This is uncanny valley shit; that house is going to kill everyone and drink their blood for some goddamn color in its life. …God, can you imagine the operating room-level neutral inside? This monstrosity was done by a fucking house flipper, of course. I saw the listing for it and they completely destroyed the inside of the house as well. I was so pissed I couldn’t get through all of the pictures. My husband and I bought a fixer-upper Victorian and while we’re not keeping her period authentic, we’re damn sure keeping her interesting and beautiful. She’s currently a drab white, but we’re getting her painted this year and that gorgeous teal is exactly the color I was thinking about doing her in.
Beautiful, Family, and Friends: SF SFGate
 GATE Before and after: The dramatic transformation of a shabby West Oakland
 @SFGate Feb 10
 Victorian dlvr.it/QyZmYp
 244
 3.2K
 1.8K
 OR4NOW
 Follow
 @Or4Now
 Replying to @SFGate
 When I first read this, I thought you were
 referring to the one on the right being
 shabby & I was in agreement.
 Then I realized...oh no! You think suburban
 beige is beautiful & Victorian funk is
 "shabby."
 Well F you, too.
 SFGate's daddy is shabby.
 Yeah I said it
 8:51 PM 10 Feb 2019
 15 Retweets 713 L ikes
anaquana:

seperis:

ballsballsbowls:

mysharona1987:
If you don’t think the house looked cooler and more delightful before, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Not to mention the house isn’t “shabby” in those pictures - the paint’s spotless, the molding’s intact, the stairs and windows are maintained. 
I grew up in the rust belt and this house looks better than about 90% of the houses built before the 90s in most neighborhoods. This house has been maintained meticulously and lovingly at great expense.
It’s not “shabby”: it’s a non-neutral color with intact Victorian details that you removed because how dare a house have unique features on the outside, what will the neighbors think?

I say this as someone whose friends and family have to make them buy colors when shopping or my wardrobe woudl be nothing but black, white, beige, grey, and my super racy delve into brown and hates all the blue-teals like whoa….
WHO THOUGHT MAKING THE COOL TRIPPY VICTORIAN INTO A GODDAMN HELLHOUSE? This is uncanny valley shit; that house is going to kill everyone and drink their blood for some goddamn color in its life.
…God, can you imagine the operating room-level neutral inside?

This monstrosity was done by a fucking house flipper, of course. I saw the listing for it and they completely destroyed the inside of the house as well. I was so pissed I couldn’t get through all of the pictures. My husband and I bought a fixer-upper Victorian and while we’re not keeping her period authentic, we’re damn sure keeping her interesting and beautiful. She’s currently a drab white, but we’re getting her painted this year and that gorgeous teal is exactly the color I was thinking about doing her in.

anaquana: seperis: ballsballsbowls: mysharona1987: If you don’t think the house looked cooler and more delightful before, then I don’t kn...

9/11, America, and Dad: December 20, 2018 Dear Mr. President: I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to thos allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongsid us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof. Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions -to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades o immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional Dad’s resignation letter.
9/11, America, and Dad: December 20, 2018
 Dear Mr. President:
 I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has
 allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens
 and our ideals
 I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the
 key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound
 budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the
 Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the
 capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence
 One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked
 to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While
 the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or
 serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to thos
 allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States
 should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to
 provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances
 NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongsid
 us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further
 proof.
 Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those
 countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China
 and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
 gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions -to
 promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is
 why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense
 My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign
 actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades o
 immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order
 that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this
 effort by the solidarity of our alliances
 Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better
 aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
 position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient
 time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's
 interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional
Dad’s resignation letter.

Dad’s resignation letter.